climate change impacts on a nile headwater catchment: the river … · 2016. 7. 20. · 0 2040 6080...
TRANSCRIPT
UCL DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY
Climate change impacts on a Nile headwater catchment: the River Mitano, Uganda
Daniel Kingston, Richard Taylor, Martin Todd, Julian ThompsonDepartment of Geography, University College London
The River Mitano
• Basin size: 2098km2
• Headwater catchment of the Nile
• Located in southwestern Uganda
• River drains from relatively high peaks (~2500m) to Lake Edward (975m) in the East African Rift valley
• 79% catchment land use is agrarian
• Previous work: Mileham et al. – RCM-driven soil-moisture balance model– for SRES A2 scenario from HadCM3
GCM– For 2070-99 time horizon
Mileham 2008
Mitano climatology and hydrology
• Humid-tropical climate– Mean annual precipitation
(1965-79): 1190mm– Bi-model annual regime with
wet seasons from March-May, and Sept-Nov
– Monthly temperature (and evaporation) relatively constant throughout year
– PET > precipitation in 9 out of 12 months
• Discharge lags precipitation by 2-6 weeks
Mileham 2008
Scenarios analysed
• 1-6 °C increase in global mean temperature for HadCM3• 2 °C increase across all seven GCMs
– UKMO HadCM3 & HadGEM1, CCCMA, CSIRO, IPSL, MPI and NCAR
• All four SRES scenarios on HadCM3 (2040-69)• SRES A1b across all seven GCMs (2040-69)
• Not probabilistic, but ‘envelopes of non-discountable change’
Hydrological model
• SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool)– Physically-based semi-distributed river basin scale model– Widely used and freely available– Runs within Arc GIS packages
• Manually calibrated for 1961-90 period– Using CRU TS3 0.5° lat/lon resolution gridded monthly climate
data– Weather generator
• Validated 1991-2005
Model set-up
• Basin defined from 3 arc-second SRTM DEM data• Land-cover derived from FAO Africover data set
– and modified to conform with internal SWAT land-classes
• Soil data from FAO global data base– No local data
• Potential evaporation (PET) calculated using the Hargreaves equation– (temperature-based)
Model calibration
• Calibration period 1961-90• Spearman correlation
coefficient: 0.61• Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient: 0.06
– Issues with CRU observational data…
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
J F M A M J J A S O N D
disc
harg
e (c
umec
s)
obsmodel
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
% exceedence
Dis
char
ge (c
umec
s)
obsmodel
Model calibration (2)
• 6 precipitation gauges within the catchment for 1965-1980• For this period, the difference between gauged and gridded (CRU)
precipitation data is correlated with model discharge error– coefficient = 0.40
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979prec
ip (m
m)
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
disc
harg
e (c
umec
s)
pptflow
• 1965-1980 modelled river discharge– Nash-Sutcliffe = 0.21– Correlation coefficient = 0.71
• 1991-2005 validation consistent with calibration period
Blue line= gridded minus gauged precipitation
Brown line = model minus observed river discharge
Prescribed increase in global mean temperature,on HadCM3
• With increasing global mean temperature:
– Increasing late-season flow– Decreasing early season flow
• Annual runoff:– No linear trend – balance
between decreasing early season flow and increasing late season flow
– Relatively small overall changes until 6 °C threshold
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
1 2 3 4 5 6
°C change in global mean temperature
annu
al fl
ow a
nom
aly
(%) f
rom
ba
selin
e
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Dis
char
ge (m
-3s-1
) baseline1 °C2 °C3 °C4 °C5 °C6 °C
HadCM3 prescribed warming: temperature vs precipitation
• Impact of temperature changes greater than precipitation in first wet season
• Precipitation-dominated signal in early part of second wet season
• Both are important for end of second wet season
Temperature climate change signal
0
510
1520
2530
35
j f m a m j j a s o n d
Dis
char
ge (c
umec
s) baseline1deg2deg3deg4deg5deg6deg
Precipitation climate change signal
0
510
1520
2530
35
j f m a m j j a s o n d
Dis
char
ge (c
umec
s) baseline1deg2deg3deg4deg5deg6deg
Overall climate change signal
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Dis
char
ge (m
-3s-1
) baseline1 °C2 °C3 °C4 °C5 °C6 °C
HadCM3 prescribed warming: groundwater climate change signal• % contribution of groundwater and
lateral flow to total discharge:– Little change at 2 °C– Decreasing GW flow in 1st wet
season at 4 & 6 °C• Link to strong temperature signal
in discharge• Little change otherwise
Overall climate change signal
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Dis
char
ge (m
-3s-1
) baseline1 °C2 °C3 °C4 °C5 °C6 °C
Groundwater contribution to streamflow
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
%
baseline2deg4deg6deg
Lateral flow contribution to streamflow
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
%
baseline2deg4deg6deg
baseline
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
mm
surfaceQlateralQgwaterQ
2 degree
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
mm
surfaceQlateralQgwaterQ
4 degrees
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
mm
surfaceQlateralQgwaterQ
6 degrees
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
mm
surfaceQlateralQgwaterQ
HadCM3 prescribed warming: groundwater climate change signal
2 °C prescribed warming for all 7 GCMs• No consistency in direction
of change between GCMs– NCAR and CSIRO are the
wettest and driest (respectively)
• …either in seasonality or annual total
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Dis
char
ge (m
-3s-1
) baselineHadCM3CCCMACSIROIPSLNCARMPIHADGEM1
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
HadCM3 CCCMA CSIRO IPSL NCAR MPI HadGEM
GCM
annu
al fl
ow a
nom
aly
(%) f
rom
ba
selin
e
2 °C prescribed warming: temperature vs precipitation
• Impact of changing temperature less than impact of changing precipitation
• Uncertainty in temperature change between GCMs is less than for precipitation– Agreement in direction of
temperature change for 10 months of the year
Temperature climate change signal
0
510
1520
2530
35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Dis
char
ge (c
umec
s)
baselinehadcm3cccmacsiroipslmpincarhadgem
Precipitation climate change signal
05
10
1520
253035
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Dis
char
ge (c
umec
s)
baselinehadcm3cccmacsiroipslmpincarhadgem
SRES scenarios on HadCM3 for 2040-2069
• A1b, A2, B1 very similar:– increasing seasonality– increasing total annual flow
• B2 also shows increasing total annual flow, but in the context of reduced early season flow
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
j f m a m j j a s o n d
Dis
char
ge
baselinea1ba2b1b2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
A1b A2 B1 B2
SRES emissions scenario
annu
al fl
ow a
nom
aly
(%) f
rom
ba
selin
e
SRES A1b across all GCMs for 2040-2069
• No consistency in direction of change between GCMs– …either in seasonality or
annual total
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
j f m a m j j a s o n d
disc
harg
e
baselinehadcm3cccmacsiroipslncarmpihadgem1
-20
0
20
40
60
80
HadCM3 CCCMA CSIRO IPSL NCAR MPI HadGEM
GCM
annu
al fl
ow a
nom
aly
(%) f
rom
ba
selin
e
Summary:uncertainty envelopes
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
j f m a m j j a s o n d
flow
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
j f m a m j j a s o n d
flow
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
j f m a m j j a s o n d
flow
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
j f m a m j j a s o n d
flow
HadCM3 1-6 °C prescribed warming 2 °C prescribed warming (all GCMs)
SRES A1b (all GCMs)HadCM3 SRES scenarios
Solid line=baseline; dotted lines indicate upper and lower bounds of climate change signal
Summary
• Mixed results, but some common themes• GCM uncertainty > climate sensitivity and emissions uncertainty
– Consistent with findings of others• Emissions uncertainty relatively small for 2040-69
– but emissions scenarios likely to diverge towards 2100• No scenario shows substantial decrease in 2nd wet season discharge• Little change in annual low flow period• No consistent changes in early season 1st wet season flow at 2 °C or
A1b between GCMs• Only 1 scenario shows notable decrease in mean annual flow (CSIRO
at 2 °C )
Further work
• Model structure– Global hydrological model
• Some agreement of changes in seasonality and annual runoff
– Mileham et al:• For 2070-99, A2 scenario:
– Annual mean recharge increase by 14%
– Annual mean runoff increase by 84%
• Model parameterisation– Manual vs auto-calibration
techniques
GLOBAL MODEL
0
102030
4050
60
J F M A M J J A S O N D
runo
ff (m
m)
baselinecccmaipslmpincarhadcm3
CATCHMENT MODEL
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
J F M A M J J A S O N D
runo
ff (m
m)
baselinecccmaipslmpincarhadcm3
SRES A1b (2040-2069)
Further work (2)
• Consideration of non-climatic pressures on water resources:– impacts of changing basin population
alongside climate change– Land-use change (from SRES
scenarios)– Ecosystem requirements
(environmental flows)• Incorporation of measure of
storage/reliability– Theoretical reservoir…? (McMahon et
al. 2007)