Filters

2016 - 20202

More filters

2021 - 20232
Reset filters

Settings

Subject: flood hazard ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Historical and future changes in global flood magnitude - evidence from a model-observation investigation
    (Munich : EGU, 2020) Do, Hong Xuan; Zhao, Fang; Westra, Seth; Leonard, Michael; Gudmundsson, Lukas; Boulange, Julien Eric Stanislas; Chang, Jinfeng; Ciais, Philippe; Gerten, Dieter; Gosling, Simon N.; Müller Schmied, Hannes; Stacke, Tobias; Telteu, Camelia-Eliza; Wada, Yoshihide
    To improve the understanding of trends in extreme flows related to flood events at the global scale, historical and future changes of annual maxima of 7 d streamflow are investigated, using a comprehensive streamflow archive and six global hydrological models. The models' capacity to characterise trends in annual maxima of 7 d streamflow at the continental and global scale is evaluated across 3666 river gauge locations over the period from 1971 to 2005, focusing on four aspects of trends: (i) mean, (ii) standard deviation, (iii) percentage of locations showing significant trends and (iv) spatial pattern. Compared to observed trends, simulated trends driven by observed climate forcing generally have a higher mean, lower spread and a similar percentage of locations showing significant trends. Models show a low to moderate capacity to simulate spatial patterns of historical trends, with approximately only from 12 % to 25 % of the spatial variance of observed trends across all gauge stations accounted for by the simulations. Interestingly, there are statistically significant differences between trends simulated by global hydrological models (GHMs) forced with observational climate and by those forced by bias-corrected climate model output during the historical period, suggesting the important role of the stochastic natural (decadal, inter-annual) climate variability. Significant differences were found in simulated flood trends when averaged only at gauged locations compared to those averaged across all simulated grid cells, highlighting the potential for bias toward well-observed regions in our understanding of changes in floods. Future climate projections (simulated under the RCP2.6 and RCP6.0 greenhouse gas concentration scenarios) suggest a potentially high level of change in individual regions, with up to 35 % of cells showing a statistically significant trend (increase or decrease; at 10 % significance level) and greater changes indicated for the higher concentration pathway. Importantly, the observed streamflow database under-samples the percentage of locations consistently projected with increased flood hazards under the RCP6.0 greenhouse gas concentration scenario by more than an order of magnitude (0.9 % compared to 11.7 %). This finding indicates a highly uncertain future for both flood-prone communities and decision makers in the context of climate change. © Author(s) 2020.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Differences 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.