Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byJames Hicks Modified over 9 years ago
1
Funded under the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme Contract Number: 244031 Climate change scenarios incorporated into the CLIMSAVE Integrated Assessment Platform Climate change integrated assessment methodology for cross-sectoral adaptation and vulnerability in Europe For further information contact Martin Dubrovsky (email: ma.du@seznam.cz) or visit the project website (www.climsave.eu)
2
Climate Change Integrated Methodology for Cross-Sectoral Adaptation and Vulnerability in Europe www.CLIMSAVE.eu Presentation structure 1. Introduction 2. Methodologies for preparing reduced-form ensembles of future climate scenarios (...focus on uncertainties) 2.1 GCM ensemble (CMIP3 data ~ IPCC-AR4) for European case study 2.2 UKCP09 data for Scottish case study + representativeness of the reduced-form ensembles 3. Comparison of GCM-based vs. UKCP09 scenarios 4. Summary & Conclusion
3
Climate Change Integrated Methodology for Cross-Sectoral Adaptation and Vulnerability in Europe www.CLIMSAVE.eu Introduction – CLIMSAVE project CLIMSAVE project (www.climsave.eu; 2010-2013)www.climsave.eu coordinated by the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford 18 partners from 13 countries (incl. China and Australia) – Aim: integrated methodology to assess cross-sectoral climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability – The main product of CLIMSAVE: a user-friendly, interactive web-based tool (Integrated Assessment Platform; IAP) that will allow stakeholders to assess climate change impacts and vulnerabilities for a range of sectors – IAP is based on an ensemble of meta-models, which are run with the user-selected climatic data representing present and future climates – When creating an ensemble of climate change scenarios for the IAP, two requirements were followed: 1. an ensemble of climate change scenarios is not large, and 2. it satisfactorily represents known uncertainties in future climate projections.
4
Climate Change Integrated Methodology for Cross-Sectoral Adaptation and Vulnerability in Europe www.CLIMSAVE.eu GCM-based scenarios (based on monthly GCM outputs from IPCC-AR4 database /~CMIP3/; Europe)
5
GCMs in CMIP3 database We use 16 SRES-A2 simulations of 24 GCMs x 6 emission scenarios (incomplete matrix).
6
Pattern scaling approach allows to reflect multiple uncertainties: - where several ΔT G values are used to multiply several GCM-based patterns X Pattern scaling is used to create a set of climate change scenarios uncertainty in pattern (~ modelling uncertainty): 3 sources of uncertainty ΔX(t) = ΔX S x ΔT G (t) ΔT G = change in global mean temperature ΔX S = standardised scenario (related to ΔT G = 1K; derived from GCMs) uncertainty in T G (~uncertainties in emissions & climate sensitivity ) :
7
Climate Change Integrated Methodology for Cross-Sectoral Adaptation and Vulnerability in Europe www.CLIMSAVE.eu Reducing an ensemble of scenarios When using the above pattern-scaling approach (GCM-based standardised scenarios are scaled by MAGICC-modelled T GLOB values), we – find a “representative” subset of GCMs, which satisfactorily represents the inter-GCM uncertainty, – choose several T GLOB values, which account for uncertainties in emission scenarios and climate sensitivity.
8
Choosing a set of T GLOB values Considering SRES emissions scenarios and 1.5-4.5K interval for climate sensitivity: 2050: effect of uncertainty in climate sensitivity is (slightly) larger 2100: both effects are about the same CLIMSAVE employs 12 values of T GLOB (~ 4 emissions x 3 climate sensitivity) Reduced set of 3 values: emissionsclim.sensitivity high scenario:SRES-A1FI4.5 K low scenario:SRES-B11.5 K middle scen.:SRES-A1b3.0 K T GLOB (modelled by MAGICC for 6 SRES emissions scenarios x 3 climate sensitivities)
9
Climate Change Integrated Methodology for Cross-Sectoral Adaptation and Vulnerability in Europe www.CLIMSAVE.eu Defining a representative subset of GCMs Two approaches are used here to define a representative GCM subset: A. expert-based judgement “CLIMSAVE” subset B. applying objective criteria “EU5a” subset
10
“CLIMSAVE” subset (method: expert choice) summer (JJA)winter (DJF) ΔTAVG ΔPREC Output (5 GCMS): MPEH5, HADGEM, GFCM21, NCPCM, MIMR + Input:
11
Climate Change Integrated Methodology for Cross-Sectoral Adaptation and Vulnerability in Europe www.CLIMSAVE.eu Defining a “EU5a” subset (based on objective criteria) Target size of the subset = 5 GCMs The subsets will consist of: o best GCM [Quality(GCM) ~ ability to reproduce annual cycle of TEMP and PREC in a given 0.5x0.5° gridbox] o central GCM (8D metrics ~ changes in seasonal TEMP and PREC) o +3 most diverse GCMs (maximising a sum of inter-GCM distances; the same metrics) (prior to analysis, GCM outputs were regridded into 0.5x0.5° grid common with the CRU climatology)
12
“Best” GCM...based on RV(Temp)...based on RV(Prec) Best GCM; Q = f [ RV(Temp), RV(Prec)] [Quality(GCM) ~ ability to reproduce annual cycle of TEMP and PREC in a given 0.5x0.5° gridbox] = GCM which is the best in the largest number of gridboxes MPEH5
13
+ “Central” GCM ( = closest to Centroid) = GCM which is the Central GCM in the largest number of gridboxes (metrics: Euclidean(8D ~ seasonal changes in TEMP and PREC) note: MPEH5 and HadGEM, which were found to be among the best GCMs, are also among the three most central GCMs CSMK3
14
3 mutually most diverse GCMs HADGEM, GFCM21, IPCM4
15
3bests 5 GCMs for Europe (3799 0.5°x0.5° land grid boxes) “EU5a”: MPEH5, HADGEM, GFCM21, CSMK3, IPCM4 vs. “CLIMSAVE”: MPEH5, HADGEM, GFCM21, NCPCM, MIMR 3 most diverse 1 centroid 1 best
16
GCM subset validation (number of significant differences in AVGs and STDs (subset vs. 16 GCMs) avg(ΔT) std(ΔT) avg(ΔP) std(ΔP) CLIMSAVE vs. 16GCMs EU5a vs. 16GCMs Whole Europe: - the CLIMSAVE’s problem: significant underestimation of inter-GCM variability in TEMP - EU5a performs better both TEMP and PREC both AVG and STD UK: - not such large differences between the two subsets insignificant difference: A 16G -½S 16G, < avg subset < A 16G +½S 16G ⅔S 16G, < std subset < 3 /2.S 16G
17
Climate Change Integrated Methodology for Cross-Sectoral Adaptation and Vulnerability in Europe www.CLIMSAVE.eu UKCP09-based climate scenarios UKCP09 = future climate projection developed by UK Met. Office (http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk). It is based on:http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk – PPE of HadSM3 simulations (= simplified HadCM3) (PPE = Physically Perturbed Ensemble; 31 key model parameters perturbed) – downscaled by Hadley RCM, – adjusted by outputs from 12 other GCMs, – and disaggregated into 10000 values by a statistical emulator Probabilistic projections of climatic characteristics is given in terms of 10000 possible values (realisations) for each 25x25 km grid box over UK – the projection is available for 3 SRES emission scenarios (low = B1, medium = A1b, high = A1FI) Aim: Reduce 3 (emissions) x 10,000 realisations to reasonably large ensemble of scenarios (preserving the ensemble variability)
18
UKCP09 climate scenarios - creating the reduced-form ensemble 3D space [ T annual, P summer, P winter ] 27 points relate to 3x3x3 combinations of low, med, high changes in the three variables [median, 10 th and 90 th percentiles along each of 13 lines going through the cube’s center and defined by corners/centres of sides/centres of edges of the cube] 27 scenarios = the means of 10 neighbours closest to each of 27 points (in a 3D space) TaTa P winter P summer 27 climate change scenarios related to 3x3x3 combinations of (low, med, high) changes in dT annual, dP summer, dP winter
19
UKCP09 (2050s): TEMP annual = middle TEMP annual PREC ONDJFM PREC AMJJAS WL-SLWL-SMWL-SHWM-SLWM-SMWM-SHWH-SLWH-SMWH-SH
20
Same but for TEMP annual = low TEMP annual PREC ONDJFM PREC AMJJAS slide #20
21
Same but for TEMP annual = high TEMP annual PREC ONDJFM PREC AMJJAS
22
3 emis.scen. high (SRES-A1FI) med (SRES-A1b) low (SRES-B1) UKCP09: full vs. reduced ensembles 10000 members 27 clusters PREC 3x 10000 memb. 3x 27 clust. JJADJFJJADJFJJADECJJADJF Q: How does the reduced UKCP09 ensemble represent the original ensemble? input “full” database = 30000 scenarios = –( 3 emission scenarios) x ( 10000 realisations) for each grid, climate variable and 10 year timeslice) reduced-form scenarios = 91 scenarios = –( 3 emission scenarios) x ( 27 scenarios representing 3x3x3 combinations of low/medium/high values of T annual, P summer, P winter for each grid, climate variable, 2020s and 2050s timeslices maps: avg( std) from 10000 vs. 27 scenarios for 2050s (this and following 2 slides) full vs. reduced ensembles: good fit between the means JJADJFJJADJFJJADECJJADJF
23
3 emis.scen. high (SRES-A1FI) med (SRES-A1b) low (SRES-B1) UKCP09: full vs. reduced ensembles 10000 members 27 clusters 10000 members 27 clusters TEMP PREC 3x 10000 memb. 3x 27 clust. 3x 10000 memb. 3x 27 clust. JJADJFJJADJFJJADECJJADJF JJADJFJJADJFJJADECJJADJF perfect fit
24
Climate Change Integrated Methodology for Cross-Sectoral Adaptation and Vulnerability in Europe www.CLIMSAVE.eu UKCP09 vs. GCM (only UK territory) UKCP09: –original ensemble = 3 emissions x 10000 realisations = 30000 scenarios –reduced ensemble = 3 emissions x 27 scenarios = 81 scenarios GCMs: –original ensemble = 16 GCMs x 4 emissions x 3 clim.sens. = 192 scen. –reduced ensemble = 5 GCMs x 4 emissions x 3 clim.sens. = 60 scenarios UKCP09 vs GCMs:...........................UKCP09.......GCMs full datasets: 30000 vs. 192 scenarios reduced dataset: 81 vs. 60 scenarios
25
3 emis.scen. high (SRES-A1FI) med (SRES-A1b) low (SRES-B1) UKCP09 vs GCMs: avg( PREC) JJADEC JJADEC JJADECJJADEC 10000 members 27 clusters 16GCMs x 3CS 5GCMs x 3CS UKCP09 GCMs JJADEC JJADEC JJADECJJADEC full dataset UKCP09 shows slightly larger reductions in PREC reduced dataset
26
3 emis.scen. high (SRES-A1FI) med (SRES-A1b) low (SRES-B1) UKCP09 vs GCMs: avg( TEMP) 27 clusters UKCP09 GCMs JJADEC JJADEC JJADECJJADEC full dataset 10000 memb. 5GCMs x 3CS reduced dataset JJADEC JJADEC JJADECJJADEC 16GCMs x 3CS significant difference between GCM and UKCP09
27
3 emis.scen. high (SRES-A1FI) med (SRES-A1b) low (SRES-B1) UKCP09 vs GCM: std( PREC) JJADEC JJADEC JJADECJJADEC 10000 members 27 clusters 16GCMs x 3CS 5GCMs x 3CS UKCP09 GCMs full dataset JJADEC JJADEC JJADECJJADEC GCMs vs UKCP09: internal UKCP09 ensemble variability is larger (corresponds to larger avg( TAVG) in UKCP scenarios) GCMs: the subset reproduces the internal variability UKCIP09: the reduced-form ensemble reduces internal variability reduced dataset
28
3 emis.scen. high (SRES-A1FI) med (SRES-A1b) low (SRES-B1) UKCP09 vs GCMs: std( TEMP) 27 clusters UKCP09 GCMs full dataset 10000 memb. 5GCMs x 3CS reduced dataset 16GCMs x 3CS JJA DEC GCMs vs UKCP09: internal UKCP09 ensemble variability is larger
29
Climate Change Integrated Methodology for Cross-Sectoral Adaptation and Vulnerability in Europe www.CLIMSAVE.eu Summary + Conclusions (1) Climate change impact studies require ensembles of climate change scenarios representing known uncertainties. Available scenario datasets were too large for CLIMSAVE, reductions were proposed. 2 case studies in CLIMSAVE = 2 datasets to reduce in size: GCMs (CMIP3 dataset of GCMs from various modelling groups): – “large ensemble” = 16 GCMs x 4 emissions x 3 climate sensitivity = 192 scenarios (~ 3 uncertainties) – reduced-form ensemble = 5 GCMs x 4 emissions x 3 climate sensitivity (or 5 GCMs x 3 dTglob) = 60 (15) scenarios though the “optimum” subset varies across Europe, the single GCM subset still reasonably well represents the inter-GCM variability over majority of European territory UKCP09 [~ PP(HadSM) + HadRM + “statistical emulator”] – large ensemble = 10000 realisations x 3 emission scenarios = 30000 scenarios (structural uncertainties within 10000 members also account for climate sensitivity uncertainty) – reduced-form ensemble = 27 scenarios x 3 emissions = 81 scenarios within-ensemble variability is lower (effect of natural climate variability is reduced)
30
Climate Change Integrated Methodology for Cross-Sectoral Adaptation and Vulnerability in Europe www.CLIMSAVE.eu Summary + Conclusions (2) In both ensembles: – the reduced-form scenarios reasonably well represent means and variabilities of the original ensembles – > structural & climate sensitivity & emissions uncertainties are preserved GCMs vs UKCP09: – except for avg( PREC), significant differences between the 2 ensembles were found – [these differences] >> [the differences related to reducing the original datasets]
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.