1. 1 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov RT6, WP 6.2 Meeting Estimates of Windstorm induced Loss in Europe ENSEMBLES GA 2006 – 20th Nov – 24th Nov 2006, Lund Prof. Dr. U. Ulbrich Dr. G. Leckebusch M. Donat

2. 2 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov Economic lossInsured loss Economic and insured loss: Germany 1970 - 1998 Introduction: Storm damages in the past Tims question 1. What are the main objectives of our study?

3. 3 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov Model theory Loss depends on - local gust wind speed - insured property or amount of forest in the area insured property values can roughly be estimated from population density Loss increases with wind speed above a threshold. Different storm-loss functions have been proposed, a frequent one is: loss ~ v 3. Estimation of future changes in climate extremes and their relation to property damage Following the multi model approach direct use of GCM/RCM output in the impact model

4. 4 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov This wind speed is approx. equal to the 98 th percentile of wind speeds at regular (non-coastal, no mountain) stations in Germany Germany: Insurance companies pay when wind speeds exceed Bft 8 = 17.2 – 20.7 m/s For property damages: Model theory

5. 5 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov Model theory Loss for normalized cubic wind for Approach based on: Klawa, M. und U. Ulbrich, 2003: A model for the estimation of storm losses and the identification of severe winter storms in Germany. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 3, 725-732.

6. 6 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov Model improvements in ENSEMBLES 2: GIS (ArcGIS) - including global population distribution data on 1x1 degree grid - including interpolation of forestry data to model grid via GIS (at present: nearest neighbour) - Calculation of accumulated damage potential for different time slices and/or regions 1: Calculation of normalized cubic wind from input data (e.g. ERA40) per year Model structure 3: Fitting the calculated values per year and region to observed losses Tims 3. What have we achieved so far?

7. 7 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov Model improvements in ENSEMBLES c165/166c49 1970-20000,780,83 Correlation with insurance data (GdV): Input parameter: Wind gusts (Forecasts!) Overestimation in 1993 Underestimation in 1990 Further investigation with respect to the kind of exceedance

8. 8 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov Model improvements in ENSEMBLES 1993 more weak events than 1990 1990 more extreme exceedances of 98th Percentile than 1993 Approach 2 (dynamic): Loss limit individually adjusted after loss events Approach 1 (static): Loss limit consistently increased GERMANY: Exceedance of 98th Percentile (1971-2000) in ERA40

9. 9 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov Model improvements in ENSEMBLESDynamic Approach Idea: Individual variation of loss limit at each grid cell after loss events, depending on time since the last event

10. 10 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov Application of loss model on climate simulations ERA 40 (1971-2000) EH5/OM1, 20C (1971-2000) EH5/OM1, A1B (2071-2100) Mean value0,13950,12840,1507 Std. deviation0,08940,07070,1494 + 17 % + ~110 %

11. 11 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov Future Plans completion of sensitivity tests application on all available GCM- / RCM-Simulations Estimation of robust climate change signal following the Multi Model Approach Tims 4. Which of the WP 6.2 tasks, milestones and deliverables (see overleaf) do we plan to contribute to, by when and in what form? Del. 6.8: Preliminary Report on changes in climate extremes and their relation to flood risk, agriculture, forest and property damage and human health

12. 12 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov 5. What are our main questions requiring discussion in this meeting? When and where are RCM data available ? Tims 5th question:

13. 13 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov 1. What are the main objectives of our study? 2. How do our objectives relate to the Work Package objectives? Specifically, how do we intend to link our estimation of impacts to the ENSEMBLES prediction system (which will deliver information on future climate as multiple model projections and as probabilities)? 3. What have we achieved so far? 4. Which of the WP 6.2 tasks, milestones and deliverables (see overleaf) do we plan to contribute to, by when and in what form? 5. What are our main questions requiring discussion in this meeting? When and where are RCM data available ? Tims 5th question:

14. 14 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov Deliverables to be fulfilled in the next months (up to month 42) D6.7 Preliminary report on a comparative study of response surface and multiple scenario approaches to assessing risks of impacts using selected impact models. Month 30, Feb. D6.8 Preliminary report on changes in climate extremes and their relation to flood risk, agriculture, forest and property damage and human health. Month 30, Feb.07, UEA D6.13 Methodological report on the linking of preliminary probabilistic projections from the Ensemble Prediction System to impact models. Month 42 (SYKE?, possibly in co-operation with RT2B) 18 months period, month 25-42 Session 3: Planning and timetabling

15. 15 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov Session 3: Planning and timetabling Questions to be discussed on this meeting and later on: DISAT (Marco Bindi): Collection of data to be used for the construction of response surfaces DIAS (Tove Heidmann): How and when do we get climate data UREADMM (Tom Osborne): How do we get hold of the data with password only? RCM/GCM?? UNIK (Martina Weiß, Uni Kassel) When ENS projections become available, river basins, format of response surface? Problem: common data based used by all partners to achieve response surfaces 18 months period, month 25-42

16. 16 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov Session 3: Planning and timetabling Questions to be discussed on this meeting and later on: SMHI (Phil Graham): a) seasonality in the res. surf. approach? b) what is the proper level of detail for critical thresholds? c) What will we get actually from GCMs? d) direct simulations: how to choose which transient model simulation? PAS (Malgorzata Szwed): ENS of climate scenarios are not available Problem with real data availability (classified data e.g. by insurance comp.) scarcity of data on extremes (e.g. 1997 flood in Poland) SYKE (Stefan Fronzek): (local permafrost) Are joint probabilities of several climate variables possible? How big will be the sample size? (RT2B?) Addressing impact model uncertainty? 18 months period, month 25-42

17. 17 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov Session 3: Planning and timetabling Questions to be discussed on this meeting and later on: NAO (Christos): Common output format? Question by Marco! 18 months period, month 25-42 Is it possible to be more precise in formulating what we (RT6.2) will need to have from other WPs? (RT2B, RT3, RT2A,…) Aim: Preparation of the discussion on Thursday, afternoon (14- 14:30 entitled: From regional scales to impacts; a talk given by Clare Goodess (RT2B) and Tim Carter (RT6.2)

18. 18 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov Next meeting? Any suggestions? Finland Berlin When?? A) Mid-April 2007 (before EGU: 15-20.04.07) B) …