@misc{ThiekenCammererDobleretal.2014, author = {Thieken, Annegret and Cammerer, Holger and Dobler, Christian and Lammel, Johannes and Sch{\"o}berl, Fritz}, title = {Estimating changes in flood risks and benefits of non-structural adaptation strategies}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {910}, issn = {1866-8372}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-43228}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-432282}, pages = {36}, year = {2014}, abstract = {Flood damage has increased significantly and is expected to rise further in many parts of the world. For assessing potential changes in flood risk, this paper presents an integrated model chain quantifying flood hazards and losses while considering climate and land use changes. In the case study region, risk estimates for the present and the near future illustrate that changes in flood risk by 2030 are relatively low compared to historic periods. While the impact of climate change on the flood hazard and risk by 2030 is slight or negligible, strong urbanisation associated with economic growth contributes to a remarkable increase in flood risk. Therefore, it is recommended to frequently consider land use scenarios and economic developments when assessing future flood risks. Further, an adapted and sustainable risk management is necessary to encounter rising flood losses, in which non-structural measures are becoming more and more important. The case study demonstrates that adaptation by non-structural measures such as stricter land use regulations or enhancement of private precaution is capable of reducing flood risk by around 30 \%. Ignoring flood risks, in contrast, always leads to further increasing losses-with our assumptions by 17 \%. These findings underline that private precaution and land use regulation could be taken into account as low cost adaptation strategies to global climate change in many flood prone areas. Since such measures reduce flood risk regardless of climate or land use changes, they can also be recommended as no-regret measures.}, language = {en} } @misc{SunyerHundechaLawrenceetal.2015, author = {Sunyer, M. A. and Hundecha, Y. and Lawrence, D. and Madsen, H. and Willems, Patrick and Martinkova, M. and Vormoor, Klaus Josef and B{\"u}rger, Gerd and Hanel, Martin and Kriaučiūnienė, J. and Loukas, A. and Osuch, M. and Y{\"u}cel, I.}, title = {Inter-comparison of statistical downscaling methods for projection of extreme precipitation in Europe}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {512}, issn = {1866-8372}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-40892}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-408920}, pages = {21}, year = {2015}, abstract = {Information on extreme precipitation for future climate is needed to assess the changes in the frequency and intensity of flooding. The primary source of information in climate change impact studies is climate model projections. However, due to the coarse resolution and biases of these models, they cannot be directly used in hydrological models. Hence, statistical downscaling is necessary to address climate change impacts at the catchment scale. This study compares eight statistical downscaling methods (SDMs) often used in climate change impact studies. Four methods are based on change factors (CFs), three are bias correction (BC) methods, and one is a perfect prognosis method. The eight methods are used to downscale precipitation output from 15 regional climate models (RCMs) from the ENSEMBLES project for 11 catchments in Europe. The overall results point to an increase in extreme precipitation in most catchments in both winter and summer. For individual catchments, the downscaled time series tend to agree on the direction of the change but differ in the magnitude. Differences between the SDMs vary between the catchments and depend on the season analysed. Similarly, general conclusions cannot be drawn regarding the differences between CFs and BC methods. The performance of the BC methods during the control period also depends on the catchment, but in most cases they represent an improvement compared to RCM outputs. Analysis of the variance in the ensemble of RCMs and SDMs indicates that at least 30\% and up to approximately half of the total variance is derived from the SDMs. This study illustrates the large variability in the expected changes in extreme precipitation and highlights the need for considering an ensemble of both SDMs and climate models. Recommendations are provided for the selection of the most suitable SDMs to include in the analysis.}, language = {en} } @misc{MurawskiBuergerVorogushynetal.2016, author = {Murawski, Aline and B{\"u}rger, Gerd and Vorogushyn, Sergiy and Merz, Bruno}, title = {Can local climate variability be explained by weather patterns?}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {525}, issn = {1866-8372}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-41015}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-410155}, pages = {24}, year = {2016}, abstract = {To understand past flood changes in the Rhine catchment and in particular the role of anthropogenic climate change in extreme flows, an attribution study relying on a proper GCM (general circulation model) downscaling is needed. A downscaling based on conditioning a stochastic weather generator on weather patterns is a promising approach. This approach assumes a strong link between weather patterns and local climate, and sufficient GCM skill in reproducing weather pattern climatology. These presuppositions are unprecedentedly evaluated here using 111 years of daily climate data from 490 stations in the Rhine basin and comprehensively testing the number of classification parameters and GCM weather pattern characteristics. A classification based on a combination of mean sea level pressure, temperature, and humidity from the ERA20C reanalysis of atmospheric fields over central Europe with 40 weather types was found to be the most appropriate for stratifying six local climate variables. The corresponding skill is quite diverse though, ranging from good for radiation to poor for precipitation. Especially for the latter it was apparent that pressure fields alone cannot sufficiently stratify local variability. To test the skill of the latest generation of GCMs from the CMIP5 ensemble in reproducing the frequency, seasonality, and persistence of the derived weather patterns, output from 15 GCMs is evaluated. Most GCMs are able to capture these characteristics well, but some models showed consistent deviations in all three evaluation criteria and should be excluded from further attribution analysis.}, 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} }