@misc{LevermannWinkelmann2016, author = {Levermann, Anders and Winkelmann, Ricarda}, title = {A simple equation for the melt elevation feedback of ice sheets}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {529}, issn = {1866-8372}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-40983}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-409834}, pages = {9}, year = {2016}, abstract = {In recent decades, the Greenland Ice Sheet has been losing mass and has thereby contributed to global sea-level rise. The rate of ice loss is highly relevant for coastal protection worldwide. The ice loss is likely to increase under future warming. Beyond a critical temperature threshold, a meltdown of the Greenland Ice Sheet is induced by the self-enforcing feedback between its lowering surface elevation and its increasing surface mass loss: the more ice that is lost, the lower the ice surface and the warmer the surface air temperature, which fosters further melting and ice loss. The computation of this rate so far relies on complex numerical models which are the appropriate tools for capturing the complexity of the problem. By contrast we aim here at gaining a conceptual understanding by deriving a purposefully simple equation for the self-enforcing feedback which is then used to estimate the melt time for different levels of warming using three observable characteristics of the ice sheet itself and its surroundings. The analysis is purely conceptual in nature. It is missing important processes like ice dynamics for it to be useful for applications to sea-level rise on centennial timescales, but if the volume loss is dominated by the feedback, the resulting logarithmic equation unifies existing numerical simulations and shows that the melt time depends strongly on the level of warming with a critical slow-down near the threshold: the median time to lose 10\% of the present-day ice volume varies between about 3500 years for a temperature level of 0.5 degrees C above the threshold and 500 years for 5 degrees C. Unless future observations show a significantly higher melting sensitivity than currently observed, a complete meltdown is unlikely within the next 2000 years without significant ice-dynamical contributions.}, language = {en} } @misc{SchleussnerLissnerFischeretal.2016, author = {Schleussner, Carl-Friedrich and Lissner, Tabea Katharina and Fischer, Erich M. and Wohland, Jan and Perrette, Mah{\´e} and Golly, Antonius and Rogelj, Joeri and Childers, Katelin and Schewe, Jacob and Frieler, Katja and Mengel, Matthias and Hare, William and Schaeffer, Michiel}, title = {Differential climate impacts for policy-relevant limits to global warming}, series = {Earth System Dynamics}, journal = {Earth System Dynamics}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-410258}, pages = {25}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Robust appraisals of climate impacts at different levels of global-mean temperature increase are vital to guide assessments of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The 2015 Paris Agreement includes a two-headed temperature goal: "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C". Despite the prominence of these two temperature limits, a comprehensive overview of the differences in climate impacts at these levels is still missing. Here we provide an assessment of key impacts of climate change at warming levels of 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C, including extreme weather events, water availability, agricultural yields, sea-level rise and risk of coral reef loss. Our results reveal substantial differences in impacts between a 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C warming that are highly relevant for the assessment of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. For heat-related extremes, the additional 0.5 degrees C increase in global-mean temperature marks the difference between events at the upper limit of present-day natural variability and a new climate regime, particularly in tropical regions. Similarly, this warming difference is likely to be decisive for the future of tropical coral reefs. In a scenario with an end-of-century warming of 2 degrees C, virtually all tropical coral reefs are projected to be at risk of severe degradation due to temperature-induced bleaching from 2050 onwards. This fraction is reduced to about 90\% in 2050 and projected to decline to 70\% by 2100 for a 1.5 degrees C scenario. Analyses of precipitation-related impacts reveal distinct regional differences and hot-spots of change emerge. Regional reduction in median water availability for the Mediterranean is found to nearly double from 9\% to 17\% between 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C, and the projected lengthening of regional dry spells increases from 7 to 11\%. Projections for agricultural yields differ between crop types as well as world regions. While some (in particular high-latitude) regions may benefit, tropical regions like West Africa, South-East Asia, as well as Central and northern South America are projected to face substantial local yield reductions, particularly for wheat and maize. Best estimate sea-level rise projections based on two illustrative scenarios indicate a 50cm rise by 2100 relative to year 2000-levels for a 2 degrees C scenario, and about 10 cm lower levels for a 1.5 degrees C scenario. In a 1.5 degrees C scenario, the rate of sea-level rise in 2100 would be reduced by about 30\% compared to a 2 degrees C scenario. Our findings highlight the importance of regional differentiation to assess both future climate risks and different vulnerabilities to incremental increases in global-mean temperature. The article provides a consistent and comprehensive assessment of existing projections and a good basis for future work on refining our understanding of the difference between impacts at 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C warming.}, language = {en} } @misc{KellermannSchoenbergerThieken2016, author = {Kellermann, Patric and Sch{\"o}nberger, Christine and Thieken, Annegret}, title = {Large-scale application of the flood damage model RAilway Infrastructure Loss (RAIL)}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {555}, issn = {1866-8372}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-41191}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-411915}, pages = {15}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Experience has shown that river floods can significantly hamper the reliability of railway networks and cause extensive structural damage and disruption. As a result, the national railway operator in Austria had to cope with financial losses of more than EUR 100 million due to flooding in recent years. Comprehensive information on potential flood risk hot spots as well as on expected flood damage in Austria is therefore needed for strategic flood risk management. In view of this, the flood damage model RAIL (RAilway Infrastructure Loss) was applied to estimate (1) the expected structural flood damage and (2) the resulting repair costs of railway infrastructure due to a 30-, 100- and 300-year flood in the Austrian Mur River catchment. The results were then used to calculate the expected annual damage of the railway subnetwork and subsequently analysed in terms of their sensitivity to key model assumptions. Additionally, the impact of risk aversion on the estimates was investigated, and the overall results were briefly discussed against the background of climate change and possibly resulting changes in flood risk. The findings indicate that the RAIL model is capable of supporting decision-making in risk management by providing comprehensive risk information on the catchment level. It is furthermore demonstrated that an increased risk aversion of the railway operator has a marked influence on flood damage estimates for the study area and, hence, should be considered with regard to the development of risk management strategies.}, language = {en} }