4.5 Article

ENSO signals in South America: rains and floods in the Parana River region during colonial times

期刊

CLIMATIC CHANGE
卷 83, 期 1-2, 页码 39-54

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10584-006-9188-1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several studies show that the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is an important factor in determining interannual rainfall variability in South America. This signal is detected in the region including Northeastern Argentina, Uruguay and part of southern Brazil, in the form of excessive rains and big floods in the regional rivers. To check that this relationship was similar in the past the objectives of this paper were to construct a time series of large floods in the Parana River region from documentary records, during the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, and to evaluate the relationship between that historical record of extreme floods, the ENSO documentary evidence (Ortlieb, The Documented Historical Record of El Nino Events in Peru: An Update of the Quinn Record (Ortlieb, sixteenth through nineteenth centuries, Diaz and Markgraf, (eds.), El Nino and the southern oscillation. Multiscale variability and global and regional Impacts. Cambridge University Press, pp. 207-295, 2001; Quinn and Neal, The historical record of El Nino events, Bradley and Jones (eds.), Climate since a.d. 1500, Routledges, pp. 623-648, 1992) and the temperature index of the Pacific Ocean (Mann ME et al., Global temperature patterns in past centuries: an interactive presentation, IGBP pages/world data center for paleoclimatology data contribution series #2000-075. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA, 2000). Considering that the period 1904-2000, where 11 out of 16 floods occurred during El Nino events, it can be concluded that the proportion of years with exceptional flow volume in the Parana River in years with El Nino events in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was relatively lower than that of the twentieth century. The reason for this difference is discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据