Post on 05-Jan-2016
description
transcript
1ENSEMBLES 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. UlbrichDr. G. LeckebuschM. Donat
2ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov
Economic loss Insured loss
Economic and insured loss: Germany 1970 - 1998
Introduction:Storm damages in the past
Tim‘s question 1. What are the main objectives of our study?
3ENSEMBLES 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 beenproposed, a frequent one is: loss ~ v3.
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
4ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov
This wind speed is approx. equal to the 98th 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
5ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov
Model theory
Loss ≈
regions
year
days regionv
dayregionvregionpopc
3
98
max 1)(
),(*)(* for 98max vv
„normalized cubic wind“
3
98
98
v
vvfor 98vv
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.
6ENSEMBLES 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
year
days regionv
dayregionv3
98
max 1)(
),(
Tim‘s 3. What have we achieved so far?
7ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov
Model improvements in ENSEMBLES
c165/166 c49
1970-2000 0,78 0,83
Correlation with insurance data (GdV):
Loss Ratio based on momentary wind values vs. daily maximum gust from ERA40
0,000
0,100
0,200
0,300
0,400
0,500
0,600
0,700
los
s r
ati
on
[‰
]
GdV c165/166 c49
Input parameter: Wind gusts (Forecasts!)
Overestimation in 1993Underestimation in 1990
Further investigation with respect to the kind
of exceedance
8ENSEMBLES 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
9ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov
Model improvements in ENSEMBLES „Dynamic Approach“
Idea: Individual variation of loss limit at each grid cell after loss events, depending on time since the last event
10ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov
Application of loss model on climate simulations
Loss Ratio in ECHAM5/OM1, 20C, run 1
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Lo
ss R
atio
[‰
]
jährl. Werte Mittelw ert
Loss Ratio in ECHAM5/OM1, A1B, run 1
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
20
71
20
72
20
73
20
74
20
75
20
76
20
77
20
78
20
79
20
80
20
81
20
82
20
83
20
84
20
85
20
86
20
87
20
88
20
89
20
90
20
91
20
92
20
93
20
94
20
95
20
96
20
97
20
98
20
99
21
00
Loss
Rat
io [
‰]
jährl. Werte Mittelwert
ERA 40
(1971-2000)
EH5/OM1, 20C
(1971-2000)
EH5/OM1, A1B
(2071-2100)
Mean value 0,1395 0,1284 0,1507
Std. deviation 0,0894 0,0707 0,1494
+ 17 % + ~110 %
11ENSEMBLES 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 signalfollowing the Multi Model Approach
Tim‘s 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
12ENSEMBLES 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 ?
Tim’s 5th question:
14ENSEMBLES 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
15ENSEMBLES 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
16ENSEMBLES 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 availableProblem 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
17ENSEMBLES 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 WP’s? (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)
18ENSEMBLES 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) …