Attribution analysis of the Ethiopian drought of 2015
Abstract
In northern and central Ethiopia, 2015 was a very dry year. Rainfall was only from one-half to three-quarters of the usual amount, with both the “belg” (February–May) and “kiremt” rains (June–September) affected. The timing of the rains that did fall was also erratic. Many crops failed, causing food shortages for many millions of people. The role of climate change in the probability of a drought like this is investigated, focusing on the large-scale precipitation deficit in February–September 2015 in northern and central Ethiopia. Using a gridded analysis that combines station data with satellite observations, it is estimated that the return period of this drought was more than 60 years (lower bound 95% confidence interval), with a most likely value of several hundred years. No trend is detected in the observations, but the large natural variability and short time series means large trends could go undetected in the observations. Two out of three large climate model ensembles that simulated rainfall reasonably well show no trend while the third shows an increased probability of drought. Taking the model spread into account the drought still cannot be clearly attributed to anthropogenic climate change, with the 95% confidence interval ranging from a probability decrease between preindustrial and today of a factor of 0.3 and an increase of a factor of 5 for a drought like this one or worse. A soil moisture dataset also shows a nonsignificant drying trend. According to ENSO correlations in the observations, the strong 2015 El Niño did increase the severity of the drought.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Gaussian distribution is a justified choice for modelling March-April mean daily maximum temperature because the short CPC dataset results in sparsely populated tails.
“We select the Gaussian distribution for modelling the March-April mean of daily maximum temperature in the study region. This is a justified choice, on account of the short length of the CPC dataset resulting in sparsely populated tails (Philip et al 2018).”
From Attribution of 2022 early-spring heatwave in India and Pakistan to climate change: lessons in assessing vulnerability and preparedness in reducing impacts (2023) · cites this paper as Philip et al 2018
Cites
Global surface temperature change
Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., Sato, M., & Lo, K. (2010) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1029/2010rg000345 · Cited by 3,081 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…of the temporal evolution of global mean surface temperature (GMST), which we use as a covariate in our return period analysis, we use the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP; Hansen et al. 2010).”
MethodShongwe, M. E., van Oldenborgh, G. J., van den Hurk, B., & van Aalst, M. (2011) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/2010jcli2883.1 · Cited by 313 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zachariah, M., Arulalan, T., AchutaRao, K., Saeed, F., Jha, R., Dhasmana, M. K., Mondal, A., Bonnet, R., Vautard, R., Philip, S., et al. (2023) · Environmental Research Climate · doi:10.1088/2752-5295/acf4b6 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
“This is a justified choice, on account of the short length of the CPC dataset resulting in sparsely populated tails (Philip et al 2018).”
BackgroundSelf-citationThalheimer, L., Schwarz, M. P., & Pretis, F. (2023) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102641 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
- Authors
- Philip, S., Kew, S. F., Jan van Oldenborgh, G., Otto, F., O’Keefe, S., Haustein, K., King, A., Zegeye, A., Eshetu, Z., Hailemariam, K., Singh, R., Jjemba, E., Funk, C., & Cullen, H.
- Affiliations
- Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (NL)
- a Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, Netherlands
- University of Oxford (GB)
- b Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Addis Ababa University (ET)
- Government of Ethiopia (ET)
- Climate Centre (NL)
- United States Geological Survey (US)
- Climate Central (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Climate
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2018-03-15
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2465-2486
- ISSN
- 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-0442
- OpenAlex
- W2765442616
- Cited by
- 170
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 7.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Climate (publishedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- EUCLEIA (607085)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Hydrology and Drought Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Climate change impacts on agriculture
- Keywords
- drought attribution, climate change attribution, precipitation deficit, return periods, rainfall variability, climate model ensembles, soil moisture trends, El Niño, ENSO, food shortages
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review