Interfacing climate and impacts models in integrated assessment modelling

Nigel Arnell and Tim Osborn

2006

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

Technical Report 52

Interfacing climate and impacts models in integrated assessment modelling
Nigel Arnell1 and Tim Osborn2
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research School of Geography, University of Southampton 2 School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
1

Report to Tyndall Centre Project 2-11

Tyndall Centre Technical Report 52

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

1

October 2005

Contents
Section 1 Overview of project work and outcomes 1 1 2 2 3 3 3

Abstract Objectives Work undertaken Results Contribution to Tyndall Centre research strategy Potential for further work Communication highlights Section 2 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 2. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3. 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4. 4.1 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3.5 4.3.6 5. Technical Report

Introduction Context Aims and objectives Structure of report The climate-impact interface Introduction Changes in temperature, vapour pressure and cloud cover Changes in precipitation Changes in number of wet-days

4 4 5 5 5 5 6 7 8

The hydrological model 13 The model and output indicators 13 Effect of number of repetitions 14 Simulation of baseline hydrology: relationships between hydrological indicators 17 Effect of spatial resolution 20 Application with climate scenarios constructed using ClimGen 25 Conclusions 25 The water resources impacts models Introduction Water resources stress The indicator Effect of scale Effect of different methods of creating climate change scenarios Implications Flood risk Introduction Grid cell flood risk Effect of climate change on grid cell flood risk Incorporating adaptation Regional and global flood risk Implications Climate change impact response functions
2

32 32 32 32 33 33 35 35 35 37 42 48 51 53 54

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

October 2005

5.1 5.2 5.3 6.

Introduction and approach Water resources stress Indicative global flood risk Conclusions

54 54 56 59 61 62

Acknowledgements References

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

3

October 2005

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

4

October 2005

Interfacing climate and impacts models in integrated assessment modelling
Section 1 - Overview of project work and outcomes Abstract Integrated assessment models (IAMs) are increasingly used to inform climate policy. In principle, they calculate the costs, consequences and benefits of specified policy measures, taking into account not only mitigation actions but also residual impacts of climate change and the implications of adaptation. In practice, most attention in IAMs has been devoted to quantifying the implications of different energy policies for carbon emissions and economic development. The impacts of climate change tend to be treated rather simply, and adaptation is rarely considered explicitly at all. Impacts are either represented by simple "look-up" functions, showing impact as a function of global temperature change ("climate impact response functions"), or are estimated using a geographically-explicit spatial impacts module. The second approach is more robust, but is computationally much more demanding. This project examined the enhancement of the representation of impacts in integrated assessment models in general, and the Tyndall Centre CIAM in particular. The focus was on methodological issues, rather than the interpretation of results. Research in the project revised the procedures used to create scenarios from climate model output within the CIAM, enhanced an existing hydrological model, and developed some modules describing the impacts of climate change on water resources and flood risk across the entire globe. The project examined the effects of different spatial resolution on the assessed impacts, the effect of different ways of constructing scenarios, and the consequences of different underlying assumptions in the impacts models. Objectives The broad aim of this project is to develop a methodology for incorporating realistic representations of impacts into integrated assessment models, and the Tyndall IAM (CIAM) in particular. The project uses an existing macro-scale geographicallyexplicit hydrological model which has already been widely used in global-scale assessments of the implications of climate change. The specific objectives of the project are: (i) to develop an interface between the coarse-scale climate component of the CIAM and spatially-explicit finer-resolution impacts modules, paying particular attention to the climate variables necessary to run impacts models; (ii) to enhance the hydrological model so that it can integrate with the climate model interface and simulate additional measures of hydrological regime, taking into account model uncertainty; (iii) to develop indicative hydrological impacts modules which translate hydrological regime into measures of water resource and flood impact, and use these to examine the form of, and uncertainty in, climate impact response functions.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

1

October 2005

The project focuses on methodological considerations (such as the effects of spatial resolution and underpinning assumptions), rather than the interpretation of potential impacts of climate change on water resources and floods at the global and regional scales. Work undertaken Work was undertaken in four areas. First, the climate scenario generator ClimGen was revised and enhanced to incorporate the effects of year-to-year variability in precipitation, and more generally to provide scenarios for the range of climate variables necessary in global-scale impacts assessments. Second, the existing macroscale hydrological model (mac-pdm) was revised so that it could read directly ClimGen output, incorporate multiple-repetitions to minimise the effects of stochastic variability in rainfall within the model, and output additional measures of the hydrological regime (specifically, measures of flood regime). Third, a flood impact module was developed, which simulates indicative average annual flood damage for each grid cell, weights cell damage by cell population, and produces regional and global summations of indicative flood risk. The fourth component of the project used the ClimGen climate scenarios, the revised macro-scale hydrological model, the new flood impacts module and an existing water resources impacts module, to examine the effects of underpinning assumptions and spatial resolution on the estimated global and regional implications of climate change. Results The key results of the project are: (i) Climate, hydrological and impacts modules have been revised and developed for integration with the Tyndall Centre CIAM. (ii) The effects of different ways of creating scenarios using ClimGen have been explored: there are some significant differences between some of the methods, but two in particular produce very similar results. In general, accounting for changes in year-to-year variability in precipitation tends to increase the effects of climate change on water resources scarcity and flood risk. (iii) Simulating runoff at coarser spatial resolutions does reduce substantially computation time, and although the visual impression of changes are little altered, coarsening spatial resolution from 0.5x0.5 through 1x1 to 2x2o does produce substantial differences in the estimated absolute values of regional and global impacts of climate change. However, when impacts are expressed in relative terms (relative to the situation with no climate change) the effects of coarsening resolution are much smaller. (iv) Different ways of constructing flood damage functions produce broadly similar patterns of change and impact, but they can be quantitatively different. The effect of underlying assumptions therefore needs to be taken into account when assessing the reliability of estimated global impacts of climate change.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

2

October 2005

(v) The indicative climate impact response functions describing effects of temperature increase on water resources stress and global flood risk do not show the simple shapes assumed in the simplified look-up functions used in many integrated assessment models. Contribution to Tyndall Centre research strategy and overall Centre objectives The research contributes directly to the development of the Tyndall Centre's capacity for integrated assessment: it provides an alternative to the "look-up" damage functions widely used in integrated assessment models to estimate the impacts of climate change. The research also shows how adaptation can be explicitly incorporated into the global-scale assessment of some of the impacts of climate change. The research also provides the foundation for an enhanced assessment of the implications of global climate change for water resources, and a new and innovative assessment of the implications for flood risk. It therefore contributes to the understanding of the global-scale impacts of climate change, and the representation of the consequences of adaptation. Potential for further work There is considerable potential for further work in the following areas: (i) integration of the hydrological and impact modules more formally into the Tyndall Centre integrated assessment model; (ii) development of additional water-related impacts modules (indexing water resources stress through reservoir storage capacity, for example, or attempting to characterize implications of hydrological change for water-related ill-health); (iii) enhancement of the representation of the effects of adaptation: the flood impacts module at present accounts for adaptation in terms of design standards; (iv) application of the model(s) to estimate and interpret the global and regional implications of climate change for water resources scarcity and flood risk. Communications highlights Papers are being prepared for submission describing ClimGen and the techniques developed to produce scenarios for changes in precipitation variability. Early versions of global and regional damage functions describing the change in water resources impact with rising temperatures were presented at the February 2005 Exeter conference on Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, and are included in the forthcoming paper in the conference book. Further publications describing the flood module and change in global flood risk are in preparation.
Arnell, N.W. (2005) Climate change and water resources: a global perspective. In Schellnhuber, H.J. et al. (eds), Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. In press

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

3

October 2005

Interfacing climate and impacts models in integrated assessment modelling
Section 2 – Project report 1. 1.1 Introduction Context

Integrated assessment models (IAMs) are increasingly used to inform climate policy. In principle, they calculate the costs, consequences and benefits of specified policy measures, taking into account not only mitigation actions but also residual impacts of climate change and the implications of adaptation. In practice, most attention in IAMs has been devoted to quantifying the implications of different energy policies for carbon emissions and economic development. The impacts of climate change tend to be treated rather simply, and adaptation is rarely considered explicitly at all. There are two ways in which integrated assessment models can include representations of the impacts of climate change. The first is to use some form of damage function (also known as a climate impact response function (Fussel et al., 2003)), where “impact” is assumed to follow a simply-defined relationship with some indicator such as global temperature change (as in DICE (Nordhaus (1993); Mastrandrea & Schneider, 2004) and FUND (Tol, 1999; 2002a;b)), and the second is to embed a geographically-explicit impacts model within the integrated assessment model (e.g. IMAGE (Rotmans, 1990; Alcamo, 1994; Leemans & Eickhout, 2004)). The first approach is obviously computationally much more efficient, but there are four key complications. First, climate impact response functions need to be calibrated or constructed from empirical evidence. Second, climate impact response functions will vary with scale (Wilbanks, 2002), and as scale increases issues associated with the comparison of “winners” and “losers” become important (Wilbanks, 2002). Third, damages or impacts may not depend directly on temperature (the index widely used as a measure of climate change), and may be more dependent on changes in, for example, precipitation. A temperature-based climate impact response function is therefore best seen as being conditional on a defined associated spatial and seasonal pattern of precipitation change. Given the large uncertainty in regional precipitation change, such conditional climate impact response functions are therefore highly uncertain. Finally, it is difficult to see how to incorporate adaptation explicitly into climate impact response functions, except through making highly generalised assumptions about how adaptation changes – everywhere – the shape of the function. The second approach is conceptually much more convincing and can in principle incorporate the effects of adaptation, but requires considerably greater computational resources. There are two additional issues. First, it may be very difficult to construct a spatially-explicit impacts model capable of application across the entire global domain. In many sectors generalisable models do not exist, and credible models would require local calibration. In others, even generalisable models require local parameters, which may not be available from global data bases 1 . Second, the scale at
1

This also, incidentally, makes it difficult to construct generalisable climate impact response functions

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

4

October 2005

which the model is applied is important. Process-based impacts models tend to be implemented at the finest spatial scale that input data (principally climate data) are available. Operating them at coarser spatial scales, for computational reasons, can produce misleading results because the relationships between driver and response break down. The gap between coarse scale climate models and finer-scale impacts models needs to be plugged by downscaling procedures. Most such procedures concentrate on changes in mean climate, but many impact sectors are sensitive to changes in variability in climate from year to year or extremes, and such changes are currently poorly represented in integrated assessment models (Goodess et al., 2003). 1.2 Aims and objectives

The broad aim of this project is to develop a methodology for incorporating realistic representations of impacts into integrated assessment models, and the Tyndall IAM (CIAM) in particular. The project uses an existing macro-scale geographicallyexplicit hydrological model which has already been widely used in global-scale assessments of the implications of climate change (Arnell, 2003; 2004). The specific objectives of the project are: (i) to develop an interface between the coarse-scale climate component of the CIAM and spatially-explicit finer-resolution impacts modules, paying particular attention to the climate variables necessary to run impacts models; (ii) to enhance the hydrological model so that it can integrate with the climate model interface and simulate additional measures of hydrological regime, taking into account model uncertainty; (iii) to develop indicative hydrological impacts modules which translate hydrological regime into measures of water resource and flood impact, and use these to examine the form of, and uncertainty in, climate impact response functions. 1.3 Structure of report

The report is structured to follow the three objectives. Section 2 describes the development of the climate interface module (ClimGen), and Section 3 summarises the enhancements to the hydrological model. Section 4 discusses modules to assess the water resources and flood impact implications of climate change, and Section 5 uses these modules to construct and examine climate impact response functions. Section 6 draws some general (methodological) conclusions. 2. 2.1 The climate-impact interface Introduction

Integrated assessment models are typically used to assess the global-scale consequences of a defined policy intervention. This has two key implications. First, it is necessary to define climate scenarios, for relevant climate variables, at a suitably fine spatial resolution across the global domain. Second, it is necessary to define these scenarios, rapidly, for different climate policies. Simple climate models (such as MAGICC) can rapidly estimate the effects of climate policy on global temperature,

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

5

October 2005

but provide no direct information either on other climate variables or on the spatial pattern of change. Global circulation models provide spatial detail (although at scales too coarse for most impact assessments), but are rarely run for defined climate policy scenarios. An integrated assessment model therefore needs to combine both these processes, and in addition create climate scenarios at spatial scales required by impact assessment models. These scenarios need to represent changes not only in the mean, but also in the variability in climate (Goodess et al., 2003). Several climate scenario tools have been developed to provide climate scenarios at a domain and spatial resolution appropriate to impacts assessment models (including CLIMPACTS (Kenney et al., 2000), CLIMAPS (Rotmans et al., 1994) and SCENGEN (Hulme et al., 1995). ClimGen (Mitchell & Osborn, 2005) is a nextgeneration climate scenario tool, which creates climate scenarios by applying changes in climate as simulated by a suite of global climate models to an observed 0.5x0.5 baseline climatology (New et al., 1999; 2000). A fundamental assumption of ClimGen is that the spatial and temporal pattern in change in climate as simulated by a global climate model with a given change in global average temperature can be rescaled to represent the pattern of change in climate associated with a different global temperature change. ClimGen can provide scenarios down to a spatial resolution of 0.5x0.5o, and uses a range of different scaling methods to construct scenarios for changes in not only the mean but also the year-to-year variability in climate. ClimGen (version 1.00: Mitchell & Osborn, 2005) currently incorporates patterns from five GCMS – HadCM3, CGCM2, CSIRO Mk2, NCAR/DOE PCM and ECHAM4/OPYC – for eight climate variables (monthly precipitation, number of wet days, mean, minimum and maximum temperature, diurnal temperature range, vapour pressure and cloud cover). For each climate model, climate variable and month, a standardised change field is calculated by dividing change in climate by the change in global average annual temperature as simulated by the appropriate climate model between the periods 1961-1990 and 2070-2099 (under A2 emissions). These standardised change fields can then be rescaled to any global average temperature change. The standardised change fields are all interpolated statistically onto the 0.5x0.5o grid used by the observed data. 2.2 Changes in temperature, vapour pressure and cloud cover

Scenarios for mean, minimum and maximum temperature, vapour pressure and cloud cover are all constructed in the same way. A time series spanning the period y = 20xx to 20yy is created by scaling the appropriate GCM-derived change in mean monthly climate by the temperature change in year y, and adding the change to the observed monthly climate time series:

X

vgsiym

= o vim +

o′

viym

+

(p

vgsim

*t gsy

)

(2.1)

where the subscripts define variable (v), GCM pattern (g), emissions scenario (s), grid box (i), year (y) and month (m). 2 ōvim is the mean monthly climate, o’viym is the time series of interannual anomalies, pvgsim is the absolute change in mean monthly climate,
2

The subscripts v, g and s are dropped in subsequent equations for simplicity

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

6

October 2005

and tgsy is change in global temperature in year y. Where a value falls outside the range of the physically possible, the value is corrected to the outer limit of that range. This produces perturbed monthly time series with a gradually changing mean (because the temperature change tgsy is lower at the beginning of the time horizon than at the end) but unchanged inter-annual variability. As an illustration, tgsy varies from 3.17 and 4.76oC between 2070 and 2099 under the HadCM2 A2 scenario. 2.3 Changes in precipitation

Four different options are available for producing perturbed time series of monthly precipitation (Table 2.1). The first – “Method 2” - is the same as used for temperature (Equation 1). Changes in monthly precipitation or rain-days are added to the observed time series, producing a perturbed time series with unchanged standard deviation. This has three principle disadvantages. First, the patterns of change were obtained by interpolating absolute changes from the coarse-resolution climate model grid. These are then applied to the observed climatology on the 0.5x0.5o grid, so very large (or small) changes can be applied to high-resolution grid cells with low (or high) precipitation. Second, the same average change is applied in each year, so a year with low precipitation changes by the same number of millimetres as a year with high precipitation. Third, a simple subtraction can result in “negative” precipitation: such values must be set to zero. Method 3 therefore uses a ratio method to derive precipitation fields. Patterns of change in precipitation, relative to 1961-1990, are calculated from:

~ p

= ln ⎛ p ⎜ fi im ⎝

p

−1 bi

⎞ ⎟ ⎠

(2.2)

where pbi is the simulated baseline precipitation for grid cell i, pfi is the simulated p future precipitation, and ~ is precipitation change for month m and grid cell i. The im rescaled future precipitation is calculated from:

P

iym

=

o *~ o
im

⎛~ * ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ * e⎝ p im t y ⎠ iym

(2.3)

where Piym is precipitation for grid cell i, year y and month m, ōim is the observed mean precipitation for month m, õiym is the factor precipitation anomaly for year y and month m, ~ is precipitation change for month m, and ty is temperature change for p im year y. This method preserves the coefficient of variation in year-to-year precipitation.

Method 4 uses the same approach to change mean precipitation, but changes the yearto-year variation in precipitation by perturbing the parameters of a gamma distribution describing year to year variation in monthly total precipitation. The difference between the gamma distribution parameters calculated over the baseline and scenario periods (in this case HadCM3 A2 2070-2099) is standardised by global temperature change, and these standardised differences rescaled to a defined global temperature change.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

7

October 2005

Method 5 uses the same approach as Method 4, but instead of using annually-varying ty to rescale and create a perturbed time series, it uses a temperature change averaged over the time slice. Table 2.1
Method 2 Method 3 Method 4 Method 5

Summary of methods used to estimate precipitation change
Precipitation change Absolute Percentage Percentage Percentage Change in year-to-year variability No No Yes Yes Temperature change used to rescale Varies across time slice Varies across time slice Varies across time slice Constant across time slice

Figure 2.1 shows the percentage change in mean annual precipitation under HadCM3 rescaled to a global temperature change of between 3.17 and 4.76oC (corresponding to A2, 2070-2099) using Methods 2, 3, 4 and 5. Methods 3, 4 and 5 give very similar changes in average annual precipitation, and produce quite different changes from Method 2 in several parts of the world. These are primarily where large absolute changes under Method 2 are applied to low baseline precipitation values, resulting in very large percentage changes in precipitation. The greatest differences between Method 3 and Methods 4 and 5 are in east central Africa, where the incorporation of changes in year-to-year variability reduces the increase in annual precipitation. Figure 2.2 shows 30-year time series of annual precipitation for ten sample 0.5x0.5o grid cells. Each time series reproduces the temporal sequencing in the baseline. The difference between the four methods varies from cell to cell, but in each of the sample cells the difference between the methods is less than the effect of climate change. Method 4 tends to give more extreme changes in annual precipitation than Method 3 (which does not alter year to year variability in precipitation). Methods 4 and 5 give very similar sequences. Both include changes in the mean as well as changes in variability, but differ in how the global temperature change is applied: Method 4 applies a gradually increasing trend in each year, whilst Method 5 applies the same average climate change in each year. There is a slight tendency for Method 4 to produce less extreme precipitation changes in the early years and more extreme changes in the latter years, compared to Method 5, but the effects are very small.
2.4 Change in number of wet-days

GCMs do not provide realistic representations of the number of wet days (because precipitation is drizzled across a large grid cell), so changes in wet day frequency were derived from changes in precipitation. New et al. (2000) found a strong relationship in the observed climatology between mean monthly wet day frequency and mean monthly precipitation:

a

im

(w im) =
o
im

2.22

(2.4)

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

8

October 2005

where

w im is mean monthly wet days for grid cell i and month m, and o
0.45

im

is mean

monthly precipitation for month m. Rescaled future wet day frequency is then calculated from:

W

iym

= ( a im * P iym)

(2.5)

where Wiym is the number of wet days for grid cell i, month m and year y and Piym is future precipitation in grid cell i, month m and year y. The estimated numbers of wet-days varies between Methods 2, 3, 4 and 5 because the estimated monthly precipitation varies. Figure 2.3 shows the change in mean annual wet-days under the same scenario as Figure 2.1 using Methods 2, 3, 4 and 5. The changes, obviously, closely follow changes in annual precipitation (Figure 2.1).

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

9

October 2005

Figure 2.1:

Change in average annual precipitation, HadCM3 A2, 2070-2099, under Methods 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

10

October 2005

Figure 2.2:

Time series of annual precipitation for ten sample locations: baseline and HadCM3 A2, 2070-2099, Methods 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

11

October 2005

Figure 2.3:

Change in number of wet days, HadCM3 A2, 2070-2099, under Methods 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

12

October 2005

3. 3.1

The hydrological model The model and output indicators

The hydrological model (Arnell, 2003; 2004) simulates streamflow across the global domain at a spatial resolution of 0.5x0.5o, treating each cell as an independent catchment. Model parameters are not calibrated from site data, but performance has been validated (Arnell, 1999; 2003). The model operates at a daily time step. The model is largely deterministic, but generates daily precipitation from monthly input data stochastically. It is assumed that daily precipitation follows an exponential distribution, with the coefficient of variation of daily rainfall assumed constant across the entire globe (in the absence of real data). The occurrence of precipitation is described by a simple zero-order twostate Markov model, with no memory from day to day. The stochastically-generated daily precipitation is then rescaled to maintain the correct monthly total. Precipitation falls as snow if temperature is below a defined threshold, and snow melts once temperature rises above another threshold. Precipitation is intercepted by vegetation, and only that in excess of interception capacity (a function of vegetation type) falls to the ground. The rest is evaporated. Potential evaporation is calculated using the Penman-Monteith formula, with stomatal and aerodynamic resistances and leaf area dependent on vegetation type. Each cell is divided into two land cover classes – grass and “not grass” – with the relative proportions of the two varying with the “not grass” vegetation type. Each part of the cell has the same inputs and soil properties, and the output of the two parts is summed to give total cell response. Water that reaches the ground becomes “quickflow” if the soil is saturated and infiltrates if the soil is unsaturated. Soil moisture is depleted by evaporation and drainage to groundwater and the stream (“slowflow”). Actual evaporation is a function of potential evaporation and soil moisture content. The soil moisture storage capacity varies statistically across the cell / catchment, which means in practice that a variable proportion of the cell area is saturated at any one time: “quickflow” is generated from this portion of the cell. This is the most important aspect of the hydrological model, as it means that streamflow can be generated from at least part of the catchment at almost any time. Conventional water balance models treat the catchment as a single unit which has a uniform soil moisture content and deficit: no quickflow therefore tends to be generated during summer, when the soil is unsaturated, and this is unrealistic. The absolute magnitude of soil moisture storage capacity is a function of the soil texture and rooting depth of the vegetation. The two sources of streamflow (“quickflow” and “slowflow”) are routed separately to the outlet of the cell. Although the model operates at a daily time step, streamflow is only output at a monthly resolution because the routing parameters vary with catchment geology and are difficult to estimate from available data: “typical” parameter values are therefore used. The model is run using the time series of monthly climate data to simulate a series of monthly streamflow data for each cell. Long-term mean annual and monthly runoff and the coefficient of variation of annual runoff are calculated from the time series. The model calculates the 10-year return period low annual runoff by interpolation

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

13

October 2005

from the annual runoff time series, as a measure of “drought”. The flood frequency relationship is determined by fitting generalised extreme value (GEV) distributions (by probability-weighted moments) to the maximum daily and monthly runoff in each calendar year. The daily flood frequency distribution provides a better conceptual characterisation of flood risk for a relatively small (0.5x0.5o or approximately 2500km2) catchment than the monthly frequency distribution, but is very much influenced by the assumed streamflow routing parameters. The monthly, and to a greater extent the daily, flood frequency distributions are also affected by the precise disaggregation of precipitation from the monthly to daily scale, and different runs of the model produce different frequency curves. The hydrological model was rewritten slightly to link directly with output from ClimGen and to explore (i) the number of repetitions necessary to produce robust estimates of output indicators, and (ii) the effect of the spatial scale at which the model is applied on estimated effects of climate change.
3.2 Effect of number of repetitions

The original version of the hydrological model makes one simulation per grid cell. However, whilst the stochastically-generated daily precipitation is rescaled to match input monthly precipitation, different realisations of the model produce different distributions of daily precipitation through the month. This has little effect on simulated average annual runoff, but potentially has a greater effect on measures of extreme hydrological behaviour. The model was therefore revised to allow n repetitions for each grid cell, with the value for each of the indicators summarised above taken as the mean across these n repetitions. The standard deviation across these n repetitions is also calculated, and the standard error of the estimated indicator determined. Figure 3.1 illustrates the effect of different stochastic disaggregations on estimated flood frequency curves in ten sample grid cells. Each graph shows ten different realisations, with annual maximum daily flow plotted against the reduced variate y=ln(-ln(1-1/T))). There is clearly considerable variability in estimated flood magnitudes (the 100-year flood corresponds to y=4.6), with the greatest variability in drier regions. Figure 3.2 shows the standard error of four hydrological indicators (as a percentage of the mean) with number of repetitions n varying between 5 and 50, for ten sample grid cells. Twenty repetitions are made for each sample size n. The solid lines represent the mean standard error across these twenty repetitions, and the dotted lines show the highest and lowest standard errors. Three conclusions can be drawn from the figure. First, standard error decreases with number of repetitions. Increasing the number of repetitions from five to twenty generally halves the standard error, and increasing the number of repetitions beyond twenty has relatively little additional effect. Second, the standard error for estimated long-term mean runoff is typically very low (well under 1% even with only five repetitions), and standard errors increase as the indicator represents more extreme hydrological conditions: with twenty repetitions the standard error of the 10-year return period maximum daily runoff is typically around 3%. Third, standard errors, and the effect of number of repetitions, vary from cell to cell. In general, the drier the cell, the greater the standard error of estimate.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

14

October 2005

S o ut her n Sp ain
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 Reduced var i ate y 4 5 6 0 0 1 4 2 6 10 8 12

So ut her n E ng l and

2

3 Reduced var i ate y

4

5

6

F inl and
16 14 12 10 40 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 Reduced var i ate y 4 5 6 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 70 60 50

E C hi na

3 Reduced var i ate y

4

5

6

S W U SA
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 Reduced var i ate y 4 5 6 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2

N E U SA

3 Reduced var i ate y

4

5

6

S E B r asi l
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 Reduced var i ate y 4 5 6 5 0 0 1 2 25 20 15 35 30

G hana

3 Reduced var i ate y

4

5

6

S A f r i ca
35 30 25 20 15 10

S E A ust r al i a
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4

5 0 0 1 2 3 Reduced var i ate y 4 5 6

2 0 0 1 2 3 Reduced var iat e y 4 5 6

Figure 3.1:

Frequency distributions of annual maximum daily flow for ten sample grid cells, with ten realisations for each cell

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

15

October 2005

S o ut her n S p ai n
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 10

S o ut her n E ng l and

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Number of r epet it ions
Annual r unof f 10-year max mon Dr ought r unof f 10-year max day

Number of r epeti ti ons Annual r unof f 10-year max mon Dr ought r unof f 10-year max day

F i nl and
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10

E China

20

30

40

50

Number of r epet it ions Annual r unof f 10- year max mon Dr ought r unof f 10- year max day

Number of r epet it ions Annual r unof f 10- year max mon Dr ought r unof f 10- year max day

SW USA
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10

NE USA

20

30

40

50

Number of r epet it ions Annual r unof f 10- year max mon Dr ought r unof f 10- year max day

Number of r epet it ions Annual r unof f 10- year max mon Dr ought r unof f 10- year max day

SE Brasil
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10

Ghana

20

30

40

50

Number of r epet it ions Annual r unof f 10- year max mon Dr ought r unof f 10- year max day

Number of r epet it ions Annual r unof f 10- year max mon Dr ought r unof f 10- year max day

S Africa
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10

SE Aus tralia

20

30

40

50

Number of r epet it ions Annual r unof f 10- year max mon Dr ought r unof f 10- year max day

Number of r epet it ions Annual r unof f 10- year max mon Dr ought r unof f 10- year max day

Figure 3.2:

Standard error of estimated annual runoff, drought runoff, and 10-year return period maximum monthly and daily runoff, with increasing number of repetitions

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

16

October 2005

The results of this analysis suggest that as few as five repetitions would be sufficient to produce robust estimates of average annual runoff, but that for the other indicators twenty repetitions would be necessary.
3.3 Simulation of baseline hydrology: relationships between hydrological indicators

Figure 3.3 shows eight indicators of the simulated 0.5x0.5o baseline (1961-1990) hydroclimatic regime, calculated from the average of 10 repetitions (n=10). The first three (annual precipitation, potential evaporation and annual runoff) are indicators of the annual water balance. The coefficient of variation of annual runoff is a measure of year-to-year variability in annual runoff, and the 10-year return period annual runoff as a percentage of mean annual runoff is a measure of drought magnitude. The remaining two indicators (CV of maximum monthly runoff and the GEV shape parameter k of the distribution of annual maximum monthly runoff) represent flood regime. Simulated runoff is consistent with maps of observed annual runoff (Arnell, 2003). The CV of annual runoff is also consistent with observed values (the observed global average for catchments with an area less than 10,000 km2 is 0.48: McMahon et al., 1992). CV increases with aridity, and the 10-year drought as a percentage of the mean decreases. The CV of maximum monthly runoff shows a similar pattern to the CV of annual runoff, but is generally higher, and the GEV parameter k of maximum monthly runoff shows a relationship with aridity. Figure 3.4 shows relationships between different hydrological indicators across the 60680 0.5x0.5o grid cells with data. Of particular significance are the relationships between the different measures of variability. There is a clear positive relationship between the CV of annual runoff and the CVs of annual maximum monthly and daily runoff, and a very strong relationship between the CVs of maximum monthly and daily runoff: in general, CV increases from annual runoff, through annual maximum monthly runoff, and is greatest for annual maximum daily runoff. There is also (unsurprisingly) a strong relationship between the CV of maximum monthly (and daily) runoff and the parameter k of the GEV distribution. There are no published global summaries of parameters of flood frequency distributions, but comparisons with published frequency curves (e.g. Farquharson et al., 1992) suggest that whilst simulated CVs of maximum flows are realistic, simulated k values are too low (suggesting that simulated maxima are not sufficiently negatively skewed). This is because peak flows are frequently dependent on localised, short-duration intense rainfall events which are not well represented in the macroscale hydrological model. In fact, any lumped catchment model will be unable to simulate well extreme flood flows where flood-producing rainfall is concentrated in a part of the catchment.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

17

October 2005

Figure 3.3

Characteristics of the simulated baseline (1961-1990) hydrological regime (0.5x0.5o resolution)

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

18

October 2005

Figure 3.4:

Relationships between dimensions of the baseline hydrological regime: 0.5x0.5o resolution

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

19

October 2005

3.4

Effect of spatial resolution

At a spatial resolution of 0.5x0.5o, there are around 61,000 grid cells covering the land surface of the globe (excluding Antarctica). Simulating runoff at this resolution, with 10 repetitions per grid cell, takes approximately 4.5 hours on a Pentium IV PC with 1.2 Ghz processing speed. With a resolution of 1x1o there are only around 16,000 grid cells, and simulation time is reduced to just over one hour; reducing the resolution to 2x2o results in approximately 4700 cells and a simulation time of approximately 15 minutes. Figures 3.5 and 3.6 show the same hydrological variables as Figure 3.3, but for spatial resolutions of 1x1o and 2x2o respectively. All three figures show the same broad spatial patterns, although the coarser resolution of Figure 3.6 is apparent. Visually, there therefore is little difference between running the hydrological model at different spatial resolutions. Figure 3.7 shows the relationship between indicators of annual runoff at a spatial resolution of 0.5x0.5o and 1x1o (left) and 2x2o (right). There is, obviously, a large scatter, with scatter increasing as resolution reduces from 1x1 to 2x2o. There is also a clear tendency for both average annual runoff and the CV of annual runoff to reduce as spatial resolution coarsens. The bottom two panels of Figure 3.7 show average annual runoff accumulated to the watershed scale (with around 1200 watersheds at the global scale). The effect of reducing spatial resolution is less apparent, but there is still a tendency for runoff to reduce as spatial resolution becomes coarser. Watershedscale runoff is used in the calculation of water resources stress indicators (see next section). Figure 3.8 shows the relationship between indicators of maximum monthly runoff at a spatial resolution of 0.5x0.5o and 1x1o (left) and 2x2o (right), and Figure 3.9 shows the same for maximum daily runoff. Again, there is considerable scatter, with a tendency for the coefficient of variation in maximum monthly or daily runoff to reduce as spatial resolution reduces. Although there is scatter, there is little systematic change in the shape parameter k as resolution reduces. The implications of varying spatial resolution for indicators of water resources stress (using watershed runoff) and flood risk (using measures of the variability in maximum monthly and daily runoff) are explored in Section 4.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

20

October 2005

Figure 3.5

Characteristics of the simulated baseline (1961-1990) hydrological regime: 1x1o resolution

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

21

October 2005

Figure 3.6

Characteristics of the simulated baseline (1961-1990) hydrological regime: 2x2o resolution

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

22

October 2005

Figure 3.7:

Relationship between indicators of annual runoff at different scales: 0.5x0.5 and 1x1o (left) and 0.5x0.5 and 2x2o (right)

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

23

October 2005

Figure 3.8:

Relationship between indicators of variability in monthly maximum runoff at different scales: 0.5x0.5 and 1x1o (left) and 0.5x0.5 and 2x2o (right)

Figure 3.9:

Relationship between indicators of variability in daily maximum runoff at different scales: 0.5x0.5 and 1x1o (left) and 0.5x0.5 and 2x2o (right)

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

24

October 2005

3.5

Application with climate scenarios constructed using ClimGen

As outlined in Section 2, different variants on a given climate change scenario can be constructed using ClimGen by using different methods to scale different climate indicators. The hydrological consequences of using these different methods were explored, using the HadCM3 A2 scenario for the 2080s as the base case (and a spatial resolution of 0.5x0.5o). Figures 3.10 to 3.13 shows the percentage change in average annual rainfall and potential evaporation using Methods 2 to 5 respectively, together with percentage changes in average annual runoff, drought runoff (the 10-year return period low annual runoff), the 10-year return period maximum monthly runoff, and the 10-year return period maximum daily runoff. The precise spatial patterns of change are not important here (they depend largely on the GCM pattern of change in precipitation), but two “methodological” conclusions can be drawn. First, the percentage changes in indicators of extreme hydrological behaviour tend to be greater than the percentage change in measures of average annual runoff. Second, the broad patterns of change under Methods 2, 3, 4 and 5 are similar, but with some local differences. The differences between Methods 2 and 3 reflect the differences in precipitation change shown in Figure 2.1. Method 4 tends to give more widespread increases in maximum runoff than Method 3, because not only the mean but also the coefficient of variation of input precipitation is changed. Methods 4 and 5 give very similar results, showing that using time-varying or averaged temperature changes makes little difference. Figure 3.14 shows the flood frequency curves for ten sample grid cells, with scenarios constructed using Methods 2, 3, 4 and 5. Methods 4 and 5 are virtually identical in most grid cells (with the exception of the southern African cell), and can give very different frequency curves to Method 3. In most, the inclusion of changes in year-toyear variability increases flood peaks for a given return period (NE USA, Brasil, southern England, Finland), and in others the inclusion of variability offsets the effect of a reduction in mean precipitation (Ghana, SE Australia and China, for example). Method 2 usually produces similar results to Method 3, with the biggest differences in the south west and north east USA cells.
3.6 Conclusions

This section has described the refinement of a macro-scale hydrological model so that it can be incorporated as a component in an integrated assessment model, and explored (i) the number of simulations necessary to achieve stable output results, (ii) the effect of spatial scale on simulated runoff, and (iii) the effect of different ways of creating scenarios from the climate module on estimated changes in hydrological characteristics. The key conclusions are: (i) For measures of average hydrological behaviour, as few as five repetitions produce robust and stable results; for measures of extreme behaviour, however, around 20 repetitions are necessary.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

25

October 2005

(ii)

Simulated average runoff is close to observed values, but simulated flood frequency curves are generally too "flat", thereby underestimating the frequency of relatively large floods. Reducing the spatial scale at which the hydrological model is applied reduces computation time, but tends to lead to lower estimates of runoff and its variability than when the model is applied at 0.5x0.5o. Whilst there are broad similarities in the scenarios produced using Methods 2, 3, 4 and 5, there are some key differences. Methods 2 and 3 produce very different changes in precipitation where the climate model overestimates baseline precipitation: large absolute changes in precipitation due to climate change will in these cases be applied to small absolute baseline precipitation, producing much larger changes in precipitation than if percentage changes had been applied. Methods 4 and 5 tend to produce very similar changes, and both frequently result in more extreme changes in the frequency of high and low flow extremes than Method 3 which assumes no change in year to year precipitation variability.

(iii)

(iv)

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

26

October 2005

Figure 3.10:

Percentage change in components of the hydrological regime: HadCM3 A2 scenario for the 2080s, Method 2

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

27

October 2005

Figure 3.11:

Percentage change in components of the hydrological regime: HadCM3 A2 scenario for the 2080s, Method 3

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

28

October 2005

Figure 3.12:

Percentage change in components of the hydrological regime: HadCM3 A2 scenario for the 2080s, Method 4

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

29

October 2005

Figure 3.13:

Percentage change in components of the hydrological regime: HadCM3 A2 scenario for the 2080s, Method 5

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

30

October 2005

Figure 3.14:

Frequency curves for ten sample grid cells, under baseline climate and 2080s climate constructed from the HadCM3 A2 scenario using Methods 2, 3, 4 and 5

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

31

October 2005

4. 4.1

The water resources impacts models Introduction

This section describes the construction of indicators of the water resources impact of climate change which use the hydrological output generated by the hydrological module. Indicators are constructed to represent the implications of climate change for water resources stress and global riverine flood risk. This section concentrates on the implications of spatial scale (0.5x0.5, 1x1 or 2x2o) for the indicators, and the effects of different ways of constructing scenarios using ClimGen on the estimated effects of climate change. Section 5 describes the construction of climate impact response functions.

4.2

Water resource stress

4.2.1 The indicator Water resources stress is indexed by watershed-scale average annual runoff per capita: a water-stressed watershed is assumed to be one with less than 1000 m3/capita/year. A threshold of 1700 m3/capita/year is often used to separate stressed from non-stressed watersheds (Falkenmark et al., 1989), with the threshold of 1000 m3/capita/year representing high stress. Each of the 0.5x0.5o grid cells is allocated to one of 1162 discrete watershed units, originally defined by Klepper (1995) and refined at the University of Kassel, Germany. Watershed areas range from 2,240 km2 (i.e. one grid cell) to just under 2 million km2, with a mean of 110,000 km2. Total annual runoff within each watershed is calculated simply by summing runoff in all the constituent 0.5x.0.5o grid cells. Runoff simulated at the 1x1 and 2x2o scales is disaggregated to the 0.5x.0.5o resolution before watershed totals are calculated, by assuming all the 0.5x.0.5o cells within a 1x1 or 2x2o cell have the same runoff. Population in each watershed by year was constructed using national-level population projections to rescale gridded 1995 population data (Arnell et al., 2004; Arnell, 2004). Three population projections are used, corresponding to the SRES A1/B1, A2 and B2 scenarios. A simple measure of the impact of climate change is the number of people who move into, or out of, the water-stressed category. It is not appropriate simply to determine the net change, because this assumes that “winners” exactly compensate “losers”, and this is not necessarily the case: the economic and social costs of people becoming water-stressed are likely to outweigh the economic and social benefits of people ceasing to be water-stressed. Also, the increase in runoff tends to occur during the wet season, and if not stored will lead to little benefit during the dry season, and may be associated with an increased frequency of flooding (Arnell, 2003). A more complicated measure combines the number of people who move into (out of) the stressed category with the numbers of people already in the stressed category who experience an increase (decrease) in water stress. The key element here is to define

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

32

October 2005

what characterises a “significant” change in runoff, and hence water stress. Because the variation in runoff from year to year varies between watersheds, a given percentage change has a different significance from location to location: a decrease in mean runoff of 5% may be much more extreme in one watershed than in another which has higher year-to-year variability. A “significant” change is defined as occurring when the change in mean runoff is more than standard deviation of the long-term mean runoff. The standard deviation of 30-year mean runoff was determined for each cell using eight independent 30-year periods from the 1860-2100 HadCM3 “control-run” experiment (Gordon et al., 2000). 4.2.2 Effect of scale Table 4.1 summarises the numbers of people living in watersheds with less than 1000 m3/capita/year in 1995, 2025, 2055 and 2085, in the absence of climate change, under the three population scenarios and with runoff simulated at different spatial resolutions. Figure 4.1 shows the distribution of resources per capita in 1995 at the three resolutions. Table 4.1 Total numbers of people (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds, with no climate change
2x2 1623 4010 6799 8866 0.5x0.5 1517 3018 4275 4989 B2 1x1 1700 3569 4839 5270 2x2 1623 3615 4828 5398

A1/B1 A2 0.5x0.5 1x1 2x2 0.5x0.5 1x1 19951 1517 1700 1623 1517 1700 2025 3008 3462 3520 3404 4032 2055 3592 4206 4202 6472 6727 2085 3067 3629 3679 8265 9089 Water stressed watersheds have less than 1000m3/capita/year 1 No difference between population projections

Simulating runoff at 1x1 and 2x2o resolution produces slightly higher estimates of the numbers of people living in water-stressed watersheds than simulating runoff at 0.5x0.5o. As shown in Section 3, simulating runoff at a coarser resolution tends to produce less runoff. The difference in population totals between resolutions is largely due to reductions in simulated runoff in south Asia and, to a lesser extent, Europe. 4.2.3 Effect of different methods of creating climate change scenarios Table 4.2 shows the numbers of people living in water-stressed watersheds in 2085, under the A2 population projection, using Methods 2, 3, 4 and 5 to create scenarios (based on HadCM3 projections) and at different spatial resolutions: the numbers can be compared to those in Table 4.1. Table 4.3 shows the numbers of people with an increase in water-resources stress, under the A2 population projection, again by scenario method and spatial resolution. With a spatial resolution of 0.5x0.5o, the different methods produce very similar estimates of the numbers of people living in water-stressed watersheds with climate change. The totals increase slightly under method 2, but decrease slightly under the other methods, due largely to populous watersheds in east Asia moving out of the stressed category. The different methods of creating scenarios result in greater differences in the estimated number of people living in watersheds with an increase in water-stress (i.e. those living in watersheds becoming “water-stressed” due to climate

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

33

October 2005

change, but those living in already-stressed watersheds with a significant reduction in runoff: Table 4.3). Under Method 3, around 140 million fewer people are deemed to suffer an increase in water-stress, compared to Method 2. Method 3 produces more stressed people in central America and Europe than Method 2, but these are more than offset by reductions in stressed people in south and east Asia (matching the differences in change in runoff). Methods 4 and 5 produce virtually identical results, but differ from those of Method 3. Smaller reductions in runoff under Method 4 in parts of western Africa, south Asia, South America, western Europe and central Asia mean fewer people in these regions suffer an increase in water stress; these are offset slightly by greater decreases in runoff, and hence greater numbers of people with an increase in water stress, in eastern and southern Africa and the Arabian peninsula. Table 4.2: Numbers of people living in water-stressed watersheds in 2085 with HadCM3 A2 climate change, A2 population projection
0.5x0.5 8265 8344 8214 8016 8034 1x1 9089 9212 9416 9183 9183 2x2 8865 9334 9265 9083 9074

No climate change Method 2 Method 3 Method 4 Method 5

Table 4.3:
Method 2 Method 3 Method 4 Method 5

Numbers of people with an increase in water resources stress in 2085 with HadCM3 A2 climate change, A2 population projection
0.5x0.5 2800 2665 2491 2489 1x1 3600 3753 3492 3464 2x2 3832 3826 3410 3432

At a spatial resolution of 1x1o, climate change increases the number of people living in water-stressed watersheds under each method, because unlike at the 0.5x0.5o scale, climate change does not significantly increase runoff in a number of populous Chinese watersheds. The numbers of people with an increase in water resources stress varies with method used to create climate scenarios. Method 3 results in a slightly larger estimated impact of climate change than Method 2. Methods 4 and 5 are again virtually identical, but unlike at the 0.5x0.5o scale, produce substantially smaller estimates of the effects of climate change than Method 2. This is largely because of smaller reductions in runoff in Europe. At a spatial resolution of 2x2o, climate change again increases the numbers of people living in water-stressed watersheds, and produces very similar results to the 1x1o resolution.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

34

October 2005

4.2.4 Implications The analysis in this section shows that the spatial scale at which runoff is simulated affects the total numbers of people in water-stressed watersheds and the estimated effects of climate change. The coarser the resolution, the greater the number of people estimated to be living in water-stressed watersheds, because simulated runoff tends to be lower, and the greater the apparent effect of climate change. There is also a difference in the apparent effect of climate change with the four different methods of creating climate change scenarios. Methods 4 and 5 produce virtually identical results (because they produce little difference in estimated average annual runoff), but the differences in runoff in some watersheds resulting from the application of Methods 2, 3 and 4/5 result in differences in the estimated global impact of climate change.

4.3

Flood risk

4.3.1 Introduction There have been a few studies into the potential effects of climate change on flood flows and flood frequencies (e.g. Reynard et al., 2001; Bronstert, 2003; Milly et al., 2002), but so far no studies into the implications of climate change for flood risk as measured by flood damages. Flood “risk” is frequently expressed in terms of the frequency with which flooding occurs (see Milly et al. (2002) for an example). However, a more formal definition of risk incorporates not only the likelihood of occurrence but also the consequences of an event when it occurs. This definition, used in risk assessments, is formally stated as

risk = probability × consequence

(5.1)

Different sized-floods have different probabilities and consequences, so flood risk is best indexed by the average annual flood damage, calculated from
AAD = ∫ x f ( x) dx
0 ∞

(5.2)

where x is flood damage and f(x) is the probability density function of flood damages. The “average annual” flood damage is actually a rather abstract concept, because the annual distribution of flood damages is highly skewed. In the vast majority of years damages will be zero; rarely, damages will be very high. The probability density function of flood damages could conceptually be constructed from a large sample of annual flood losses, but this is virtually never possible because exposure to loss varies over time and a very long record would be necessary to obtain robust parameter estimates (given that most years would have zero damages). The probability density function of flood damages is therefore estimated by combining the probability density function of flood magnitudes (estimated using conventional flood frequency analysis techniques) with a function relating flood magnitude to flood damage (Figure 4.1).

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

35

October 2005

This assumes, of course, that flood damages are a simple function of one dimension of flooding, namely flood peak magnitude.
Flood magnitude and frequency
100
5 4.5

Damage-magnitude relationship

80
4

Flood magnitude X

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Flood damage Y

60

40

20

0 0 1 2 3 4 5

Exceedance probability p(x>X)

Flood magnitude X

Damage and frequency
80

70

60

Average annual flood damage is the area under this curve

Damage Y

50

40

AADF = ∫ y f ( y )dy = ∫ F ( y ) dF

30

20

10

0

Exceedance probability p(y>Y)

Figure 4.1:

Estimation of average annual flood damages

Estimates of average annual flood damages have been made for a great many locations in many countries, primarily to assist in the assessment of the economic feasibility of flood defence schemes. There has, however, only been one published attempt so far to examine the potential effect of climate change on average annual flood damages. This was undertaken as part of the UK Foresight investigation into future river and coastal flood risk (Flood and Coastal Defence Foresight Project, 2004). A flood frequency relationship was estimated for each 1x1 km grid cell within England and Wales, using generalised relationships between flood magnitude and catchment characteristics, and combined with estimated damage functions based on numbers of properties, topographical variation within a grid cell, and standards of service of flood protection. The effects of climate change were assessed by altering the standards of service. This approach is necessarily more generalised than would be

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

36

October 2005

applied to an individual flood-prone location, but still requires far more information than is available if flood risk is to be assessed across the global domain. An approach to the generalised assessment of the indicative effects of climate change on riverine flood risk across the global domain was therefore developed, involving two stages. The first stage estimates grid cell indicative average annual flood damages, by combining the grid cell flood frequency curve (as described by the fitted GEV distribution: section 3.1) with a generalised damage function relating flood magnitude to flood damage. The second stage multiplies grid cell “average annual flood damage” by grid cell population, and sums across cells to produce watershed, regional or global totals of “indicative flood risk”. By scaling grid cell “damages” with population, this index does not take into account variations across space in the absolute economic value of property exposed to flood loss or the varying relationship between impacts on people and property. Section 4.3.2 examines in more detail the construction of grid cell average annual flood damages, looking at the effects of using different generalised damage functions, different indicators of flood regime, and different spatial scales for the simulation of hydrological regimes. Section 4.3.3 explores the effect of the different ways of constructing scenarios from ClimGen for the estimated effect of climate change. Section 4.3.4 describes the calculation of regional and global flood risk, again considering the effects of spatial scale and scenario construction method. Section 4.3.5 describes how adaptation can be incorporated into the assessment of the implications of climate change.

4.3.2 Grid cell flood risk It is impossible to construct realistic damage functions for each grid cell across the world: the relationship between flood magnitude and damage varies with the shape of the floodplain and the disposition of exposed properties. It is therefore necessary to develop generalised damage functions which can be applied consistently in each grid cell. The two key issues in the construction of a generalised damage function are (i) the shape of the relationship between flood magnitude and flood damage, and (ii) the return period at which damage begins. Figure 4.2 shows three different damage functions, all with the following general form:

Damq =

(Q

− Qo
a

)

b

(4.3)

where Damq is the damage at flood magnitude Q, Qo is the magnitude at which damage begins, b controls the shape of the damage function. The parameter a is calculated from

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

37

October 2005

a=

(Dam − Dam )
z o

(Q z − Q o)

b

(4.4)

where Damz is damage at flood magnitude Qz and Damo is the damage at Qo (i.e. zero). Qz is fixed to be a constant multiple of Qo.
Damage functions
250 200 150 100 50 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Flood magnitude Squared Root Linear

Figure 4.2:

Damage

Generalised damage functions, with b=2 (squared), b=0.5 (root) and b=1 (linear), and Qz = 1.5 x Qo

The effect of three generalised damage functions (squared, root and linear) on estimated grid cell flood risk are explored in this section, together with the effect of damage beginning in a flood (Qo) with a return period of 10 or 20 years. Even 20 years is probably a low return period for the onset of flood damage, but there is no information at a global scale on the frequency with which flood damage in unprotected floodplains occurs. Figure 4.3 shows the global distribution of grid cell average annual damage, using the three damage functions and two different damage thresholds, with flood frequency parameters calculated at a spatial resolution of 0.5x0.5o from daily maximum flows. In each case, grid cell average annual damage has been scaled by the global average. Using this rescaled metric, there is clearly little difference between damage thresholds of 10 and 20 years, and the broad pattern of average annual damage is very consistent between the three damage functions: grid-cell damages are above the global average in drier cells, and below in wetter cells. The squared damage function gives the greatest variation in damages across space, and the root function the least.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

38

October 2005

Figure 4.3:

Grid-cell indicative average annual damage, under the baseline climate

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

39

October 2005

The relationships between the different damage functions and thresholds are summarised in Figure 4.4. The top two panels compare the three damage functions, showing the greater variability from cell to cell with the square function. The third panel shows the relationship between average annual damages (rescaled using the global average) with damage thresholds of 10 and 20 years, assuming a linear damage function. There is a tendency for variability between cells to be slightly greater with the 10-year threshold than the 20-year threshold.

Figure 4.4:

Grid-cell average annual damage, using daily frequency distributions, with different damage functions and damage thresholds

Figure 4.5 shows the relationship between average annual damage calculated with the linear damage function (damage threshold of 10 years) and the ratio of annual runoff to annual rainfall, the coefficient of variation of maximum daily runoff, and the GEV shape parameter k. There is some relationship with aridity, but by far the strongest relationships are, clearly, with the CV and GEV shape parameter. The spatial patterns in Figure 4.3 therefore map most closely onto the spatial patterns in these two variables (Figure 3.3). The spatial pattern of average annual damage using the parameters of maximum monthly runoff is very similar to those shown in Figure 4.3. Figure 4.6 shows the strength of the relationship between average annual damages estimated from daily and monthly maxima.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

40

October 2005

Figure 4.5:

Relationship between grid cell average annual damage and indicators of hydrological regime

Figure 4.6:

Relationship between grid-cell average annual damage, using daily and monthly frequency distributions

Figure 4.7 summarises the effect of simulating runoff at different spatial resolutions on grid-cell average annual damage, assuming a linear damage function, a damage threshold return period of 10 years and with flood frequency parameters estimated from annual maximum daily flows. There is clearly a relationship between grid cell damage at the three resolutions (as implied by the relationships between maximum daily flows shown in Figure 3.9), but there is considerable scatter. The scatter is greater for the squared damage function, but lower for the root damage function.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

41

October 2005

Figure 4.7:

Effect of spatial resolution on grid cell average annual damage

4.3.3 Effect of climate change on grid cell flood risk Figure 4.8 shows the effect of climate change (HadCM3 a2, 2080s, Method 3) on grid-cell average annual damage under the three damage functions, with a damage threshold of 10 years (under the baseline climate) and frequency parameters estimated from maximum daily and monthly runoff. The relationship between flood magnitude and flood damage is assumed to remain unchanged as climate change – explicitly assuming no adaptation – and changes in average annual damage in each grid cell therefore reflect changes in the frequency with which given flood magnitudes occur. The three damage functions produce similar spatial patterns of change – similar to the changes in the magnitude of the 10-year return period maximum daily runoff shown in Figure 3.11 – but the range in change between cells varies. The greatest variation in percentage impact is with the squared damage function, and the least with the root damage function. Methods 2, 4 and 5 produce broadly similar patterns of change, as does the assumption of a 20-year return period threshold for damage and the use of monthly, rather than daily, maxima. The top two panels in Figure 4.9 show the relationship between the percentage change in cell average annual damage under the different damage functions, with a damage threshold of 10 years: the relationships are clearly very strong, and the greater range in change with the squared function is clear. The bottom left panel of Figure 4.9 shows the relationship between percentage change in average annual damage with the linear damage function and thresholds of 10 and 20 years. There is a close relationship again, with a tendency for slightly greater percentage changes with the 20-year return period threshold. The final panel of Figure 4.9 shows the relationship between the change in average annual damage using the linear damage function and a 10-year return period threshold, and frequency parameters estimated from maximum daily and monthly runoff. There is clearly considerable scatter in this relationship, consistent with the scatter in the relationship between percentage change in 10-year return period maximum daily and monthly runoff values. In a large number of cells, climate change can lead to substantial increases in average annual damages using daily frequency parameters, but large decreases using monthly parameters (and vice versa).

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

42

October 2005

Figure 4.8:

Effect of climate change (HadCM3, A2, Method 3) on grid-cell average annual damage
43 October 2005

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

Figure 4.9:

Percentage change in grid cell average annual damages, with different damage functions and frequency distributions

The effect of the four different methods of creating scenarios using ClimGen on estimated changes in average annual damage are shown in Figure 4.10. Methods 4 and 5 produce very similar changes, but there are more substantial differences between Method 3 and Method 4/5. In a number of cells, Method 4/5 produces increases in average annual damage where Method 3 produces decreases, because the effect of changing year-to-year variability in precipitation is generally to increase year-to-year variability in flood flows. Methods 4 and 5 also tend to give slightly larger percentage changes. The relationship between Methods 2 and 3 is poor. Again, there are a large number of cells where Method 2 results in a decrease in average annual damage, but Method 3 produces an increase. Method 2 also tends to produce lower increases in average annual damage. The reasons for the very large percentage changes in average annual damage with climate change, and the reasons for the large differences in some cases between scenarios and parameter sets can be seen in Figure 4.11, which shows damagefrequency relationships for the 10 sample grid cells under baseline and "Method 3", assuming a linear damage function, a damage threshold of 10 years, and daily parameters. The figure clearly shows very large changes in the frequency with which damage begins, from the baseline value of 10 years. For example, the return period at which damage begins in the SW USA cell reduces to less than once in five years, but increases in the Spanish cell to around once in 20 years. Such substantial changes in the threshold at which damage begins have very large effects on estimated average annual damage.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

44

October 2005

Figure 4.10:

Percentage change in grid cell average annual damages, with different methods used to create scenarios

Figure 4.12 shows the effect of climate change on average annual damages for the ten sample grid cells, assuming a linear damage function. In each case, the four groups of bars show Methods 2, 3, 4 and 5. For a given method of constructing a scenario, percentage changes tend to be greater with a damage threshold at a return period of 20 years than with the 10-year return period threshold. Frequency analyses based on daily and monthly data give similar directions of change in most cells, with the notable exception of southern Spain (where using daily extremes suggests a reduction in damages whilst monthly extremes suggest an increase or little change) and south western USA (where daily extremes suggest an increase in damages with Methods 4 and 5, and monthly extremes suggest a decrease). The differential effects of the four scenario construction methods are also apparent. In south east Brasil, England and north east USA, for example, Methods 4 and 5 (with the addition of changes in year to year variability) produce larger increases in damages than Methods 2 or 3, and in Ghana and SE Australia they suggest little change in damage rather than large decreases.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

45

October 2005

Figure 4.11:

Relationships between damage and probability for the ten sample grid cells, under baseline and Method 3 scenarios

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

46

October 2005

Figure 4.12:

Percentage change in average annual damage for the ten sample grid cells, under different scenario methods, damage thresholds and frequency distributions (linear damage function)

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

47

October 2005

4.3.4 Incorporating adaptation There are several possible objectives behind adaptation to climate change (Adger et al., 2005). One objective would be to prevent any additional impacts over those already being incurred, and another could be to seek a new economically optimum level of protection. Another objective, which is highly likely to be used where management agencies adopt a risk-based approach 3 , is to seek to maintain the same standard of service of protection. This approach is relatively straightforward to incorporate into assessments of the effects of climate change on flood risk. Figure 4.13 shows, for the ten sample grid cells, average annual damage with three standards of protection – protection to the 25, 50 and 100-year flood level – assuming a linear damage function and with daily frequency parameters. Three values of average annual damage are shown for each standard of protection. The first assumes no climate change, the second assumes "HadCM3 A2 Method 3" climate change, but with protection maintained at the original 25, 50 and 100-year flood magnitudes. The third value shows the average annual damage if defences were altered to provide protection against the future 25, 50 and 100-year flood magnitudes. In four of the cells, adaptation reduces damages considerably, but in each case the damages with adaptation remain slightly above the damages with no climate change. In the remaining cells, a reduction in flood frequencies results in a reduction in average annual damage with climate change. In these cases, adaptation leads to a reduction in the actual level of protection associated with a given standard of service, and adaptation therefore results in increases in damages (and if such actions were to be taken, would amount to maladaptation). Note that adaptation does not produce exactly the same damages as the situation without climate change (although the standards of protection are the same) because climate change changes the shape of the relationship between flood magnitude and frequency. Figure 4.14 shows the geographical distribution of the effects of adaptation, assuming protection against the 50 and 100 year flood magnitudes. The top pair of panels shows the effects of climate change in the absence of adaptation. The central pair shows the effects of adaptation on the impacts of climate change. The green and blue colours depict cells where changing the level of protection increases damages because climate change lowers the magnitude of the T-year flood. The bottom pair of maps show "impacts with adaptation" in comparison to the damages in the absence of climate change: adaptation clearly reduces substantially the impacts of climate change.

3

in practice the term "risk management" refers to attempts to manage likelihoods, not risk

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

48

October 2005

Figure 4.13:

Average annual damage with three standards of protection, assuming no climate change, climate change but no adaptation, and climate change with adaptation to maintain service standards

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

49

October 2005

Figure 4.14:

Effect of adaptation on grid-cell average annual damage: linear damage function, damage begins at 10-year return period event, HadCM3 A2 Method 3 climate change scenario

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

50

October 2005

4.3.5 Regional and global flood risk The previous sections have focused on grid-cell average annual damage as in indicator of "hydrological" flood risk within a cell. Actual flood risk, however, will vary considerably between cells due to variations in assets and lives exposed to flooding. There is currently no global data base on assets exposed to riverine flooding, so grid-cell population is used here as a surrogate. The total flood risk over a region or the entire globe is therefore estimated by summing the product of grid-cell average annual damage and cell population across all cells. Figure 4.15 shows the geographical distribution of flood risk across the world, using 1995 population, three damage functions and damage thresholds of 10 and 20 years. The map essentially shows the distribution of population, scaled slightly differently with the different damage functions. The sensitivity of the effects of climate change on indicative global flood risk to different assumptions is summarised in Figure 4.16. In each case, it is assumed that protection exists to prevent damages in floods with a return period of less than 50 years (under the current climate). The top left panel shows the percentage change (compared to the situation in 2085 with no climate change) under the four methods of creating climate change scenarios, assuming A2 population, the damage function starting at the 10-year event, and frequency distribution parameters estimated from daily maxima. There is a clear difference between Method 2 and the other Methods, with little difference between Methods 4 and 5. There is relatively little difference between the different shaped damage functions, with the greatest percentage change with the squared function. The top right panel shows the effect of different damage thresholds and the use of daily and monthly maxima, assuming A2 population and a linear damage function. With protection against floods with a return period of less than 50 years, there is little difference between the use of a 10 or 20 year return period threshold for the start of the damage function, but use of monthly rather than daily frequencies leads to a greater climate change effect. The bottom left panel shows, again assuming A2 population and a linear damage function, the effect of calculating global risk at the 0.5x0.5, 1x1 or 2x2o resolution: there is little apparent difference (the baseline figures are slightly different, but percentage changes are similar). The bottom right panel shows the effect of different population assumptions, assuming a linear damage function, the damage function starting at 10 years (but with protection against floods with a return period of less than 50 years), and daily frequency parameters. The differences are relatively small. The final panel shows the effect of adapting to climate change by altering defence standards to protect against the future 50-year flood, rather than the current value. Under this assumption, total flood risk reduces with climate change. Not only is risk reduced where climate change increases risk (see the right hand bar), but risk is reduced where climate change means that the future 50-year flood is smaller than the current 50-year flood.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

51

October 2005

Figure 4.15:

Grid-cell flood risk, with 1995 population

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

52

October 2005

Figure 4.16:

Effect of climate change on global flood risk

4.3.6 Implications This section has examined the implications of spatial resolution, form of damage model and scenario method on the estimated effects of climate change. The differences between the four scenario generation methods are more marked with flood risk than water resources stress, with Method 2 producing considerably different results than Methods 3, 4 and 5. As with water resources, Methods 4 and 5 produce very similar results, but there are greater differences with Method 3. The effect of spatial resolution on global (and regional) flood risk is less apparent than for water resources, and appears relatively minor. Using parameters describing daily or monthly flood frequencies produces some differences. Given that daily frequency parameters are less robust than monthly frequency parameters (Section 2), it is therefore appropriate to use monthly frequency parameters. The use of differently-shaped damage functions with different thresholds at which damage begins produces different quantitative estimates of flood risk and its variation

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

53

October 2005

from cell to cell, but when changes are expressed in relative terms the differences become much smaller. Finally, although the focus has been on methodological issues, the calculations here show that climate change may produce very substantial percentage changes in flood risk, due largely to changes in the estimated frequency with which damage begins, and that adaptation (through seeking to maintain defined standards of protection) can reduce very significantly flood risk.

5. 5.1

Climate impact response functions Introduction and approach

Climate Impact Response Functions (CIRFs) are used in many integrated assessment models to characterise the effect of a given change in climate variable – usually global temperature – on the impact of climate change. These CIRFs may be empirically based (from the results of impacts assessments conducted for different rates of climate change), but are often simple mathematical expressions of the form Dti (T ) = a i T bi t where Dt(T) is the "damage" at time t associated with temperature change T, Tt is the temperature change by time t, and a and b are parameters. The subscript i represents region, and the global "damage" is the sum across the regions. In effect, this is a conditional climate impact response function, because for many impact areas "damage" is related not only to changes in temperature but also to changes in precipitation and other variables (including their pattern of change through the year and from year to year). Indicative empirical CIRFs were constructed for water resources stress and flood risk, using essentially the same approach. Climate scenarios were constructed by rescaling the HadCM3 A2 Method 3 climate change pattern to global temperature increases of between 0.5 and 3.0oC, in 0.5oC increments. The resulting hydrological changes were combined with population data for 2085 to produce CIRFs for water resources stress and flood risk conditional on the patterns of change in precipitation associated with a given global temperature change.

5.2

Water resources stress

Figure 5.1 shows CIRFs for water resources stress in 2085, under A1/B1, A2 and B2 populations. The left panel shows the numbers of people living in watersheds with less than 1000m3/capita/year. There is little clear relationship with temperature: whilst some watersheds move into the stressed category, others move out as temperature rises and precipitation, and hence runoff, changes. The right panel shows the numbers of people with an increase in water resources stress as temperature rises. This rises with temperature as the numbers of watersheds with significant reductions in runoff

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

54

October 2005

increase: a similar CIRF shows the change in numbers of people with an apparent decrease in water stress as temperature rises.

Figure 5.1:

Conditional climate impact response functions for global numbers of people affected by water stress: HadCM3 A2 climate pattern

Figure 5.2 shows the same as Figure 5.1, but assuming just the A2 population and showing the three different spatial resolutions. Spatial resolution has a very large effect on the absolute numbers of people living in water-stressed watersheds (left panel), but a much lesser effect on the shape of the CIRF describing people with an increase in water stress.

Figure 5.2:

Conditional climate impact response functions for global numbers of people affected by water stress: effect of different spatial resolutions

Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show global CIRFs, but these hide considerable regional variability. Figure 5.3 shows CIRFs describing the relationship between water stress and global temperature for 20 major world regions. Not only is there considerable variability between the regions, but the shapes of the CIRFs are also different. Climate impact response functions for impact areas highly dependent on precipitation, such as water, will vary considerably depending on the climate model used to produce spatial patterns of climate change. Figure 5.4 shows some global CIRFs constructed using climate patterns rescaled from six climate models (Arnell, 2005): the differences are clearly very large.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

55

October 2005

Figure 5.3:

Regional climate impact response functions representing change in water resources stress, assuming A2 population
2085: A2

4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Temperat ure change

Figure 5.4:

Global climate impact response functions for water resources stress created using different climate models (Arnell, 2005). The vertical lines represent global temperature changes associated with specific climate policies

5.3

Indicative global flood risk

Figure 5.5 shows CIRFs for indicative global flood risk in 2085, assuming in each case that protection is provided against floods with a return period of 50 years under the current climate (in other words, with no adaptation). The top left panel shows the effect of different population assumptions, using a linear damage function: there is little clear difference in percentage change in risk. Note that the CIRFs show a decrease in global risk with small rises in temperature, and an increase thereafter.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

56

October 2005

The top right panel shows the effect of using different damage functions, with A2 population. The linear and root damage functions produce very similar CIRFs, but the squared function produces a lower curve. The bottom left panel shows very little difference in CIRFs when a damage threshold of 10 or 20 years is used, and a slight difference when frequency distributions are estimated from daily or monthly maxima. The bottom right panel shows that the spatial resolution at which runoff is calculated has virtually no effect on the CIRF.

Figure 5.5:

Climate Impact Response Functions for global flood risk

Figure 5.6 shows the effect of adaptation – providing protection against the future, rather than current, 50-year flood – on the variation in global flood risk with temperature. Adaptation clearly has a major effect on the resulting CIRF, with little difference between the linear and root damage functions. Finally, Figure 5.7 shows regional CIRFs, for the same regions as shown in Figure 5.3. There is clearly a large variation between the curves. In some regions the CIRFs show a reduction in regional flood risk for small increases in temperature, and an increase as temperatures rise still further. Note that the global indicative flood risk CIRF is not simply the average of the regional CIRFs, as the baseline indicative flood risk varies between regions. Most of the regional CIRFs show a reduction in risk as temperature rises, but the global CIRF shows a clear increase because the regions with increasing CIRFs have a high absolute indicative flood risk.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

57

October 2005

Figure 5.6:

Climate Impact Response Function for global flood risk, with and without adaptation

Figure 5.7:

Regional Climate Impact Response Functions for flood risk

The flood risk CIRFs have a very different form to the water resources CIRFs shown in the previous section. They tend to show a progressive, and accelerating, change as temperature rises, and are smoother. This is largely because they are not based on exceedance of thresholds.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

58

October 2005

6.

Conclusions

A key challenge for integrated assessment models (IAMs) is to represent accurately the impacts of a given climate change. Simple IAMs use simple empirical functions describing impacts for a given temperature change, whilst more complicated IAMs use spatially-explicit impacts modules but are computationally far more demanding. Empirical climate impact response functions can in principle be constructed from geographically-explicit impact assessments, but in practice tend to be simple mathematical formulations. This project has examined the development of global-scale impact assessment modules into integrated assessment models, and the associated issue of interfacing the impacts modules with climate simulation modules. The project used impacts modules describing impacts on water resources and flood risk, although the focus of the project was methodological: no attempt has been made to interpret the impacts of climate change on water resources and flood risk. The three aims of the project were to develop an interface between climate and impacts modules, specifically for the Tyndall CIAM, to enhance an existing hydrological module to that it can integrate with the interface and simulate additional dimensions of hydrological behaviour, and develop indicative impacts modules using the simulated runoff. A fourth element of the project explored the development of generalised climate impact response functions for water resources and flood risk. The work on the climate-impacts interface involved the development and enhancement of the ClimGen climate scenario generation software. This incorporates a statistical downscaling procedure to provide scenarios at the fine resolution used by impacts models, and includes four variant methods for creating scenarios. Two of these (Methods 4 and 5) represent changes not only in mean precipitation, but also in variability in precipitation from year to year, differing only in the way the time series are scaled to match a defined temperature change. These two methods tend to produce very similar climate scenarios, but both produce scenarios that are locally very different from those which do not incorporate changes in year to year variability. The hydrological model simulates time series of runoff on a grid across the land surface of the world, and has been revised to output measures describing year to year variability in low, average and high flows. The variability in low and average flows is reasonably well simulated, but there are indications that the variability in high flows is underestimated. The hydrological model uses a stochastic approach to break monthly precipitation down into daily precipitation, and different repetitions produce slightly different hydrological results (monthly precipitation totals are preserved, but the same monthly total is distributed in different ways through the month). Investigations showed that as few as five repetitions are necessary to produce robust estimates of measures of average runoff, but 20 repetitions may be necessary to produce robust estimates of measures of high flows. Simulating runoff at coarser resolutions reduced simulation time and produces visually similar maps of hydrological behaviour, but as resolution coarsens from 0.5x0.5o to 2x2o both the mean and variability in runoff tends to decrease.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

59

October 2005

The four different methods of producing climate scenarios result in different estimates of the impact of climate change. Method 2, which applies absolute changes in precipitation, produces very different changes to the other methods, which apply percentage changes, in some dry parts of the world. There is little difference in simulated average runoff between the other three methods, but the methods which incorporate changes in year to year variability in precipitation tend to produce larger percentage changes in high flows. An existing water resources impact module was used, which calculates available resources per person by major watershed. Simulating runoff at different spatial scales produces different quantitative estimates of numbers of people exposed to water resources stress. Method 2 produces different estimates of the impact of climate change than the other (percentage change) methods, which result in very similar changes. Including changes in year-to-year variability makes little difference to the numerical impact of climate change. A second module was developed to estimate global flood risk. This involves first the estimation of grid-cell average annual damage, using a generalised damage function, and second scaling grid-cell damage by grid-cell population and summing by region or across the globe. Different damage functions produce quantitatively different estimates of cell flood damages and, most importantly, different degrees of variation between cells: the squared damage function results in much greater variability in average annual damage between cells than the root damage function. The use of parameters from maximum daily or monthly flows also produces different estimates of damage. Climate change frequently results in very large percentage changes in cell average annual damage, largely because changes in the frequency with which damage begins can change considerably. The different methods of creating scenarios produce different estimates of the effect of climate change, broadly in line with the results from the water resources model. Including changes in year-to-year variability in precipitation, however, has a rather greater effect. The flood risk module also incorporates the effect of adaptation, represented by adjustments to the physical level of protection to produce the same standard of service (so that protection is provided against the future, rather than current, 50-year flood, for example). Adaptation reduces impacts very considerably, but does not eliminate them because climate change alters not only the magnitude of defined frequency floods but also the precise shape of the relationship between magnitude and frequency. Simulating runoff at different spatial scales produces slightly different estimates of global flood risk and the sensitivity to climate change. The final part of the report examines the development of indicative climate impact response functions (CIRFs) describing the relationship between climate change impact (in terms of water resources stress and flood risk) and global average temperature. When expressed in relative terms, there is little difference between spatial scale for either water resources or flood risk, and the flood CIRFs are relatively insensitive to the assumed shape of the grid-cell damage function. The water resources CIRFs are not easily described by simple mathematical functions: they tend to show step changes, because they are based on resource availability passing defined thresholds. The flood CIRFs have a simpler form, and show accelerating increases as temperature rises.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

60

October 2005

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, under project T2-11 within Theme 1 "Integrating Frameworks". Dr David Wilson (exUniversity of Southampton) and Dr Tim Mitchell (ex-University of East Anglia) contributed to the development of Mac-PDM and ClimGen respectively. Dr Mark New (University of Oxford) provided the algorithm to convert cloud cover into sunshine hours used in the enhanced Mac-PDM.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

61

October 2005

References

Adger, W. N., N. W. Arnell, et al. (2005). "Successful adaptation across scales." Global Environmental Change 15: 77-86. Alcamo, J., Ed. (1994). IMAGE 2.0: Integrated Modelling of Global Climate Change. London, Kluwer. Arnell, N. W. (1999). "A simple water balance model for the simulation of streamflow over a large geographic domain." Journal of Hydrology 217: 314335. Arnell, N. W. (2003). "Effects of IPCC SRES emissions scenarios on river runoff: a global perspective." Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 7(5): 619-641. Arnell, N. W. (2004). "Climate change and global water resources: SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios." Global Environmental Change 14(1): 31-52. Arnell, N. W. (2005). Climate change and water resources: a global perspective. Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Proceedings of the Exeter Conference. H. J. Schellnhuber. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Arnell, N. W., R. Nicholls, et al. (2004). "Climate and socio-economic scenarios for climate change impacts assessments: characterising the SRES storylines." Global Environmental Change 14: 3-20. Bronstert, A. (2003). "Floods and climate change: Interactions and impacts." Risk Analysis 23(3): 545-557. Falkenmark, M., J. Lundquist, et al. (1989). "Macro-scale water scarcity requires micro-scale approaches: aspects of vulnerability in semi-arid development." Natural Resources Forum 13: 258-267. Farquharson, F.A.K., Meigh, J.R. & Sutcliff, J.V. (1992), "Regional flood frequency analysis in arid and semi-arid areas". Journal of Hydrology 138: 487-501. Flood and Coastal Defence Foresight Project (2004). Foresight Future Flooding. London, Office of Science and Technology, Department for Trade and Industry. Fussel, H. M., F. L. Toth, et al. (2003). "Climate impact response functions as impact tools in the tolerable windows approach." Climatic Change 56(1): 91-117. Goodess, C. M., M. Hanson, et al. (2003). "Representing climate and extreme weather events in integrated assessment models: a review of existing methods and options for development." Integrated Assessment 4: 145-171. Gordon, C., C. Cooper, et al. (2000). "Simulation of SST, sea-ice extents and ocean heat transports in a coupled model without flux adjustments." Climate Dynamics 16: 147-168. Hulme, M., T. M. L. Wigley, et al. (2000). Using a climate scenario generator for vulnerability and adaptation assessments. . MAGICC and SCENGEN Version 2.4 Workbook, CRU Norwich. Kenny, G. J., R. A. Warrick, et al. (2000). "Investigating climate change impacts and thresholds: an application of the CLIMPACTS integrated assessment model for New Zealand agriculture." Climatic Change 46: 91-113. Klepper, O. (1996). Documentation for the calculation of world-wide water satisfaction on catchment basin level. Unpublished Report, RIVM, The Netherlands. Leemans, R. and B. Eickhout (2004). "Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change." Global Environmental Change 14(3): 219-228 Mastrandrea, M. D. and S. H. Schneider (2004). "Probabilistic integrated assessment

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

62

October 2005

of "dangerous" climate change." Science 304(5670): 571-575 McMahon, T. A., B. L. Finlayson, et al. (1992). Global Runoff: Continental Comparisons of Annual Flows and Peak Discharges. Cremlingen-Drestedt, Catena. Milly, P. C. D., R. T. Wetherald, et al. (2002). "Increasing risk of great floods in a changing climate." Nature 415(6871): 514-517. Mitchell, T. D. and T. J. Osborn (2005). "ClimGen: a flexible tool for generating monthly climate data sets." in prep. New, M., M. Hulme, et al. (2000). "Representing twentieth century space-time climate variability. Part 2: development of 1901-96 monthly grids of terrestrial surface climate." Journal of Climate 13: 2217-2238. New, M. G., M. Hulme, et al. (1999). "Representing twentieth century space-time climate variability. Part 1: development of a 1961-1990 mean monthly terrestrial climatology." Journal of Climate 12: 829-856. Nordhaus, W. D. (1993). "Optimal greenhouse gas reductions and tax policy in the DICE model." American Economic Review 83(2): 313-317. Reynard, N. S., C. Prudhomme, et al. (2001). "The flood characteristics of large UK Rivers: Potential effects of changing climate and land use." Climatic Change 48(2-3): 343-359. Rotmans, J. (1990). IMAGE: An Integrated Model to Assess the Greenhouse Effect. Dordrecht, Kluwer. Rotmans, J., M. Hulme, et al. (1994). "Climate change implications for Europe: an application of the ESCAPE model." Global Environmental Change 4: 97-124. Tol, R. S. J. (1999). "Safe policies in an uncertain climate: an application of FUND." Global Environmental Change 9(3): 221-232. Tol, R. S. J. (2002). "Estimates of the damage costs of climate change - Part II. Dynamic estimates." Environmental & Resource Economics 21(2): 135-160. Tol, R. S. J. (2002). "Estimates of the damage costs of climate change. Part 1: Benchmark estimates." Environmental & Resource Economics 21(1): 47-73. Wilbanks, T. J. (2002). "Geographic scaling issues in integrated assessments of climate change." Integrated Assessment 3: 100-114.

Interfacing climate and impacts modules

63

October 2005

The inter-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. 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 University University University University University of of of of of of East Anglia Manchester Southampton Sussex Oxford Newcastle

Recent Tyndall Centre Technical Reports

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/tech_r eports/tech_reports.shtml

Tyndall Centre Technical Reports are available online at

Warren R., de la Nava Santos S., Ford R., Riley G., Bane M., Barton C., and Freeman L., (2007) SoftIAM: Integrated assessment modelling using distributed software components: Tyndall Centre Technical Report No. 51. Challenor, P., (2007) Estimating uncertainty in future assessments of climate change: Tyndall Centre Technical Report No. 50. O'Riordan T., Watkinson A., Milligan J, (2006) Living with a changing coastline: Exploring new forms of governance for sustainable coastal futures: Tyndall Centre Technical Report No. 49. Anderson K., Bows A., Mander S, Shackley S., Agnolucci P., Ekins P., (2006) Decarbonising Modern Societies:Integrated Scenarios Process and Workshops, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 48. Gough C., Shackley S. (2005) An integrated Assesment of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in the UK. Tyndall Centre Technical Report 47. Nicholls R., Hanson S., Balson P., Brown I., French J., Spencer T., (2005) Capturing Geomorphological Change in the Coastal Simulator, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 46

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) 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 3906; Fax: +44 (0) 1603 59 3901 Email: tyndall@uea.ac.uk

Weatherhead K, Knox J, Ramsden S, Gibbons J, Arnell N. W., Odoni, N, Hiscock K, Sandhu C, Saich A., Conway D, Warwick C, Bharwani S, (2006) Sustainable water resources: A framework for assessing adaptation options in the rural sector, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 45 Weatherhead K, Knox J, Ramsden S, Gibbons J, Arnell N. W., Odoni, N, Hiscock K, Sandhu C, Saich A., Conway D, Warwick C, Bharwani S, (2006) Sustainable water resources: A framework for assessing adaptation options in the rural sector, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 44 Lowe, T. (2006) Vicarious experience vs. scientific information in climate change risk perception and behaviour: a case study of undergraduate students in Norwich, UK, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 43 Atkinson, P, (2006) Towards an integrated
coastal simulator of the impact of sea level rise in East Anglia: Part B3- Coastal simulator and biodiversity - Modelling the change in wintering Twite Carduelis flavirostris populations in relation to changing saltmarsh area, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 42B3

Lenton, T. M., Loutre, M. F, Williamson, M. S., Warren, R., Goodess, C., Swann, M., Cameron, D. R., Hankin, R., Marsh, R. and Shepherd, J. G., (2006) Climate change on the millennial
timescale, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 41 Bows, A., Anderson, K. and Upham, P. (2006) Contraction & Convergence: UK carbon emissions and the implications for UK air traffic, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 40 Starkey R., Anderson K., (2005) Domestic Tradeable Quotas: A policy instrument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from energy use:, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 39 Pearson, S., Rees, J., Poulton, C., Dickson, M., Walkden, M., Hall, J., Nicholls, R., Mokrech, M., Koukoulas, S. and Spencer, T. (2005) Towards an integrated coastal sediment dynamics and shoreline response simulator, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 38 Sorrell, S. (2005) The contribution of energy service contracting to a low carbon economy, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 37 Tratalos, J. A., Gill, J. A., Jones, A., Showler, D., Bateman, A., Watkinson, A., Sugden, R., and Sutherland, W. (2005) Interactions between tourism, breeding birds and climate change across a regional scale, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 36 Thomas, D., Osbahr, H., Twyman, C., Adger, W. N. and Hewitson, B., (2005) ADAPTIVE: Adaptations to climate change amongst natural resourcedependant societies in the developing world: across the Southern African climate gradient, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 35 Arnell, N. W., Tompkins, E. L., Adger, W. N. and Delany, K. (2005) Vulnerability to abrupt climate change in Europe, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 34 Shackley, S. and Anderson, K. et al. (2005) Decarbonising the UK: Energy for a climate conscious future, Tyndall Technical Report 33 Halliday, J., Ruddell, A., Powell, J. and Peters, M. (2005) Fuel cells: Providing heat and power in the urban environment, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 32 Haxeltine, A., Turnpenny, J., O’Riordan, T., and Warren, R (2005) The creation of a pilot phase Interactive Integrated Assessment Process for managing climate futures, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 31

Gill, J, Watkinson, A. and Sutherland, W.,
(2006) Towards an integrated coastal simulator of the impact of sea level rise in East Anglia: Part B2- Coastal simulator and biodiversity models of biodiversity responses to environmental change Tyndall Centre Technical Report 42B2

Ridley, J., Gill, J, Watkinson, A. and Sutherland, W., (2006) Towards an integrated
coastal simulator of the impact of sea level rise in East Anglia: Part B1- Coastal simulator and biodiversity - Design and structure of the coastal simulator Tyndall Centre Technical Report 42B1

Stansby, P., Launder B., Laurence, D., Kuang, C., and Zhou, J., (2006) Towards an integrated
coastal simulator of the impact of sea level rise in East Anglia: Part A- Coastal wave climate prediction and sandbanks for coastal protection Tyndall Centre Technical Report 42A

Nedic, D. P., Shakoor, A. A., Strbac, G., Black, M., Watson, J., and Mitchell, C. (2005) Security assessment of futures electricity scenarios, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 30 Shepherd, J., Challenor, P., Marsh, B., Williamson, M., Yool, W., Lenton, T., Huntingford, C., Ridgwell, A and Raper, S. (2005) Planning and Prototyping a Climate Module for the Tyndall Integrated Assessment Model, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 29 Lorenzoni, I., Lowe, T. and Pidgeon, N. (2005) A strategic assessment of scientific and behavioural perspectives on ‘dangerous’ climate change, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 28 Boardman, B., Killip, G., Darby S. and Sinden, G, (2005) Lower Carbon Futures: the 40% House Project, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 27 Dearing, J.A., Plater, A.J., Richmond, N., Prandle, D. and Wolf , J. (2005) Towards a high resolution cellular model for coastal simulation (CEMCOS), Tyndall Centre Technical Report 26 Timms, P., Kelly, C., and Hodgson, F., (2005) World transport scenarios project, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 25 Brown, K., Few, R., Tompkins, E. L., Tsimplis, M. and Sortti, (2005) Responding to climate change: inclusive and integrated coastal analysis, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 24 Anderson, D., Barker, T., Ekins, P., Green, K., Köhler, J., Warren, R., Agnolucci, P., Dewick, P., Foxon, T., Pan, H. and Winne, S. (2005) ETech+: Technology policy and technical change, a dynamic global and UK approach, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 23 Abu-Sharkh, S., Li, R., Markvart, T., Ross, N., Wilson, P., Yao, R., Steemers, K., Kohler, J. and Arnold, R. (2005) Microgrids: distributed on-site generation, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 22 Shepherd, D., Jickells, T., Andrews, J., Cave, R., Ledoux, L, Turner, R., Watkinson, A., Aldridge, J. Malcolm, S, Parker, R., Young, E., Nedwell, D. (2005) Integrated modelling of an estuarine environment: an assessment of managed realignment options, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 21 Dlugolecki, A. and Mansley, M. (2005) Asset management and climate change, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 20

Shackley, S., Bray, D. and Bleda, M., (2005) Developing discourse coalitions to incorporate stakeholder perceptions and responses within the Tyndall Integrated Assessment, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 19 Dutton, A. G., Bristow, A. L., Page, M. W., Kelly, C. E., Watson, J. and Tetteh, A. (2005) The Hydrogen energy economy: its long term role in greenhouse gas reduction, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 18 Few, R. (2005) Health and flood risk: A strategic assessment of adaptation processes and policies, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 17 Brown, K., Boyd, E., Corbera-Elizalde, E., Adger, W. N. and Shackley, S (2004) How do CDM projects contribute to sustainable development? Tyndall Centre Technical Report 16 Levermore, G, Chow, D., Jones, P. and Lister, D. (2004) Accuracy of modelled extremes of temperature and climate change and its implications for the built environment in the UK, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 14 Jenkins, N., Strbac G. and Watson J. (2004) Connecting new and renewable energy sources to the UK electricity system, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 13 Palutikof, J. and Hanson, C. (2004) Integrated assessment of the potential for change in storm activity over Europe: Implications for insurance and forestry, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 12 Berkhout, F., Hertin, J., and Arnell, N. (2004) Business and Climate Change: Measuring and Enhancing Adaptive Capacity, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 11 Tsimplis, S. et al (2004) Towards a vulnerability assessment for the UK coastline, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 10 Gill, J., Watkinson, A. and Côté, I (2004). Linking sea level rise, coastal biodiversity and economic activity in Caribbean island states: towards the development of a coastal island simulator, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 9 Skinner, I., Fergusson, M., Kröger, K., Kelly, C. and Bristow, A. (2004) Critical Issues in Decarbonising Transport, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 8 Adger W. N., Brooks, N., Kelly, M., Bentham, S. and Eriksen, S. (2004) New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 7

Macmillan, S. and Köhler, J.H., (2004) Modelling energy use in the global building stock: a pilot survey to identify available data, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 6 Steemers, K. (2003) Establishing research directions in sustainable building design, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 5 Goodess, C.M. Osborn, T. J. and Hulme, M. (2003) The identification and evaluation of suitable scenario development methods for the estimation of future probabilities of extreme weather events, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 4

Köhler, J.H. (2002). Modelling technological change, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 3 Gough, C., Shackley, S., Cannell, M.G.R. (2002). Evaluating the options for carbon sequestration, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 2 Warren, R. (2002). A blueprint for integrated assessment of climate change, Tyndall CentreTechnical Report 1