Advertisement

Current Climate Change Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 202–209 | Cite as

Drought Indices, Drought Impacts, CO2, and Warming: a Historical and Geologic Perspective

  • Jacob Scheff
Climate Change and Drought (Q Fu, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Climate Change and Drought

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Different types of methods give very conflicting impressions about whether water will become scarcer on land as Earth warms, and in what sense(s). Here, I examine how environmental records from past climate changes can be used to clarify the interpretation of these confusing results.

Recent Findings

Evidence from the last ice age and the historical era agrees that CO2-driven warming causes a runoff response dominated by regional signals of varying sign, and a vegetation response dominated by greening. This result supports comprehensive Earth system model output, while casting doubt on the interpretation of temperature-driven indices that project widespread “drying” with warming. In contrast, evidence from pre-Quaternary warm climates points to exotic features such as wet subtropics and extremely polar-amplified warming which are not found in model simulations, suggesting unknown forcings and/or feedbacks.

Summary

The terrestrial eco-hydrologic response to CO2-driven warming in the recent past is consistent with comprehensive models, and not with drought indices. However, in the deeper past, it is consistent with neither.

Keywords

Climate change Drought Paleoclimate Water cycle Vegetation Runoff 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Qiang Fu and Brian Soden for the invitation, and also thanks David Battisti, Alexis Berg, Natalie Burls, Ben Cook, Ed Cook, Aiguo Dai, Alexey Fedorov, Qiang Fu, Sandy Harrison, Tim Herbert, Justin Mankin, Chris Milly, Michael Roderick, Jeremy Caves Rugenstein, Christopher Scotese, Richard Seager, Sonia Seneviratne, Abby Swann, and Park Williams for conversations that contributed to the framing and focus of this review.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Wilhite DA, Glantz MH. Understanding the drought phenomenon: the role of definitions. Water Int. 1985;10:111–20.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02508068508686328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    AMS Council: Drought: an information statement of the American Meteorological Society. https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/drought/ (2013). Accessed 27 Jan 2018.
  3. 3.
    Budyko M. Climate and Life. New York: Academic Press; 1974.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Middleton N, Thomas DSG. World atlas of desertification. 2nd ed. London: Arnold; 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feng S, Fu Q. Expansion of global drylands under a warming climate. Atmos Chem Phys. 2013;13:10081–94.  https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10081-2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhao T, Dai A. Uncertainties in historical changes and future projections of drought. Part II: model-simulated historical and future drought changes. Clim Chang. 2016;144:535–48.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1742-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cook BI, Smerdon JE, Seager R, Coats S. Global warming and 21st century drying. Climate Dyn. 2014;43:2607–27.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2075-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    • Scheff J, Frierson DMW. Terrestrial aridity and its response to greenhouse warming across CMIP5 climate models. J Climate. 2015;28:5583–600.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00480.1. Mapped the CMIP5 future projections of evaporative fraction. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    • Huang JP, Yu HP, Guan XD, Wang GY, Guo RX. Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change. Nat Clim Change. 2016;6:166–71.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2837. Made the only known global map of observed historical change in the aridity index. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Park CE, Jeong SJ, Joshi M, Osborn TJ, Ho CH, Piao S, et al. Keeping global warming within 1.5°C constrains emergence of aridification. Nat Clim Chang. 2018;8:70–4.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0034-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    •• Milly PCD, Dunne KA. Potential evapotranspiration and continental drying. Nat Clim Change. 2016;6:946–9.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3046. Showed clearly that the Penman-Monteith PE scaling is not relevant to the response of actual evapotranspiration and runoff in climate models, and proposed interesting possible reasons for this. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Milly PCD, Dunne KA. A hydrologic drying bias in water-resource impact analyses of anthropogenic climate change. J Amer Water Resour Assoc. 2017;53:822–38.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    •• Zhao T, Dai A. The magnitude and causes of global drought changes in the twenty-first century under a low-moderate emissions scenario. J Climate. 2015;28:4490–512.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00363.1. Showed clearly that topsoil moisture projections resemble drought-index projections, but runoff projections do not. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sherwood S, Fu Q. A drier future? Science. 2014;343:737–9.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1247620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    •• Roderick ML, Greve P, Farquhar GD. On the assessment of aridity with changes in atmospheric CO2. Water Resour Res. 2015;51:5450–63.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017031. Largely inspired this review, by pointing out that the most important drought impacts are to photosynthesis and to runoff, and that neither is projected to follow the drought indices under future warming. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    •• Swann ALS, Hoffman FM, Koven CD, Randerson JT. Plant responses to increasing CO2 reduce estimates of climate impacts on drought severity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113:10019–24.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1604581113. Showed clearly that runoff-production projections do not resemble drought-index projections, and that the direct effects of CO2 account for a large portion of this divergence. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    •• Scheff J, Seager R, Liu H, Coats S. Are glacials dry? Consequences for paleoclimatology and for greenhouse warming. J Climate. 2017;30:6593–609.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0854.1. Showed that the warming from the Last Glacial Maximum to the preindustrial was characterized both by greening and by index-based “drying,” calling into question the relevance of the latter for the former under increasing CO2. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    • Greve P, Roderick ML, Seneviratne SI. Simulated changes in aridity from the last glacial maximum to 4xCO2. Environ Res Lett. 2017;12:114021.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa89a3. Usefully summarized the direct model projections for a wide range of different aridity impacts, both for future warming and for glacial-interglacial warming. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Collins M, Knutti R, Arblaster J, Dufresne JL, Fichefet T, Friedlingstein P, et al. Long-term climate change: projections, commitments and irreversibility. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, et al., editors. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Cambridge: Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change; 2013. p. 1029–136.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    •• Berg A, Sheffield J, Milly PCD. Divergent surface and total soil moisture projections under global warming. Geophys Res Lett. 2017;44:236–44.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071921. Quantified deeper-layer soil moisture projections across CMIP models, for the first time. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Donohue RJ, Roderick ML, McVicar TR, Farquhar GD. Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments. Geophys Res Lett. 2013;40:3031–5.  https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arora VK, Boer GJ, Friedlingstein P, Eby M, Jones CD, Christian JR, et al. Carbon-concentration and carbon-climate feedbacks in CMIP5 earth system models. J Clim. 2013;26:5289–314.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00494.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shao P, Zeng XB, Sakaguchi K, Monson RK, Zeng XD. Terrestrial carbon cycle: climate relations in eight CMIP5 earth system models. J Clim. 2013;26:8744–64.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00831.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    •• Novick KA, Ficklin DL, Stoy PC, Williams CA, Bohrer G, Oishi AC, et al. The increasing importance of atmospheric demand for ecosystem water and carbon fluxes. Nat Clim Change. 2016;6:1023–7.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3114. Highlighted strong evidence for the closure of stomata under high vapor-pressure deficit, which offsets the effects of warming on evapotranspiration assumed by the Penman-Monteith scaling. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    • Wieder WR, Cleveland CC, Smith WK, Todd-Brown K. Future productivity and carbon storage limited by terrestrial nutrient availability. Nat Geosci. 2015;8:441–5.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2413. Reviewed the substantial evidence for nutrient constraints on near-term CO2-driven photosynthetic increases. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    De Kauwe MG, Medlyn BE, Zaehle S, Walker AP, Dietze MC, Hickler T, et al. Forest water use and water use efficiency at elevated CO2: a model-data intercomparison at two contrasting temperate forest FACE sites. Glob Chang Biol. 2013;19:1759–79.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Williams AP, Allen CD, Macalady AK, Griffin D, Woodhouse CA, Meko DM, et al. Temperature as a potent driver of regional forest drought stress and tree mortality. Nat Clim Chang. 2012;3:292–7.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Koster R. Efficiency space – a framework for evaluating joint evaporation and runoff behavior. Bull Amer Meteor Soc. 2015;96:393–6.  https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00056.2. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sheffield J, Barrett AP, Colle B, Fernando DN, Fu R, Geil KL, et al. North American climate in CMIP5 experiments. Part I: evaluation of historical simulations of continental and regional climatology. J Clim. 2013;26:9209–45.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00592.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fu Q, Lin L, Huang J, Feng S, Gettelman A. Changes in terrestrial aridity for the period 850-2080 from the Community Earth System Model. J Geophys Res Atmos. 2016;121:2857–73.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Flato G, Marotzke J, Abiodun B, Braconnot P, Chou SC, Collins W. Evaluation of climate models. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, et al., editors. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Cambridge: Contribution of working group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2013. p. 741–866.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deser C, Knutti R, Solomon S, Phillips AS. Communication of the role of natural variability in future North American climate. Nat Clim Chang. 2012;2:775–9.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    •• Dai A, Zhao T. Uncertainties in historical changes and future projections of drought. Part I: estimates of historical drought changes. Clim Change. 2016;144:519–33.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1705-2. Contains the only known up-to-date global map of observed historical change in Palmer drought severity index, and one of the few global maps of observed historical change in runoff production. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    • Dai A. Historical and future changes in streamflow and continental runoff: a review. In: Tang Q, Oki T, editors. Terrestrial water cycle and climate change: natural and human-induced impacts, Geophysical Monograph 221. 1st ed. Wiley; 2016. p. 17–37. One of the only global-scale reviews of historical change in river runoff. Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Milliman JD, Farnsworth KL, Jones PD, Xu KH, Smith LC. Climatic and anthropogenic factors affecting river discharge to the global ocean, 1951-2000. Glob Planet Chang. 2008;62:187–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    •• Zhu Z, Piao S, Myneni RB, Huang M, Zeng Z, Canadell JG, et al. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nat Clim Change. 2016;6:791–5.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004. Showed that multiple independent satellite datasets agree that leaf area increases have been much more prevalent globally than leaf area decreases. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    • Wenzel S, Cox PM, Eyring V, Friedlingstein P. Projected land photosynthesis constrained by changes in the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2. Nature. 2016;538:499–501.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19772. Strongly argued that the upward trend in seasonality of CO2 levels implies that gross photosynthesis is also substantially increasing, and will continue to. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Campbell JE, Berry JA, Seibt U, Smith SJ, Montzka SA, Launois T, et al. Large historical growth in global terrestrial gross primary production. Nature. 2017;544:84–7.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Girardin MP, Bouriaud O, Hogg EH, Kurz W, Zimmermann NE, Metsaranta JM, et al. No growth stimulation of Canada’s boreal forest under half-century of combined warming and CO2 fertilization. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:E8406–14.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1610156113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Huybers P. Glacial variability over the last two million years: an extended depth-derived agemodel, continuous obliquity pacing, and the Pleistocene progression. Quaternary Sci Rev. 2007;26:37–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.07.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Broccoli AJ, Manabe S. The influence of continental ice, atmospheric CO2, and land albedo on the climate of the last glacial maximum. Climate Dyn. 1987;1:87–99.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01054478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Masson-Delmotte V, Schulz M, Abe-Ouchi A, Beer J, Ganopolski A, González Rouco JF, et al. Information from paleoclimate archives. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, et al., editors. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Cambridge: Contribution of working group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2013. p. 383–464.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Prentice IC, Harrison SP, Bartlein PJ. Global vegetation and terrestrial carbon cycle changes after the last ice age. New Phytol. 2011;189:988–98.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03620.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Harrison SP, Bartlein PJ. Records from the past, lessons for the future: what the palaeorecord implies about mechanisms of global change. In: Henderson-Sellers A, McGuffie K, editors. The future of the world’s climate. Elsevier; 2012. p. 403–406.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Putnam AE, Broecker WS. Human-induced changes in the distribution of rainfall. Sci Adv. 2017;3:e1600871.  https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zachos JC, Dickens GR, Zeebe RE. An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics. Nature. 2008;451:279–83.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Boucot AJ, Xu C, Scotese CR, Morley RJ. Phanerozoic paleoclimate: an atlas of lithologic indicators of climate. SEPM Concepts in Sedimentology and Paleontology. 2013;11.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bartoli G, Hönisch B, Zeebe RE. Atmospheric CO2 decline during the Pliocene intensification of northern hemisphere glaciations. Paleoceanography. 2011;26:PA4213.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010PA002055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Burls NJ, Fedorov AV. Simulating Pliocene warmth and a permanent El Niño-like state: the role of cloud albedo. Paleoceanography. 2014;29:893–910.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2014PA002644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fedorov AV, Brierley CM, Lawrence KT, Liu Z, Dekens PS, Ravelo AC. Patterns and mechanisms of early Pliocene warmth. Nature. 2013;496:43–9.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Dowsett H, Thompson R, Barron J, Cronin T, Fleming F, Ishman S, et al. Joint investigations of the middle Pliocene climate I: PRISM paleoenvironmental reconstructions. Glob Planet Chang. 1994;9:169–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8181(94)90015-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Molnar P, Cane MA. Early Pliocene (pre-ice age) El Niño-like global climate: which El Niño? Geosphere. 2007;3:337–65.  https://doi.org/10.1130/GES00103.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Salzmann U, Haywood AM, Lunt DJ, Valdes PJ, Hill DJ. A new global biome reconstruction and data-model comparison for the middle Pliocene. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2008;17:432–47.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2008.00381.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Goldner A, Huber M, Diffenbaugh N, Caballero R. Implications of the permanent El Niño teleconnection “blueprint” for past global and north American hydroclimatology. Clim Past. 2011;7:723–43.  https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-7-723-2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    •• Burls NJ, Fedorov AV. Wetter subtropics in a warmer world: contrasting past and future hydrological cycles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114:12888–93.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1703421114. Showed for the first time that the Pliocene’s wet subtropics were a direct consequence of its highly latitude-dependent warming structure, which forced an atmospheric circulation very different from today’s. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Marino P, Castiglia G, Bazan G, Domina G, Guarino R. Tertiary relict laurophyll vegetation in the Madonie mountains (Sicily). Acta Botanica Gallica. 2014;161:47–61.  https://doi.org/10.1080/12538078.2013.870047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Philander SG, Fedorov AV. Role of tropics in changing the response to Milankovich forcing some three million years ago. Paleoceanography. 2003;18:1045.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2002PA000837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Emanuel K, Wing AA, Vincent EM. Radiative-convective instability. J Adv Model Earth Syst. 2014;6:75–90.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2013MS000270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Tan I, Storelvmo T, Zelinka MD. Observational constraints on mixed-phase clouds imply higher climate sensitivity. Science. 2016;352:224–7.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad5300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    • Sagoo N, Storelvmo T. Testing the sensitivity of past climates to the indirect effects of dust. Geophys Res Lett. 2017;44:5807–17.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL072584. Showed that dust effects on mixed-phase clouds, which are large but not included in climate models today, can explain a significant part of the extreme polar amplified warming of the Pliocene. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Unger N, Yue X. Strong chemistry-climate feedbacks in the Pliocene. Geophys Res Lett. 2014;41:527–33.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Abatzoglou JT, Williams AP. Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:11770–5.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607171113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Koster RD, Schubert SD, Suarez MJ. Analyzing the concurrence of meteorological droughts and warm periods, with implications for the determination of evaporative regime. J Clim. 2009;22:3331–41.  https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2718.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hartmann D. Global physical climatology. 2nd ed. Elsevier; 2016.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Anderegg WRL, Flint A, Huang CY, Flint L, Berry JA, Davis FW, et al. Tree mortality predicted from drought-induced vascular damage. Nat Geosci. 2015;8:367–71.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Battisti DS, Naylor RL. Historical warnings of future food insecurity with unprecedented seasonal heat. Science. 2009;323:240–4.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1164363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    • Zhao C, Liu B, Piao S, Wang X, Lobell DB, Huang Y, et al. Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114:9326–31.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1701762114. Comprehensively reviewed the large, direct negative effects of warming on crop production. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    • Deryng D, Elliott J, Folberth C, Müller C, Pugh TAM, Boote KJ, et al. Regional disparities in the beneficial effects of rising CO2 concentrations on crop water productivity, Nat Clim Change. 2016;6:786–90.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2995. Examined in detail how the rise in CO 2 can improve crops’ water balance, counteracting some of the warming effects.
  69. 69.
    • Mankin JS, Smerdon JE, Cook BI, Williams AP, Seager R. The curious case of projected twenty-first-century drying but greening in the American west. J Climate. 2017;30:8689–710.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0213.1. Highlighted the trade-off between positive CO 2 effects on vegetation and runoff, and the potential for underestimation of the latter given overestimation of the former. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018
corrected publication May/2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography and Earth SciencesUNC CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations