澳大利亚国立大学 Falster, Georgina 团队的一项最新研究揭示了在过去一千年里太平洋沃克环流的非自然变化。该研究于2023年8月23日发表于国际一流学术期刊《自然》杂志上。

研究人员使用新的年度解析、多方法、古替代物衍生的太平洋沃克环流重建系综(1200-2000)表明，1992-2011年太平洋沃克环流加强是异常的，但在过去800年的背景下并非前所未有。1992-2011年太平洋沃克环流的加强不太可能是火山作用力的结果，可能是人为气溶胶作用力或自然变化的结果。

研究没有发现明显的工业时代(1850-2000)太平洋沃克环流趋势，与大多数气候模型模拟的太平洋沃克环流减弱形成对比。然而，工业时代向低频率变化的转变，表明其受到微妙的人为因素的影响。重建还表明，类似于气候模型模拟的反应，火山爆发引发厄尔尼诺式的太平洋沃克环流减弱。

据悉，太平洋沃克环流(PWC)对全世界的天气和气候有巨大的影响。然而，经验数据和模型模拟经常与这些反应的规模和标志不一致，太平洋沃克环流对外部作用力的反应并不清楚。大多数气候模型预测表明，由于全球变暖，太平洋沃克环流最终会变弱。然而，从 1992-2011 年，太平洋沃克环流有所增强，这表明人为和/或火山气溶胶作用力或内部变化起了重要作用。

附：英文原文

Title: Forced changes in the Pacific Walker circulation over the past millennium

Author: Falster, Georgina, Konecky, Bronwen, Coats, Sloan, Stevenson, Samantha

Issue&Volume: 2023-08-23

Abstract: The Pacific Walker circulation (PWC) has an outsized influence on weather and climate worldwide. Yet the PWC response to external forcings is unclear, with empirical data and model simulations often disagreeing on the magnitude and sign of these responses. Most climate models predict that the PWC will ultimately weaken in response to global warming. However, the PWC strengthened from 1992 to 2011, suggesting a significant role for anthropogenic and/or volcanic aerosol forcing, or internal variability. Here we use a new annually resolved, multi-method, palaeoproxy-derived PWC reconstruction ensemble (1200–2000) to show that the 1992–2011 PWC strengthening is anomalous but not unprecedented in the context of the past 800years. The 1992–2011 PWC strengthening was unlikely to have been a consequence of volcanic forcing and may therefore have resulted from anthropogenic aerosol forcing or natural variability. We find no significant industrial-era (1850–2000) PWC trend, contrasting the PWC weakening simulated by most climate models. However, an industrial-era shift to lower-frequency variability suggests a subtle anthropogenic influence. The reconstruction also suggests that volcanic eruptions trigger El Nio-like PWC weakening, similar to the response simulated by climate models.

DOI: 10.1038/s41586-023-06447-0

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06447-0