4.3 Article

Trends and abrupt changes of precipitation maxima in the Pearl River basin, China

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 132-144

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/asl.221

关键词

precipitation; China; Pearl River; Mann-Kendall trend test; change point detection; Bayesian model

资金

  1. Faculty of Social Science
  2. The Chinese University of Hong Kong [4450183]
  3. Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China [CUHK405308]
  4. Programme of Introducing Talents of Discipline to Universities
  5. 111 Project of Hohai University [B08048]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We applied the Mann-Kendall (MK) test and Bayesian model to systematically explore trends and abrupt changes of the precipitation series in the Pearl River basin. The results showed that no significant trends were detected for annual precipitation and summer or winter precipitation totals. Significant negative trends were identified for the number of rainy days across the Pearl River basin; significant positive trends were observed regarding precipitation intensity (PI). In particular, the precipitation totals and frequencies of extremely high precipitation events are subject to significant positive trends. In addition, the number of extremely low precipitation events was also increasing significantly. Factors affecting the changes in precipitation patterns are the weakening Asian monsoon and consequently increasing moisture transport to Southern China and the Pearl River basin. In summary, the main findings of this study are: (1) increased precipitation variability and high-intensity rainfall was observed though rainy days and low-intensity rainfall have decreased, and (2) the amount of rainfall has changed little but its variability has increased over the time interval divided by change points. These finds indicate potentially increased risk for both agriculture and in locations subject to flooding, both urban and rural, across the Pearl River basin. Copyright (C) 2009 Royal Meteorological Society

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

4.3
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