1 / 17

RT6, WP 6.2 Meeting

ENSEMBLES GA 2006 – 20th Nov – 24th Nov 2006, Lund. RT6, WP 6.2 Meeting. Estimates of Windstorm induced Loss in Europe. Prof. Dr. U. Ulbrich Dr. G. Leckebusch M. Donat. Introduction: Storm damages in the past. Economic and insured loss: Germany 1970 - 1998. Economic loss. Insured loss.

rory
Download Presentation

RT6, WP 6.2 Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ENSEMBLES GA 2006 – 20th Nov – 24th Nov 2006, Lund RT6, WP 6.2 Meeting Estimates of Windstorm induced Loss in Europe Prof. Dr. U. Ulbrich Dr. G. Leckebusch M. Donat ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov

  2. Introduction:Storm damages in the past Economic and insured loss: Germany 1970 - 1998 Economic loss Insured loss Tim‘s question 1.      What are the main objectives of our study? ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov

  3. Model theory 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 • 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 been proposed, a frequent one is: loss ~ v3. ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov

  4. Model theory For property damages: • Germany: Insurance companies pay when wind speeds exceed Bft 8 = 17.2 – 20.7 m/s This wind speed is approx. equal to the 98th percentile of wind speeds at regular (non-coastal, no mountain) stations in Germany ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov

  5. for for Model theory 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. Loss ≈ „normalized cubic wind“ ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov

  6. Model improvements in ENSEMBLES Tim‘s 3.      What have we achieved so far? Model structure 1: Calculation of „normalized cubic wind“ from input data (e.g. ERA40) per year 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 3: Fitting the calculated values per year and region to observed losses ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov

  7. Model improvements in ENSEMBLES Input parameter: Wind gusts (Forecasts!) Correlation with insurance data (GdV): Further investigation with respect to the kind of exceedance Overestimation in 1993 Underestimation in 1990 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov

  8. Model improvements in ENSEMBLES GERMANY: Exceedance of 98th Percentile (1971-2000) in ERA40 • 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 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov

  9. 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 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov

  10. + 17 % Application of loss model on climate simulations + ~110 % ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov

  11. Future Plans 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 • completion of sensitivity tests • application on all available GCM- / RCM-Simulations • Estimation of robust climate change signal following the Multi Model Approach ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov

  12. Tim’s 5th question: 5.      What are our main questions requiring discussion in this meeting? When and where are RCM data available ? ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov

  13. Session 3: Planning and timetabling 18 months period, month 25-42 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) ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov

  14. Session 3: Planning and timetabling 18 months period, month 25-42 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 ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov

  15. Session 3: Planning and timetabling 18 months period, month 25-42 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 available Problem 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? ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov

  16. Session 3: Planning and timetabling 18 months period, month 25-42 Questions to be discussed on this meeting and later on:  NAO (Christos): Common output format? Question by Marco! 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) ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov

  17. Next meeting? Any suggestions? Finland <-> Berlin When?? A) Mid-April 2007 (before EGU: 15-20.04.07) B) … ENSEMBLES 3. GA 2006, Lund – WP 6.2 Meeting 20th Nov

More Related