Ideally, the results from models operating at different scales should agree in trend direction and magnitude of impacts under climate change. However, this implies that the sensitivity to climate ...variability and climate change is comparable for impact models designed for either scale. In this study, we compare hydrological changes simulated by 9 global and 9 regional hydrological models (HM) for 11 large river basins in all continents under reference and scenario conditions. The foci are on model validation runs, sensitivity of annual discharge to climate variability in the reference period, and sensitivity of the long-term average monthly seasonal dynamics to climate change. One major result is that the global models, mostly not calibrated against observations, often show a considerable bias in mean monthly discharge, whereas regional models show a better reproduction of reference conditions. However, the sensitivity of the two HM ensembles to climate variability is in general similar. The simulated climate change impacts in terms of long-term average monthly dynamics evaluated for HM ensemble medians and spreads show that the medians are to a certain extent comparable in some cases, but have distinct differences in other cases, and the spreads related to global models are mostly notably larger. Summarizing, this implies that global HMs are useful tools when looking at large-scale impacts of climate change and variability. Whenever impacts for a specific river basin or region are of interest, e.g. for complex water management applications, the regional-scale models calibrated and validated against observed discharge should be used.
This paper interprets differences in flood hazard projections over Europe and identifies likely sources of discrepancy. Further, it discusses potential implications of these differences for flood ...risk reduction and adaptation to climate change. The discrepancy in flood hazard projections raises caution, especially among decision makers in charge of water resources management, flood risk reduction, and climate change adaptation at regional to local scales. Because it is naïve to expect availability of trustworthy quantitative projections of future flood hazard, in order to reduce flood risk one should focus attention on mapping of current and future risks and vulnerability hotspots and improve the situation there. Although an intercomparison of flood hazard projections is done in this paper and differences are identified and interpreted, it does not seems possible to recommend which large-scale studies may be considered most credible in particular areas of Europe.
EDITOR D. Koutsoyiannis
ASSOCIATE EDITOR not assigned
Future changes in runoff can have important implications for water resources and flooding. In this study, runoff projections from ISI-MIP (Inter-sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project) ...simulations forced with HadGEM2-ES bias-corrected climate data under the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 have been analysed for differences between impact models. Projections of change from a baseline period (1981–2010) to the future (2070–2099) from 12 impacts models which contributed to the hydrological and biomes sectors of ISI-MIP were studied. The biome models differed from the hydrological models by the inclusion of CO2 impacts and most also included a dynamic vegetation distribution. The biome and hydrological models agreed on the sign of runoff change for most regions of the world. However, in West Africa, the hydrological models projected drying, and the biome models a moistening. The biome models tended to produce larger increases and smaller decreases in regionally averaged runoff than the hydrological models, although there is large inter-model spread. The timing of runoff change was similar, but there were differences in magnitude, particularly at peak runoff. The impact of vegetation distribution change was much smaller than the projected change over time, while elevated CO2 had an effect as large as the magnitude of change over time projected by some models in some regions. The effect of CO2 on runoff was not consistent across the models, with two models showing increases and two decreases. There was also more spread in projections from the runs with elevated CO2 than with constant CO2. The biome models which gave increased runoff from elevated CO2 were also those which differed most from the hydrological models. Spatially, regions with most difference between model types tended to be projected to have most effect from elevated CO2, and seasonal differences were also similar, so elevated CO2 can partly explain the differences between hydrological and biome model runoff change projections. Therefore, this shows that a range of impact models should be considered to give the full range of uncertainty in impacts studies.
The aim of our study was to use the coupled climate-carbon cycle model HadCM3C to quantify climate impact of ecosystem changes over recent decades and under future scenarios, due to changes in both ...atmospheric CO2 and surface albedo. We use two future scenarios – the IPCC SRES A1B scenario, and a climate stabilisation scenario (2C20), allowing us to assess the impact of climate mitigation on results. We performed a pair of simulations under each scenario – one in which vegetation was fixed at the initial state and one in which vegetation changes dynamically in response to climate change, as determined by the interactive vegetation model within HadCM3C. In our simulations with interactive vegetation, relatively small changes in global vegetation coverage were found, mainly dominated by increases in shrub and needleleaf trees at high latitudes and losses of broadleaf trees and grasses across the Amazon. Globally this led to a loss of terrestrial carbon, mainly from the soil. Global changes in carbon storage were related to the regional losses from the Amazon and gains at high latitude. Regional differences in carbon storage between the two scenarios were largely driven by the balance between warming-enhanced decomposition and altered vegetation growth. Globally, interactive vegetation reduced albedo acting to enhance albedo changes due to climate change. This was mainly related to the darker land surface over high latitudes (due to vegetation expansion, particularly during December–January and March–May); small increases in albedo occurred over the Amazon. As a result, there was a relatively small impact of vegetation change on most global annual mean climate variables, which was generally greater under A1B than 2C20, with markedly stronger local-to-regional and seasonal impacts. Globally, vegetation change amplified future annual temperature increases by 0.24 and 0.15 K (under A1B and 2C20, respectively) and increased global precipitation, with reductions in precipitation over the Amazon and increases over high latitudes. In general, changes were stronger over land – for example, global temperature changes due to interactive vegetation of 0.43 and 0.28 K under A1B and 2C20, respectively. Regionally, the warming influence of future vegetation change in our simulations was driven by the balance between driving factors. For instance, reduced tree cover over the Amazon reduced evaporation (particularly during June–August), outweighing the cooling influence of any small albedo changes. In contrast, at high latitudes the warming impact of reduced albedo (particularly during December–February and March–May) due to increased vegetation cover appears to have offset any cooling due to small evaporation increases. Climate mitigation generally reduced the impact of vegetation change on future global and regional climate in our simulations. Our study therefore suggests that there is a need to consider both biogeochemical and biophysical effects in climate adaptation and mitigation decision making.
Water scarcity severely impairs food security and economic prosperity in many countries today. Expected future population changes will, in many countries as well as globally, increase the pressure on ...available water resources. On the supply side, renewable water resources will be affected by projected changes in precipitation patterns, temperature, and other climate variables. Here we use a large ensemble of global hydrological models (GHMs) forced by five global climate models and the latest greenhouse-gas concentration scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways) to synthesize the current knowledge about climate change impacts on water resources. We show that climate change is likely to exacerbate regional and global water scarcity considerably. In particular, the ensemble average projects that a global warming of 2 °C above present (approximately 2.7 °C above preindustrial) will confront an additional approximate 15% of the global population with a severe decrease in water resources and will increase the number of people living under absolute water scarcity (<500 m3 per capita per year) by another 40% (according to some models, more than 100%) compared with the effect of population growth alone. For some indicators of moderate impacts, the steepest increase is seen between the present day and 2 °C, whereas indicators of very severe impacts increase unabated beyond 2 °C. At the same time, the study highlights large uncertainties associated with these estimates, with both global climate models and GHMs contributing to the spread. GHM uncertainty is particularly dominant in many regions affected by declining water resources, suggesting a high potential for improved water resource projections through hydrological model development.
Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are expected to modify the global water cycle with significant consequences for terrestrial hydrology. We assess the impact of climate ...change on hydrological droughts in a multimodel experiment including seven global impact models (GIMs) driven by bias-corrected climate from five global climate models under four representative concentration pathways (RCPs). Drought severity is defined as the fraction of land under drought conditions. Results show a likely increase in the global severity of hydrological drought at the end of the 21st century, with systematically greater increases for RCPs describing stronger radiative forcings. Under RCP8.5, droughts exceeding 40% of analyzed land area are projected by nearly half of the simulations. This increase in drought severity has a strong signal-to-noise ratio at the global scale, and Southern Europe, the Middle East, the Southeast United States, Chile, and South West Australia are identified as possible hotspots for future water security issues. The uncertainty due to GIMs is greater than that from global climate models, particularly if including a GIM that accounts for the dynamic response of plants to CO ₂ and climate, as this model simulates little or no increase in drought frequency. Our study demonstrates that different representations of terrestrial water-cycle processes in GIMs are responsible for a much larger uncertainty in the response of hydrological drought to climate change than previously thought. When assessing the impact of climate change on hydrology, it is therefore critical to consider a diverse range of GIMs to better capture the uncertainty.
Quantitative estimates of the economic damages of climate change usually are based on aggregate relationships linking average temperature change to loss in gross domestic product (GDP). However, ...there is a clear need for further detail in the regional and sectoral dimensions of impact assessments to design and prioritize adaptation strategies. New developments in regional climate modeling and physical-impact modeling in Europe allow a better exploration of those dimensions. This article quantifies the potential consequences of climate change in Europe in four market impact categories (agriculture, river floods, coastal areas, and tourism) and one nonmarket impact (human health). The methodology integrates a set of coherent, high-resolution climate change projections and physical models into an economic modeling framework. We find that if the climate of the 2080s were to occur today, the annual loss in household welfare in the European Union (EU) resulting from the four market impacts would range between 0.2-1%. If the welfare loss is assumed to be constant over time, climate change may halve the EU's annual welfare growth. Scenarios with warmer temperatures and a higher rise in sea level result in more severe economic damage. However, the results show that there are large variations across European regions. Southern Europe, the British Isles, and Central Europe North appear most sensitive to climate change. Northern Europe, on the other hand, is the only region with net economic benefits, driven mainly by the positive effects on agriculture. Coastal systems, agriculture, and river flooding are the most important of the four market impacts assessed.
Dynamical model skill in forecasting extratropical precipitation is limited beyond the medium-range (around 15 d), but such models are often more skilful at predicting atmospheric variables. We ...explore the potential benefits of using weather pattern (WP) predictions as an intermediary step in forecasting UK precipitation and meteorological drought on sub-seasonal timescales. Mean sea-level pressure forecasts from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts ensemble prediction system (ECMWF-EPS) are post-processed into probabilistic WP predictions. Then we derive precipitation estimates and dichotomous drought event probabilities by sampling from the conditional distributions of precipitation given the WPs. We compare this model to the direct precipitation and drought forecasts from the ECMWF-EPS and to a baseline
Markov chain WP method. A perfect-prognosis model is also tested to illustrate the potential of WPs in forecasting. Using a range of skill
diagnostics, we find that the Markov model is the least skilful, while the
dynamical WP model and direct precipitation forecasts have similar accuracy
independent of lead time and season. However, drought forecasts are more
reliable for the dynamical WP model. Forecast skill scores are generally
modest (rarely above 0.4), although those for the perfect-prognosis model
highlight the potential predictability of precipitation and drought using WPs, with certain situations yielding skill scores of almost 0.8 and
drought event hit and false alarm rates of 70 % and 30 %, respectively.
For the purpose of assessing flood hazard in the Upper Danube Basin in Central Europe under current and projected future climate conditions, we evaluated data from a recent experiment with the ...regional climate model HIRHAM at a horizontal resolution of approximately 12
km. The climate simulations were used to drive the hydrological model LISFLOOD and the results were compared with observations of precipitation and river discharge in the area. To explore the benefits of using these very high-resolution data, we also included the results of two HIRHAM experiments at a lower resolution of ∼50
km in our comparison. It was found that the 12-km data represent the orographic precipitation patterns and the extreme rainfall events over the Upper Danube Basin better than the low-resolution 50-km data. However, the average precipitation rates are generally higher than observed, while the extreme precipitation levels are mostly underestimated. Using the HIRHAM data as input into the LISFLOOD model resulted in a realistic simulation of the average discharge regime in the Upper Danube. In most rivers the 12-km data also led to a better representation of extreme discharge levels, although the performance was still poor in two relatively small rivers originating in the Alps. At larger spatial scales much of the differences and uncertainties between the high- and low-resolution climate data and the observations are averaged out, resulting in a more or less similar performance of the hydrological model, but at the local and sub-basin scale the 12-km data yield better results. The scenario simulations suggest that future climate changes will have an influence on the discharge regime and may increase the flood hazard in large parts of the Upper Danube Basin.
PDF
