Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Climate Change and Drought: a Perspective on Drought Indices

  • Climate Change and Drought (Q Fu, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Climate Change Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Droughts occur naturally, but climate change has generally accelerated the hydrological processes to make them set in quicker and become more intense, with many consequences, not the least of which is increased wildfire risk. There are different types of drought being studied, such as meteorological, agricultural, hydrological, and socioeconomic droughts; however, a lack of unanimous definition complicates drought study. Drought indices are used as proxies to track and quantify droughts; therefore, accurate formulation of robust drought indices is important to investigate drought characteristics under the warming climate. Because different drought indices show different degrees of sensitivity to the same level of continental warming, robustness of drought indices against change in temperature and other variables should be prioritized. A formulation of drought indices without considering the factors that govern the background state may lead to drought artifacts under a warming climate. Consideration of downscaling techniques, availability of climate data, estimation of potential evapotranspiration (PET), baseline period, non-stationary climate information, and anthropogenic forcing can be additional challenges for a reliable drought assessment under climate change. As one formulation of PET based on temperatures can lead to overestimation of future drying, estimation of PET based on the energy budget framework can be a better approach compared to only temperature-based equations. Although the performance of drought indicators can be improved by incorporating reliable soil moisture estimates, a challenge arises due to limited reliable observed data for verification. Moreover, the uncertainties associated with meteorological forcings in hydrological models can lead to unreliable soil moisture estimates under climate change scenarios.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mishra AK, Singh VP. A review of drought concepts. J Hydrol. [Internet]. Elsevier; 2010 [cited 2018 Feb 3];391:202–16. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169410004257.

  2. Rajsekhar D, Singh VP, Mishra AK. Multivariate drought index: an information theory based approach for integrated drought assessment. J Hydrol. [Internet]. Elsevier; 2015 [cited 2018 Jan 17];526:164–82. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169414009366.

  3. Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW. Warming and earlier spring increase Western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science (80-. ). [Internet]. American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2006 [cited 2018 Feb 4];313:940–3. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16825536.

  4. Pedro-Monzonís M, Solera A, Ferrer J, Estrela T, Paredes-Arquiola J. A review of water scarcity and drought indexes in water resources planning and management. J Hydrol. [Internet]. Elsevier; 2015 [cited 2018 Jan 17];527:482–93. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169415003388#b0215

  5. Lesk C, Rowhani P, Ramankutty N. Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production. Nature [Internet]. Nature Publishing Group; 2016 [cited 2018 Feb 3];529:84–7. Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/nature16467.

  6. Alary V, Messad S, Aboul-Naga A, Osman MA, Daoud I, Bonnet P, et al. Livelihood strategies and the role of livestock in the processes of adaptation to drought in the Coastal Zone of Western Desert (Egypt). Agric Syst. [Internet]. Elsevier; 2014 [cited 2018 Feb 3];128:44–54. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X14000389.

  7. Cheeseman J. Food security in the face of salinity, drought, climate change, and population growth. Halophytes for food security in dry lands [Internet]. Elsevier; 2016 [cited 2018 Feb 3]. p. 111–23. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780128018545000078.

  8. Clark JS, Iverson L, Woodall CW, Allen CD, Bell DM, Bragg DC, et al. The impacts of increasing drought on forest dynamics, structure, and biodiversity in the United States. Glob Chang Biol. [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Feb 3];22:2329–52. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/gcb.13160.

  9. Stanke C, Kerac M, Prudhomme C, Medlock J, Murray V. Health effects of drought: a systematic review of the evidence. PLoS Curr. [Internet]. Public Library of Science; 2013 [cited 2018 Feb 3];5. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23787891.

  10. Lloyd-Hughes B. The impracticality of a universal drought definition. Theor. Appl. Climatol. [Internet]. Springer Vienna; 2014 [cited 2018 Jan 16];117:607–11. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00704-013-1025-7

  11. Wilhite DA, Glantz MH. Understanding: the drought phenomenon: the role of definitions. Water Int. [Internet]. Taylor & Francis Group; 1985 [cited 2018 Feb 3];10:111–20. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02508068508686328.

  12. Wilhite D. Chapter 1. Drought as a natural hazard: concepts and definitions. Drought Mitigation Center Faculty. [Internet]. 2000 [cited 2018 Feb 3]; Available from: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/droughtfacpub/69.

  13. López-Barrero E, Iglesias A. Soft law principles for improving drought management in Mediterranean countries. Coping with drought risk in agriculture and water supply systems. [Internet]. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; [cited 2018 Jan 17]. p. 21–35. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4020-9045-5_2.

  14. Van Loon AF, Van Lanen HAJ. Making the distinction between water scarcity and drought using an observation-modeling framework. Water Resour Res. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2018 Jan 17];49:1483–502. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/wrcr.20147.

  15. Botterill LC, Hayes MJ. Drought triggers and declarations: science and policy considerations for drought risk management. Nat Hazards [Internet]. Springer Netherlands; 2012 [cited 2018 Jan 17];64:139–51. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-012-0231-4.

  16. Hayes M, Svoboda MD, Wardlow BD, Anderson M, Kogan F. Drought monitoring: historical and current perspectives. Drought Mitigation Center Faculty. Publ. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2018 Feb 3]; Available from: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/droughtfacpub/94.

  17. Mckee TB, Doesken NJ, Kleist J. The relationship of drought frequency and duration to time scales. AMS 8th Conf. Appl. Climatol. [Internet]. 1993;179–84. Available from: http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/relationshipofdroughtfrequency.pdf.

  18. Shukla S, Wood AW. Use of a Standardized Runoff Index for characterizing hydrologic drought. Geophys Res Lett. [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2018 Jan 17];35:L02405. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1029/2007GL032487

  19. Schubert S, Wang H, Suarez M, Schubert S, Wang H, Suarez M. Warm season subseasonal variability and climate extremes in the Northern Hemisphere: the role of stationary Rossby waves. J Clim. [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2018 Jan 27];24:4773–92. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-10-05035.1.

  20. Mo KC. Model-based drought indices over the United States. J Hydrometeorol. [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2018 Jan 17];9:1212–30. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JHM1002.1.

  21. Cai X, Shafiee-Jood M, Apurv T, Ge Y, Kokoszka S. Key issues in drought preparedness: reflections on experiences and strategies in the United States and selected countries. Water Secur. [Internet]. Elsevier; 2017 [cited 2018 Jan 17];2:32–42. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468312416300165.

  22. Konapala G, Mishra A. Review of complex networks application in hydroclimatic extremes with an implementation to characterize spatio-temporal drought propagation in continental USA. J Hydrol. [Internet]. Elsevier; 2017 [cited 2018 Feb 3];555:600–20. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169417307096.

  23. Haslinger K, Koffler D, Schöner W, Laaha G. Exploring the link between meteorological drought and streamflow: effects of climate-catchment interaction. Water Resour Res. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 Jan 17];50:2468–87. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2013WR015051.

  24. Salvadori G, De Michele C. Frequency analysis via copulas: Theoretical aspects and applications to hydrological events. Water Resour Res. [Internet]. 2004 [cited 2018 Jan 17];40. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1029/2004WR003133.

  25. Mishra AK, Singh VP, Desai VR. Drought characterization: a probabilistic approach. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. [Internet]. Springer-Verlag; 2009 [cited 2018 Jan 19];23:41–55. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00477-007-0194-2.

  26. Trenberth KE, Dai A, van der Schrier G, Jones PD, Barichivich J, Briffa KR, et al. Global warming and changes in drought. Nat Clim Chang. [Internet]. Nature Publishing Group; 2014 [cited 2018 Feb 3];4:17–22. Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2067.

  27. Dai A. Drought under global warming: a review. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang. [Internet]. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2011 [cited 2018 Jan 18];2:45–65. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/wcc.81.

  28. Seager R, Kushnir Y, Ting M, Cane M, Naik N, Miller J. Would advance knowledge of 1930s SSTs have allowed prediction of the dust bowl drought? J Clim. [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2018 Feb 7];21:3261–81. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2007JCLI2134.1.

  29. Worster D. Dust bowl: the Southern Plains in the 1930s [Internet]. Proc L Math Soc 3. 1979 [cited 2018 Feb 4]. Available from: http://files.marcoarmiero.webnode.it/200000059-443d645386/Rubén_Ferrer_Velasco_-_Essay_on_Dust_Bowl_Donald_Worster%5B1%5D.pdf.

  30. Trenberth KE, Shea DJ. Relationships between precipitation and surface temperature. Geophys Res Lett. 2005;32

  31. Seneviratne SI, Corti T, Davin EL, Hirschi M, Jaeger EB, Lehner I, et al. Investigating soil moisture-climate interactions in a changing climate: a review [Internet]. Earth-Science Rev. Elsevier; 2010 [cited 2018 Feb 3]. p. 125–61. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825210000139.

  32. Milly PCD, Betancourt J, Falkenmark M, Hirsch RM, Kundzewicz ZW, Lettenmaier DP, et al. Stationarity is dead: whither water management? Science (80-. ). [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2018 Feb 1];319:573–4. Available from: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.1151915.

  33. Burke EJ, Perry RHJ, Brown SJ. An extreme value analysis of UK drought and projections of change in the future. J Hydrol. [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2018 Jan 17];388:131–43. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022169410002349.

  34. Sherwood S, Fu Q. A drier future? [Internet]. Science (80-. ). American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2014 [cited 2018 Apr 4]. p. 737–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24531959.

  35. Fu Q, Feng S. Responses of terrestrial aridity to global warming. J Geophys Res. [Internet]. Wiley-Blackwell; 2014 [cited 2018 Apr 4];119:7863–75. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2014JD021608.

  36. Feng S, Fu Q. Expansion of global drylands under a warming climate. Atmos Chem Phys. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2018 Apr 4];13:10081–94. Available from: www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/13/14637/2013/.

  37. Trenberth KE. Changes in precipitation with climate change. Clim Res. 2011;47:123–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Moberg A, Sonechkin DM, Holmgren K, Datsenko NM, Karlén W. Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature [Internet]. Nature Publishing Group; 2005 [cited 2018 Feb 3];433:613–7. Available from: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature03265.

  39. Hansen J, Sato M, Ruedy R, Lo K, Lea DW, Medina-Elizade M. Global temperature change. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2018 Feb 3];103:14288–93. Available from: http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/103/39/14288.full.pdf.

  40. Collins M, Knutti R, Arblaster J, Dufresne J-L, Fichefet T, Friedlingstein P, et al. Long-term climate change: projections, commitments and irreversibility. Clim Chang. 2013 Phys. Sci. Basis. Contrib. Work. Gr. I to Fifth Assess. Rep. Intergov. Panel Clim. Chang. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2018 Feb 5]. p. 1029–136. Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf.

  41. Sun DZ, Held IM. A comparison of modeled and observed relationships between interannual variations of water vapor and temperature. J Clim. 1996;9:665–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Allen MR, Ingram WJ. Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle. Nature. 2002;419:224–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Trenberth KE, Dai A, Rasmussen RM, Parsons DB. The changing character of precipitation [Internet]. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2003 [cited 2018 Feb 3]. p. 1205–1217+1161. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-84-9-1205.

  44. Meehl GA, Stocker TF et al. IPCC fourth assessment report (AR4). Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Chapter 10: global climate projections. Cambridge University Press New York. 2007. p. 747–846.

  45. Giorgi F, Im ES, Coppola E, Diffenbaugh NS, Gao XJ, Mariotti L, et al. Higher hydroclimatic intensity with global warming. J Clim. [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2018 Feb 3];24:5309–24. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI3979.1.

  46. Polade SD, Pierce DW, Cayan DR, Gershunov A, Dettinger MD. The key role of dry days in changing regional climate and precipitation regimes. Sci Rep. [Internet]. Nature Publishing Group; 2015 [cited 2018 Jan 17];4:4364. Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep04364.

  47. Shukla S, Safeeq M, Aghakouchak A, Guan K, Funk C. Temperature impacts on the water year 2014 drought in California. Geophys Res Lett. [Internet]. Wiley-Blackwell; 2015 [cited 2018 Mar 30];42:4384–93. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2015GL063666.

  48. Dai A. Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models. Nat Clim Chang. [Internet]. Nature Publishing Group; 2013 [cited 2018 Jan 16];3:52–8. Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1633.

  49. Huang J, Yu H, Guan X, Wang G, Guo R. Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change. Nat Clim Chang. [Internet]. Nature Publishing Group; 2016 [cited 2018 Jan 17];6:166–71. Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2837.

  50. United Nations Environment Programme. Middleton, N, Thomas D. World atlas of desertification. Edward Arnold; 1992.

  51. Seneviratne SI, Lüthi D, Litschi M, Schär C. Land–atmosphere coupling and climate change in Europe. Suppl Nat. 2006;443:205–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Scholze M, Knorr W, Arnell NW, Prentice IC. A climate-change risk analysis for world ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci. [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2018 Feb 7];103:13116–20. Available from: http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/103/35/13116.full.pdf.

  53. Hirschi M, Seneviratne SI, Alexandrov V, Boberg F, Boroneant C, Christensen OB, et al. Observational evidence for soil-moisture impact on hot extremes in southeastern Europe. Nat Geosci. [Internet]. Nature Publishing Group; 2011 [cited 2018 Jan 18];4:17–21. Available from: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/ngeo1032.

  54. Mueller B, Seneviratne SI. Systematic land climate and evapotranspiration biases in CMIP5 simulations. Geophys Res Lett. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 Feb 3];41:128–34. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2013GL058055.

  55. Zscheischler J, Seneviratne SI. Dependence of drivers affects risks associated with compound events. Sci Adv. [Internet]. American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2017 [cited 2018 Feb 2];3:e1700263. Available from: http://advances.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1700263.

  56. Mishra V, Mukherjee S, Kumar R, Stone DA. Heat wave exposure in India in current, 1.5 °C, and 2.0 °C worlds. Environ Res Lett. [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Feb 2];12:124012. Available from: http://stacks.iop.org/1748-9326/12/i=12/a=124012?key=crossref.e40a4dd48a4801c64a70045a72481387.

  57. Horton RM, Mankin JS, Lesk C, Coffel E, Raymond C. A review of recent advances in research on extreme heat events. Curr Clim Chang Rep. [Internet]. Springer International Publishing; 2016 [cited 2018 Jan 25];2:242–59. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40641-016-0042-x.

  58. Dubrovsky M, Svoboda MD, Trnka M, Hayes MJ, Wilhite DA, Zalud Z, et al. Application of relative drought indices in assessing climate-change impacts on drought conditions in Czechia. Theor Appl Climatol. [Internet]. Springer Vienna; 2009 [cited 2018 Jan 17];96:155–71. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00704-008-0020-x.

  59. Vicente-Serrano SM, Beguería S, López-Moreno JI, Vicente-Serrano SM, Beguería S, López-Moreno JI. A multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index. J Clim. [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2018 Jan 17];23:1696–718. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2909.1.

  60. Palmer WC. Meteorological drought. Research Paper No. 45, 1965, 58 p. [cited 2018 Jan 17]; Available from: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/docs/palmer.pdf.

  61. Huang J, Li Y, Fu C, Chen F, Fu Q, Dai A, et al. Dryland climate change: recent progress and challenges. Rev Geophys. [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Jan 18];55:719–78. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2016RG000550.

  62. Cook BI, Ault TR, Smerdon JE. Unprecedented 21st century drought risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains. Sci Adv. [Internet]. American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2015 [cited 2018 Jan 18];1:e1400082–e1400082. Available from: http://advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1400082.

  63. Graham NE. Simulation of recent global temperature trends. Science. [Internet]. 1995 [cited 2018 Jan 18];3. Available from: https://search.proquest.com/docview/213565603/fulltextPDF/DC025DC113614A62PQ/1?accountid=6167.

  64. Funk C, Dettinger MD, Michaelsen JC, Verdin JP, Brown ME, Barlow M, et al. Warming of the Indian Ocean threatens eastern and southern African food security but could be mitigated by agricultural development. Proc Natl Acad Sci. [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2018 Jan 18];105:11081–6. Available from: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0708196105.

  65. Diffenbaugh NS, Swain DL, Touma D. Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California. Proc Natl Acad Sci. [Internet]. National Academy of Sciences; 2015 [cited 2018 Jan 18];112:3931–6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25733875.

  66. Seager R, Henderson N, Cane MA, Liu H, Nakamura J. Is there a role for human-induced climate change in the precipitation decline that drove the California drought? J Clim. [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Mar 28];30:10237–58. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0192.1.

  67. Kelley CP, Mohtadi S, Cane MA, Seager R, Kushnir Y. Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A [Internet]. National Academy of Sciences; 2015 [cited 2018 Feb 3];112:3241–6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25733898.

  68. Seager R, Liu H, Henderson N, Simpson I, Kelley C, Shaw T, et al. Causes of increasing aridification of the mediterranean region in response to rising greenhouse gases. J Clim. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 Mar 28];27:4655–76. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00446.1.

  69. Rajsekhar D, Gorelick SM. Increasing drought in Jordan: climate change and cascading Syrian land-use impacts on reducing transboundary flow. Sci Adv. [Internet]. American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2017 [cited 2018 Mar 28];3:e1700581. Available from: http://advances.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1700581.

  70. Gleick PH. Water, drought, climate change, and conflict in Syria. Weather. Clim. Soc. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 Mar 28];6:331–40. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1.

  71. Williams AP, Seager R, Abatzoglou JT, Cook BI, Smerdon JE, Cook ER. Contribution of anthropogenic warming to California drought during 2012-2014. Geophys Res Lett. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2018 Jan 22];42:6819–28. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2015GL064924.

  72. Easterling DR, Kunkel KE, Wehner MF, Sun L. Detection and attribution of climate extremes in the observed record. Weather Clim Extrem. [Internet]. Elsevier; 2016 [cited 2018 Jan 16];11:17–27. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094716300020.

  73. Piao S, Friedlingstein P, Ciais P, de Noblet-Ducoudré N, Labat D, Zaehle S. Changes in climate and land use have a larger direct impact than rising CO2 on global river runoff trends. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. [Internet]. National Academy of Sciences; 2007 [cited 2018 Jan 18];104:15242–7. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17878298.

  74. Wan W, Zhao J, Li H-Y, Mishra A, Ruby Leung L, Hejazi M, et al. Hydrological drought in the anthropocene: impacts of local water extraction and reservoir regulation in the U.S. J Geophys Res Atmos. [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Jan 18];122:11,313–11,328. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2017JD026899.

  75. Veettil AV, Mishra AK. Water security assessment using blue and green water footprint concepts. J Hydrol. [Internet]. Elsevier; 2016 [cited 2018 Jan 19];542:589–602. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169416305868.

  76. Wells N, Goddard S, Hayes MJ, Wells N, Goddard S, Hayes MJ. A self-calibrating Palmer Drought Severity Index. J Clim. [Internet]. 2004 [cited 2018 Jan 17];17:2335–51. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C2335%3AASPDSI%3E2.0.CO%3B2.

  77. Penman HL. Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass. Proc R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci. [Internet]. 1948 [cited 2018 Jan 19];193:120–45. Available from: http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/cgi/doi/10.1098/rspa.1948.0037.

  78. Monteith JL. Evaporation and environment, the state and movement of water in living organisms. Symp Soc Exp Biol 19:205–234, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1965. [cited 2018 Jan 19]; Available from: http://www.unc.edu/courses/2007fall/geog/801/001/www/ET/Monteith65.pdf.

  79. Thornthwaite CW, Holzman B. The determination of evaporation from land and water surfaces. Mon Weather Rev. [Internet]. 1939 [cited 2018 Feb 4];67:4–11. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281939%2967%3C4%3ATDOEFL%3E2.0.CO%3B2.

  80. Sheffield J, Wood EF, Roderick ML. Little change in global drought over the past 60 years. Nature [Internet]. Nature Publishing Group; 2012 [cited 2018 Jan 18];491:435–8. Available from: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature11575.

  81. Emanuel K. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature [Internet]. Nature Publishing Group; 2005 [cited 2018 Jan 18];436:686–8. Available from: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature03906.

  82. Dai A, Trenberth KE, Qian T, Dai A, Trenberth KE, Qian T. A global dataset of Palmer Drought Severity Index for 1870–2002: relationship with soil moisture and effects of surface warming. J Hydrometeorol. [Internet]. 2004 [cited 2018 Jan 17];5:1117–30. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JHM-386.1.

  83. Morice CP, Kennedy JJ, Rayner NA, Jones PD. Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: the HadCRUT4 data set. J Geophys Res Atmos. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2018 Jan 18];117:n/a-n/a. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1029/2011JD017187.

  84. Guttman NB, Wallis JR, Hosking JRM. Spatial comparability of the Palmer Drought Severity Index. J Am Water Resour Assoc. [Internet]. Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 1992 [cited 2018 Jan 18];28:1111–9. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1992.tb04022.x.

  85. Zhang B, Long B, Wu Z, Wang Z. An evaluation of the performance and the contribution of different modified water demand estimates in drought modeling over water-stressed regions. Land Degrad Dev. [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Jan 18];28:1134–51. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/ldr.2655

  86. Sheffield J, Goteti G, Wen F, Wood EF. A simulated soil moisture based drought analysis for the United States. J Geophys Res. [Internet]. 2004 [cited 2018 Jan 17];109:D24108. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1029/2004JD005182.

  87. Hayes MJ, Svoboda MD, Wilhite DA, Vanyarkho O V., Hayes MJ, Svoboda MD, et al. Monitoring the 1996 drought using the Standardized Precipitation Index. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. [Internet]. 1999 [cited 2018 Jan 18];80:429–38. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%281999%29080%3C0429%3AMTDUTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2.

  88. Guttman NB. Comparing the Palmer Drought Index and the Standardized Precipitation Index. J Am Water Resour Assoc. [Internet]. Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 1998 [cited 2018 Jan 18];34:113–21. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb05964.x.

  89. Niemeyer S. New drought indices. [cited 2018 Jan 17]; Available from: http://ressources.ciheam.org/om/pdf/a80/00800451.pdf.

  90. van der Schrier G, Barichivich J, Briffa KR, Jones PD. A scPDSI-based global data set of dry and wet spells for 1901-2009. J Geophys Res Atmos. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2018 Jan 18];118:4025–48. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/jgrd.50355.

  91. Ahmadalipour A, Moradkhani H, Demirel MC. A comparative assessment of projected meteorological and hydrological droughts: elucidating the role of temperature. J Hydrol. [Internet]. Elsevier; 2017 [cited 2018 Mar 30];553:785–97. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002216941730584X.

  92. Tsakiris G, Pangalou D, Vangelis H. Regional drought assessment based on the Reconnaissance Drought Index (RDI). Water Resour Manag. [Internet]. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2007 [cited 2018 Jan 19];21:821–33. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11269-006-9105-4.

  93. Tigkas D, Vangelis H, Tsakiris G. The RDI as a composite climatic index. Eur Water [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2018 Jan 19];41:17–22. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/George_Tsakiris/publication/245542666_The_RDI_as_a_composite_climatic_Index/links/00b7d51d81bc880a21000000.pdf.

  94. Vicente-Serrano SM, Van der Schrier G, Beguería S, Azorin-Molina C, Lopez-Moreno J-I. Contribution of precipitation and reference evapotranspiration to drought indices under different climates. J Hydrol. [Internet]. Elsevier; 2015 [cited 2018 Jan 18];526:42–54. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169414009305.

  95. Svoboda M, LeComte D, Hayes M, Heim R, Gleason K, Angel J, et al. The drought monitor. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. [Internet]. 2002 [cited 2018 Jan 17];83:1181–90. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477(2002)083%3C1181:TDM%3E2.3.CO;2.

  96. Steinemann AC, Cavalcanti LFN. Developing multiple indicators and triggers for drought plans. J Water Resour Plan Manag. [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2018 Jan 19];132:164–74. Available from: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9496%282006%29132%3A3%28164%29.

  97. Wilhite DA. Drought and water crises: science, technology, and management issues [Internet]. Management. Taylor & Francis; 2005 [cited 2018 Feb 3]. Available from: http://cds.cern.ch/record/992160.

  98. Svoboda M, LeComte D, Hayes M, Heim R, Gleason K, Angel J, et al. The drought monitor. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. [Internet]. 2002 [cited 2018 Jan 19];83:1181–90. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477(2002)083%3C1181:TDM%3E2.3.CO;2.

  99. Keyantash JA, Dracup JA. An aggregate drought index: assessing drought severity based on fluctuations in the hydrologic cycle and surface water storage. Water Resour Res. [Internet]. 2004 [cited 2018 Jan 19];40. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1029/2003WR002610.

  100. Kao SC, Govindaraju RS. A copula-based joint deficit index for droughts. J Hydrol. [Internet]. Elsevier; 2010 [cited 2018 Jan 17];380:121–34. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002216940900688X.

  101. Hao Z, AghaKouchak A. Multivariate Standardized Drought Index: a parametric multi-index model. Adv Water Resour. [Internet]. Elsevier; 2013 [cited 2018 Jan 17];57:12–8. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309170813000493.

  102. Dubrovsky M, Svoboda MD, Trnka M, Hayes MJ, Wilhite DA, Zalud Z, et al. Application of relative drought indices in assessing climate-change impacts on drought conditions in Czechia. Theor Appl Climatol. [Internet]. Springer Vienna; 2009 [cited 2018 Jan 18];96:155–71. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00704-008-0020-x.

  103. Schneider U, Fuchs T, Meyer-Christoffer A, Rudolf B. Global precipitation analysis products of the GPCC. 2008 [cited 2018 Jan 19]; Available from: http://www.mapcruzin.com/environmental-shapefile-maps/water/precipitation/GPCC_intro_products_2008.pdf.

  104. Harris I, Jones PD, Osborn TJ, Lister DH. Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations—the CRU TS3.10 dataset. Int J Climatol. [Internet]. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2014 [cited 2018 Jan 19];34:623–42. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/joc.3711.

  105. Mishra A, Vu T, Veettil AV, Entekhabi D. Drought monitoring with Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) measurements. J Hydrol. [Internet]. Elsevier; 2017 [cited 2018 Jan 19];552:620–32. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169417304821.

  106. Sun Q, Miao C, Duan Q, Ashouri H, Sorooshian S, Hsu K-L. A review of global precipitation datasets: data sources, estimation, and intercomparisons. Rev Geophys. [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Jan 19]; Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2017RG000574.

  107. Dai A, Zhao T. Uncertainties in historical changes and future projections of drought. Part I: estimates of historical drought changes. Clim Change [Internet]. Springer Netherlands; 2017 [cited 2018 Jan 17];144:519–33. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-016-1705-2.

  108. Daly C, Slater ME, Roberti JA, Laseter SH, Swift LW. High-resolution precipitation mapping in a mountainous watershed: ground truth for evaluating uncertainty in a national precipitation dataset. Int J Climatol. [Internet]. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2017 [cited 2018 Jan 19];37:124–37. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/joc.4986.

  109. Maraun D, Wetterhall F, Ireson AM, Chandler RE, Kendon EJ, Widmann M, et al. Precipitation downscaling under climate change: recent developments to bridge the gap between dynamical models and the end user. Rev Geophys. [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2018 Jan 16];48:RG3003. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1029/2009RG000314.

  110. Tang Q, Zhang X, Duan Q, Huang S, Yuan X, Cui H, et al. Hydrological monitoring and seasonal forecasting: progress and perspectives. J Geogr Sci. [Internet]. Science Press; 2016 [cited 2018 Feb 9];26:904–20. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11442-016-1306-z.

  111. Mitchell KE. The multi-institution North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS): utilizing multiple GCIP products and partners in a continental distributed hydrological modeling system. J. Geophys. Res. [Internet]. 2004 [cited 2018 Feb 9];109:D07S90. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1029/2003JD003823.

  112. Rodell M, Houser PR, Jambor U, Gottschalck J, Mitchell K, Meng C-J, et al. The Global Land Data Assimilation System. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. [Internet]. 2004 [cited 2018 Feb 9];85:381–94. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-85-3-381.

  113. Sawada Y, Koike T. Towards ecohydrological drought monitoring and prediction using a land data assimilation system: a case study on the Horn of Africa drought (2010-2011). J Geophys Res. Atmos. [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Feb 9];121:8229–42. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2015JD024705.

  114. Xia Y, Mitchell K, Ek M, Sheffield J, Cosgrove B, Wood E, et al. Continental-scale water and energy flux analysis and validation for the North American Land Data Assimilation System project phase 2 (NLDAS-2): 1. Intercomparison and application of model products. J Geophys Res Atmos. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2018 Feb 12];117:n/a-n/a. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1029/2011JD016048.

  115. Le Vine N, Butler A, McIntyre N, Jackson C. Diagnosing hydrological limitations of a land surface model: application of JULES to a deep-groundwater chalk basin. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Feb 13];20:143–59. Available from: www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/20/143/2016/.

  116. Shaw SB, Riha SJ. Assessing temperature-based PET equations under a changing climate in temperate, deciduous forests. Hydrol. Process. [Internet]. Wiley-Blackwell; 2011 [cited 2018 Apr 4];25:1466–78. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/hyp.7913.

  117. Dewes CF, Rangwala I, Barsugli JJ, Hobbins MT, Kumar S. Drought risk assessment under climate change is sensitive to methodological choices for the estimation of evaporative demand. deCastro M, editor. PLoS One [Internet]. Public Library of Science; 2017 [cited 2018 Jan 16];12:e0174045. Available from: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174045.

  118. Zhao T, Dai A. Uncertainties in historical changes and future projections of drought. Part II: model-simulated historical and future drought changes. Clim Chang. [Internet]. Springer Netherlands; 2017 [cited 2018 Jan 17];144:535–48. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-016-1742-x.

  119. Burke EJ, Brown SJ, Burke EJ, Brown SJ. Evaluating uncertainties in the projection of future drought. J. Hydrometeorol. [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2018 Jan 15];9:292–9. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2007JHM929.1.

  120. Swann ALS, Hoffman FM, Koven CD, Randerson JT. Plant responses to increasing CO2 reduce estimates of climate impacts on drought severity. PNAS [Internet]. National Academy of Sciences; 2016 [cited 2018 Mar 28];113:10019–24. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27573831.

  121. Milly PCD, Dunne KA. Potential evapotranspiration and continental drying. Nat Clim Chang. [Internet]. Nature Publishing Group; 2016 [cited 2018 Jan 15];6:946–9. Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3046.

  122. Fowler HJ, Blenkinsop S, Tebaldi C. Linking climate change modelling to impacts studies: recent advances in downscaling techniques for hydrological modelling. Int J Climatol. [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2018 Jan 22];27:1547–78. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/joc.1556.

  123. Fundel F, Jörg-Hess S, Zappa M. Monthly hydrometeorological ensemble prediction of streamflow droughts and corresponding drought indices. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2018 Jan 22];17:395–407. Available from: www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/17/395/2013/.

  124. Hassan Z, Shamsudin S, Harun S. Application of SDSM and LARS-WG for simulating and downscaling of rainfall and temperature. Theor. Appl. Climatol. [Internet]. Springer Vienna; 2014 [cited 2018 Jan 22];116:243–57. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00704-013-0951-8.

  125. Langousis A, Kaleris V. Statistical framework to simulate daily rainfall series conditional on upper-air predictor variables. Water Resour Res. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 Jan 22];50:3907–32. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013WR014936/full.

  126. Chen C, Haerter JO, Hagemann S, Piani C. On the contribution of statistical bias correction to the uncertainty in the projected hydrological cycle. Geophys Res Lett. [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2018 Jan 22];38:n/a-n/a. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1029/2011GL049318.

  127. Deidda R. Rainfall downscaling in a space-time multifractal framework. Water Resour Res. [Internet]. 2000 [cited 2018 Jan 22];36:1779–94. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1029/2000WR900038.

  128. Langousis A, Mamalakis A, Deidda R, Marrocu M. Assessing the relative effectiveness of statistical downscaling and distribution mapping in reproducing rainfall statistics based on climate model results. Water Resour Res. [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Jan 22];52:471–94. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2015WR017556.

  129. Mamalakis A, Langousis A, Deidda R, Marrocu M. A parametric approach for simultaneous bias correction and high-resolution downscaling of climate model rainfall. Water Resour Res. [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Jan 22];53:2149–70. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2016WR019578.

  130. Smith DM, Scaife AA, Kirtman BP. What is the current state of scientific knowledge with regard to seasonal and decadal forecasting? [Internet]. Environ Res Lett. IOP Publishing; 2012 [cited 2018 Feb 9]. p. 15602. Available from: http://stacks.iop.org/1748-9326/7/i=1/a=015602?key=crossref.57e5a9f457b229d0071703c3c0abb507.

  131. Council NR. Assessment of intraseasonal to interannual climate prediction and predictability [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2010 [cited 2018 Feb 9]. Available from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12878.

  132. Ekström M, Grose MR, Whetton PH. An appraisal of downscaling methods used in climate change research [Internet]. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev Clim Chang. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2015 [cited 2018 Feb 9]. p. 301–19. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/wcc.339.

  133. Burlando P, Rosso R. Extreme storm rainfall and climatic change. Atmos Res. [Internet]. Elsevier; 1991 [cited 2018 Feb 10];27:169–89. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016980959190017Q.

  134. Kokic P, Jin H, Crimp S. Improved point scale climate projections using a block bootstrap simulation and quantile matching method. Clim Dyn. [Internet]. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2013 [cited 2018 Feb 9];41:853–66. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00382-013-1791-z.

  135. Leung LR, Kuo YH, Tribbia J. Research needs and directions of regional climate modeling using WRF and CCSM. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2018 Feb 9];87:1747–51. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-87-12-1747.

  136. Mishra AK, Coulibaly P. Developments in hydrometric network design: a review [Internet]. Rev Geophys. 2009 [cited 2018 Feb 9]. p. RG2001. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1029/2007RG000243.

  137. Montzka C, Pauwels VRN, Franssen HJH, Han X, Vereecken H. Multivariate and multiscale data assimilation in terrestrial systems: a review [Internet]. Sensors (Switzerland). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; 2012 [cited 2018 Feb 5]. p. 16291–333. Available from: http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/12/12/16291.

  138. Luo L, Apps D, Arcand S, Xu H, Pan M, Hoerling M. Contribution of temperature and precipitation anomalies to the California drought during 2012-2015. Geophys Res Lett. [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Jan 22];44:3184–92. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2016GL072027.

  139. Vicente-Serrano SM. Differences in spatial patterns of drought on different time scales: an analysis of the Iberian Peninsula. Water Resour. Manag. [Internet]. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2006 [cited 2018 Jan 22];20:37–60. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11269-006-2974-8.

  140. Vicente-Serrano SM, Beguería S, López-Moreno JI, Angulo M, El Kenawy A, Vicente-Serrano SM, et al. A new global 0.5° gridded dataset (1901–2006) of a multiscalar drought index: comparison with current drought index datasets based on the Palmer Drought Severity Index. J Hydrometeorol. [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2018 Jan 22];11:1033–43. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JHM1224.1.

  141. Vicente-Serrano SM, López-Moreno JI, Beguería S, Lorenzo-Lacruz J, Azorin-Molina C, Morán-Tejeda E. Accurate computation of a Streamflow Drought Index. J. Hydrol. Eng. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2018 Jan 22];17:318–32. Available from: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29HE.1943-5584.0000433.

  142. Razavi S, Elshorbagy A, Wheater H, Sauchyn D. Toward understanding nonstationarity in climate and hydrology through tree ring proxy records. Water Resour Res. [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2018 Feb 1];51:1813–30. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2014WR015696.

  143. Van Loon AF, Gleeson T, Clark J, Van Dijk AIJM, Stahl K, Hannaford J, et al. Drought in the Anthropocene [Internet]. Nat Geosci. 2016 [cited 2018 Feb 3]. p. 89–91. Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2646.

  144. Kalnay E, Cai M. Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate. Nature [Internet]. Nature Publishing Group; 2003 [cited 2018 Jan 23];423:528–31. Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/nature01675.

  145. Van Loon AF, Stahl K, Di Baldassarre G, Clark J, Rangecroft S, Wanders N, et al. Drought in a human-modified world: reframing drought definitions, understanding, and analysis approaches. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Jan 23];20:3631–50. Available from: www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/20/3631/2016/.

  146. Stott PA, Gillett NP, Hegerl GC, Karoly DJ, Stone DA, Zhang X, et al. Detection and attribution of climate change: a regional perspective. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev Clim Chang. [Internet]. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2010 [cited 2018 Jan 16];1:192–211. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/wcc.34.

  147. Paciorek C, Stone DA, Wehner MF. Quantifying uncertainty in the attribution of human influence on severe weather. 2017 [cited 2018 Jan 23]; Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03388.

  148. Hauser M, Gudmundsson L, Orth R, Jézéquel A, Haustein K, Vautard R, et al. Methods and model dependency of extreme event attribution: the 2015 European drought. Earth’s Futur. [Internet]. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.; 2017 [cited 2018 Jan 16];5:1034–43. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2017EF000612.

  149. Müller Schmied H, Adam L, Eisner S, Fink G, Flörke M, Kim H, et al. Variations of global and continental water balance components as impacted by climate forcing uncertainty and human water use. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Jan 23];20:2877–98. Available from: http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/20/2877/2016/.

  150. Apurv T, Sivapalan M, Cai X. Understanding the role of climate characteristics in drought propagation. Water Resour Res. [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Jan 17];53:9304–29. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2017WR021445.

  151. Orlowsky B, Seneviratne SI. Elusive drought: uncertainty in observed trends and short- and long-term CMIP5 projections. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2018 Jan 19];17:1765–81. Available from: http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/17/1765/2013/.

  152. Murphy JM, Sexton DMH, Barnett DN, Jones GS, Webb MJ, Collins M, et al. Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature [Internet]. Nature Publishing Group; 2004 [cited 2018 Jan 23];430:768–72. Available from: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature02771.

  153. Ma R, Duan H, Hu C, Feng X, Li A, Ju W, et al. A half-century of changes in China’s lakes: global warming or human influence? Geophys Res Lett. [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2018 Feb 4];37:n/a-n/a. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1029/2010GL045514.

  154. Quiring SM. Developing objective operational definitions for monitoring drought. J Appl Meteorol Climatol. [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2018 Feb 4];48:1217–29. Available from: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JAMC2088.1.

  155. Arnell NW, Brown S, Gosling SN, Gottschalk P, Hinkel J, Huntingford C, et al. The impacts of climate change across the globe: a multi-sectoral assessment. Clim. Change [Internet]. Springer Netherlands; 2016 [cited 2018 Jan 15];134:457–74. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-014-1281-2.

  156. Sun Q, Miao C, Duan Q, Ashouri H, Sorooshian S, Hsu K-L. A Review of global precipitation data sets: data sources, estimation, and intercomparisons. Rev Geophys. [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Jan 15]; Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2017RG000574.

  157. Nguyen H, Mehrotra R, Sharma A. Can the variability in precipitation simulations across GCMs be reduced through sensible bias correction? Clim Dyn. [Internet]. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2017 [cited 2018 Jan 16];49:3257–75. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00382-016-3510-z.

  158. Beck C, Philipp A, Jacobeit J. Interannual drought index variations in Central Europe related to the large-scale atmospheric circulation—application and evaluation of statistical downscaling approaches based on circulation type classifications. Theor Appl Climatol. [Internet]. Springer Vienna; 2015 [cited 2018 Jan 22];121:713–32. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00704-014-1267-z.

  159. Lee JH, Kim CJ. A multimodel assessment of the climate change effect on the drought severity-duration-frequency relationship. Hydrol Process. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2018 Jan 16];27:2800–13. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/hyp.9390.

  160. Razmkhah H. Preparing stream flow drought severity–duration–frequency curves using threshold level method. Arab J Geosci. [Internet]. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2016 [cited 2018 Jan 22];9:513. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12517-016-2528-1.

  161. Sung JH, Chung E-S. Development of streamflow drought severity–duration–frequency curves using the threshold level method. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 Jan 16];18:3341–51. Available from: http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/3341/2014/.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the Editor and the reviewers for their positive and constructive comments that helped us to improve the article significantly.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) award no. 1653841.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Glenn Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA

    Sourav Mukherjee & Ashok Mishra

  2. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA

    Kevin E. Trenberth

Authors
  1. Sourav Mukherjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ashok Mishra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kevin E. Trenberth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashok Mishra.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

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

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Climate Change and Drought

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mukherjee, S., Mishra, A. & Trenberth, K.E. Climate Change and Drought: a Perspective on Drought Indices. Curr Clim Change Rep 4, 145–163 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0098-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0098-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation