Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 366

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Elusive drought: uncertainty in observed trends and short- and long-term CMIP5 projections

Open access
Orlowsky, B., Seneviratne, S. I.·2013·Hydrology and Earth System Sciences

Abstract

Abstract. Recent years have seen a number of severe droughts in different regions around the world, causing agricultural and economic losses, famines and migration. Despite their devastating consequences, the Standardised Precipitation Index (SPI) of these events lies within the general range of observation-based SPI time series and simulations from the 5th phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). In terms of magnitude, regional trends of SPI over the last decades remain mostly inconclusive in observation-based datasets and CMIP5 simulations, but Soil Moisture Anomalies (SMAs) in CMIP5 simulations hint at increased drought in a few regions (e.g., the Mediterranean, Central America/Mexico, the Amazon, North-East Brazil and South Africa). Also for the future, projections of changes in the magnitude of meteorological (SPI) and soil moisture (SMA) drought in CMIP5 display large spreads over all time frames, generally impeding trend detection. However, projections of changes in the frequencies of future drought events display more robust signal-to-noise ratios, with detectable trends towards more frequent drought before the end of the 21st century in the Mediterranean, South Africa and Central America/Mexico. Other present-day hot spots are projected to become less drought-prone, or display non-significant changes in drought occurrence. A separation of different sources of uncertainty in projections of meteorological and soil moisture drought reveals that for the near term, internal climate variability is the dominant source, while the formulation of Global Climate Models (GCMs) generally becomes the dominant source of spread by the end of the 21st century, especially for soil moisture drought. In comparison, the uncertainty from Green-House Gas (GHG) concentrations scenarios is negligible for most regions. These findings stand in contrast to respective analyses for a heat wave index, for which GHG concentrations scenarios constitute the main source of uncertainty. Our results highlight the inherent difficulty of drought quantification and the considerable likelihood range of drought projections, but also indicate regions where drought is consistently found to increase. In other regions, wide likelihood range should not be equated with low drought risk, since potential scenarios include large drought increases in key agricultural and ecosystem regions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5194/hess-17-1765-2013

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 366

Metadata

Authors
Orlowsky, B., & Seneviratne, S. I.
Venue
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
Published
2013-05-07
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
1765-1781
ISSN
  • 1027-5606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1607-7938
OpenAlex
W2056966643
Cited by
366
References
11
FWCI
20.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Elusive drought: uncertainty in observed trends and short- and long-term CMIP5 projections. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/hess-17-1765-2013
The paper
Orlowsky, B., & Seneviratne, S. I. (2013). Elusive drought: uncertainty in observed trends and short- and long-term CMIP5 projections. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1765-2013

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.