Model simulations partition surface air temperature trends in East Asia, revealing significant impacts of natural variability and external forcing factors.
Community Earth System Model-Large Ensemble (CESM-LE) simulations are used to partition the Surface Air Temperature (SAT) trends over East Asia into the contribution of external forcing factors and internal variability. In the historical period (1966–2005), the summer SAT trends display a considerable diversity (≤−2 °C to ≥2 °C) across the 35 member ensembles, while under the RCP8.5 scenario, the region is mostly dominated by a strong warming trend (~1.5–2.5 °C/51 years) and touches the ~4 °C mark by the end of the 21st century. In the historical period, the warming is prominent over the Yangtze River basin of China, while under the RCP8.5 scenario, the warming pattern shifts northward towards Mongolia. In the historical period, the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) is less than 1, while it is higher than 4 under the RCP8.5 scenario, which indicates that, in the early period, internal variability overrides the forced response and vice versa under the RCP8.5 scenario. In addition, over much of the East Asian region, the chances of cooling are relatively high in the historical period, which partially counteracted the warming trend due to external forcing factors. In contrast, under the RCP8.5 scenario, the chances of warming reach ~100% over East Asia due to contributions from the external forcing factors. The novel aspect of the current study is that, in the negative phase (from the mid-1960s to ~2000), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) accounts for ~70–80% of the cooling trend or the SAT variability over East Asia, and thereafter, natural variability exhibits a slow increasing trend in the future. However, the contribution of external forcing factors increases from ~55% in 2000 to 95% in 2075 at a rate much faster than natural variability, which is primarily due to increasing downward solar radiation fluxes and albedo feedback on SAT over East Asia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nath et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: