2020
DOI: 10.1007/s00382-020-05128-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Consistency of extreme temperature changes in China under a historical half-degree warming increment across different reanalysis and observational datasets

Abstract: The extreme temperature changes under a 0.5 °C global mean surface temperature warming increment is of great importance for climate change adaption and risk management on post-Paris-Agreement agenda. The impacts of the already happened 0.5 °C warming increment on extreme temperature can serve as essential references for the 1.5/2 °C projections. Quantifying the observed changes of climate extremes is hampered by the limitation of observational datasets in both spatial coverage and temporal continuity. The rean… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 76 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The weighted changes at each grid point fall in the corresponding bin of the PDF derived from the nonparametric assessment of the PDF. The spatial PDF was proposed by Fischer et al (2013) and used for the detection of extreme climate events (e.g., Fischer & Knutti, 2014; Zhao et al, 2020; Zhao & Zhou, 2019).…”
Section: Data and Analysis Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The weighted changes at each grid point fall in the corresponding bin of the PDF derived from the nonparametric assessment of the PDF. The spatial PDF was proposed by Fischer et al (2013) and used for the detection of extreme climate events (e.g., Fischer & Knutti, 2014; Zhao et al, 2020; Zhao & Zhou, 2019).…”
Section: Data and Analysis Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although GCDs have shown to be excellent tools in climate science, these can present important limitations that should be accounted for in epidemiological assessments. For example, global GCDs are prone to measurement error, particularly in areas proximal to the sea and/or with large differences in elevation, such as mountainous regions, due to the resolution and mixed pixel coverage (land‐sea mask), or in areas with a sparse monitor network (Donat et al., 2014; Rodríguez‐Vega et al., 2018; Soares et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2020). This can be particularly important when using GCDs with coarser spatial resolution (e.g., 30 km grid), as modeled temperature could be highly influenced by factors (e.g., orography) that eventually only affect specific areas, possibly less populated.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, to date, no study has critically assessed the benefits of using population‐weighted temperature series from GCDs of variable spatial resolution in an epidemiological context. It is therefore imperative to explore whether application of different exposure datasets with different characteristics, such as spatial resolution could yield similar results across areas with different characteristics (Rodríguez‐Vega et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the risks could be substantially avoided for China by limiting global warming to 1.5°C (e.g., Chen & Sun, 2018; Li, Zhou, et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2018). Although the impacts of 1.5°C and 2°C warming on hot extremes over China have been assessed, most conclusions are based on a “time sampling” method through a comparison of two periods with their multiyear mean global temperature difference being 0.5°C (Chen et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2020). However, the “time sampling” method fails to capture the time‐lagged responses to global warming (He et al., 2019; James et al., 2017; Schleussner et al., 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the impacts of 1.5°C and 2°C warming on hot extremes over China have been assessed, most conclusions are based on a "time sampling" method through a comparison of two periods with their multiyear mean global temperature difference being 0.5°C Zhao et al, 2020). However, the "time sampling" method fails to capture the time-lagged responses to global warming (He et al, 2019;James et al, 2017;Schleussner et al, 2016).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%