Sandbanks for coastal protection: implications of sea-level rise Part 2: current and morphological modelling��

Cui-Ping Kuang, Peter Stansby February 2006

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

Working Paper 87

Sandbanks for coastal protection: implications of sea-level rise Part 2: current and morphological modelling
Cui-Ping Kuang, Peter Stansby

Manchester Centre for Civil and Construction Engineering, UMIST, Manchester M60 1QD, UK

Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 87

SUMMARY The finite-element shallow-water solver TELEMAC-2D is applied to tidal flows in a region off the coast of East Anglia, UK, as shown in Part 1, for a period of 216 hours in year 2000. Boundary conditions for surface elevation and depth-averaged velocity are provided by the UK continental shelf model CS3 of the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, which uses a grid with about 11 km in the longitudinal and 18 km in the latitudinal directions. Digitised bathymetry from Admiralty charts was provided by METOC Ltd. under license. There is good prediction of tidal level measurement at Lowestoft provided by the British Oceanographic Data Centre. The sediment transport module SISYPHE is used to model morphodynamic change, assuming zero sediment flux gradient at the outer boundaries. Results showed a small net increase in sediment volume in the region, but importantly showed local regions of marked accretion on certain sandbanks, notably Scroby bank, mainly due to suspended sediment transport. The effect of Coriolis forcing is investigated. The aim of this Part is: to describe the methodology, including data management; deduce, as far as possible, the significant physical phenomena; determine qualitative effects; and discuss modelling limitations.

1. INTRODUCTION In this Part we are concerned with the methodology for sediment transport and morphodynamics driven by tidal currents for a coastal region off East Anglia, UK. In Part 1 results showed how increasing the bed level of sandbanks could be a means of increasing the dissipation of wave energy important with sea-level rise. This bed level increase might, for example, be achieved by dumping dredged material. It is important that such material is not eroded away and, if tidal action causes accretion, this can only happen due to wave action. The prediction of sediment transport on sandbanks due to wave action remains quite uncertain, e.g. Williams et al.1. Although sediment transport due to tidal action is a more mature area of prediction, there are still uncertainties and in this study we are interested in relative, rather than accurate quantitative, predictions.

The finite-element TELEMAC software system is used. The unstructured mesh with triangular cells is readily adapted to arbitrary geometries. The software was developed by

the National Hydraulics Laboratory (LNH) of the Research and Studies Directorate of the French Electricity Board (EDF-DER) and is licensed in the UK through HR Wallingford. The TELEMAC system provides grid generation, solvers for current and wave flows and for sediment transport and morphodynamics, and data processing, for shallow-water flows typical of fluvial, estuarine and coastal domains. For tidal currents the depthaveraged code TELEMAC-2D is used. The module SISYPHE is used for sediment transport.

2. THEORY OF CURRENT MODELLING 2.1. Mathematical Formulation The two-dimensional Saint-Venant equations are solved by TELEMAC-2D. They are derived from the Navier-Stokes and continuity equations by taking vertical averages. This necessitates the assumptions of hydrostatic pressure and negligible vertical acceleration. The water depth and the depth-averaged velocity are the main variables, with empirical formulations for turbulence effects. A Cartesian reference frame (Shown in Figure 1, see Appendix) is used, where the x and y axes define the horizontal plane and gravity acts in the negative z direction. The equations are solved in non-conservation form, which can be expressed as:

Continuity:
→ → ∂h → + u grad (h) + h div ( u ) = 0 ∂t

Momentum:
→ ∂u ∂u ∂u ∂Z 1 +u +v = −g + Fx + div(hν e grad u ) ∂t ∂x ∂y ∂x h → ∂v ∂v ∂v ∂Z 1 + u + v = −g + Fy + div(hν e grad v) ∂t ∂x ∂y ∂y h

where h, u and v are water depth and velocity components in x and y directions respectively. Z is the free surface elevation. ν e is the (kinematic) eddy viscosity defining horizontal diffusion, and often also represents the effect of dispersion (due to the vertical

variation of velocity). Fx and Fy are forces in x and y directions, including bottom friction, Coriolis forcing and the influence of the wind and atmospheric pressure.

2.2. Numerical Scheme and Model Parameters The above equations were discretised as finite elements of triangular form and solved using the fractional step method. The first step is for advection, using the SUPG (Stream Upwind Petrov Galerkin) scheme for velocity and a mass conservative scheme without sub-iterations for depth. The second step is for diffusion and source terms (i.e. terms other than the advection terms), using the GMRES (Generalised Minimum RESidual) solver with a Krylov space dimension of 3. An iteration accuracy of 10−4 was used and if this was not achieved within 70 iterations (generally during start up) the computation proceeded to the next step.
−1

For this study a Manning’s coefficient of 0.02 m 3 s for bottom friction will be seen to

give good predictions of tidal levels at Lowestoft. A constant Coriolis force with Coriolis coefficient (f) 1.153×10-4 N m-1 s was used, given by the formula f = 2ϖ sin λ , where ϖ is the angular velocity of the earth with value of 7.292×10-5 rad/s and λ is the average latitude in the computational domain. An implicit coefficient of 0.6 was used for water depth and velocity (1.0 being fully implicit and 0.0 being fully explicit). Mass balance was checked at each time step.

The Elder model is used to represent longitudinal dispersion in the turbulence model for horizontal diffusion with an eddy viscosity coefficient, K l = alU * h , where U * is the friction velocity and al is the longitudinal dispersion coefficient, given a value of 6. Transverse mixing is defined by the depth-averaged eddy viscosity, K t = atU *h with

at = 0.6 . Longitudinal and transverse here are with respect to the local flow direction and
the al and at given are default values.

2.3. Boundary Conditions and Bathymetry

The Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory (POL) provided, under licence, hourly surface levels and velocities at 32 points on the grid shown in Fig.1 of Part 1 from their continental shelf model CS3 for year 2000. Digitised bathymetry from Admiralty charts was provided by METOC Ltd., also under licence. The coastline (assumed to be at the LAT) is derived manually from the digitized bathymetry. The bathymetry data used in the computational domain is derived using a simple self-written Fortran program and changed to SINUSX data format that can be read by MATISSE. The computational mesh and bathymetry data file used by TELEMAC-2D and SISYPHE are created by MATISSE, as shown in Part 1. The datum of water surface level in CS3 is mean sea level (MSL), while the bathymetry datum for this region is the lowest astronomical tide (LAT) level at Lowestoft. A constant of 1.61m is added to surface levels in CS3 to convert from MSL to LAT. This constant is based on tidal levels at Lowestoft since 1976. The surface levels and velocities at all open boundary mesh points (shown in Fig.3 of Part 1) were linearly interpolated from the data of CS3. This may introduce some inconsistency in both water elevation and velocity at the boundary points. This is corrected using the Thompson2 technique giving corrected values of velocity. To cover typical spring and neap tides the simulation is started on 1st August, 2000 at 22.00 hours and finishes on 10th August, 2000 at 19.00 hours, a simulation period of 213 hours. The time step is 20 seconds, giving a maximum Courant number of less than 0.3. The CPU time in a 1GHz Intel Pentium 4 was about 10 hours.

3. APPLICATION OF CURRENT MODELLING TO EAST ANGLIA

The bathymetry and mesh are shown in Figs.2 and 3 of Part 1. Fig.2 shows the comparison of the computed and measured water surface levels at Lowestoft. The measured tidal levels were provided by BODC (British Oceanographic Data Centre). The differences between computed and measured values are less than 6%. Another two simulations with a Manning’s friction coefficient of 0.015 m 3 s and 0.025 m 3 s were made, giving a difference in computed water surface levels of less than 10%, indicating that these results are quite insensitive to Manning’s friction coefficient in this range. The computed water levels and velocities at 8 selected internal points (shown in Figs.1 and 2 of Part 1) are shown in Fig.3 for comparison with those from the CS3 model. The tidal
−1 −1

period is about 12.5 hours. In general the maximum ebb velocities occur within one hour either side of low tides on the South/North boundaries and the maximum flood velocities within one hour of high tides on these boundaries. The maximum differences in velocity magnitude are less than 4% except at points 6 and 8, where they are about 10% and 15% respectively. There is complex bathymetry around points 6 and 8 (shown in Fig.2 of Part 1) which is less well resolved by the coarse grid of the CS3 model, the grid size being about 15 km, than the TELEMAC-2D mesh which has a grid size of about 1km in this region. The major differences are in the smaller u-components while the much larger vcomponents, which are in the prominent ebb/flood (North/South) directions, are in close agreement. The u-components have a prominent mean component in TELEMAC-2D while the magnitudes of velocity amplitude are very similar in CS3. The u- and vcomponents for both TELEMAC-2D and CS3 are always in phase. Fig.4 shows computed velocity vector fields at four typical times (slack tide from flood to ebb, maximum ebb, slack from ebb to flood, and maximum flood) from TELEMAC-2D. There is some evidence of recirculations and wake behaviour in the Scroby area which is quite complex. This appears to relate to the u-components from TELEMAC-2D being much less than from CS3 which will not resolve such small-scale flow features with its coarse mesh.

4. MORPHODYNAMIC MODELLING 4.1. Mathematical Formulation

The conservation form of the bottom evolution equation is given by

∂Z f ∂t

+ div(Qs ) = 0

where Zf is the bottom elevation and Qs the solid volume transport per unit width as a function of porosity. This is defined by standard sediment transport formulae in which friction velocity is determined from output stored from TELEMAC-2D at hourly intervals. These formulae are strictly valid for equilibrium conditions. The transport is assumed to adapt instantaneously to the driving hydrodynamics without feedback, which is adequate for small changes in bed level. The bed elevation is updated through the above equation, which is solved by the module SISYPHE, at each time step. Meanwhile,

the currents from the TELEMAC-2D data file are also updated. SISYPHE is set up for non-cohesive sediments of uniform size with diameters ranging from 0.1mm to 4 mm.

4.2 Numerical Scheme, Model Parameters and Boundary Conditions

SISYPHE makes use of the same finite-element mesh as TELEMAC-2D. The equation is solved with a predictor-corrector scheme. This scheme can be split into three steps: predictor step, corrector step and final step. The predictor step is solved through a finite element method using the GMRES (Generalised Minimum RESidual) solver with a Krylov space dimension of 3, as used in the second step for diffusion and source terms in current modelling. For the corrector step, the sediment transport can be computed from the assessment of the bottom depth at the end of the time step in the predictor step. The implicit coefficient is again 0.6 as used in TELEMAC-2D. The final step is solved like the predictor step. Based on the reports, “South of North Sea Survey” by British Geological Survey in 19983 and “Understanding the behavior and engineering significance of offshore and coastal sand banks” by HR Wallingford in 20014, the bed sediment varies from sand to sand/gravel in the region of study. We are concerned with the morphodynamics of the Scroby bank which has an average diameter of 0.4 mm and this was assumed for the whole region. The densities of water and sediment are 1000 and 2665 kg/m3 respectively.

The same period in year 2000 was used as for TELEMAC-2D. As stated above, the computed water depth and velocity at each grid node stored for hourly intervals in the results file from TELEMAC-2D were used as the input current condition. A solid boundary was used for the coastline and zero normal gradient sediment flux (free boundary conditions) for the outer boundaries. The region was thus modelled as a box independent of adjoining coastal regions. Although the time step was generally one hour for computation of the bottom elevation, smaller time steps were also tested and showed no effect on the results for sediment transport and bottom evolution.

4.3 Computational Results Using Different Sediment Transport Formulae

The sediment transport modelling was started 6 hours later than the current modelling, and continued for a period of 200 hours, including 8 spring tides and 8 neap tides. The standard Engelund-Hansen formula and Einstein-Brown formula were chosen for sediment transport. The former includes bed load and suspended load, driven by depthaveraged velocities, while the latter only gives bed load. Fig.5 shows computed bed evolution fields (change in bed elevation) at the end of the computation period (after 200 hours), using the Engelund-Hansen formula (Fig.5a) and Einstein-Brown formula (Fig.5b). Both show the major changes on and around the Scroby sandbank; the bed levels increase in some places, and decrease in others. This is demonstrated in Fig.6 which shows time series of bed level evolution at three selected points (triangles in Fig.2 of Part 1) where the bed level increases, decreases, and is almost constant. Fig.7 shows the time series of sediment volume in the whole domain using the Engelund-Hansen formula. It can be seen that the net volume increases as the amount of sediment entering the domain from the outer water body is greater than that leaving the domain. The sediment mainly enters the domain during flood periods and leaves the domain during ebb periods. This is more marked during spring tides. The average bed level growth, averaged over the whole domain, is shown in Table 1. These average bed evolutions for a flood, ebb and tidal period are 0.01952, -0.00942 and 0.01010 mm respectively, over the period of 200 hours. The computed time series of sediment volume in the whole domain using the Einstein-Brown formula is shown in Figure 8 to be similar to that using the Engelund-Hansen formula, but with a much smaller growth rate. The average bed evolutions, averaged over the whole domain, for a flood, ebb and tidal period are 0.00165, 0.00004 and 0.00168 mm respectively. The growth rate for bed load only is thus about 1/6 of the total (due to suspended and bed load). So the suspended sediment entering the domain under flood conditions is major contribution to the overall bed level growth.

It is of interest to test the influence of Coriolis force which is known theoretically to cause accretion of idealized, isolated sandbanks, e.g. Roos and Hulscher5. Coriolis causes a residual circulation around a sandbank with the inwards centrifugal force (towards the middle of the bank) moving sediment inwards. The tidal flow is recomputed with Coriolis

force set to zero in TELEMAC-2D and the morphological changes are computed using the Engelund-Hansen formula. The computed time series of sediment volume in the whole domain is shown in Fig.9. There is a significant difference from that including the Coriolis force. The sediment leaves the domain during the second half of the ebb period and the first half of flood period in spring tides, while it almost always leaves the domain in neap tides. The average bed evolutions, averaged over the whole domain, for a flood, ebb and tidal period are 0.01565, -0.01650 and –0.00085 mm respectively. The Coriolis force thus causes the overall growth rates in the computational domain to be decreased instead of increased.

The average bed level growth over the Scroby sandbank is shown in Table 2 and the average bed level growth over the top of the Scroby sandbank in the range x:5200054000 m, y: 65000-71500 m is shown in Table 3. The comparison of time series of bed evolution with and without Coriolis force at three selected points over Scroby sandbank using the Engelund-Hansen formula is shown in Fig.10. It shows the Coriolis force causes slightly increased accretion over the Scroby sandbank. The average bed level growth over the offshore sandbank (north) and over the nearshore sandbank (south) is given in Table 4 and 5. The computed sediment volume and average evolution over the offshore sandbank (north) and nearshore sandbank (south) are shown in Fig.11.

The effect of mesh size is also tested. Fig.12 shows of time series of sediment volume and average bed evolution above the –5 m level on the Scroby sandbank using the fine mesh (as generally used in this paper), middle or intermediate mesh ( where the cell size varies from 360-1530m) and a coarse mesh (with a cell size of about 1000 m). The results for the fine and intermediate mesh are quite close, indicating numerical convergence, while those for the coarse mesh are markedly different. This is consistent with the wake/recirculating flows around sandbanks being resolved by the finer meshes but not by the coarse mesh.

For the assumed a sea-level rise of 1 m, the computed time series of sediment volume and average bed evolution above the –5 m level on the Scroby sandbank is shown in Fig.13.

The average bed evolutions for a flood, ebb and tidal period are changed from –0.591 to – 0.646 mm, -0.708 to –0.511 mm and –1.299 to –1.158 mm respectively.

Table 1. Computed average bed growth rate (mm/period) on the whole computational domain Cases Flood period Ebb period Tidal period

Engelund-Hansen formula with Coriolis force

0.01952

-0.00942

0.01010

Einstein-Brown formula with Coriolis force Engelund-Hansen formula without Coriolis force

0.00165 0.01565

0.00004 -0.01650

0.00168 -0.00085

Table 2. Computed average bed growth rate (mm/period) on the Scroby sandbank Cases Flood period Ebb period Tidal period

Engelund-Hansen formula with Coriolis force

-0.591

-0.708

-1.299

Einstein-Brown formula with Coriolis force Engelund-Hansen formula without Coriolis force

-0.369 -0.746

-0.128 -0.551

-0.497 -1.297

Table 3. Computed average bed growth rate (mm/period) on the top part of the Scroby sandbank Cases Flood period Ebb period Tidal period

Engelund-Hansen formula with Coriolis force

0.204

0.234

0.438

Einstein-Brown formula with Coriolis force Engelund-Hansen formula without Coriolis force

0.0450 0.206

0.133 0.243

0.178 0.448

Table 4. Computed average bed growth rate (mm/period) on the offshore (north) sandbank Cases Flood period Ebb period Tidal period

Engelund-Hansen formula with Coriolis force

-1.062

-1.256

-2.318

Einstein-Brown formula with Coriolis force Engelund-Hansen formula without Coriolis force

-0.429 -0.848

-0.911 -1.066

-1.330 -1.913

Table 5. Computed average bed growth rate (mm/period) on the nearshore (south) sandbank Cases Flood period Ebb period Tidal period

Engelund-Hansen formula with Coriolis force

-0.210

-0.187

-0.397

Einstein-Brown formula with Coriolis force Engelund-Hansen formula without Coriolis force

-0.087 -0.148

-0.145 -0.113

-0.192 -0.261

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Tidal flow simulations have been undertaken for a coastal region off East Anglia using boundary conditions from the UK continental shelf model CS3 of POL and digitized Admiralty bathymetry from METOC Ltd, both available under licence. The vertical datum is different for both, being MSL for CS3 and LAT for the bathymetry. This was not a problem for the region under consideration as the LAT datum for Lowestoft applies everywhere. However difficulties can arise where different LAT datums apply within a region and the boundaries are not clear. These input data were assimulated by TELEMAC-2D which produced accurate predictions of tidal levels measured at Lowestoft (available from BODC), with a constant Manning friction coefficient of 0.02 m 3 s . While such accurate prediction may appear reassuring, further data, particularly velocity data, is necessary for more complete assessment. It is notable that in a local area of relatively shallow flow over complex bathymetry, over the Scroby Bank, wake/recirculation type flows were sometimes observed with TELEMAC-2D but not with the CS3 model with a much coarser mesh. The details of such flows clearly affect sediment transport and morphodynamics and it is stressed that, for this study, we are concerned with qualitative effects, in particular whether sandbanks, or parts thereof, accrete or erode. The sediment transport/morphodynamics study using the SISYPHE module, driven by TELEMAC-2D, shows that sediment load is mainly suspended rather than bed load. Coriolis forcing has an effect on the average accretion within the whole domain and can increase accretion slightly in shallow-water areas. There are local areas on Scroby bank, which accrete significantly and are thus most suitable as a first choice for sediment dumping to increase bed level for potential coastal protection from wave action. However there appears to be no well-defined experimental data on such sandbank morphodynamics for the validation of numerical models. Notably Stansby6 has shown how wake behaviour can be quite sensitive to length scales in 3-D turbulence modelling and this will influence morphodynamics. Of course TELEMAC-2D has a simplistic approach to turbulence, appropriate for large-scale regional modeling, and the numerical convergence achieved here should not be confused with simulation accuracy.
−1

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work (Tyndall project IT 1.37) is part of a larger project ‘towards an integrated regional coastal simulator for the impact of sea-level rise in East Anglia’ and has been funded through the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

7. REFERENCES

1. Williams, J.J., MacDonald, N.J., O’Connor,B.A. and Pan.S 2000 Offshore sand bank dynamics, J. Marine Systems, 24, 153-173.

2. Thompson, K.W., 1987 Time dependent boundary conditions for hyperbolic systems. J. Comp. Phys., 68, pp 1-24.

3. Evans C.D.R., Crosby A., Wingfield R.T.R., James, J.W.C., Slater M.P. and Newsham R. Inshore seabed characterization of selected sectors of the English coast. British Geological Survey, 1998, Technical Report WB/98/45.

4. Whitehouse R.J.S. Understanding the behavior and engineering significance of offshore and coastal sand banks. HR Wallingford, 2001, Report SR 512 5.Roos,P.C. and Hulscher,S.J.M.H. 2002 Finite amplitude sandbanks, 28th Int. Conf. On Coastal Engineering, ASCE, Cardiff.

6. Stansby, P.K. 2003 A mixing length model for shallow turbulent wakes, to appear J. Fluid Mech., also IAHR Symp. On Shallow Flows, Delft, 16-18 June.

APPENDIX

Z

h: water

Z: free surface elevation

Y Zf: bottom elevation X

Fig.1 Schematic diagram of Cartesian coordination system

Fig.2. Comparison of computed and measured (from BODC) water surface levels at Lowestoft

Fig.3. Comparison of computed water surface levels and velocities with those from CS3 at selected points 1 to 8, shown in Fig.1 in Part 1.

Fig.4. Computed velocity field at four typical times (slack from flood to ebb, maximum ebb, slack from ebb to flood, maximum flood)

(a)

(b)

Fig.5. Bed evolution field at T = 206 h: a) using the Engelund-Hansen formula; b) using the Einstein-Brown formula

Fig.6. Time series of bed evolution at three selected points around Scroby sandbank, shown by triangles in Fig.2 in Part 1, using the Engelund-Hansen formula.

Fig.7. Time series of sediment volumes in the entire domain using the Engelund-Hansen formula.

Fig.8. Time series of sediment volumes in the entire domain using the Einstein-Brown formula.

Fig.9. Time series of sediment volumes in the entire domain using the Engelund-Hansen formula without Coriolis forcing.

Fig.10 Comparison of time series of bed evolution with and without Coriolis forcing at three selected points over Scroby sandbank, shown by triangles in Fig.2 in Part1, using the Engelund-Hansen formula.

Fig.11 Time series of computed sediment volume, above the –5m level, and average bed level over the offshore sandbank (north) and nearshore sandbank (south)

Fig.12 Comparison of time series of sediment volume, above the –5m level, and average bed level on the Scroby sandbank using the fine, middle (intermediate) and coarse mesh.

Fig.13 Comparison of time series of sediment volume, above the –5m level, and average bed evolution on the Scroby sandbank with tidal levels of year 2000 and with a superimposed sea level rise of 1 m.

The trans-disciplinary Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research undertakes integrated research into the long-term consequences of climate change for society and into the development of sustainable responses that governments, business-leaders and decision-makers can evaluate and implement. Achieving these objectives brings together UK climate scientists, social scientists, engineers and economists in a unique collaborative research effort. Research at the Tyndall Centre is organised into four research themes that collectively contribute to all aspects of the climate change issue: Integrating Frameworks; Decarbonising Modern Societies; Adapting to Climate Change; and Sustaining the Coastal Zone. All thematic fields address a clear problem posed to society by climate change, and will generate results to guide the strategic development of climate change mitigation and adaptation policies at local, national and global scales. The Tyndall Centre is named after the 19th century UK scientist John Tyndall, who was the first to prove the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in atmospheric composition could bring about climate variations. In addition, he was committed to improving the quality of science education and knowledge. The Tyndall Centre is a partnership of the following institutions: University of East Anglia UMIST Southampton Oceanography Centre University of Southampton University of Cambridge Centre for Ecology and Hydrology SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research (University of Sussex) Institute for Transport Studies (University of Leeds) Complex Systems Management Centre (Cranfield University) Energy Research Unit (CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory) The Centre is core funded by the following organisations: Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) UK Government Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) For more information, visit the Tyndall Centre Web site (www.tyndall.ac.uk) or contact: Communications Manager Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK Phone: +44 (0) 1603 59 3900; Fax: +44 (0) 1603 59 3901 Email: tyndall@uea.ac.uk

Tyndall Working Papers are available online at http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/working_papers.shtml Mitchell, T. and Hulme, M. (2000). A Country-byCountry Analysis of Past and Future Warming Rates, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 1. Hulme, M. (2001). Integrated Assessment Models, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 2. Berkhout, F, Hertin, J. and Jordan, A. J. (2001). Socio-economic futures in climate change impact assessment: using scenarios as 'learning machines', Tyndall Centre Working Paper 3. Barker, T. and Ekins, P. (2001). How High are the Costs of Kyoto for the US Economy?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 4. Barnett, J. (2001). The issue of 'Adverse Effects and the Impacts of Response Measures' in the UNFCCC, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 5. Goodess, C.M., Hulme, M. and Osborn, T. (2001). The identification and evaluation of suitable scenario development methods for the estimation of future probabilities of extreme weather events, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 6. Barnett, J. (2001). Security and Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 7. Adger, W. N. (2001). Social Capital and Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 8. Barnett, J. and Adger, W. N. (2001). Climate Dangers and Atoll Countries, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 9. Gough, C., Taylor, I. and Shackley, S. (2001). Burying Carbon under the Sea: An Initial Exploration of Public Opinions, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 10. Barker, T. (2001). Representing the Integrated Assessment of Climate Change, Adaptation and Mitigation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 11. Dessai, S., (2001). The climate regime from The Hague to Marrakech: Saving or sinking the Kyoto Protocol?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 12. Dewick, P., Green K., Miozzo, M., (2002). Technological Change, Industry Structure and the Environment, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 13. Shackley, S. and Gough, C., (2002). The Use of Integrated Assessment: An Institutional Analysis Perspective, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 14. Köhler, J.H., (2002). Long run technical change in an energy-environment-economy (E3) model for an IA system: A model of Kondratiev waves, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 15. Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, D. and Hulme, M. (2002). Adaptation to climate change: Setting the Agenda for Development Policy and Research, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 16. Dutton, G., (2002). Hydrogen Energy Technology, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 17. Watson, J. (2002). The development of large technical systems: implications for hydrogen, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 18. Pridmore, A. and Bristow, A., (2002). The role of hydrogen in powering road transport, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 19. Turnpenny, J. (2002). Reviewing organisational use of scenarios: Case study - evaluating UK energy policy options, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 20. Watson, W. J. (2002). Renewables and CHP Deployment in the UK to 2020, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 21. Watson, W.J., Hertin, J., Randall, T., Gough, C. (2002). Renewable Energy and Combined Heat and Power Resources in the UK, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 22. Paavola, J. and Adger, W.N. (2002). Justice and adaptation to climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 23. Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. (2002). Impact of Integrating Renewables and CHP into the UK Transmission Network, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 24 Xueguang Wu, Mutale, J., Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. (2003). An investigation of Network Splitting for Fault Level Reduction, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 25 Brooks, N. and Adger W.N. (2003). Country level risk measures of climate-related natural disasters and implications for adaptation to climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 26 Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2003). Building resilience to climate change through adaptive management of natural resources, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 27

Dessai, S., Adger, W.N., Hulme, M., Köhler, J.H., Turnpenny, J. and Warren, R. (2003). Defining and experiencing dangerous climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 28 Brown, K. and Corbera, E. (2003). A MultiCriteria Assessment Framework for CarbonMitigation Projects: Putting “development” in the centre of decision-making, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 29 Hulme, M. (2003). Abrupt climate change: can society cope?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 30 Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine A. and O’Riordan, T. (2003). A scoping study of UK user needs for managing climate futures. Part 1 of the pilotphase interactive integrated assessment process (Aurion Project), Tyndall Centre Working Paper 31 Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. (2003). Integrating Renewables and CHP into the UK Electricity System: Investigation of the impact of network faults on the stability of large offshore wind farms, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32 Pridmore, A., Bristow, A.L., May, A. D. and Tight, M.R. (2003). Climate Change, Impacts, Future Scenarios and the Role of Transport, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 33 Dessai, S., Hulme, M (2003). Does climate policy need probabilities?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 34 Tompkins, E. L. and Hurlston, L. (2003). Report to the Cayman Islands’ Government. Adaptation lessons learned from responding to tropical cyclones by the Cayman Islands’ Government, 1988 – 2002, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 35 Kröger, K. Fergusson, M. and Skinner, I. (2003). Critical Issues in Decarbonising Transport: The Role of Technologies, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 36 Ingham, A. and Ulph, A. (2003) Uncertainty, Irreversibility, Precaution and the Social Cost of Carbon, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 37 Brooks, N. (2003). Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: a conceptual framework, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 38 Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2003). Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 39

Klein, R.J.T., Lisa Schipper, E. and Dessai, S. (2003), Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 40 Watson, J. (2003), UK Electricity Scenarios for 2050, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 41 Kim, J. A. (2003), Sustainable Development and the CDM: A South African Case Study, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 42 Anderson, D. and Winne, S. (2003), Innovation and Threshold Effects in Technology Responses to Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 43 Shackley, S., McLachlan, C. and Gough, C. (2004) The Public Perceptions of Carbon Capture and Storage, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 44 Purdy, R. and Macrory, R. (2004) Geological carbon sequestration: critical legal issues, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 45 Watson, J., Tetteh, A., Dutton, G., Bristow, A., Kelly, C., Page, M. and Pridmore, A., (2004) UK Hydrogen Futures to 2050, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 46 Berkhout, F., Hertin, J. and Gann, D. M., (2004) Learning to adapt: Organisational adaptation to climate change impacts, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 47 Pan, H. (2004) The evolution of economic structure under technological development, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 48 Awerbuch, S. (2004) Restructuring our electricity networks to promote decarbonisation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 49 Powell, J.C., Peters, M.D., Ruddell, A. & Halliday, J. (2004) Fuel Cells for a Sustainable Future? Tyndall Centre Working Paper 50 Agnolucci, P., Barker, T. & Ekins, P. (2004) Hysteresis and energy demand: the Announcement Effects and the effects of the UK climate change levy, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 51 Agnolucci, P. (2004) Ex post evaluations of CO2 –Based Taxes: A Survey, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 52

Agnolucci, P. & Ekins, P. (2004) The Announcement Effect and environmental taxation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 53 Turnpenny, J., Carney, S., Haxeltine, A., & O’Riordan, T. (2004) Developing regional and local scenarios for climate change mitigation and adaptation, Part 1: A framing of the East of England, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 54 Mitchell, T.D. Carter, T.R., Jones, .P.D, Hulme, M. and New, M. (2004) A comprehensive set of high-resolution grids of monthly climate for Europe and the globe: the observed record (1901-2000) and 16 scenarios (2001-2100), Tyndall Centre Working Paper 55 Vincent, K. (2004) Creating an index of social vulnerability to climate change for Africa, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 56 Shackley, S., Reiche, A. and Mander, S (2004) The Public Perceptions of Underground Coal Gasification (UCG): A Pilot Study, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 57 Bray, D and Shackley, S. (2004) The Social Simulation of The Public Perceptions of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 58 Anderson, D and Winne, S. (2004) Modelling Innovation and Threshold Effects In Climate Change Mitigation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 59 Few, R., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E.L. (2004) Scaling adaptation: climate change response and coastal management in the UK, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 60 Brooks, N. (2004) Drought in the African Sahel: Long term perspectives and future prospects, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 61 Barker, T. (2004) The transition to sustainability: a comparison of economics approaches, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 62 Few, R., Ahern, M., Matthies, F. and Kovats, S. (2004) Floods, health and climate change: a strategic review, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 63 Peters, M.D. and Powell, J.C. (2004) Fuel Cells for a Sustainable Future II, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 64

Adger, W. N., Brown, K. and Tompkins, E. L. (2004) The political economy of cross-scale networks in resource co-management, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 65 Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine, A., Lorenzoni, I., O’Riordan, T., and Jones, M., (2005) Mapping actors involved in climate change policy networks in the UK, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 66 Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine, A. and O’Riordan, T., (2005) Developing regional and local scenarios for climate change mitigation and adaptation: Part 2: Scenario creation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 67 Bleda, M. and Shackley, S. (2005) The formation of belief in climate change in business organisations: a dynamic simulation model, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 68 Tompkins, E. L. and Hurlston, L. A. (2005) Natural hazards and climate change: what knowledge is transferable?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 69 Abu-Sharkh, S., Li, R., Markvart, T., Ross, N., Wilson, P., Yao, R., Steemers, K., Kohler, J. and Arnold, R. (2005) Can Migrogrids Make a Major Contribution to UK Energy Supply?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 70 Boyd, E. Gutierrez, M. and Chang, M. (2005) Adapting small-scale CDM sinks projects to low-income communities, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 71 Lowe, T., Brown, K., Suraje Dessai, S., Doria, M., Haynes, K. and Vincent., K (2005) Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 72 Walkden, M. (2005) Coastal process simulator scoping study, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 73 Ingham, I., Ma, J., and Ulph, A. M. (2005) How do the costs of adaptation affect optimal mitigation when there is uncertainty, irreversibility and learning?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 74 Fu, G., Hall, J. W. and Lawry, J. (2005) Beyond probability: new methods for representing uncertainty in projections of future climate, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 75

Agnolucci,. P (2005) The role of political uncertainty in the Danish renewable energy market, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 76 Barker, T., Pan, H., Köhler, J., Warren., R and Winne, S. (2005) Avoiding dangerous climate change by inducing technological progress: scenarios using a large-scale econometric model, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 77 Agnolucci,. P (2005) Opportunism and competition in the non-fossil fuel obligation market, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 78 Ingham, I., Ma, J., and Ulph, A. M. (2005) Can adaptation and mitigation be complements?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 79 Wittneben, B., Haxeltine, A., Kjellen, B., Köhler, J., Turnpenny, J., and Warren, R., (2005) A framework for assessing the political economy of post-2012 global climate regime, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 80 Sorrell, S., (2005) The economics of energy service contracts, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 81 Bows, A., and Anderson, K. (2005) An analysis of a post-Kyoto climate policy model, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 82 Williamson, M. Lenton, T. Shepherd, J. and Edwards, N. (2006) An efficient numerical terrestrial scheme (ENTS) for fast earth system modelling Tyndall Centre Working Paper 83 Kevin Anderson, Alice Bows and Paul Upham (2006) Growth scenarios for EU & UK aviation: contradictions with climate policy, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 84 Michelle Bentham, (2006) An assessment of carbon sequestration potential in the UK – Southern North Sea case study Tyndall Centre Working Paper 85 Peter Stansby, Cui-Ping Kuang, Dominique Laurence and Brian Launder, (2006) Sandbanks for coastal protection: implications of sealevel rise - Part 1: Application to East Anglia Tyndall Centre Working Paper 86 Peter Stansby and Cui-Ping Kuang, (2006) Sandbanks for coastal protection: implications of sea-level rise – Part 2: current and

morphological modelling Tyndall Centre Working Paper 87