8 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
- ItemMulti-model climate impact assessment and intercomparison for three large-scale river basins on three continents(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2015) Vetter, T.; Huang, S.; Aich, V.; Yang, T.; Wang, X.; Krysanova, V.; Hattermann, F.Climate change impacts on hydrological processes should be simulated for river basins using validated models and multiple climate scenarios in order to provide reliable results for stakeholders. In the last 10–15 years, climate impact assessment has been performed for many river basins worldwide using different climate scenarios and models. However, their results are hardly comparable, and do not allow one to create a full picture of impacts and uncertainties. Therefore, a systematic intercomparison of impacts is suggested, which should be done for representative regions using state-of-the-art models. Only a few such studies have been available until now with the global-scale hydrological models, and our study is intended as a step in this direction by applying the regional-scale models. The impact assessment presented here was performed for three river basins on three continents: the Rhine in Europe, the Upper Niger in Africa and the Upper Yellow in Asia. For that, climate scenarios from five general circulation models (GCMs) and three hydrological models, HBV, SWIM and VIC, were used. Four representative concentration pathways (RCPs) covering a range of emissions and land-use change projections were included. The objectives were to analyze and compare climate impacts on future river discharge and to evaluate uncertainties from different sources. The results allow one to draw some robust conclusions, but uncertainties are large and shared differently between sources in the studied basins. Robust results in terms of trend direction and slope and changes in seasonal dynamics could be found for the Rhine basin regardless of which hydrological model or forcing GCM is used. For the Niger River, scenarios from climate models are the largest uncertainty source, providing large discrepancies in precipitation, and therefore clear projections are difficult to do. For the Upper Yellow basin, both the hydrological models and climate models contribute to uncertainty in the impacts, though an increase in high flows in the future is a robust outcome ensured by all three hydrological models.
- ItemThe impact of climate change and variability on the generation of electrical power(Stuttgart : Gebrueder Borntraeger Verlagsbuchhandlung, 2015) Koch, H.; Vögele, S.; Hattermann, F.F.; Huang, S.
- ItemHydrological impacts of moderate and high-end climate change across European river basins(Amsterdam : Elsevier B.V., 2018) Lobanova, A.; Liersch, S.; Nunes, J.P.; Didovets, I.; Stagl, J.; Huang, S.; Koch, H.; Rivas López, M.D.R.; Maule, C.F.; Hattermann, F.; Krysanova, V.Study region: To provide a picture of hydrological impact of climate change across different climatic zones in Europe, this study considers eight river basins: Tagus in Iberian Peninsula; Emån and Lule in Scandinavia; Rhine, Danube and Teteriv in Central and Eastern Europe; Tay on the island of Great Britain and Northern Dvina in North-Eastern Europe. Study focus: In this study the assessment of the impacts of moderate and high-end climate change scenarios on the hydrological patterns in European basins was conducted. To assess the projected changes, the process-based eco-hydrological model SWIM (Soil and Water Integrated Model) was set up, calibrated and validated for the basins. The SWIM was driven by the bias-corrected climate projections obtained from the coupled simulations of the Global Circulation Models and Regional Climate Models. New hydrological insights for the region: The results show robust decreasing trends in water availability in the most southern river basin (Tagus), an overall increase in discharge in the most northern river basin (Lule), increase in the winter discharge and shift in seasonality in Northern and Central European catchments. The impacts of the high-end climate change scenario RCP 8.5 continue to develop until the end of the century, while those of the moderate climate change scenario RCP 4.5 level-off after the mid-century. The results of this study also confirm trends, found previously with mostly global scale models.
- ItemBrief Communication: An update of the article "modelling flood damages under climate change conditions-a case study for Germany"(Göttingen : Copernicus GmbH, 2016) Fokko Hattermann, F.; Huang, S.; Burghoff, O.; Hoffmann, P.; Kundzewicz, Z.W.
- ItemClimate change impacts on hydrology and water resources(Stuttgart : Gebrueder Borntraeger Verlagsbuchhandlung, 2015) Hattermann, F.F.; Huang, S.; Koch, H.
- ItemDifferences in flood hazard projections in Europe – their causes and consequences for decision making(Wallingford : IAHS Press, 2016) Kundzewicz, Z. W.; Krysanova, V.; Dankers, R.; Hirabayashi, Y.; Kanae, S.; Hattermann, F. F.; Huang, S.; Milly, P. C. D.; Stoffel, M.; Driessen, P. P. J.; Matczak, P.; Quevauviller, P.; Schellnhuber, H.-J.This paper interprets differences in flood hazard projections over Europe and identifies likely sources of discrepancy. Further, it discusses potential implications of these differences for flood risk reduction and adaptation to climate change. The discrepancy in flood hazard projections raises caution, especially among decision makers in charge of water resources management, flood risk reduction, and climate change adaptation at regional to local scales. Because it is naïve to expect availability of trustworthy quantitative projections of future flood hazard, in order to reduce flood risk one should focus attention on mapping of current and future risks and vulnerability hotspots and improve the situation there. Although an intercomparison of flood hazard projections is done in this paper and differences are identified and interpreted, it does not seems possible to recommend which large-scale studies may be considered most credible in particular areas of Europe.
- ItemAnalysis of hydrological extremes at different hydro-climatic regimes under present and future conditions(Heidelberg : Springer, 2016) Pechlivanidis, I.G.; Arheimer, B.; Donnelly, C.; Hundecha, Y.; Huang, S.; Aich, V.; Samaniego, L.; Eisner, S.; Shi, P.We investigate simulated hydrological extremes (i.e., high and low flows) under the present and future climatic conditions for five river basins worldwide: the Ganges, Lena, Niger, Rhine, and Tagus. Future projections are based on five GCMs and four emission scenarios. We analyse results from the HYPE, mHM, SWIM, VIC and WaterGAP3 hydrological models calibrated and validated to simulate each river. The use of different impact models and future projections allows for an assessment of the uncertainty of future impacts. The analysis of extremes is conducted for four different time horizons: reference (1981–2010), early-century (2006–2035), mid-century (2036–2065) and end-century (2070–2099). In addition, Sen’s non-parametric estimator of slope is used to calculate the magnitude of trend in extremes, whose statistical significance is assessed by the Mann–Kendall test. Overall, the impact of climate change is more severe at the end of the century and particularly in dry regions. High flows are generally sensitive to changes in precipitation, however sensitivity varies between the basins. Finally, results show that conclusions in climate change impact studies can be highly influenced by uncertainty both in the climate and impact models, whilst the sensitivity to climate modelling uncertainty becoming greater than hydrological model uncertainty in the dry regions.
- ItemOne simulation, different conclusions—the baseline period makes the difference!(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2020) Liersch, S.; Drews, M.; Pilz, T.; Salack, S.; Sietz, D.; Aich, V.; Larsen, M.A.D; Gädeke, A.; Halsnæ s, K.; Thiery, W.; Huang, S.; Lobanova, A.; Koch, H.; Hattermann, F.F.The choice of the baseline period, intentionally chosen or not, as a reference for assessing future changes of any projected variable can play an important role for the resulting statement. In regional climate impact studies, well-established or arbitrarily chosen baselines are often used without being questioned. Here we investigated the effects of different baseline periods on the interpretation of discharge simulations from eight river basins in the period 1960–2099. The simulations were forced by four bias-adjusted and downscaled Global Climate Modelsunder two radiative forcing scenarios (RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5). To systematically evaluate how far the choice of different baselines impacts the simulation results, we developed a similarity index that compares two time series of projected changes. The results show that 25% of the analyzed simulations are sensitive to the choice of the baseline period under RCP 2.6 and 32% under RCP 8.5. In extreme cases, change signals of two time series show opposite trends. This has serious consequences for key messages drawn from a basin-scale climate impact study. To address this problem, an algorithm was developed to identify flexible baseline periods for each simulation individually, which better represent the statistical properties of a given historical period.