1 Some Global Impacts of Sea-Level Rise: A Case Study of Flooding Robert J. Nicholls 1 Plan Sea Level and the Coast Global Assessment Methods IS92a Results.

1

Some Global Impacts of Sea-Level Rise:A Case Study of Flooding

Robert J. Nicholls1

Plan

• Sea Level and the Coast• Global Assessment

• Methods• IS92a Results -- across the range of climate sensitivity• SRES Results -- across different socio-economic futures

• Concluding Remarks1. Presently Middlesex University, UK ([email protected]) From 1 January 2004, University of Southampton, UK

2

Processes controlling sea-levelchange

Relative sea-level changes

3

Sea-Level Rise at New York City1850 to 2100

6

8 S

ea L

evel (m

)

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 Time (yrs)

Observations Scenarios

IPCC TAR range due to SRES emission scenarios

4

Sea Level Under StabilisationIllustrating the large ‘commitment’

IS92a ‘unmitigated’S550

S750HadCM2 Model Results

5

Population and Population Density vs. Distance and Elevation

in 1990

Coastal Population Distribution

6

Coastal Megacities (>8 million people)

UN Forecast for 2010

Istanbul

LagosLima

Buenos Aires Rio de JaneiroMadras

KarachiJakarta

Calcutta

Bombay

Bangkok

Manila

Shanghai

Osaka

Tokyo

Seoul

Tianjin

Dhaka

New York

Los Angeles

7

GLOBAL

REGIONAL

NATIONAL/LOCAL

Scale

UNFCCC(mitigation &

adaptation(?))

Regional Co-operation

Relevant Policies

CoastalManagement(Adaptation)

Bottom/UpTop/Down

Synthesis/

Upscaling

Impact/Adaptation

Assessments

Assessments

Integrated Models

Linking Climate Change to Policy

8

Coastal Flood Plain

9

Sea-level rise and flood return period

10

Research Questions

With consistent ‘climate and socio-economic scenarios’ (e.g., IS92a):

1. Is global-mean sea-level rise a problem, if ignored?

2. What are the benefits of stabilising greenhouse forcing (mitigation policy)?

11

Background

• Developed from the original Global Vulnerability Analysis (Hoozemans et al., 1993);

• Based on a database of 192 polygons (roughly speaking the coastal countries);

• Storm characteristics are assumed constant;

• Assumes a constant slope across the flood plain;

• Defence standards derived from GDP/capita;

• Failure compromises entire flood plain;

• Results are only meaningful at the regional and global scale.

12

Improvements• Dynamic sea level, coastal population and standard

of protection scenarios;

• But standard of protection only evolves in response to the 1990 climate (i.e. sea-level rise is ignored);

• Higher costs of protecting deltaic areas are considered;

• Increased flood risk within the coastal flood plain is evaluated;

• Minimum 1990 defence standards are assumed as 1 in 10 year.

13

Methodology

Relative Sea-LevelRise Scenarios

Raised Flood Levels

Global Sea-levelRise Scenarios

Size of Flood Hazard Zones

People in theHazard Zone

Subsidence

Storm SurgeFlood Curves

Coastal Topography

PopulationDensity

Protection Status(1in 10, 1 in 100, etc.) (“EXPOSURE”)

(“RISK”)Average AnnualPeople Flooded, etc.

14

OUTPUTPeople in the hazard zone (PHZ): number of people exposed to flooding by storm surge;

Average annual people flooded (AAPF): the average annual number of people who experience flooding by storm surge (also described as people at risk (PAR));

People to respond (PTR): the average annual number of people who experience flooding by storm surge more than once per year.

PHZPAR

PTR

15

Population Scenario• population growth in the coastal flood plain is

double national trends.

Protection Scenario• in phase evolving protection with

increasing GDP/capita (and ignoring sea-level rise)

16

ValidationModel vs. National estimates

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1.E+07

1.E+08

1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08

National Assessments

Glo

bal

Mo

del

No SLR SLR = 1 m

17

ResultsIS92a World

18

Global Incidence of Flooding Evolving Protection and No Sea-Level Rise

0

10

20

30 P

eop

le F

lood

ed (

Mill

ion

s/yr

)

1990 2020s 2050s 2080sTime (years)

19

Scenario Valuesfor an IS92a World

Global sea-level rise (cm)

Year

Low Mid High

Subsidence(cm)

GlobalPopulation(billions)

Global GDP(10 12

1990 US$)1990 0 0 0 0 5.3 20

2020s 4 11 22 0 or 5 8.1 65

2050s 10 27 49 0 or 10 9.8 113

2080s 19 45 80 0 or 14 10.7 1642100 23 55 96 0 or 17 11.0 189

20

People Flooded -- relative to an evolving non-climate baseline

0

1000

2000

3000

2020s 2050s 2080s

% In

cre

as

e

Low Scenario Mid Scenario

High Scenario

21

People Flooded -- relative to an evolving non-climate baseline

1

10

100

1000

10000

2020s 2050s 2080s

%In

crea

se

Low Scenario

Mid Scenario

High Scenario

22

Vulnerable RegionsMid estimate in the 2080s

C

A

C

B

PEO PLE AT RISK(m illio ns p e r re g io n)

> 50 m illio n

10 - 50 m illio n

< 10 m illio n

re g io n b o und a ry

vulne ra b le isla nd re g io n

Pa c ificO c e a nSM ALLISLAN D S

C a rib b e a n

Ind ia nO c e a nSM ALL ISLAN D S

C

B

A

23

StabilisationIS92a World

24

Sea-Level Scenariosfor one climate sensitivity

IS92a ‘unmitigated’S550

S750HadCM2 Model Results

25

Flood Impacts Under Stabilisation

0

50

100

2020s 2050s 2080s

Pe

op

le F

loo

de

d (

mill

ion

s/y

ear

)

UnmitigatedS750S550

No Climate Change

26

Stabilisation and Climate Sensitivity Unmitigated (IS92a) and Stabilisation Scenarios (S750 and S550)

Calculations by Jason Lowe, Hadley Centre

0

50

100

150

1950 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200

Time

Sea

lev

el

(cm

)

High ClimateSensitivity

Mid ClimateSensitivity

Low ClimateSensitivity

27

Stabilisation in an ‘IS92a World’ Additional People Flooded (millions/year)

0

20

40

2020s 2050s 2080s 2110s 2140s

Ad

dit

ion

al P

eop

le F

loo

ded

S550 S750 IS92a

(b) Low climate sensitivity

0

100

200

2020s 2050s 2080s 2110s 2140s

Ad

dit

ion

al P

eop

le F

loo

ded

S550 S750 IS92a

(c) Mid climate sensitivity (HadCM2)

0

200

400

600

2020s 2050s 2080s 2110s 2140s

Ad

dit

ion

al P

eop

le F

loo

ded

S550 S750 IS92a

(d) High climate sensitivity

0

20

40

1990 2020s 2050s 2080s 2110s 2140s

Peo

ple

Flo

od

ed

(a) Baseline: No global sea-level rise

28

ResultsSRES Scenarios

29

SRES: Sea-Level Rise ScenariosHadCM3 Model -- Climate Sensitivity Constant

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090

Time (yrs.)

Glo

ba

l-M

ea

n R

ise

(m

)

A1FIB1

A2B2

30

Global Incidence of Flooding Evolving Protection and No Sea-Level Rise

0

10

20

30

1990 2020s 2050s 2080s

AA

PF

(m

illi

on

s/ye

ar)

A1FI

A2

B1

B2

31

Additional People Floodedwith global sea-level rise

0

10

20

2020s 2050s 2080s

AA

PF

(m

illi

on

s/y

ear)

A1FI

A2

B1

B2

32

Stabilisation under SRESfollowing Swart et al (2002)

0

10

20

30

40

A1FI A2 B1 B2

Peo

ple

Flo

od

ed (

mil

lio

ns/

yr.)

No SLR Unmitigated

"S650" "S550"

33

Concluding Remarks• Sea-level rise could be a serious problem for

coastal flooding, but the uncertainties are large;

• Mitigation reduces but does not avoid flood impacts, and some impacts are only delayed;

• A combined strategy of mitigation and adaptation would seem prudent -- but what mixture?

• Next steps: the DINAS-COAST Project

34

RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS• HOOZEMANS, F.M.J., MARCHAND, M., PENNEKAMP, H.A., STIVE, M., MISDORP, R. & BIJLSMA, L., 1992. The impacts of sea-

level rise on coastal areas: Some global results. In: Proceedings ‘The Rising Challenge of the Sea’, Margarita Island, Venezuela, March 9-13 1992. NOAA, Silver Spring, Md. pp. 275-292.

• HOOZEMANS, F.M.J., MARCHAND, M. & PENNEKAMP, H.A., 1993. A Global Vulnerability Analysis: Vulnerability Assessment for Population, Coastal Wetlands and Rice Production on a Global Scale . 2nd edition. Delft Hydraulics, the Netherlands.

• PARRY, M., ARNELL, N., HULME, M., NICHOLLS, R. & LIVERMORE, M. 1998. Adapting to the inevitable. Nature, 395, 741.

• NICHOLLS, R.J., HOOZEMANS, F.M.J., & MARCHAND, M. 1999. Increasing flood risk and wetland losses due to global sea-level rise: Regional and global analyses. Global Environmental Change, 9, S69-S87.

• PARRY, M., ARNELL, N., McMICHAEL, T., NICHOLLS, R., MARTENS, P., KOVATS, S., LIVERMORE, M., ROSENZWEIG, C., IGLESIAS, A. & FISCHER, G., 2001. Millions at risk: defining critical climate threats and targets. Global Environmental Change, 11(3), 1-3.

• ARNELL, N.W., CANNELL, M.G.R., HULME, M., KOVATS, R.S., MITCHELL, J.F.B., NICHOLLS, R.J. PARRY, M.L., LIVERMORE,, M.T.J. & WHITE, A. 2002. The consequences of CO2 stabilisation for the impacts of climate change Climatic Change, 53, 413-446.

• NICHOLLS, R.J. and SMALL, C., 2002. Improved Estimates of Coastal Population and Exposure to Hazards Released. EOS Transactions, 83(2), 301 and 305. (downloadable at www.survas.mdx.ac.uk)

• NICHOLLS, R.J. 2002. Analysis of global impacts of sea-level rise: A case study of flooding. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 27, 1455-1466.

• SMALL, C. & NICHOLLS, R.J. 2003, A Global Analysis of Human Settlement in Coastal Zones, Journal of Coastal Research, 19(3), 584-589.

• NICHOLLS, R.J., 2003. Coastal Flooding and Wetland Loss in the 21 st Century: Changes Under The SRES Climate And Socio-Economic Scenarios. Global Environmental Change, accepted.

• NICHOLLS, R.J. & LOWE, J.A., in review. Benefits of Climate Mitigation for Coastal Areas. Submitted to Global Environmental Change.

35

Web Sites

• SURVAS– http://www.survas.mdx.ac.uk/

• DINAS-COAST– http://www.pik-potsdam.de/dinas-coast/