3.4.6. Water Resource Scenarios
3.4.6.1. Reference Conditions
Water is a resource of fundamental importance for basic human survival, for
ecosystems, and for many key economic activities, including agriculture, power
generation, and various industries. The quantity and quality of water must be
considered in assessing present-day and future resources. In many parts of the
world, water already is a scarce resource, and this situation seems certain
to worsen as demand increases and water quality deteriorates, even in the absence
of climate change. Abundance of the resource at a given location can be quantified
by water availability, which is a function of local supply, inflow, consumption,
and population. The quality of water resources can be described by a range of
indicators, including organic/fecal pollution, nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides,
suspended sediments, total dissolved salts, dissolved oxygen, and pH.
Several recent global analyses of water resources have been published (Raskin
et al., 1997; Gleick, 1998; Shiklomanov, 1998; Alcamo et al.,
2000). Some estimates are shown in Table 3-3. For
regional and local impact studies, reference conditions can be more difficult
to specify because of large temporal variability in the levels of lakes, rivers,
and groundwater and human interventions (e.g., flow regulation and impoundment,
land-use changes, water abstraction, effluent return, and river diversions;
Arnell et al., 1996).
Industrial wastes, urban sewage discharge, application of chemicals in agriculture,
atmospheric deposition of pollutants, and salinization negatively affect the
quality of surface and groundwaters. Problems are especially acute in newly
industrialized countries (UNEP/GEMS, 1995). Fecal pollution of freshwater basins
as a result of untreated sewage seriously threatens human health in some regions.
Overall, 26% of the population (more than 1 billion people) in developing countries
still do not have access to safe drinking water, and 66% do not have adequate
environmental sanitation facilitiescontributing to almost 15,000 deaths
each day from water-related diseases, nearly two-thirds of which are diarrheal
(WHO, 1995; Gleick, 1998; see Chapter 9).
Table 3-4: The role of various types of climate
scenarios and an evaluation of their advantages and disadvantages according
to the five criteria described in the text. Note that in some applications,
a combination of methods may be usedfor example,
regional modeling and a weather generator (WGI TAR
Chapter 13, Table 13.1). |
|
Scenario
Type or Tool |
|
Description/Use
|
Advantagesa
|
Disadvantagesa
|
|
Incremental |
|
- Testing system
sensitivity
- Identifying key
climate thresholds
|
- Easy to design and apply (5)
- Allows impact response surfaces to be
created (3)
|
- Potential for creating unrealistic
scenarios (1,2)
- Not directly related to GHG forcing (1)
|
|
Analog |
|
|
|
|
Palaeoclimatic |
|
- Characterizing
warmer periods in
past
|
- Physically plausible changed climate
that really did occur in the past of a
magnitude similar to that predicted for
~2100 (2)
|
- Variables may be poorly resolved in
space and time (3,5)
- Not related to GHG forcing (1)
|
|
|
|
Instrumental |
|
- Exploring
vulnerabilities and
some adaptive
capacities
|
- Physically realistic changes (2)
- Can contain a rich mixture of well-resolved,
internally consistent,
variables (3)
- Data readily available (5)
|
- Not necessarily related to GHG forcing
(1)
- Magnitude of climate change usually
quite small (1)
- No appropriate analogs may be available (5)
|
|
|
|
Spatial |
|
- Extrapolating
climate/ecosystem
relationships
- Pedagogic
|
- May contain a rich mixture of well-resolved
variables (3)
|
- Not related to GHG forcing (1,4)
- Often physically implausible (2)
- No appropriate analogs may be available
(5)
|
|
Climate
Model-Based |
|
|
|
|
Direct
AOGCM
outputs |
|
- Starting point for
most climate
scenarios
- Large-scale
response to
anthropogenic
forcing
|
- Information derived from the most
comprehensive, physically based
models (1,2)
- Long integrations (1)
- Data readily available (5)
- Many variables (potentially) available
(3)
|
- Spatial information poorly resolved (3)
- Daily characteristics may be unrealistic
except for very large regions (3)
- Computationally expensive to derive
multiple scenarios (4,5)
- L a rge control run biases may be a
concern for use in certain regions (2)
|
|
|
|
High-
resolution/
stretched grid
(AGCM) |
|
- Providing
high-resolution
information at
global/continental
scales
|
- Provides highly resolved information
(3)
- Information derived from physically
based models (2)
- Many variables available (3)
- Globally consistent and allows for
feedbacks (1,2)
|
- Computationally expensive to derive
multiple scenarios (4,5)
- Problems in maintaining viable
parameterizations across scales (1,2)
- High resolution dependent on SSTs and
sea ice margins from driving model
(AOGCM) (2)
- Dependent on (usually biased) inputs
from driving AOGCM (2)
|
|
|
|
Regional
models |
|
- Providing high
spatial/temporal
resolution
information
|
- Provides very highly resolved
information (spatial and temporal) (3)
- Information derived from physically
based models (2)
- Many variables available (3)
- Better representation of some weather
extremes than in GCMs (2,4)
|
- Computationally expensive, thus few
multiple scenarios (4,5)
- Lack of two-way nesting may raise
concern regarding completeness (2)
- Dependent on (usually biased) inputs
from driving AOGCM (2)
|
|
Climate Model-Based
(cont.) |
|
|
|
|
Statistical
downscaling |
|
- Providing point/
high spatial
resolution
information
|
- Can generate information on high-resolution
grids or nonuniform regions
(3)
- Potential, for some techniques, to
address a diverse range of variables (3)
- Variables are (probably) internally
consistent (2)
- Computationally (relatively)
inexpensive (5)
- Suitable for locations with limited
computational resources (5)
- Rapid application to multiple GCMs (4)
|
- Assumes constancy of empirical
relationships in the future (1,2)
- Demands access to daily observational
surface and/or upper air data that span
range of variability (5)
- Not many variables produced for some
techniques (3,5)
- Dependent on (usually biased) inputs
from driving AOGCM (2)
|
|
|
|
Climate
scenario
generators |
|
- Integrated
assessments
- Exploring
uncertainties
- Pedagogic
|
- May allow for sequential quantification
of uncertainty (4)
- Provides "integrated" scenarios (1)
- Multiple scenarios easy to derive (4)
|
- Usually rely on linear pattern-scaling
methods (1)
- Poor representation of temporal
variability (3)
- Low spatial resolution (3)
|
|
Weather
Generators |
|
- Generating
baseline climate
time series
- Altering higher
order moments of
climate
- Statistical
downscaling
|
- Generates long sequences of daily or
subdaily climate (2,3)
- Variables usually are internally
consistent (2)
- Can incorporate altered
frequency/intensity of ENSO events (3)
|
- Poor representation of low-frequency
climate variability (2,4)
- Limited representation of extremes
(2,3,4)
- Requires access to long observational
weather series (5)
- In absence of conditioning, assumes
constant statistical characteristics (1,2)
|
|
Expert
Judgment |
|
- Exploring
probability and risk
- Integrating current
thinking on
changes in climate
|
- May allow for "consensus" (4)
- Has potential to integrate very broad
range of relevant information (1,3,4)
- Uncertainties can be readily represented
(4)
|
- Subjectivity may introduce bias (2)
- Representative survey of experts may
be difficult to implement (5)
|
|
|