Changes in synoptic circulations associated with documented derechos over France in the past 70 years

Fery, Lucas; Faranda, Davide

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2023-8

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2023-8

Preprints

27 Feb 2023

| 27 Feb 2023

Status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal WCD.

Changes in synoptic circulations associated with documented derechos over France in the past 70 years

Lucas Fery and Davide Faranda

Abstract. Derechos are a type of severe windstorm characterized by a swath of wind damage several hundred kilometers long. They are known to cause widespread damage and can have a significant impact on human safety and infrastructure. A recent example is the European derecho of 18 August 2022 that produced damaging surface wind gusts (>200 km/h) and affected Corsica, Italy and Austria within 12 hours. The goal of this paper is to analyse recent derechos in France in the satellite era and assess the role of climate change in modifying their characteristics. We identify eleven (11) events in the past and provide their tracks retrieved using the ERA5 reanalysis dataset. To detect climate change signal, we compare cyclonic atmospheric circulations (low pressure systems) that can lead to derechos in the distant past (1950–1979), when warming was just beginning, and in the recent past (1993–2022). Two of the events are found to be unprecedented, that is no good analogues can be found in at least one period and attribution statements cannot be made on the basis of the present analysis. For most of the other events, instead, we find a significant signal of increased precipitation in the recent period which, without change in circulation, is explained by higher temperatures. For these events there is also not a clear change in depth of the low pressure system trigger. Finally, we can exclude the role of climate variability of El Nino (ENSO) in most of the events, while we cannot rule out the influence of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) in favoring low pressure systems possibly leading to derechos.

Received: 23 Feb 2023 – Discussion started: 27 Feb 2023

Download & links

Lucas Fery and Davide Faranda

Status: final response (author comments only)

RC1:
'Comment on wcd-2023-8', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Mar 2023
Review „Changes in synoptic circulations associated with documented derechos over France in the past 70 years “ by L. Fery and D. Faranda (WCD)
The paper reconstructs tracks of past major derecho events over France and examines the prevailing environmental conditions in terms of daily mean sea level pressure and near-surface temperature, total precipitation, and wind fields using ERA5 reanalysis. Based on the obtained event set, pressure analogues were estimated as 29-day mean fields for two 30-year periods. Changes in the considered meteorological fields are attributed to climate change. For most of the events studied, the authors found increased precipitation and temperature, while the pressure pattern remained largely unchanged. They also investigated the possible influence of natural climate variability on these changes, based on ENSO and AMO parameters.
I struggle with the scientific quality of the paper and its value to other researchers. My main concerns - among others - are the very small sample of derecho events (see major revision point 1), and that the authors relate the occurrence of derechos solely to near-surface fields. However, while the pressure fields provide the general setting for convection, both MCS and derechos are initiated and maintained by mechanisms in the middle and upper troposphere (e.g., potential vorticity PV anomalies, jet stream-related divergence) and by thermal instability, for which the 2-m temperature is not a reliable proxy (major revision point 2).
See below a list of major and minor revision points and a (short) list of edits.
Major revision points:
The authors used severe weather reports, mainly from Keraunos, to determine their list of past derecho events. However, in their 30-year study period from 1983 to 2022, they found only 11 derechos, i.e. 37 events per year, but only one in the first 20-year period. I assume that there is either a substantial underreporting of the severe weather reports during the first period, or that the criteria used for the detection failed. For example, Gatzen et al. (2020) identified 40 derechos between 1997 and 2014 that at least partially affected Germany. Therefore, I doubt that the sample is representative for a larger time period. Moreover, I wonder why the authors did not use station data in addition.

Derechos (or MCS/MCC) are not triggered by surface lows as stated several times (the same applies to T2m). This fact is acknowledged by the authors when they state that “there is no one-to-one correspondence between large scale low pressure systems and the occurrence of derechos” (L60/61). Nevertheless, they quantified composites of analogues based on daily mean sea level pressure. Evans and Doswell (2001), Burke and Schultz (2004), or Coniglio and Stensrud (2004), for example, considered the 500 hPa geopotential height in their investigations of derechos, while Gatzen et al. (2020) additionally considered model-derived PV anomaly and wind shear and stability parameters (e.g., CAPE) from proximity soundings. I strongly recommend considering parameters directly related to strong wind gusts (see, for example, empirical wind gust models, such as those from Wolfson, 1990; McCann, 1994; Nakamura, 1996; Geerts, 2001; or Dotzek und Friedrich, 2009).

The authors rely on ENSO and AMO as proxies for natural climate variability and state that changes in the meteorological fields for episodes negligibly affected by these two modes of climate variability can be attributed to climate change. But what about other low-frequency modes of variability, such as teleconnections (NAO, Scandinavian or East Atlantic patterns) or SST? The reference to Nobre et al. (2017) and their finding that ENSO is important in some regions of the continent is only half the truth. They actually concluded: "that positive and negative phases of the NAO and EA are associated with more (or less) frequent and intense seasonal extreme precipitation over large areas of Europe. The relationship between ENSO and the occurrence and intensity of extreme precipitation in Europe is much smaller than the relationship with NAO or EA, but still significant in some regions".

ERA5 has too coarse a resolution for reliable estimates of convective gust wind speed and convective precipitation. It is not clear to me why the authors did not use available station data such as E-OBS for their study period.

Without a detailed interpretation of the results, the discussion of the results is not very scientific. The fact that the 2-m temperature has increased is not a new result, but is stated in every single subsection. I would suggest summarizing the results, especially when they don't really differ (e.g. negligible pressure differences between the two periods found in almost all cases). The use of the same phrases and almost the same wording in subsection 10 is not very clever (e.g., "The analogous analysis is shown in Figure A4").

Why are the derechos tracked using precipitation data? Derechos are defined as contiguous areas of high wind speed, but the relationship to precipitation is not that straightforward.

Introduction: The discussion of how climate change is expected to modify the intensity and probability of convective storms is too general. There are several papers on this that the authors should refer to. The paragraph in the current version implies that there is not much research in this area.

Introduction: The objectives of the paper are very vague and imprecise.

The English writing is (almost) acceptable, but I'd suggest a native speaker / editing service to improve the writing.

Minor revision points:
The term “attribution analysis” is misleading when only surface pressure and a few other meteorological parameters are considered.

L4: Why writing “in the satellite era” when no satellite data is used or shown? This is somewhat misleading.

L8 and elsewhere: What do you mean by “unprecedented”?

L11 “clear change in depth of the low pressure system trigger”; more important than the absolute minimum is the pressure gradient; trigger is not the right word either, because a low pressure system does not trigger derechos (otherwise you would have identified a much higher number of derechoes)! The same goes for L13 “low pressure systems possibly leading to derechos”.

L15: Give a reference when introducing derechos

L16: “..serial downburstThis is somewhat misleading because derechos can be divided into serial and progressive derechos.

L17: “bow echo”: as this is a clear sign of a derecho, briefly explain the term and give a reference.

L19-20: “meso-depression”; do you mean a wake low? Again I miss a reference.

L28-29 “only a few derechos are registered each year in the world”. For example, Bentley and Sparks (2003) identified 230 derechos in a 15-years period in the US; Gatzen et al (2020) detected 40 events in 18 years in Germany. That's pretty much more than a few a year in the world.

L30-32: Sentence is unclear; what do you mean by better documented (more damage reports??) “where the available energy is important” is also unclear.

L34: “while the large scale conditions” should be specified

L40: Is this really true that the entire summer 2022 was governed by a high-low pressure dipole as stated???

Figure 1 is too simple. I miss the specification of the geopotential and the altitude, the jet stream, the location of the frontal systems, the warm air advection and so on, see literature. In the caption I do not understand the relation to the polar vortex. Besides, you should refer to the paper by Morris, 1986, who first used the term “Spanish plume”.

L49-50: Note that the predictability of MCS is much higher compared to isolated convection; can you underpin your statement with a reference?

Streamline the data section; in the current version, it’s a mix of data and methods and also first results.

L85-86: “…consistency of a dataset…” You should mention that over the long term, both the instruments (e.g. radiosondes) and the assimilation of the data (e.g. satellite) have changed, affecting the reanalysis. Therefore, one must be very careful when using them for trend analysis.

Method section: Give some more details so the reader can really follow what you did.

L112: “The method…” Which method do you refer to? Only the comparison? I wouldn’t term this a method.

L114-116: This sentence is unclear; “making it statistically impossible to say whether climate change has made” in the context of an unprecedented event is confusing.

L118: “Westphalia floods”; the most severe floods in July 2021 were in Rhineland Palatinate (Ahr basin) and not in Westphalia.

“counterfactual world”: I wouldn’t use this world since the emission of GHG emissions started to increase at the end of the 19^th Even if the largest changes in temperature have been observed since the mid-1980s, there were some signs of climate change before that. In this sense, the term “factual world” is not appropriate either.

L131: “daily averaged slp”: Does this mean you averaged over the 24 hours of ERA5?

L140: In what sense did you examine the seasonality?

L141: “using monthly indices” of what?

L182: “investigate the characteristics of the derechos”; you did not investigate that, but rather prevailing ambient conditions (see also major point 2)

L193: Severe hail for sure did not occur along a 1000 km axis.

L200: The 2m temperature is not directly related to the convective available potential energy (btw: include the term “available” for CAPE).

L204: Give some more details about the orographic influence

L250-252: Here the authors refer to mid-tropospheric levels; why not included in the analyses (see major comment 2). Besides, you should write here “(not shown)”.

L252 and several times later: the authors claim that the derechos originated from an MCC, without giving a reference or explaining how they determined the occurrence of an MCC (according to the extent of different satellite IR temperatures according to Maddox 1980?).

L260: “good” is a very subjective term. Can you describe / quantify what you mean by this?

L378: I do not agree that you did an in-depth analysis (see major comment 5)

L388: Again, low pressure systems do not trigger derechos

L408: Why did you mention the Arctic Oscillation at first? Is it really relevant for derechos in France? Do you have a reference for this? What about EA or SCAND?

Edits:
Authors should use the date (day) consistently; e.g., in L3, they write 18 August 2022, L189/190 August 18, 2022; all subheadings are in the form of dd-mm-yyyy.

If you are referring to something you have done once or so, you should use the simple past.

L3: of 18 August --> on 18 August

L8 reformulate “…that is no good analogues can be found…”; in particular specify “good”

L32 reformulate “the public opinion was shocked”

L33 “the related MCS formed…”

L36: fueled --> maintained or triggered, depending on what you mean; “hot water” for certain is an overstatement (you may specify SST)

L38 “there was immediate questioning” reformulate; by whom? Reference? Otherwise this is not really scientific…

L43 (and others): I’d prefer the term cut-off low rather than cold drop.

L46 use a more scientific formulation for “found guilty”

L48 is --> was

L50 statements --> analyses / assessments

L51 “these modeling difficulties”: be more specific

L51 “fate” is no appropriate expression

L71: The data section should be Section 2 and not 1.1; this affects, of course, all subsequent sections

L74: convective storm phenomena

L75: analysis --> analyses

L79: reconstructed

L81: “in Figure 2”

L81-83: include a reference for ECMWR/ERA5 already here

L113: delete “hurricane” as this is completely out of context

L117: “attribution protocol” reads somehow weird

L126: “natural climate variability”

L135: prohibit --> limited

L101 an MCS

L196 Figure 1

L225: of --> in

L230 reformulate “unstable context”

L265: were --> was

267: “…strong divergence that led to the development of…”; again an MCS

L286: Temperature was much warmer…

L310 use the abbreviation MCS

L323: upper-level minimum pressure (or geopotential height)

L367: a minimum pressure on
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2023-8-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Lucas Fery, 12 May 2023
  We appreciate the reviewer's feedback and constructive criticism. We would like to address some of the concerns raised in the review. Below are point-by-point answers.
  We appreciate the comment and understand the concern about the use of severe weather reports and the limited number of derecho events found in our study. As a response to the concern, we would like to point out that our main objective was not to provide a comprehensive catalog of all derecho events in France, but rather to examine the environmental conditions that contribute to the formation of these events and assess the potential impacts of climate change on them. We acknowledge that there could be potential underreporting of severe weather events, especially in the earlier part of our study period, which may have affected our sample size. However, we believe that the analysis of these events is still valuable for understanding the synoptic conditions associated with derechos over France.
  
  We agree that more events should be studied to improve the statistical robustness of the results. To address this concern, we plan to use additional data sources in the next version of the manuscript, including the NASA Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for Global Precipitation Measurement (IMERG) dataset and station data from the French national weather service Météo-France. These additional data sources will provide a more comprehensive and robust dataset for the identification and analysis of derecho events in France. In particular, station data will allow us to potentially detect more events based on the records of hourly maximum wind gusts as done by Gatzen et al (2020).
  
  We appreciate the feedback and acknowledge that the formation of derechos is not triggered by surface lows. We will include more information on the limitations of the use of low pressure systems as a proxy for derecho occurrence and provide a more detailed discussion of the factors that contribute to derecho formation. In our study, we aimed to analyze the prevailing environmental conditions in terms of daily mean sea level pressure and near-surface temperature, total precipitation, and wind fields using ERA5 reanalysis to identify the synoptic conditions that favor their formation. However, we agree that other parameters such as the 500 hPa geopotential height, model-derived PV anomaly, wind shear, and stability parameters are relevant and useful for investigating derechos. In the next version of the manuscript, we will consider including these parameters in our analysis. We will also provide a more comprehensive discussion of the limitations of our approach and potential directions for future research.
  
  We agree that other low-frequency modes of variability, such as teleconnections and SST, can also play an important role in extreme weather events. The focus of our study was to investigate the changes in meteorological fields for episodes negligibly affected by ENSO and AMO as these are well-known and widely used climate indices. However, we acknowledge the importance of other modes of variability and agree that they should also be considered in future studies. In the next version of the manuscript, we will include a discussion on the potential role of other modes of variability, such as teleconnections and SST, in derecho events over France. We thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention and we will take it into account in our further analyses.
  
  Regarding the use of ERA5 data, we will clarify our reasoning for using it and discuss the limitations of this dataset. We acknowledge that the use of station data is important, and we plan to include it in the next version of the manuscript. While the E-OBS dataset is based on station data, it is only available on a daily basis thus we cannot track convective storms using this dataset. However we plan to use E-OBS for the estimation of synoptic daily maps of 2m-temperature, precipitation and wind to complement the ERA5 reanalysis dataset.
  
  In the revised version of the manuscript, we will use station data from Météo-France. This will enable us to better resolve local-scale features and to obtain more reliable estimates of convective gust wind speed and precipitation at an hourly time step which will allow for the tracking of convective storms.
  
  The NASA Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for Global Precipitation Measurement (IMERG) dataset for precipitation will also be used for that purpose (see for example attached picture showing a storm tracking using smoothed contours of 5 mm/h precipitation rate from IMERG dataset).
  
  Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your comments and agree that a more detailed interpretation of the results is necessary in the discussion section. We will work on summarizing the key findings and providing a more thorough analysis of the results. We will also take your suggestion into consideration and avoid using repetitive phrasing in the manuscript.
  
  We have used precipitation data as a proxy for tracking derechos because it can be an indicator of the strength of the convective systems that often accompany derechos. Strong convective systems can produce intense rainfall rates, and the resulting precipitation can serve as a proxy for the strength and extent of the convective downdrafts that are responsible for generating strong winds. Additionally, precipitation data are more available than wind gust speed and can be used to track the spatial extent and evolution of convective systems across a large area. As the reviewer noted, it is important to state that while there is often a correlation between precipitation and the occurrence of derechos, the relationship is not always straightforward, and derechos can occur without significant precipitation. Therefore, we will add this caveat to the interpretation of our results and we will also use convective wind gust speed from station data to improve the tracking of the storms.
  
  Thank you for your feedback. We acknowledge that there is a significant body of literature on the topic of how climate change is expected to modify the intensity and probability of convective storms. In the next version of our manuscript, we will provide a more comprehensive review of the existing literature and include relevant references.
  
  Following the suggestion of the reviewer, we will better state the objectives of the paper
  
  We will take into account the suggestion of the reviewer in the next revision
  
  Minor revision points : We thank the reviewer for his very useful comments, for pointing out unclear sentences and typos. We will address them thoroughly in the revised manuscript.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2023-8-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on wcd-2023-8', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Apr 2023
Review of “Changes in synoptic circulations associated with documented derechos over France in the past 70 years” by Fery and Faranda.
In this paper, the authors survey 11 past derecho events that affected France in the satellite era and construct reanalysis-based analogue datasets in order to place these derecho events in the context of two eras with different warming profiles (1950-1979 and 1993-2022). They find two of the events to have no good analogues, but for the events for which analogues can be found, they find that increased precipitation due to higher temperatures is most relevant.
The study puts together a useful dataset of events and analogues, and generally the methods used for the attribution study are sound. My greatest concern is with the emphasis and context of the paper and some of the interpretation (especially early in the paper) that somewhat overpromises based on the relationship between derechos and broad synoptic-scale SLP patterns. With some restructuring, I believe this paper will be a strong addition to the literature.

MAJOR COMMENTS
I am finding it difficult to agree with a lot of the analysis presented here mainly because fundamentally low-pressure systems are being used as a proxy for derecho occurrence. While the authors do acknowledge in Lines 60-62 that this is indeed a very weak proxy relationship, I think some more space in this manuscript should be dedicated to describing the limitations of the use of this low pressure-derecho relationship. What other factors contribute to derecho formation? Might it be possible to see an overall increase in intensity of analogue low-pressure systems but a meaningful decrease in derecho frequency and/or intensity? As I’m sure the authors are aware, one of the substantial difficulties in evaluating the impact of climate change on midlatitude convective storms is that these storms are heavily impacted by mesoscale (and even smaller-scale) processes that are not resolved by the bulk synoptic-scale analogues identified in this manuscript. While I don’t disagree that there is very likely a connection between the analogue lows and more intense convective events, I believe this manuscript overstates the certainty in that connection. More time should be spent describing the limitations of equating deeper lows with more derechoes and perhaps also improving and emphasizing the arguments for that connection in a regional sense. I would encourage the authors to reevaluate the organization of this manuscript as a whole, especially in the introduction and conclusions; this is less of a methodological concern and more one of emphasis and context. Fundamentally this is a study of synoptic circulations changing with climate change; the connection to derechos is more tenuous (especially given the very small sample size of 11 events and the lack of comparison to strong low-pressure events that did not result in convection).

MINOR COMMENTS
Lines 40-48: While a helpful overview, this paragraph is missing some key citations for the information being presented.
Figure 1: I am a little unclear as to what is being represented by the thermometers to the right of the warm air, since the icons indicate middling temperatures.
Figure 2: The caption for 2i) has the words “tracked between” that don’t seem to belong there. In addition, “cumulated” precipitation should be replaced with either “cumulative” or “accumulated”.

TRIVIAL/TYPOGRAPHICAL COMMENTS
Line 28: This editorial “as we can see” comment is not necessary and can be removed in place of a more objective description of derecho frequency.
Line 30: The word “the” at the start of the sentence may be omitted. In addition, “Great Plains” is typically capitalized when referring to the region in the United States.
Lines 31-32: “the public opinion was shocked” is an awkward sentence construction. Perhaps “For these reasons, the violence and widespread destruction of the derecho which hit Corsica in summer 2022 garnered a great deal of public attention”?
Line 51: "IPCC reports do not” rather than “does not”.
Line 78: “source that documents” rather than “source that document”.
Line 87: “this dataset” rather than “this datasets”.
Line 89: “reanalysis datasets” rather than “reanalyses datasets”.
Line 101: “partially addressed” rather than “partially address”.
Line 196: Should read “is given in Table 1”.
Line 204: “casts” should be “coasts”.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2023-8-RC2
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', Lucas Fery, 12 May 2023
  Thank you for your review of our paper "Changes in synoptic circulations associated with documented derechos over France in the past 70 years". We appreciate your comments and suggestions. Below are point-by-point answers.
  We would like to address the major comment regarding the use of low-pressure systems as a proxy for derecho occurrence. While we acknowledge the limitations of this approach, we believe it is a reasonable method given the available data and resources. We agree that other factors contribute to derecho formation, but the focus of this study is on synoptic circulations and their changes over time, rather than mesoscale or smaller-scale processes. We will revise the manuscript to stress the focus on synoptic conditions more and describe further the limitations of the link made between derecho and low pressure systems. We will also consider including other parameters such as the 500 hPa geopotential height, model-derived PV anomaly, wind shear, and stability parameters which are relevant and useful for investigating derechos.
  
  Minor comments and typos : Regarding the minor comments, we appreciate the reviewer's suggestions for improving the clarity of the manuscript. We will revise the paragraph in lines 40-48 to include appropriate citations. We will also clarify the representation of the thermometers in Figure 1 and correct the typos in Figure 2 and in the text.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2023-8-AC2
EC1:
'Comment on wcd-2023-8', Peter Knippertz, 21 Apr 2023

Dear authors,
I have now intensively studied the two reviews and the manuscript itself.
Unfortunately I have come to the conclusion to discourage a resubmission of a revised manuscript.
I find the issues raised by the reviewers too fundamental to be fixed in a standard revision. To address them properly, you would need a profoundly different approach (use station data, use information from the mid-troposphere, consider wind rather than or in addition to rain, re-think your sampling strategy, rethink climate variability aspects, rework the interpretaiton of the results). To my mind, this would simply not be the same manuscript anymore.
So my suggestion is to reject the manuscript at this point. If you feel that you can satisfy all the criticism of the reviewers satisfactorily, it would be conceivable for me to write a new manuscript and submit it to WCD but I image the work needed to do so to be quite substantial.
Best regards,
Peter Knippertz

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2023-8-EC1
- AC3:
  'Reply on EC1', Lucas Fery, 12 May 2023
  
  Dear Dr Knippertz,
  Thank you for your review of our manuscript and the comments from the two reviewers. We appreciate the time and effort you took to assess our work.
  We understand your conclusion that the issues raised by the reviewers are fundamental and require a different approach to address them properly. However, we would like to inform you that we have already downloaded the additional datasets required (IMERG and EOBS) and that we have made a request to use station data from Météo-France. We are willing to make substantial changes to the methodology and interpretation of our results.
  We appreciate your suggestion to reject the manuscript, but we would like to request the opportunity to submit a revised version within the due time. We believe that we can satisfy all the criticism of the reviewers by improving the quality of our data, revising the sampling strategy and taking into account the climate variability aspects.
  We are also pleased to hear that one of the referees was positive about our work and we would like to take their suggestion to revise the angle of our article. We believe that a more focused and structured approach will help to better highlight the contribution of our work to the scientific community.
  Thank you again for your feedback and guidance throughout this process.
  Best regards,
  Lucas Fery and Davide Faranda
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2023-8-AC3
  - EC2: 'Reply on AC3', Peter Knippertz, 14 May 2023
    
    Dear authors,
    thank you for yor willingness to substantially revise and extent this paper.
    I have now discussed the matter with the cheif editor, Heini Wernli, and we have decided not to reject the manuscript but to allow a revision along the lines you have indicated.
    We would like to point out, however, that even a very substantial revision is, of course, not a guarantee for later acceptance.
    Taking into account the current and other submissions to this journal from your working group, we have the impression that you tend to submit your work somewhat prematurely. We all understand the general pressure, particularly on early-career scientists, to publish a lot and quickly, but please consider that premature submission creates a lot of extra work to editors and reviewers that give their time freely to support the peer review process. Please consider this point carefully in your next submission to this and any other journal!
    Best regards and good luck for the revision!
    Peter
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2023-8-EC2

Lucas Fery and Davide Faranda

Viewed

Total article views: 507 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
343	141	23	507	4	4

HTML: 343
PDF: 141
XML: 23
Total: 507
BibTeX: 4
EndNote: 4

Views and downloads (calculated since 27 Feb 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Feb 2023	40	16	2	58
Mar 2023	73	28	2	103
Apr 2023	81	27	6	114
May 2023	68	20	12	100
Jun 2023	15	10	0	25
Jul 2023	17	13	0	30
Aug 2023	21	14	0	35
Sep 2023	28	13	1	42

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 27 Feb 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Feb 2023	40	16	2	58
Mar 2023	73	28	2	103
Apr 2023	81	27	6	114
May 2023	68	20	12	100
Jun 2023	15	10	0	25
Jul 2023	17	13	0	30
Aug 2023	21	14	0	35
Sep 2023	28	13	1	42

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 462 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 462 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 26 Sep 2023

Short summary

In this article, we analyse recent derechos, a type of severe windstorm, in France and assess the role of climate change in modifying their characteristics. To do so, we identify eleven events in the past and compare patterns of atmospheric circulation similar to those that triggered these events in a distant past (1950–1979), when warming was just beginning, and in the recent past (1993–2022). For most cases, precipitation are found to increase significantly because of higher temperatures.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0