Fig 1.
Main oceanic sources of moisture influencing the SAS continental climatic region.
The red contours highlight regions with values exceeding 750 mm/year, based on the climatology of vertically integrated moisture flux divergence for the 1980-2012 period. Data derived from ERA-Interim. Adapted from Castillo [7].
Fig 2.
Schematic representation of the homogeneous monsoon precipitation regions, as defined by Kothawale & Rajeevan [50], and used in the correlation analysis.
Table 1.
Threshold values of the AAO indices for selecting extreme episodes during the periods 1980-2012 and 1984-2016, considering the seasonal division of scenarios A1 and A2.
Table 2.
Seasonal indices used to define the years for the AAO composites of positive, negative, and neutral phases during the period from December 1979 to November 2012. The highest index values and corresponding years are highlighted in red [AAO(+)], the lowest in blue [AAO(-)], and neutral values in yellow.
Table 3.
Similar to what is shown in Table 2, but for the period from December 1983 to November 2016, based on the seasonal division of Scenario A1.
Table 4.
Similar to what is shown in Table 2, but for the period from January 1984 to December 2016, based on the seasonal division of Scenario A2.
Fig 3.
Climatological monthly distribution of precipitation in India, derived from surface rain gauge data (IITM-IMR) for the period 1984–2016, based on the homogeneous monsoon precipitation regions defined by Kothawale & Rajeevan [50].
Fig 4.
Seasonal climatology of precipitation and wind fields at 925 hPa using ERA5 reanalysis data for the period 1984 to 2016, corresponding to scenarios A1 and A2.
Fig 5.
Seasonal schematic representation of the magnitude of moisture sinks from the main oceanic sources affecting the continental SAS climatic region (top map, right column) for the period from December 1979 to November 2012.
Only values () exceeding 0.05 mm/day were plotted and are shown using the same color as their respective oceanic source.
Table 5.
Pearson correlation and partial correlation coefficients between seasonal time series (seasonal period without parentheses) of moisture sinks () from the main oceanic sources affecting the continental SAS climatic region and seasonal indices associated with the AAO (seasonal period in parentheses) during the period from December 1979 to November 2012, with a statistical confidence level of 95% or higher. For Pearson partial correlation, the ONI index (seasonal period without parentheses) was used as a control variable.
Fig 6.
Differences in the magnitude of moisture sinks (seasonal period without parentheses) between positive and negative phase composites relative to the neutral phase composite for the AAO (seasonal period in parentheses).
Only values () exceeding 0.05 mm/day and within a statistical confidence level above 90% were plotted, based on a bootstrapping test with 1000 permutations of the time series.
Table 6.
Similar to what is presented in Table 5, but for seasonal precipitation series obtained from surface rain gauge stations (IITM-IMR and IMD4), ERA5, and PERSIANN-CDR, comparing the DJF seasonal period from Scenario A1 to the JF period from Scenario A2 during the 1984-2016 period, with a statistical confidence level of 95% or higher.
Fig 7.
Similar to what is shown in Fig 6, but for fields of precipitation anomalies combined with 925 hPa winds (first column) and vertically integrated moisture flux divergence (second column) using ERA5 data, as well as precipitation anomalies based on PERSIANN-CDR data (third column), for the DJF season of Scenario A1 in-phase during the 1984-2016 period.
Fig 8.
Similar to what is shown in Fig 7, but comparing DJF seasonal period from Scenario A1 to JF period from Scenario A2 in a lagged phase.
Table 7.
Similar to what is presented in Table 5, but for seasonal precipitation series from ERA5 and PERSIANN-CDR for the MAM seasonal period in Scenario A2 during 1984-2016, with a statistical confidence level of 95% or higher.
Fig 9.
Similar to what is shown in Fig 7, but for the MAM seasonal period in Scenario A2 in a lagged phase.
Table 8.
Similar to what is shown in Table 5, but for seasonal precipitation series obtained from surface rain gauge stations (IITM-IMR and IMD4) and ERA5, comparing the seasonal periods JJA from Scenario A1 vs. JJAS from Scenario A2 during the period 1984-2016, with a statistical confidence level of 95% or higher.
Fig 10.
Similar to what is shown in Fig 7, but comparing the seasonal periods of JJA from Scenario A1 vs. JJAS from Scenario A2 in-phase.
Fig 11.
Similar to what is shown in Fig 7, but comparing the seasonal periods of JJA from Scenario A1 vs. JJAS from Scenario A2 in a lagged phase.
Table 9.
Similar to what is shown in Table 5 but for seasonal precipitation series from surface rain gauge stations (IITM-IMR and IMD4), ERA5, and PERSIANN-CDR, comparing the SON seasonal period of Scenario A1 with the OND seasonal period of Scenario A2 during the 1984-2016 period, with a statistical confidence level of 95% or higher.
Fig 12.
Similar to what is shown in Fig 7, but comparing the SON seasonal period of Scenario A1 with the OND seasonal period of Scenario A2 in phase.
Fig 13.
Similar to what is shown in Fig 7, but comparing the SON seasonal period of Scenario A1 with the OND seasonal period of Scenario A2 out of phase.