3 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- ItemClimate impact research: Beyond patchwork(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2014) Huber, V.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; Arnell, N.W.; Frieler, K.; Gerten, D.; Haddeland, I.; Kabat, P.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Lucht, W.; Parry, M.; Piontek, F.; Rosenzweig, C.; Schewe, J.; Warszawski, L.Despite significant progress in climate impact research, the narratives that science can presently piece together of a 2, 3, 4, or 5 °C warmer world remain fragmentary. Here we briefly review past undertakings to characterise comprehensively and quantify climate impacts based on multi-model approaches. We then report on the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP), a community-driven effort to compare impact models across sectors and scales systematically, and to quantify the uncertainties along the chain from greenhouse gas emissions and climate input data to the modelling of climate impacts themselves. We show how ISI-MIP and similar efforts can substantially advance the science relevant to impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, and we outline the steps that need to be taken in order to make the most of the available modelling tools. We discuss pertinent limitations of these methods and how they could be tackled. We argue that it is time to consolidate the current patchwork of impact knowledge through integrated cross-sectoral assessments, and that the climate impact community is now in a favourable position to do so.
- ItemUnderstanding the transgression of global and regional freshwater planetary boundaries(London : Royal Society, 2022) Pastor, A.V.; Biemans, H.; Franssen, W.; Gerten, D.; Hoff, H.; Ludwig, F.; Kabat, P.Freshwater ecosystems have been degraded due to intensive freshwater abstraction. Therefore, environmental flow requirements (EFRs) methods have been proposed to maintain healthy rivers and/or restore river flows. In this study, we used the Variable Monthly Flow (VMF) method to calculate the transgression of freshwater planetary boundaries: (1) natural deficits in which flow does not meet EFRs due to climate variability, and (2) anthropogenic deficits caused by water abstractions. The novelty is that we calculated spatially and cumulative monthly water deficits by river types including the frequency, magnitude and causes of environmental flow (EF) deficits (climatic and/or anthropogenic). Water deficit was found to be a regional rather than a global concern (less than 5% of total discharge). The results show that, from 1960 to 2000, perennial rivers with low flow alteration, such as the Amazon, had an EF deficit of 2–12% of the total discharge, and that the climate deficit was responsible for up to 75% of the total deficit. In rivers with high seasonality and high water abstractions such as the Indus, the total deficit represents up to 130% of its total discharge, 85% of which is due to withdrawals. We highlight the need to allocate water to humans and ecosystems sustainably. This article is part of the Royal Society Science+ meeting issue ‘Drought risk in the Anthropocene’.
- ItemAccounting for environmental flow requirements in global water assessments(Göttingen : Copernicus GmbH, 2014) Pastor, A.V.; Ludwig, F.; Biemans, H.; Hoff, H.; Kabat, P.As the water requirement for food production and other human needs grows, quantification of environmental flow requirements (EFRs) is necessary to assess the amount of water needed to sustain freshwater ecosystems. EFRs are the result of the quantification of water necessary to sustain the riverine ecosystem, which is calculated from the mean of an environmental flow (EF) method. In this study, five EF methods for calculating EFRs were compared with 11 case studies of locally assessed EFRs. We used three existing methods (Smakhtin, Tennant, and Tessmann) and two newly developed methods (the variable monthly flow method (VMF) and the Q90-Q50 method). All methods were compared globally and validated at local scales while mimicking the natural flow regime. The VMF and the Tessmann methods use algorithms to classify the flow regime into high, intermediate, and low-flow months and they take into account intra-annual variability by allocating EFRs with a percentage of mean monthly flow (MMF). The Q90-Q50 method allocates annual flow quantiles (Q90 and Q50) depending on the flow season. The results showed that, on average, 37% of annual discharge was required to sustain environmental flow requirement. More water is needed for environmental flows during low-flow periods (46-71% of average low-flows) compared to high-flow periods (17-45% of average high-flows). Environmental flow requirements estimates from the Tennant, Q90-Q50, and Smakhtin methods were higher than the locally calculated EFRs for river systems with relatively stable flows and were lower than the locally calculated EFRs for rivers with variable flows. The VMF and Tessmann methods showed the highest correlation with the locally calculated EFRs (R2 = 0.91). The main difference between the Tessmann and VMF methods is that the Tessmann method allocates all water to EFRs in low-flow periods while the VMF method allocates 60% of the flow in low-flow periods. Thus, other water sectors such as irrigation can withdraw up to 40% of the flow during the low-flow season and freshwater ecosystems can still be kept in reasonable ecological condition. The global applicability of the five methods was tested using the global vegetation and the Lund-Potsdam-Jena managed land (LPJmL) hydrological model. The calculated global annual EFRs for fair ecological conditions represent between 25 and 46% of mean annual flow (MAF). Variable flow regimes, such as the Nile, have lower EFRs (ranging from 12 to 48% of MAF) than stable tropical regimes such as the Amazon (which has EFRs ranging from 30 to 67% of MAF).