TWP 90

Understanding the regional impacts
of climate change
Research Report Prepared for the Stern Review

on the Economics of Climate Change
Rachel Warren, Nigel Arnell, Robert Nicholls,

Peter Levy and Jeff Price
September 2006
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 90

UNDERSTANDING THE REGIONAL IMPACTS OF
CLIMATE CHANGE
Research Report Prepared for the Stern Review

on the Economics of Climate Change
September 2006
Rachel Warren1 , Nigel Arnell 1,2 , Robert Nicholls 1,2, Peter Levy3 and Jeff Price4
1 Tyndall Centre, University of East Anglia, UK

2 University of Southampton, UK
3 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh, UK
4 California State University, Chico, USA
CONTENTS
Executive Summary 4
1. Introduction 11
2. Regional Climate Change Impacts on Water Resources Stress 14
3. Regional Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture 27
4. Regional Climate Change Impacts on Coastal Flooding 61
5. Regional Climate Change Impacts on Human Health 71
6. Regional Climate Change Impacts on Energy Requirements 82
7. Regional Climate Change Impacts on Ecosystems 88
8. Regional Climate Change Impacts on Vegetation 99
Acknowledgements 109
Appendix 110
Matrices
1. Australasia 163
2. Central America 168
3. East Asia 173
4. Europe 177
5. Global 181
6. North Africa 187
7. North America 191
8. Russia and Central Asia 195
9. South America 199
10. South and East Africa 204
11. South Asia 208
12. West Africa 213
13. West Asia 218
Page 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The aim of this project was to bring together a range of work to examine the global
impacts of climate change at different degrees of temperature rise (up to 5°C where
possible), identifying vulnerable sectors in different parts of the world. The project aims
to analyse impacts work in a consistent way, explicitly identifying assumptions between
different results, and provides a basis for comparison with how impacts are handled in
integrated assessment models. A key output of the project is the set of impacts matrices
accompanying this report showing impacts in various sectors and regions. All annual
global mean temperature increases mentioned in this report refer to a baseline date of
1990.
The DEFRA-funded FastTrack and related work formed the bedrock for impacts matrices
which ensures that a consistent up to date methodology and full set of SRES scenarios.
For each sector the main factors driving variation and uncertainty in impacts were
unpacked as far as the literature and available Fast Track data and models allow. These
factors were variously (i) the choice of socio-economic scenario (ii) the adaptation
assumptions, (iii) the direct effects of carbon dioxide (CO2), and (iv) the variability
between different global circulation models (GCMs).
The project assessed climate impacts upon water stress, agriculture, coastal flooding,
human health, energy demand, and ecosystems (including biodiversity and global
vegetation) out to 2100 in most cases. The regional assessment is based upon 13 world
regions. A key consideration is that, with the exception of coastal flooding due to storm
surge the study cannot resolve the impacts of changing frequencies or intensities of short-
term extreme weather events, so that the impact estimates given here may be considered
an underestimation, since damages due to extreme weather events are already noticeably
high.
Impacts of climate change on water resources pressures are indexed by the numbers of
people living in water-stressed watersheds (less than 1000m3/capita/year on average) in
which runoff decreases or increases significantly due to climate change. Under most
climate change scenarios, runoff increases in high latitudes and the wet tropics (except in
South America), and decreases in mid-latitudes and dry sub-tropics, although there is
variability within a region and between the different climate models used to create
scenarios. The numbers of people affected by climate change by a given time period
depend on the assumed population growth rate, but under even the lowest growth rate
assumption a rise in temperature by 2085 of around 2°C would increase water resources
stresses for between 800 and 1800 million people, largely in Africa, Asia, Europe and
South America. Under the same assumptions, between 1340 and 2800 million water-
Page 4
stressed people – almost exclusively in south and east Asia – would experience increased
runoff. However, this extra runoff would probably increase flood risks, and because it
would occur during the wet season would not alleviate shortages during the dry season in
the absence of storage.
For a given global temperature change, the key driver of uncertainty in estimates of the
impacts of climate change on water stress is the precipitation scenario, which varies
between GCMs. Second, the impacts depend on assumed future population.
Impacts of climate change on agriculture are indexed by (a) percentage changes in yield
of major cereal crops under changed climate and increased carbon dioxide concentration
(b) resultant millions at risk of hunger. A constant adaptation scenario is assumed with
higher capabilities assumed in developed countries. Under all scenarios, the yield of the
dominant cereal crop in each region falls under (i) the assumption of no carbon dioxide
fertilisation effect, whilst an assumption of (ii) a carbon dioxide fertilisation effect,
results in a mixed picture of increases in yields in Europe, N America and Australia but
still decreases in yields elsewhere, although these are usually much smaller than the
corresponding decreases under assumption (i). However, there are still significant
decreases in maize yields, both globally and in regions where the crop is important such
as Africa, even under the assumption of carbon dioxide fertilisation. Regionally, impacts
on wheat are of serious concern in N Africa, Central and W Asia, with large losses under
both assumptions (i) and (ii). Impacts on maize are of serious concern in Western and
Southern Africa, and also in Latin America; whilst impacts on rice are of concern in S
and E Asia. Overall global cereal production is modelled to fall linearly by around 3%
per degree of temperature rise, under assumption (i) whilst under assumption (ii) smaller
decreases occur. The numbers of additional people consequently at risk of hunger could
reach 600 million globally in 2080 for temperature rises of 3°C above 1990 in the worst
case of assumption (i) and a high global population concentrated in the world’s poor
regions under conditions of global economic disparity (SRES scenario A2). These
people are concentrated in Africa, and also W Asia, Latin America and Central Asia.
Under assumption (ii) either increases or decreases in millions at risk from hunger could
occur by 2080 depending on temperature rise, population growth and relative economic
growth between regions. A temperature rise of 4°C is likely to increase millions at risk
even under assumption (ii).
Although only a single GCM is used in the study, Carbon dioxide fertilisation is the
strongest driver of uncertainty in the results and this is borne out by other studies. These
simulations take into account international trade and the expected increase in agricultural
technology and the ability to farm on marginal land if demand exists. Although the study
does not consider the potential to farm on land with a previously too cool climate for
agriculture, suggesting that this study may be too pessimistic, other studies which make a
hedonic assumption that such land immediately produces yields are too optimistic since
factors such as irrigation, soil quality, conversion time are not included. Additional
millions at risk would be expected to be higher than estimated due to the decline in
calorific value under carbon dioxide fertilisation, impacts of climate on fisheries, regional
mobilisation of desert dunes, salinisation of low-lying coastal farmland, and impacts of a
Page 5
climate-induced increased frequency of pest & disease outbreaks, episodes of elevated
tropospheric ozone concentrations, and short-duration extreme weather events upon crop
yields, none of which are included in the study. In fact, it is considered that
Under-nutrition linked to drought and flooding will be one of the most important
consequences of climate change.
Sea level rise increases the number of people at risk of coastal flooding. The bulk of the
population currently exposed to coastal flooding is in South Asia and East Asia, and these
regions continue to dominate when predicting future risks, although Africa increases in
its relative contribution. Actual experience of flooding (as opposed to risk) depends not
only on sea-level rise, but also on population, socio-economic scenarios, and most
especially assumptions about protection. More people are at risk under the high
population IPCC A2 scenario. Small islands and deltaic areas appear most vulnerable.
Whilst potential impacts from sea level rise are significant – actual impacts may be much
smaller if we can realise our potential to adapt by increasing coastal protection. Although
protection appears widely affordable, this requires the strong direction of investment to
coast protection and related flood management. Sea defences can also result in the loss
of coastal ecosystems. Events such as Katrina remind us that all residents of the coastal
flood plain are vulnerable to some degree even in developed countries. All flood defences
have a residual risk which ultimately leads to failure, whilst more intense storms and
more intense storm surges would exacerbate the risks from sea level rise considered here.
Health issues that are sensitive to climate make up a large portion of the total global
disease burden. These include factors like vector-borne diseases (e.g., malaria, dengue
fever), other infectious diseases (e.g., diarrhea), heat-and cold-related mortality,
malnutrition, air pollution and deaths due to flooding and storms. Climate change has
been modeled to have already caused the loss of 150,000 lives and 5.5 million disability
adjusted life-years (DALY) in 2000. The heat wave in Europe in 2003 caused 35,000
additional deaths, many of them potentially attributable to anthropogenic climate change.
Key impacts of climate change upon health in the Stern regions include increases in
vector-borne diseases (e.g., malaria, dengue fever) in all or parts of all Stern regions
except the Arctic, with (in particular) increased dengue fever in India and China, and
increased malaria in Africa. Other predicted impacts include increases in diarrhoea in SE
Asia, W Asia and Africa; reductions in cold-related mortality in Europe, North America,
and parts of Central and Eastern Asia; increases in heat-related mortality in Australasia,
North America, Europe (among others), and increased health impacts from climate
change related air pollution in Europe, East Asia, North and Central America (among
others). Flood related deaths and diseases have the potential to be a problem in many
regions (see coastal section) as does hunger and malnutrition (see agriculture). As
individuals, the elderly and poor face some of the greatest health risks, while poorer
countries have less adaptive capacity than richer ones.
One of the greatest uncertainties in estimating the future risks of climate change on health
is the overall population number and its distribution. Many of the climate change impact
Page 6
models appear to be more sensitive to population parameters than to climate parameters.
The overall knowledge of the potential spread of vector-borne diseases is hampered by
uncertainties in precipitation projections as drying could actually lead to a decrease of
vector-borne diseases in some areas. Adaptation to many climate change related health
impacts may reduce the level of the impact but this depends on increasing the level of
basic health services in many areas that may not be economically able to do so.
The impacts of climate change on energy demands for heating and cooling are indexed by
changes in regional and global population-weighted heating and cooling degree days.
With a 2oC rise in temperature, global heating requirements fall by approximately 20%,
but global cooling requirements rise by over 30% (relative to the situation without
climate change). These changes assume no change to the target "comfort" base
temperature, and implicitly therefore assume no adaptation (in the sense of accepting
warmer temperatures). Translating these into energy consumption requires assumptions
about the energy sources used and the efficiency of space heating and cooling
technologies.
For a given global temperature change, the key driver of uncertainty in estimates of
changes in regional heating and cooling energy requirements is the change in seasonal
temperature across the region (as simulated by different GCMs). Differences in
population have very little effect on changes in regional heating/cooling requirements.
Translating requirements into demands and consumption is highly uncertain, as it
would depend on energy sources, energy efficiency, and total population.
Impacts of climate change are already being seen within ecosystems across the globe and
are expected to escalate quickly as temperatures rise. They are predicted appear to take
off strongly at temperatures of around 1.5°C above 1990 levels (or 2°C above pre-
industrial levels). All predicted extinction rates for temperature rise of around 1.5°C or
above greatly exceed current extinction rates. Major biome losses are predicted in
tundra, wooded tundra (taiga), cool conifer forest and temperate deciduous forests. With
a 3°C rise in temperature, each biome loses variously between 7 and 74% of its extent
such that 22% of the land surface is transformed, these areas supporting low biodiversity.
The major world ecosystems at greatest risk of complete loss due to climate change are
(a) Coral reefs (b) Arctic ecosystems (c) Biodiversity in hotspots where losses of species
due to climate change could number into the thousands or tens of thousands of species.
Of serious concern is that acidification of the ocean, a direct consequence of increased
carbon dioxide concentrations, has the potential to disrupt the marine ecosystem.
The report includes a detailed tabulation of predicted losses to ecosystems, but this does
not include the potential consequences of the fact that predator-prey and pollinator-plant
relationships often do not shift in concert as climate changes, leading to potential pest
outbreaks and extinctions, with potentially large consequences for agriculture. As
temperature increases forest ecosystems are increasingly disrupted by fire and pests,
especially at higher rates of temperature changes. Rapid sea level rise would cause loss
of protective coastal ecosystems such as coral reefs and mangroves, destroying natural
Page 7
coastal defences. Climate change and land use change will act synergistically to reduce
biodiversity, since for example with a 3°C temperature rise 50% of nature reserves will
not be able to fulfil their conservation objectives. Hence extinction rates will be higher
than those predicted due to climate change alone, with climate change being particularly
important in Arctic and boreal regions.
The effect of climate change on the distribution of natural ecosystems and carbon
sequestration was summarised, based on the Fast-Track modelling work of Levy et al.
(2004). A global vegetation model, 'HyLand', was used to simulate the effects of changes
in climate, CO2 concentration and land use as prescribed by four SRES scenarios: A1F,
A2, B1 and B2. Under all SRES scenarios simulated, the terrestrial biosphere was
predicted to be a net sink for carbon over most of the 21st century. This sink peaks
around 2050 and then diminishes rapidly towards the end of the century as a result of
climate change. Without the effect of CO2 "fertilisation", the terrestrial biosphere
becomes a net source much earlier, and carbon sequestration is reduced by an average of
6.0 +/- 3.1 (s.d.) Pg C y-1 in 2100. The mean effect of climate change across all
scenarios is to reduce carbon sequestration by 4.7 +/- 2.6 (s.d.) Pg C y-1 in 2100. The
effect of land use change is less clear, and may cause a source or a sink of carbon,
depending on future trends in cropland expansion. Future changes in CO2 concentration,
and the response of vegetation to that change, is the largest source of uncertainty in these
simulations.
In terms of the carbon balance, the worst affected region is South America, which
accounts for 2.6 out of the 4.7 Pg C y-1 (55 %) emitted globally as a result of climate
change in 2100. Australasia and West and Southern Africa are the other regions which
act as significant sources of carbon. Only East and Central Asia & Eastern Europe are
significant sinks for carbon (0.7 Pg C y-1 in total in 2100). The largest net losses of
forest area occur in Australasia and the regions within Africa. North Africa sees a
particularly large increase in desert area. The forest losses in Amazonia are to some
extent balanced by gains from grassland and desert elsewhere within South America. In
East and Central Asia & Eastern Europe, the effects of climate change are predicted to be
beneficial, with desert areas are converted to forest and grassland.
Page 8
Regions of concern identified by this study include
• N Africa where crop failures, desertification, and water resources stress could be
expected to cause climate-induced migration of people from the region,
• Southern and Western Africa where maize crop failure and desert dune
mobilization could increase famine
• Central Asia where crop failures may destabilize the region politically
• Coasts of S Asia where livelihoods and lives are at risk from flooding and
salinisation
• Caribbean whose economy will be affected by a combination of damages to coral
reefs and associated fisheries and sea level rise
• Arctic where rapid warming is already affecting infrastructure and ecosystems are
greatly at risk.
• S America where water resource stress is expected to increase and crop yields to
decrease, and the Amazon may dry with large biodiversity loss
• Small island sub-regions in the Pacific and Indian Oceans are highly threatened
by flooding and submergence due to sea-level rise
Due to the very large number of people that will be affected, under-nutrition linked to
drought and flooding will be one of the most important consequences of climate change,
as will losses of ecosystems and biodiversity.
Adaptation has the potential to reduce impacts on human systems given sufficient funds,
but adaptations against impacts in one sector can have adverse consequences to another:
for example, local water storage can provide breeding sites for disease vectors whilst
large water storage projects can dry wetlands downstream, coastal protection can cause
wetland loss, etc. Ecosystems, however, have almost no potential to adapt to the rapid
rates of climate change that are already occurring, and severe impacts cannot be avoided
unless temperature increase is curtailed.
Page 9
1. INTRODUCTION
Aims and Outputs
• The aim of this project was to bring together a range of work to examine the
global impacts of climate change at different degrees of temperature rise (up to
5°C where possible), identifying vulnerable sectors in different parts of the world.
The project aims to analyse impacts work in a consistent way, explicitly
identifying assumptions between different results, and provides a basis for
comparison with how impacts are handled in integrated assessment models. A.
key output of the project is the set of impacts matrices showing impacts in various
sectors and regions.
• The DEFRA-funded FastTrack and related work formed the bedrock and
framework for impacts matrices (Parry and Livermore, 1999; Parry et al., 2001;
Arnell et al., 2002; Parry, 2004). . The advantages of the use of Fast Track are
that (i) it ensures that a consistent methodology and full set of SRES scenarios (ii)
the assessment is based on the use of up to date climate and impact models. It is
one of the few studies which spanned a full range of SRES scenarios both with
and without a direct CO2 fertilisation effect on crops. Selected other studies were
also compared with FastTrack work particularly in the case of agriculture.
• For each sector the main factors driving variation and uncertainty in impacts were
unpacked as far as the literature and the available Fast Track data and models
allow. These factors were (i) the choice of socio-economic scenario (ii) the
adaptation assumptions, (iii) the direct effects of carbon dioxide (CO2), and (iv)
the variability between different global circulation models (GCMs), although the
details vary between sectors, as appropriate . Details are given in the sectoral
sections in this report.
• The project assessed climate impacts upon water stress, agriculture, coastal
flooding, human health, energy demand, and ecosystems (including biodiversity
and global vegetation) out to 2100 in most cases. Large-scale abrupt changes in
the earth system are not included since they are covered by a parallel report (ref).
• The regional assessment is based upon 13 world regions, henceforth referred to

as “Stern Regions”: EUR (Europe), NAM (North America), SAM (South
America), CAM (Central America), NAF (North Africa), SAS (South Asia),
WAF (West Africa), CAS (Central Asia and former USSR), WAS (West Asia),
SAS (South Asia), EAS (East Asia), AUS (Australasia). Island sub-regions for
the Indian and Pacific Oceans are also recognised for the coastal analysis. The
classification of countries into these regions is shown in Table A1 of the
Appendix.
Page 10
• A set of regional (and one global) impacts matrices summarising key outputs of
this study accompany this paper.
Assumptions of the “Fast Track” approach
Generic assumptions of Fast Track studies in different sectors concern the regional
interpretation of SRES scenarios and the use of the climate simulations:
• SRES scenario interpretation: (a) Population In the Fast Track study the SRES
population projections (IPCC 2000) were downscaled to the national scale by the
IIASA population project and the CIESIN project (Lutz and Goujon 2002,
CIESIN 2002). Table A2 of the Appendix gives the regional population data.
Global population is currently (1995) 5.6 billion, and, having peaked at 8.7 billion
in the 2050s, would by the 2080s reach 7.8 billion under SRES A1/B1, 10.0
billion under SRES B2 and 14.1 billion under SRES A2.
(b) Future economic growth National GDP to 2100 was estimated by applying
regional change from 1990 to the national 1990 absolute GDP (Arnell et al.
2004). Both population and GDP downscaling omit 44 small countries with
populations less than 150,000 in 1995. For these (mostly) small island states
scenarios were instead developed by applying the trends in larger adjacent
countries. (c) Land cover Water resources: assumed current land cover continued
in the future; Vegetation: SRES land cover scenarios used; Agriculture: land use
parameters are taken from FAO estimates.
• Climate simulations: In the Fast Track study future climate simulations from
HadCM3 are passed to the impact models in the form of 30 year time slices
centred on (for example) 2025, 2055, and 2085. Table 1.1 provides the
temperatures and CO2 concentrations simulated by HadCM3 for the various SRES
scenarios. For SRES A2 and SRES B2, additional ensemble experiments from
HadCM3 were used (A2b,c and B2b) and these have been utilised in a small
number of the impact analyses below. The ensemble members differ in the initial
state of the climate system, and whilst global temperature changes are similar,
there are pronounced differences in regional temperature rise and precipitation,
for example A2c is considerably warmer in some locations, and A2a has drying in
India whilst A2b has an increase in precipitation. In the report, where not
specified “A2” is used the scenario is actually A2a and “B2” is similarly B2a.
Page 11
Table 1.1 Projected changes in global mean temperature (°C) relative to 1961-
1990 mean and global CO2 concentrations (ppm) (Arnell et al. 2004).
Year A1F1 A2a A2b A2c B1 B2a B2b
2020s 0.99 0.86 0.93 0.88 0.84 0.91 0.91
2050s 2.26 1.92 1.89 1.85 1.45 1.56 1.66
2080s 3.97 3.21 3.28 3.32 2.06 2.35 2.40
CO2 CONCN A1F1 A2 B1 B2
1990 358 358 358 358
2020s 432 432 421 422
2050s 590 549 492 422
2080s 810 709 527 561
• The GCM outputs detail monthly mean climates on a 2.5° latitude x 3.75°
longitude spatial resolution and these changes are superposed onto time series of
monthly observed climate data without further spatial interpolation. This means
that extreme short-duration weather events cannot be resolved in the Fast Track
climate scenario data. The science of predicting changes in extreme events is still
in its infancy, and none of the other impact assessments in the literature take into
account the potential for increased extreme weather events either. Furthermore,
some of the Fast Track impact models themselves lack the capability to handle
climate information on a daily timescale. However, the analysis of coastal
flooding does take account of changes in extremes due to changes in mean
conditions, and the water resources analysis is based on simulated time series of
river flow data, which include high and low flow years.
• Extreme weather events such as more intense or extreme floods, droughts

(particularly short ones), storms and hurricanes are expected to make a very
significant contribution to climate change damages indeed, as all are predicted to
increase with climate change, and the associated costs are very high. For
example, insurance experts are now agreeing that the costs of Hurricane Katrina
in 2005 will far exceed $100 billion. The European floods in 2002 cost $16
billion and 100 lives, and those in the UK in 2000 resulted in an insurance payout
of £1 billion. Table A3 in the Appendix shows annual average costs of extreme
weather events in the US. Insurance floods along the Yangtse River in China in
1998 were responsible for 4000 deaths and economic losses of $30 billion. Also
in 1998, drought and fire in Florida costs $276 million (Vellinga and van
Verseveld 2000). The European heatwave of 2003 cost as estimated $13.5 billion
and caused 30000 lives. Meanwhile it has been calculated that there is more than
90% confidence that human influence has already at least doubled the risk of
occurrence of a heatwave of this magnitude (Stott et al. 2004) and such events
are predicted to become more frequent (Meehl and Tebaldi 2004). This means
that economic and physical estimates of damages from climate change need to
take into account the potentially very large impact of these events, in addition to
the effects of changes in mean climate which are the driver of the impacts
reported in the following report.
Page 12
REFERENCES
Arnell, N.W., Cannell, M.G.R., Hulme, M., Kovats, R.S., Mitchell, J.F.B., Nicholls,
Arnell, N.W., Livermore, M.J.J., Kovats, S., Levy, P.E., Nicholls, R., Parry, M.L., and
Gaffin S.R. 2004. Climate and socioeconomic scenarios for global-scale climate change
impacts assessments: characterising the SRES storylines. Global Environmental Change
14 pp 3-20.
CIESIN 2002a Country level population and downscaled projections for the SRES A1,
B1, A2 and B2 marker scenarios, 1990-2100, Beta version. CIESIN, Columbia
University, Palisades, NY. Available at http://sres.ciesin.columbia.edu/tgcia
climate threats and targets. Global Environmental Change, 11(3), 1-3.
CO2 stabilisation for the impacts of climate change Climatic Change, 53, 413-446.
Earth Policy Institute, 2003 Record Heat Wave in Europe takes 35000 lives.
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update29.htm
Events, WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
Global Environmental Change, 14 (1), 1–99.
IPCC 2000. Emissions scenarios. A Special report of working group III of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
Lutz, W., and Goujon, A. 1992 Unpublished downscaling of regional population
projections to country level for the SRES A1, B1 and A2 scenarios corresponding to the
IPCC SRES Report 1990-2100. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
(IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria. Available at http://sres.ciesin.columbia.edu
M., Rosensweig, C., Iglesias, A. & Fischer, G., 2001. Millions at risk: defining critical
Parry, M. & Livermore, M. (eds.) 1999. A new assessment of the global effects of
climate change. Global Environmental Change, 9, S1-S107
Parry, M., Arnell, N., McMichael, T., Nicholls, R., Martens, P., Kovats, S., Livermore,
Parry, M.L. (ed.) (2004), Global impacts of climate change under the SRES scenarios,
Preston, B. 2005. Global Warming and Extreme Weather Events. Catastrophe risk
management Spring 2005. pp.22-23
R.J., Parry, M.L., Livermore, M.T.J. & White, A. 2002. The consequences of
Stott, P.A., Stone, D.A., and Allen, M.R. 2004. Human contribution to the European
Heatwave of 2003. Nature 432, pp. 610-614
Vellinga, P. and van Verseveld, W.J. 2000. Climate Change and Extreme Weather
The Sectoral and Regional Assessment of Climate Change Impacts follows.
Page 13
2. REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES STRESS
Contribution by Nigel Arnell

University of Southampton
Introduction and methods

The availability of water resources in a watershed is indexed by the available resources
per capita, calculated by dividing long-term average annual runoff (or "renewable
resource") by the number of people living in the watershed (Falkenmark et al., 1989) 1 . A
country experiences water scarcity when supply is below 1000 m3/capita/year, and
absolute scarcity when supply is below 500m3/capita/year. The thresholds are based on
estimates of water requirements in the household, agricultural, industrial and energy
sectors, and the needs of the environment. Water availability is equal to the average
annual renewable resource (average annual river runoff and groundwater recharge).
Water availability per capita is only an indicator of potential exposure to stress. Some of
"stressed" watersheds will actually have effective management systems in place to ensure
adequate supplies (eg through storage); some watersheds with in excess of
1000m3/capita/year may experience severe water shortages because of lack of access to
potentially available water. For comparative purposes, the basic water requirement for
human needs, excluding that used directly for growing food, has been assessed at
approximately 50 l/capita/day, or 18.25 m3/capita/year (Gleick, 1996) which includes
allowances for drinking (2-4.5 l/capita/day), sanitation (20 l/capita/day), bathing (15
l/capita/day), and food preparation (10 l/capita/day). It does not include any allowance for
growing food, industrial uses or the environment 2 . The threshold for water scarcity is
considerably higher than the basic water requirement because (i) it also accounts for other
human uses, particularly irrigation, industrial use and demands for effluent dispersion ,
and (ii) not all river flows are available for use (some flows occur during floods, and
some is demanded by the environment). On average, approximately 30% of average river
flows occur as uncaptured flood flows (Shiklomanov & Rodda, 2003), and freshwater
ecosystem use is estimated to range between 20 and 50% of average flows (Smakhtin et
al., 2004). Taken together, between 50 and 80% of average flow is unavailable to
humans, meaning that a threshold of 1000 m3/capita/year of average flows translates into
200 to 500 m3/capita/year available flows.
Average annual runoff by watershed is estimated using a hydrological model driven by

30-year time series of climate data at a spatial resolution of 0.5x0.5o (Arnell, 1999; 2003;
1
Water availability per capita per year is the most frequently used measure of water resource availability,
adopted widely by the UN, and for which data is readily available; the next most frequently used measure is
the ratio of withdrawals to availability, but this requires reliable estimates of actual and, most crucially,
future withdrawals.
2
Actual usage varies considerably, depending on water availability, price, and cultural preferences
(domestic consumption in England is around 170 l/capita/day; in large parts of Africa it is less than 20
l/capita/day).
Page 14
2004; 2006): the average is calculated over the 30 years of simulated river flows. The
climate scenarios were constructed by rescaling the spatial pattern of change in mean
monthly precipitation, temperature and net radiation as simulated by the 2080s by five
climate models (HadCM3, ECHAM4, CSIRO2, CGCM2 and PCM) to global average
temperature increases of 0.5 to 5oC (above the 1961-1990 mean), in increments of 0.5oC.
This "rescaling" approach assumes that the spatial pattern of climate change with
gradually increasing forcing remains broadly consistent, which is not entirely correct but
is a reasonable first-order assumption. The hydrological simulations assume no change in
either windspeed or relative humidity with climate change, and also assume no direct
effect of CO2 enrichment on evaporation. Recent studies (Gedney et al., 2006) have
suggested that CO2 enrichment does have a detectable effect on runoff at the catchment
scalee through the suppression of evaporation. Incorporating the effects of CO2
enrichment would therefore lead to greater increases in runoff and smaller decreases in
runoff, although the effects would depend on the extent and characteristics of vegetation
cover within the catchment (it could be hypothesised that the effect of CO2 enrichment
would be small in dry-region catchments where vegetation cover is more sparse).
Watershed population totals are estimated under different population scenarios by

summing estimates of population at the 0.5x0.5o scale. Watershed resources per capita
are then calculated for each climate model pattern (5), temperature increment (10), and
population scenario (3: A1/B1, A2 and B2) and time horizon (3: 2020s, 2050s and
2080s).
The population exposed to an increase in water stress due to climate change is equal to
the population living in watersheds where availability falls below 1000m3/capita/year,
plus those living in watersheds which already have less than 1000m3/capita/year and
where runoff decreases significantly. A significant decrease is greater than the standard
deviation of long-term average runoff, which typically ranges between 5 and 10%. The
population exposed to an apparent decrease in stress is equal to the population living in
watersheds where availability rises above 1000m3/capita/year, plus those living in
already-stressed watersheds where runoff decreases significantly. It is not appropriate to
calculate the net change in number of people exposed to water stress because the effects
of an apparent reduction in stress are not symmetrical to those of an apparent increase (a
10% increase in runoff in a stressed watershed is arguably not as beneficial as a 10%
decrease is harmful). The additional runoff in many cases occurs during the wet season,
and may not help availability in the dry season, and may increase the flood risk.
The numbers in the matrices and spreadsheets summarise impact by region. There is, of
course, considerable variability in the effect of climate change on river flows within a
region, and this is summarised in the attached figure which shows change in runoff with a
2oC rise in temperature under the five climate model patterns. The figure also illustrates
the consistencies and differences between the different climate models used to create
climate change scenarios.
Average annual runoff is a crude measure of resource availability. Using drought annual
runoff changes the numbers of people exposed to change in water stress, but does not
Page 15
greatly affect the geographic distribution of change in stress (Arnell, 2004). Changes in
the timing of flows through the year can also substantially affect resource availability. In
large parts of central and northern Europe, North America, north and east Asia and
mountainous regions in particular high temperatures would mean winter precipitation
would fall as rain rather than snow; runoff would then occur in winter rather than after
snowmelt in spring (Barnett et al., 1995). In effect, a very large natural reservoir is being
lost, and although change in annual total runoff may be small, effects on summer
resource availability may be very large. Barnett et al. (1995) estimate that approximately
a sixth of the world's population rely on water released from snowpacks or glacier melt to
maintain supplies during the peak demand season.
The index of impact does not incorporate the effect of adaptation, because it is a measure
of resource availability not resource utilization.
Under most climate change scenarios, runoff increases in high latitudes and the wet
tropics (except in South America), and decreases in mid-latitudes and dry sub-tropics,
although there is variability within a region and between the different climate models
used to create scenarios. The numbers of people affected by climate change by a given
time period depend on the assumed population growth rate, but under even the lowest
growth rate assumption a rise in temperature by 2085 of around 2°C would increase
water resources stresses for between 800 and 1800 million people, largely in Africa, Asia,
Europe and South America. Under the same assumptions, between 1340 and 2800 million
water-stressed people – almost exclusively in south and east Asia – would experience
increased runoff. However, this extra runoff would probably increase flood risks, and
because it would occur during the wet season would not alleviate shortages during the dry
season in the absence of storage.
For a given global temperature change, the key driver of uncertainty in estimates of the
impacts of climate change on water stress is the precipitation scenario, which varies
between GCMs. Secondly, the impacts depend on assumed future population.
Arnell, N.W. (1999) A simple water balance model for the simulation of streamflow over a large geographic
domain. Journal of Hydrology 217, 314-335.
Arnell, N.W. (2003) Effects of IPCC SRES emissions scenarios on river runoff: a global perspective.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 7, 619-641
Arnell, N.W. (2004) Climate change and global water resources: SRES emissions and socio-economic
scenarios. Global Environmental Change 14, 31-52.
Arnell, N. W. (2006). Climate change and water resources: a global perspective. Avoiding Dangerous
Climate Change, Schellnhuber, H J., Cramer, W., Nakicenovic, N., Wigley, T. and Yohe, G (Eds).
Cambridge University Press, 167-175.
Barnett, T.P., Adam, J.C. and Lettenmaier, D.P.(2005) Potential impacts of a warming climate on water
availability in snow-dominated regions. Nature, 438(7066): 303-309.
Falkenmark, M., Lunquist, J. & Widstrand, C. (1989) Macro-scale water scarcity requires micro-scale
approaches: aspects of vulnerability in semi-arid development. Natural Resources Forum 13, 258-
267.
Gedney, N., Cox, P.M., Betts, R.A., Boucher, O. and Huntingford, C.S., P.A.,(2006) Detection of a direct
carbon dioxide effect in continental river runoff records. Nature, 439: 835-838.
Gleick, P.H. (1996) Basic water requirements for human activities: meeting basic needs. Water
International 21, 83-92.
Shiklomanov, I.A. and Rodda, J.C., (2003). World Water Resources at the Beginning of the 21st
Page 16
Century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Smakhtin, V., Revenga, C. and Doll, P., (2004). Taking into account environmental water
requirements in global-scale water resources assessments, Comprehensive Assessment
Secretariat, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Page 17
Table 2.1 shows the modelled impact of temperature increase upon water stress in the
Stern regions, in terms of the populations experiencing increased or decreased water
stress, differentiating the separate influences of global mean temperature rise and
population (as specified by SRES scenario). Simulations were repeated for climate
simulations from 5 GCMs (HadCM3, ECHAM4/OPYCPCM, CGCM2, CSIRO2, and
PCM from NCAR/DOE). Table 2.1 gives the ranges of results across all GCMs. Table
A2 of the Appendix shows the number of water stressed persons in each region compared
to the regional populations. Table A4 of the Appendix gives further detail than is given
in Table 2.1, showing persons moving into or out of a stressed class separately from those
already stressed, where stress increases or decreases.
Table 2.1. Impact of Global Annual Mean Temperature Increase (as modelled by 5
GCMs) for water stress amongst populations of the world regions
Increase Decrease % Change in Regional
in stress + in stress + runoff (min/med/max)
All GCMs 2085 move in move out
1 North Africa A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2
Baseline* 303 603 312
0-1 0 - 169 0 - 330 3 - 184 0 - 144 0 - 290 0 - 142 -24 -11 -5
1-2 88 - 301 169 - 594 101 - 312 0 - 147 0 - 299 0 - 148 -43 -25 -14
2-3 155 - 304 296 - 599 163 - 315 0 - 149 0 - 303 0 - 150 -57 -36 -22
3-4 154 - 305 293 - 599 162 - 315 0 - 148 0 - 300 0 - 149 -67 -42 -23
4-5 154 - 306 293 - 603 162 - 318 0 - 148 0 - 300 0 - 149 -74 -45 -21
2 West Africa A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

Baseline* 135 290 432
0-1 17 - 258 19 - 357 23 - 407 0 - 129 0 - 271 0 - 288 -6 -2 4
1-2 22 - 277 34 - 376 32 - 472 0 - 136 0 - 276 0 - 292 -12 -4 9
2-3 27 - 294 50 - 403 59 - 517 0 - 136 1 - 279 0 - 309 -17 -5 13
3-4 40 - 301 50 - 413 59 - 517 0 - 136 1 - 279 0 - 351 -22 -7 18
4-5 40 - 322 50 - 461 59 - 564 0 - 185 1 - 343 2 - 375 -26 -8 22
South and East

3 Africa A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2
Baseline* 151 389 502
0-1 4 - 191 5 - 324 8 - 444 0 - 229 1 - 416 0 - 472 -8 -1 5
1-2 21 - 231 12 - 403 44 - 496 23 - 260 29 - 455 38 - 521 -15 -4 11
2-3 33 - 307 15 - 432 51 - 529 33 - 260 43 - 455 50 - 521 -21 -4 16
3-4 35 - 319 20 - 429 57 - 574 42 - 260 62 - 455 59 - 535 -26 -7 20
4-5 36 - 320 21 - 526 57 - 569 51 - 260 75 - 455 72 - 535 -30 -8 22
4 South Asia A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

Baseline* 1433 2850 2276
0-1 26 - 123 60 - 376 34 - 175 0 - 1593 39 - 2756 0 - 2284 -1 4 7
961 - 1579 - 1361 -
1-2 35 - 156 275 - 387 47 - 221 1597 2780 2300 -3 9 13
1044 - 1723 - 1473 -
2-3 39 - 264 169 - 812 47 - 356 1602 2789 2299 -6 12 18
1051 - 1735 - 1481 -
3-4 39 - 281 288 - 879 47 - 409 1602 2789 2306 -8 15 22
Page 18
237 - 1170 - 1917 - 1633 -
4-5 37 - 327 1010 48 - 425 1602 2789 2306 -12 18 27
5 East Asia A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

Baseline* 429 2461 806
0-1 0 - 17 0 - 1147 0 - 154 0 - 307 1 - 1859 0 - 546 -4 1 4
197 -
1-2 2 - 136 10 - 1571 4 - 250 15 - 371 2311 113 - 771 -8 4 7
627 -
2-3 2 - 140 41 - 1577 4 - 300 47 - 375 2323 182 - 778 -12 7 11
748 -
3-4 2 - 140 41 - 1584 4 - 727 47 - 375 2323 182 - 778 -15 10 15
748 -
4-5 2 - 160 12 - 1584 4 - 781 80 - 376 2326 238 - 756 -19 12 17
6 Australasia A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

Baseline* 0 0 0
0-1 0- 2 0- 3 0- 2 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 -2 1 3
1-2 0- 2 0- 3 0- 2 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 -5 4 7
2-3 0- 2 0- 3 0- 2 0- 1 0- 2 0- 1 -7 6 12
3-4 0- 4 0- 6 0- 3 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 -8 9 17
4-5 0- 4 0- 6 0- 3 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 -10 11 22
7 Europe A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

Baseline* 149 304 138
0-1 34 - 233 58 - 433 31 - 238 0- 0 0- 0 0 - 15 -8 -3 -1
1-2 99 - 315 197 - 489 89 - 328 0 - 41 0 - 47 0 - 53 -16 -7 -3
2-3 119 - 364 237 - 550 102 - 341 0 - 58 0 - 67 0 - 69 -23 -11 -6
3-4 179 - 441 287 - 567 193 - 429 0 - 58 0 - 68 0 - 69 -30 -14 -8
4-5 205 - 450 297 - 590 213 - 440 0 - 58 0 - 68 0 - 69 -35 -18 -10
8 Central Asia A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

Baseline* 9 194 10
0-1 0 - 10 7 - 94 0 - 23 0 - 34 0 - 101 0 - 35 1 3 11
1-2 5 - 47 47 - 190 10 - 52 0 - 37 0 - 112 0 - 37 1 9 19
2-3 14 - 52 98 - 228 16 - 59 0- 6 0 - 112 0- 6 0 11 23
3-4 14 - 59 98 - 248 24 - 65 0- 6 0 - 112 0- 6 -3 13 22
4-5 24 - 75 96 - 316 33 - 83 0- 6 0 - 112 0- 7 -7 13 18
9 North America A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

Baseline* 96 151 78
0-1 0 - 92 0 - 130 0 - 57 0 - 26 0 - 33 0 - 19 -2 0 2
1-2 24 - 106 32 - 172 16 - 84 0 - 26 2 - 33 0 - 20 -5 1 4
2-3 46 - 136 92 - 173 26 - 86 0 - 26 8 - 33 0 - 20 -9 0 5
3-4 67 - 138 109 - 206 48 - 110 0 - 26 11 - 33 0 - 21 -13 -2 5
4-5 85 - 183 109 - 247 48 - 112 0 - 26 17 - 59 0 - 21 -17 -5 4
10 Caribbean A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2
Page 19
Baseline* 0 48 34
0-1 0 - 19 0 - 51 0 - 33 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 -27 -4 0
1-2 0 - 19 0 - 55 0 - 35 0- 1 0- 3 0- 1 -48 -10 1
2-3 0 - 24 0 - 73 0 - 38 0- 1 0- 3 0- 1 -64 -15 1
3-4 0 - 24 0 - 75 0 - 49 0- 1 0 - 48 0 - 33 -75 -18 2
4-5 0 - 21 0 - 75 0 - 47 0- 1 0 - 48 0 - 33 -83 -20 3
11 Central America A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

Baseline* 33 178 68
0-1 0 - 65 0 - 173 0 - 83 0 - 28 0 - 66 0 - 39 -23 -4 1
1-2 4 - 65 9 - 173 5 - 104 0 - 30 0 - 105 0 - 42 -44 -9 3
2-3 5 - 65 11 - 246 5 - 104 0 - 51 0 - 151 0 - 70 -60 -13 11
3-4 4 - 81 10 - 257 5 - 142 0 - 51 0 - 151 0 - 70 -71 -17 7
4-5 4 - 86 10 - 266 6 - 139 0 - 51 0 - 151 0 - 70 -77 -20 10
12 South America A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

Baseline* 6 88 8
0-1 0- 1 1 - 146 0 - 35 0- 1 0 - 106 0- 2 -15 -2 0
1-2 0 - 47 39 - 170 0 - 52 0- 1 0 - 107 0- 2 -27 -3 0
2-3 1 - 47 72 - 272 16 - 70 0- 1 0 - 108 0- 2 -38 -4 1
3-4 15 - 47 124 - 226 19 - 106 0- 1 0 - 135 0- 2 -47 -5 1
4-5 15 - 58 180 - 299 20 - 106 0- 3 0 - 143 0- 4 -53 -7 2
13 West Asia A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

Baseline* 319 709 320
0-1 39 - 158 78 - 355 39 - 165 0 - 123 0 - 286 0 - 113 -15 -5 2
1-2 117 - 216 240 - 488 120 - 205 0 - 168 0 - 388 0 - 169 -26 -10 0
2-3 95 - 218 191 - 492 98 - 207 0 - 191 0 - 446 0 - 188 -33 -10 9
3-4 95 - 226 191 - 510 98 - 216 0 - 201 0 - 467 0 - 198 -36 -11 9
4-5 95 - 217 191 - 490 98 - 205 0 - 202 0 - 468 0 - 199 -36 -8 12
14 Globe A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

Baseline* 3061 8265 4984
769 - 392 - 197 - 949 - 460 -
0-1 304 - 946 3047 1409 2491 5082 3866
731 - 2074 - 1002 - 1079 - 1841 - 1534 -
1-2 1459 4439 2178 2709 5579 4114
814 - 2311 - 1167 - 1341 - 2537 - 1976 -
2-3 1827 5182 2614 2795 5882 4216
964 - 2646 - 1264 - 1384 - 2649 - 2018 -
3-4 2028 5391 3293 2802 5927 4268
979 - 2978 - 1210 - 1592 - 3040 - 2253 -
4-5 2144 5822 3375 2807 5959 4278
*baseline gives number of persons water stressed in absence of climate change in 2085.
Global maps showing how the use of various GCMs affects the simulation of changes in
water stress for a 2°C global mean temperature rise are shown in Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2
shows this graphically by region in 2085 for the A1/B1 SRES scenario. Whilst trends are
similar, the magnitudes of the millions experiencing increased water stress do vary
significantly between GCMs. Figure 1.3 gives corresponding variation of runoff in each
region by GCM.
Page 20
Figure 2.1
Page 21
Figure 2.2 Variation in millions of people experiencing increased water stress as a
function of GCM (HadCM3 is shown in bold) for the A1/B1 population in 2085
(source: Sterrngraphsnew2085.xls)
North Africa West Africa

350 350
300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50
50
0
0
0 1 2 3 o 4 5
Temp change from 1990 ( C) 0 1 Temp change
2 from 1990
3 ( o C) 4 5
South and East Africa South Asia

350 350
300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
o
0 1 Temp change
2 f rom 1990
3 ( C) 4 5 0 1 Temp change
2 from 1990
3 ( oC) 4 5
East Asia Australasia

180 3. 5
160 3
140 2. 5
120
2
100
80 1. 5
60 1
40 0. 5
20
0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2
Temp change 3 ( o C)
f rom 1990 4 5 Temp change f rom 1990 ( oC)
Page 22
Europe Form er Soviet Union
500 70
60
400
50
300 40
30
200
20
100 10
0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 Temp change
2 f rom 1990
3 ( oC) 4 5 Temp change from 1990 ( oC)
North Am erica Caribbean

200 40
35
150 30
25
100 20
15
50 10
5
0 0
0 1 2 3 o 4 5
Temp change f rom 1990 ( C) 0 1 2
Temp change 3
from 1990 ( o C) 4 5
Central Am erica South Am erica

100 70
60
80
50
60
40
40 30
20
20
10
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Temp change from 1990 ( o C) 0 1 2
Temp change 3
f rom 1990 ( oC) 4 5
West Asia
250
200
150
100
50
0 1 2 3 4 5
Temp change from 1990 ( o C)
Page 23
Figure 2.3 Variation in change in runoff as a function of GCM (HadCM3 is shown
in bold) for the A1/B1 population in 2085

100 50
40
30
50
20
10
0 0
-10
-20
-50
-30
-40
- 100 -50
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Temperature change ( o C) Temperat ure change ( oC)

50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
- 10 -10
-20 -20
-30 -30
-40 -40
-50 -50
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Temperat ure change ( o C) Temperat ure change ( oC)

50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
- 10 - 10
-20 -20
-30 -30
-40 -40
-50 -50
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Europe Former Soviet Union

50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
-10 -10
- 20 -20
- 30 -30
- 40 -40
- 50 -50
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Temperat ure change ( oC) Temperat ure change ( oC)
Page 24
North America Caribbean
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
- 10 - 10
-20 -20
-30 -30
-40 -40
-50 -50
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Central America South America

50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
-10 -10
- 20 - 20
- 30 - 30
- 40 - 40
- 50 - 50
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Temperat ure change ( oC) Temperat ure change ( oC)
West Asia
50
40
30
20
10
0
- 10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0 1 2 3 4 5
Temperat ure change ( o C)
Figure 1.4 shows the modelled % change in runoff for a 2°C increase in global mean
temperature across the 5 GCMs used.
Figure 1.4
Page 25
Page 26
3. CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURE
Contribution by Rachel Warren

UEA
Several studies are used to assess the implications of climate change for agriculture, but 2
studies form the basis of most of the analysis (a) Fast Track analysis of global agricultural
impacts, since this covers a range of socioeconomic scenarios and has specified in detail the
adaptations considered (Parry 2004, Parry 2005) (b) IIASA study (Fischer 2002) (c) Pew
Centre study (Jorgenson 2004), which reviews a range of other studies covering both optimistic
and pessimistic assumptions for agricultural impacts in the USA. Mearns (2003) studies the
effects of the spatial scale in modelling agricultural impacts in the SE USA, whilst Sands and
Edmonds provides an up to date assessmene of climate impacts in the USA. The work of
Darwin, as it has evolved over the years (Darwin 1995, Darwin 1999, Darwin 2004), is also
reviewed is also examined since this work has been used in integrated assessment models.
Various other local studies have been used to populate the regional impacts tables. Outputs
from different publications about the impacts of agriculture make, in general, different
assumptions about socioeconomics, adaptation and CO2 fertilisation.
3.1 Fast Track Analysis
This study (Parry et al. 2004) details projected climate impacts upon crop yields, crop
production, cereal prices and millions at risk from hunger. The study is regionally specific and
consists of a two stage process (i) the simulation of percentage reductions in major crop yields in
the presence or absence of CO2 fertilisation and (ii) the simulation of millions at risk from
hunger (via cereal production and prices). The study spans the four SRES scenarios A1F, A2,
B1 and B2 including some variants of A2 and B2. The aspects of the SRES scenarios which
affect crop yields are changes in climate, specifically monthly temperature and precipitation,
whilst population affects the calculations of crop production and millions at risk from hunger.
The four crops studied (wheat, maize, rice and soybean) account for 85% of the world’s traded
grains and legumes, and the yield results relate to regions that account for about 70% of the
world’s grain production, whilst the BLS simulates 80% of the world food trade system. In the
analysis presented here, the data underlying the Parry et al. (2004) study has been obtained and
analysed to produce a regional breakdown of climate impacts. In particular, SRES timelines
have been matched to the global mean annual average surface temperature increases given in
Arnell et al. (2004) (reproduced in table 1.1 above) which matches the scenarios used 1 .
(i) Simulation of percentage changes in crop yields
The IBSNAT-ICASA dynamic crop models for the major cereals were specified and validated in
124 sites in 18 countries representing major agricultural regions of the world (Rosenzweig and
Iglesias, 1999). The crop model simulation results were aggregated and extrapolated to the
1
Arnell et al. (2004) and Parry et al. (2004) form two of the papers in the Special issue of
Global Environmental Change in which Fast Track is published.
Page 27
regional level based on agroclimatic zone analysis. These results were then used to specify
appropriate functional forms for regional yield response to climate parameters (temperature and
precipitation) and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The resulting functions were then
linked to a geographically explicit database for the evaluation of spatial yield changes under the
HadCM3 model (Hulme et al. 1999). The crop models used were CERES-Wheat (Ricthie &
Otter 1985), CERES-Rice (Godwin et al. 1993) and CERES-maize (Ritchie et al. 1989). All
these three models simulate physiological processes in plant development and growth,
evapotranspiration, and partitioning of photosynthate to produce economic yield. They all
assume that weeds, diseases and insect pests are controlled, that there are no problem soil
conditions, e.g. high salinity, which may in fact be an increasing problems in coastal agricultural
areas, and that there are no extreme weather events such as heavy storms.
To apply the models, at each site simulation experiments were performed for the baseline
climate and for step changes in temperature, precipitation and CO2 concentrations, and GCM
changes with and without physiological effects of CO2. This required definition of the
representative crop management (ie variety, fertiliser, rained/irrigated) and soils; definition of a
local baseline climate for 1961-1990; validation of the crop models under current climate with
local experimental data from field trials, where available; simulations of crop responses with
climate modified scenarios; and testing of farm level adaptations such as shifts of up to 1 month
in planting date; additional application of irrigation to crops already under irrigation; and
changes in crop variety assuming only the range that exists today. Further detail may be found
in Parry et al. (1999).
Tables A5-7 a-b and Figures A1-12 of the Appendix show how yields change in the different
world regions covered in the study in the different SRES scenarios. Results differ between
scenarios owing to the differing temperature and precipitation. Results are shown assuming full
CO2 fertilisation and assuming zero CO2 fertilisation. Table A8 shows the relative importance
of the three cereals in each country, together with their assigned Stern Region. This information
is summarised as part of Table 3.1 below. These tables were derived from the raw data
underlying the Fast Track agriculture study (Parry et al. 2004).
Figure 3.1 shows how world yields of 3 important cereal crops changes under climate change as
simulated by HadCM3. Figure 3.2 shows the changes in the dominant crops grown in each
region considered (detailed in Table 3.1 and Table A8). In South and Central America both rice
and maize are important whilst in other regions there is a clearly dominant cereal crop.
Wheat
Figure 3.1 shows that world wheat yields decline by 22% for a temperature rise of 3-4°C above
1990 in the absence of CO2 fertilisation. Figures A1-4 show that the countries where wheat
yield declines the most under climate change are North, Southern and West Africa and Western
Asia where reductions of 30-40% in yield could occur for temperature rises of 3-4°C globally
above 1990, should CO2 fertilisation not occur. The next worst affected countries are Central
America, Central Asia, East Asia, where losses of 20-30% occur, whilst in South Asia, Europe,
N America and S America losses of 10-20% are simulated. If CO2 fertilisation does occur, the
losses are considerably smaller, only 3% globally at worst, with increases in yield seen for small
temperature rises globally (up to 3%) and in some regions, most notably in Australia where
benefits of 12% occur even for temperature rises of 3-4°C, and also in Europe and N America
where increases of 3 – 8% were simulated. However, simulated losses in N, W, and Southern
Africa are still 18%, 12% and 16% respectively.
Page 28
Wheat is the dominant crop grown in Central Asia, Europe, N Africa, Australasia, North
America and Western Asia; and is a dominant grain crop in southern South America. Since
wheat is the dominant grain crop in North Africa and Central and Western Asia, the
anticipated yield losses here are a serious problem. Losses still occur, but are roughly
50% smaller, if CO2 fertilisation occurs, but are still important.
Figure 3.1 Impacts of climate change on global wheat, maize and rice yields
(data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004).
World Scenario
A1f World
Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)
4 A2a
0 A2b
A2c
0 1 2 3 4
B1a
B2a
Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation

Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO2 fertilisation
-4 B2b
2
-8
0
-12
Scenario 0 1 2 3 4
A1f Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)
A2a
A2b
-16
A2c
B1a -2
B2a
B2b
-20
-24 -4
World World
0 0
0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 4
Percentage change in maize yield, with CO2 fertilisation
Percentage change in maize yield, without CO2 fertilisation
-2
-4
-4
-8
-6
-12
Scenario
A1f
Scenario A2a
-8 A2b
A1f
A2a A2c
-16 B1a
A2b
B2a
A2c
B2b
B1a -10
B2a
B2b
-20
Page 29
Global Scenario Global
Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 2 A1f
0 A2a
A2b
0 1 2 3 4
A2c
B1a
Percentage change in rice yield, with CO2 fertilisation

B2a
Percentage change in rice yield, without CO2 fertilisation
-4
B2b

0
-8
0 1 2 3 4
-12
Scenario
A1f
-2
A2a
-16 A2b
A2c
B1a
B2a
B2b
-20
-4
-24
Maize
Globally, Figure 3.1 shows that world maize yield declines by 18% for a temperature rise of 3-
4°C above 1990 in the absence of CO2 fertilisation. Graphs M1-4 show that the countries worst
affected for maize yield are North and Southern Africa, where without-CO2 fertilisation losses at
3-4°C are between 30 and 40%; next affected are Central Asia, West Africa, South Asia and
West Asia (20-30%) whilst losses of 10-20% are simulated for North & South America, East
Asia, Australasia and Europe. Significant losses still occur with CO2 fertilisation, almost 10%
globally and, for example, 20% in North Africa, 22% in Southern Africa, 16% in Central Asia,
and 19% in West Africa. Since maize is a C4 plant, it responds less well to CO2 fertilisation.
Since maize is the dominant grain crop in most of Southern and West Africa, and there are
losses even if CO2 fertilisation does occur, the anticipated yield losses here are a serious
problem. Maize is also a dominant grain crop in much of Central America, South and North
America. The situation in Southern and West Africa is also of concern, even under conditions
of CO2 fertilisation.
Rice
Globally, Figure 3.1 shows that world rice yield declines by 20% for a temperature rise of 3-4°C
above 1990 in the absence of CO2 fertilisation. Graphs R1-4 show that the countries worst
affected for rice yields are North and Southern Africa where reductions of 30-40% in yield could
occur for temperature rises of 3-4°C in the absence of CO2 fertilisation. The next most affected
countries are Central Asia, West Africa and S America, with 20-25% losses, whilst North
America, Europe, South Asia, East Asia, and Central America experience 10-20% losses under
these conditions. If CO2 fertilisation does occur, global increases in yield of 1-2% occur between
temperature rises of 2-3°C and increases also occur for many regions, except Africa and Central
Asia where losses still occur. At higher temperature of 3-4°C global reductions of around 3% in
yield still occur as temperature effects dominate CO2 fertilisation.
Rice is the dominant grain crop in S and E Asia, where the 10-20% potential losses in the
absence of CO2 fertilisation are significant. It is a dominant grain crop in much of Central and
South America, and West Africa, all of which could experience severe impacts due to
Page 30
Figure 3.2 Impacts of climate change on the yield of the regionally dominant cereal crop across
world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004). Australia: wheat;
Central America: maize; Central Asia: wheat.
Australasia Australasia
16
2 Scenario
A1f
A2a
A2b

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) A2c
B1a
0 12 B2a
B2b
0 1 2 3 4
-2
-4
Scenario
A1f
4
A2a
A2b
-6 A2c
B1a
B2a
B2b
0
-8 0 1 2 3 4
Central America Central America
Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0
0
0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 4 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)
Scenario
-1
A1f
A2a
A2b
A2c
-4 B1a -2
B2a
B2b
-3
-8
-4 Scenario
A1f
A2a
A2b
A2c
-5
B1a
B2a
-12 B2b
-6
Central Asia Central Asia
0
0 1 2 3 4
0 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)
0 1 2 3 4
-2
-5
-4
-10
-6 Scenario
-15
A1f
Scenario A2a
A1f A2b
A2a A2c
A2b B1a
-20 A2c B2a
-8 B2b
B1a
B2a
B2b
-25
Page 31
Figure 3.2 (contd) Impacts of climate change on the yields of the regionally dominant cereal
crop across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004). East Asia:
rice; Europe: wheat; North Africa: wheat
East Asia East Asia
0 Scenario
A1f
0 1 2 3 4 A2a
A2b

A2c
-4 B1a
B2a
B2b
2
-8
Scenario
A1f
-12 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)
A2a
0
A2b
A2c 0 1 2 3 4
B1a
B2a
-16
B2b
-2
-20
Europe Europe
0 8
0 1 2 3 4
Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) Scenario
A1f
A2a
6 A2b
A2c
-4
B1a
B2a
B2b
4
-8
Scenario
A1f 2
A2a
A2b
A2c
-12 B1a
B2a 0
B2b
0 1 2 3 4
-2
-16
North Africa North Africa
0 4
0 1 2 3 4
0
0 1 2 3 4
-4
Scenario -8
-20 A1f
A2a
Scenario
A2b
A1f
A2c -12 A2a
B1a A2b
B2a A2c
B2b B1a
-30
-16 B2a
B2b
-20
-40
Page 32
Figure 3.2 ( contd) Impacts of climate change on the yield of the regionally dominant cereal crop
across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004). North America:
wheat; Southern Africa: maize; South America: rice
North America Scenario North America
4 8 A1f
A2a
A2b
A2c
B1a
0

B2a
0 1 2 3 4 B2b
6
-4
4
-8
Scenario
A1f
A2a
-12 A2b
A2c 2
B1a
B2a
-16 B2b
-20 0 1 2 3 4
Southern Africa Southern Africa
0
0 1 2 3 4
-4
-8
-10
-12
Scenario
A1f
Scenario A2a
A1f -16 A2b
-20 A2a A2c
A2b B1a
A2c B2a
B1a -20 B2b
B2a
B2b
-24
-30
South America South America
0
0 1 2 3 4
0
-4
0 1 2 3 4
-8 -2
-12
-4
Scenario
A1f
A2a
-16
A2b
Scenario A2c
-6
A1f B1a
A2a B2a
-20 A2b B2b
A2c
B1a
-8
B2a
B2b
-24
Page 33
Figure 3.2 ( contd) Impacts of climate change on the yield of the regionally dominant cereal crop
across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004). South Asia: rice;
West Africa: maize; Western Asia: wheat.
South Asia South Asia
0
0 1 2 3 4
Scenario
A1f
A2a

-4 A2b
2 A2c
B1a
B2a
B2b
-8

0
Scenario
A1f 0 1 2 3 4
-12
A2a
A2b
A2c
B1a
B2a -2
-16
B2b
-20
-4
West Africa West Africa
0
0 1 2 3 4
-5 -4
-10
-8
-15
Scenario
Scenario -12 A1f
A1f A2a
-20 A2a A2b
A2b A2c
A2c B1a
B1a B2a
-16
-25 B2a B2b
B2b
-30 -20
Western Asia West Asia
0
0 1 2 3 4
0
0 1 2 3 4
-4
-10
-8
-20
Scenario
A1f
A2a
Scenario A2b
A1f -12 A2c
A2a B1a
-30
A2b B2a
A2c B2b
B1a
B2a
B2b
-16
-40
climate change in the absence of CO2 fertilisation. CO2 fertilisation would cancel out many of
these impacts.
Page 34
“Unpacking” matrices or graphs could not be produced for the agriculture sector since within the
scope of the project the original models could not be re-run. The following paragraphs review
the existing literature which addresses these uncertainties in the context of this study.
Sensitivity of results to use of different GCMS: The crop models used to calculate climate-
induced changes in yields require monthly climate data from GCMs. The HadCM3 GCM is
the only model utilised so it is not possible to show how results might differ with the use of
another GCM. However, earlier studies of the consequences of CO2 doubling in the
atmosphere did use three alternative GCMs, and identified larger impacts for UKMO (the
uncoupled predecessor of HadCM2 and HadCM3) than for the GISS model or the GFDL
models (Rosenzweig and Parry 1994, Rosenzweig et al. 1995). However, these larger
impacts were due to the larger amount of temperature change associated with CO2 doubling
in UKMO and not due to differing patterns of climate change for the same global
temperature change.
Sensitivity to treatment of adaptation The Fast Track analysis presented here assumes three
different forms of adaptation, such that adaptation levels vary between countries BUT NOT
between SRES scenarios. Adaptation methods considered are:
(a) “level 0” adaptation at zero cost at the farm level, by shifting planting dates and available
crop varieties
(b) “level 1” low cost adaptation at the farm level by methods such as choice of crop,
variety, planting date, and irrigation : this is assumed applied 100% in developed countries
and 75% in developing countries and
(c) “level 2” adaptation involving some regional or national policy change resulting in
major changes in planting dates, availability of new cultivars, extensive expansion of
irrigation and increased fertilizer application (Parry . 2005). These imply economic
adjustments and are applied in developed countries only, based on current GDP.
Although a single adaptation scenario was used in the Fast Track study, Rosenzweig and
Parry (1994) did study the application of “level 1” versus “level 2” adaptation. They found
that for CO2 doubling (which corresponded for the UKMO to a global temperature rise of
4.9°C above 1990) that level 1 adaptations largely compensated for yield reductions seen in
the developed world, but that developing countries were still unable to compensate for their
losses. Overall, the authors found that level 1 adaptations had little influence on reducing
the global impacts of climate change (Parry et al. 2005). Level 2 adaptations, however, did
significantly offset the impacts. In this particular study, different socioeconomic
assumptions were made than under SRES so it would be difficult to use these results to
extrapolate from the results of Parry et al. 2004 to create a “no adaptation” case for
comparison. However, since the levels of adaptation applied are related to GDP, only the
outputs for the developed world would change significantly if adaptation were removed,
since adaptation levels in countries where GDP is low will be small.
Sensitivity to omission of extreme weather events on a daily timescale

Short term, extreme weather conditions such as floods, droughts and heatwaves are not
included in the study, and can have significant effects on crop yields. Parry et al. (2005)
point out that by the 2080s the HadCM3 predicts a dramatic increase in natural climate
variability, to the extent that global and regional temperatures will fluctuate on an annual
basis over a range equal to more than half the increase in temperature predicted over the next
80 years. Challinor et al. (2006) consider extremes of temperature, and point out how only
a few days of high temperatures near flowering in wheat, groundnut and soybean can
drastically reduce yield. They simulate a heatwave near flowering of soybean in India, and
Page 35
show how this significantly reduces yields in 2071-2100 for varieties which are moderately
sensitive, whilst also pointing out that varieties which are tolerant to high temperature stress
near flowering may be available, depending on the crop type. Rosenzweig et al. (2002)
modified CERES-Maize to incorporate the effects of increased heavy precipitation and
floods on maize yields in the USA. They predicted that the current 3% yield losses due to
flooding could increase to 6% due to increased climate variability and precipitation under
climate change using HadCM2 and CCS GCMs.
Carbon Dioxide Fertilisation Effect

Carbon Dioxide has a direct fertilisation effect upon plants which can in theory, and in the
laboratory, increase the yields of crops such as wheat and rice (but no maize, for which the
effect is small) significantly for small temperature rises, before the negative effects of
increased temperatures become more important in determining yields. In this study
simulations of the effect are based on an extensive review of previous simulations (Parry et
al. 2004). However, recent evidence (Royal Society, 2005; Long et al. 2005) shows that
the effects of CO2 fertilisation are lower in the field than in the laboratory for rice, wheat,
maize and soybean, and would be further reduced with yield losses of up to 20% due to
increases in episodes of high tropospheric ozone concentrations (which are predicted to
increase with climate change). Yields are also reduced by climate-change induced outbreaks
of pests and diseases, reductions in crop pollinators, and by a predicted increasing frequency
in extreme weather [such as a day or an hour of extreme heat], even if soil-nutrient and
water availability remain constant under climate change. However, the Parry et al. study
presents results including and not including this effect, to encompass the full range of
uncertainty.
(ii) Simulation of millions at risk from hunger
The changes in yields of wheat, rice and maize from (i) are fed to a world food trade model
(BLS) designed at IIASA for policy studies. It is a general equilibrium model system which
simulates all economic sectors, and in which country models are linked by trade, world
market prices and financial flows. Full details are given in Fischer et al. (1996, 2001). In
the BLS, country yield changes are aggregated to an overall cereal production figure using
the FAO relative weights given in Table A1, whilst yield changes were extrapolated to
provide yield changes for other crops, and then converted via the BLS into predictions for
regional and global food production and international prices. In the BLS, a fourth form of
adaptation is simulated, that of the conversion of marginal land for agricultural use should
there be a food shortage in the region concerned. The tables shown in this section thus
include all four types of adaptation. Note that agricultural technological improvement is
treated to be out of the scope of farm level adaptation and is included in the BLS but is
constant across SRES (Table 3.1). The BLS uses FAO estimates of land use parameters
rather than the SRES land cover scenarios. A comparison between the BLS and SRES
projections of global cereal land area is given in the Appendix (Table A9). This results in
some significant differences for example SRES suggests a decrease in cropland after the
2020s for scenarios A1 and B1 whilst BLS suggests a steady increase in arable land under
these scenarios. Demand for food is allowed to vary between scenarios as it is linked to per
capita GDP.
Page 36
Table 3.1. Assumed annual percentage rates of
improvement in technology across SRES scenarios
SRES A1 A2 B1 B2
Global 1.2 1.2. 1.2 1.2
Dev 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Dvlpg 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
The BLS utilised in the Fast Track study does not, however, take into account the possibility for
new areas to become suitable for the growth of crops as a result of changing climate. However
it does allow for areas to be converted to cultivation, or given up, as far as the current climate
permits, according to the demand for the crop products. Such a study would need to take into
account of the soil types and precipitation in the areas where temperature has increased.
Furthermore, many crops rely on an infrastructure for irrigation, which would require a
substantial investment to put into place in new regions.
Limitations of the approach employed in Fast Track are that the distribution of food trade
depends on degree of convergence between economies; that a constant adaptation scenario is
used; that flooding is not included; that only one GCM is used; and that cropland increases in the
BLS are simulated to occur on marginal land only. Grain crops only are included, and detail of
the spatial variability of agricultural conditions may not be captured.
The BLS produces estimates of millions at risk from hunger in its own regions, and these could
not be re-assigned to the precise regions listed in Table A1 due to model, data and resource
availability constraints. Hence Table A8a (of the appendix) provides a mapping between the
assignation of countries to BLS and Stern regions.
The BLS is used to simulate the difference between a future baseline projection incorporating
technological and population changes, and a future climate changed projection. Model results
are therefore the additional millions at risk of hunger under the different scenarios, and the
percentage increases in cereal prices. Model results are shown for the different SRES scenarios.
SRES simulations differ due to (i) the different temperature and precipitation, which affects the
yields (ii) the different population scenarios and (iii) the different temporal profiles of
GDP/capita. (Recall that the same level of adaptation and technological change are assumed for
all SRES scenarios). Figure 3.3 shows the BLS-simulated dramatic fall in global cereal
production in the absence of CO2 fertilisation. Figure 3.4 shows the contrasting situation with
CO2 fertilisation. However that note that the scale on Figure 3.4 is very much smaller than that
of Figure 3.3
Page 37
Figure 3.3
Page 38
Figure 3.4
Tables 3.2-3.3 show the corresponding percentage changes in global cereal prices.
Table 3.2 Percentage increases in international BLS Cereal Prices

for SRES scenarios in Parry et al. (2004)
With CO2 fertilisation

Scenario 2020 2050 2080
A1FI 5 6 14
A2 5 5 3
B1 9 10 15
B2 13 13 6
Table 3.3 Percentage increases in international BLS Cereal Prices

for SRES scenarios in Parry et al. (2004)
Page 39
Without CO2 fertilisation
Scenario 2020 2050 2080
A1FI 19 64 136
A2 19 57 129
B1 17 34 45
B2 21 44 73
Malnutrition currently causes 3.7 million deaths annually, 1.7 million of which are in Africa and 1.9 million
of which are in Asia. It is therefore a bigger cause of death than disease (see Table 5.1). Table 3.4 shows the
additional millions at risk from hunger simulated by the BLS for 4 SRES scenarios and three different dates
into the future, with the matching temperatures simulated by HadCM3 (Hulme et al. 1999) shown alongside.
Numbers are given against the simulated evolving SRES baselines for millions at risk in the absence of
climate change, with and without CO2 fertilisation. Note that a regional breakdown is provided and that all at
risk of hunger are in less developed countries (LDCs). Table A10a-d in the Appendix gives the
corresponding percentage and absolute changes in cereal production globally and in the BLS regions.
These millions at risk are also shown in Figures 3.5 – 3.8. Globally, millions at risk rise dramatically in the
absence of CO2 fertilisation to a maximum of 600 mar in 2080, especially in Africa (up to 200 million at risk),
W Asia (up to 150 million at risk), Latin America and Central Asia (each up to 90 million at risk).
The A2 world has more millions at risk than the A1 world in the absence of CO2 fertilisation because (a)
population – billions more concentrated in the poor regions of the world (b) regional differences in climate
change scenarios (c ) greater economic disparities between regions in the A2 world. This limits the
distribution of goods and also hinders adaptation resulting in the A2 world being unable to “grow” itself out
of trouble, which it does in the presence of CO2 fertilisation. Attributing the exact influence of these three
reasons is beyond the scope of this project. In the presence of CO2 fertilisation the A1 world is worse because
of high temperatures.
Page 40
Table 3.4(a) Additional millions at risk of hunger in absence of CO2 fertilisation for SRES scenarios
by region compared to reference scenarios to 2080 with no climate change (based on Parry et al. 2004)
2020 baseline % change 2050 baseline % change 2080 baseline % change
without C without without
CO2 CO2 CO2
A1FI fertilisation fertilisation fertilisation
Global
annual
mean T rise
sin ce 1990 0.7 0 0.7 1.96 0 1.96 3.67 0 3.67
LDCs
(WORLD) 63 663 10 100 208 48 263 108 243
ASIA LDCs 49 342 14 16 41 39 35 24 142
OTHER
LDCs 14 321 4 84 167 50 229 84 272
AFR 8 251 3 50 102 49 157 42 369
LAM 3 22 12 13 13 95 27 9 294
WAS 3 48 6 21 52 41 44 32 138
CPA 7 81 9 9 3 287 26 4 728
SEA 42 261 16 7 38 18 8 21 41
A2 2020 2020 2050 2050 2080 2080
Global
annual
mean T
rise since
1990 0.59 0 0.59 1.59 0 1.59 2.9 0 2.9
LDCs
(WORLD) 63 782 8 212 721 29 551 768 72
ASIA LDCs 45 387 12 101 209 48 132 195 68
OTHER
LDCs 18 395 5 112 512 22 419 573 73
AFR 9 271 3 54 297 18 200 287 70
LAM 5 64 8 26 79 32 85 90 95
WAS 4 60 6 32 136 24 134 197 68
CPA 11 136 8 37 110 34 88 110 80
SEA 34 251 13 63 99 64 44 85 52
B1 2020 2020 2050 2050 2080 2080

Global
annual
mean
temperature 0 0.54 1.15 1.15 1.76 1.76 Page 41
rise since 0.54 0 0
1990
LDCs
(WORLD) 44 749 6 34 239 14 34 91 38
ASIA LDCs 32 432 7 7 53 14 2 22 7
OTHER
LDCs 12 317 4 27 187 15 33 69 48
AFR 6 250 3 17 127 13 23 34 67
LAM 3 21 13 4 11 33 5 7 72
WAS 2 46 5 7 49 14 5 27 18
CPA 3 92 3 3 4 62 0 0 0
SEA 29 340 8 4 49 9 2 22 7
B2 2020 2020 2050 2050 2080 2080
Global
annual
mean T rise
since 1990 0.61 0 0.61 1.31 0 1.31 2.08 0 2.08
LDCs
(WORLD) 54 630 9 66 348 19 151 233 65
ASIA LDCs 38 246 15 19 85 22 27 54 50
OTHER
LDCs 16 384 4 47 263 18 124 180 69
AFR 9 283 3 28 181 16 89 113 78
LAM 5 51 9 10 26 37 15 16 99
WAS 3 50 6 10 57 17 20 51 39
CPA 9 98 9 15 42 35 18 20 89
SEA 29 148 20 4 42 10 9 33 27
Page 42
Table 3.4(b). Additional millions at risk of hunger in presence of CO2 fertilisation for SRES scenarios
by region compared to reference scenarios to 2080 with no climate change (based on Parry et al. 2004)
2020 with baseline % change 2050 with baseline % change 2080 with baseline % change
CO2 CO2 CO2
A1FI fertilisation fertilisation fertilisation
Global
annual mean
T rise since
1990 0.7 0 0.7 1.96 0 1.96 3.67 0 3.67
LDCs
(WORLD) 24 663 4 1 208 1 28 108 26
ASIA LDCs 19 342 6 0 41 0 2 24 7
OTHER
LDCs 4 321 1 1 167 1 27 84 32
AFRICA 3 251 1 2 102 2 21 42 49
LATIN
AMERICA 1 22 2 0 13 -3 1 9 13
WESTERN
ASIA 0 48 1 0 52 -1 5 32 15
CENTRALLY
PLANNED
ASIA 2 81 2 0 3 -12 1 4 32
SOUTHEAST
ASIA 18 261 7 0 38 1 0 21 2
A2 2020 2020 2050 2050 2080 2080
Global
annual mean
T rise since
1990 0.59 0 0.59 1.59 0 1.59 2.9 0 2.9
LDCs
(WORLD) 21 782 3 1 721 0 -28 768 -4
ASIA LDCs 16 387 4 0 209 0 -16 195 -8
OTHER
LDCs 5 395 1 0 512 0 -11 573 -2
AFRICA 4 271 1 2 297 1 -2 287 -1
LATIN
AMERICA 1 64 1 0 79 -1 -4 90 -5
WESTERN
ASIA 1 60 1 -1 136 0 -5 197 -2
CENTRALLY Page 43
PLANNED
ASIA 5 136 3 1 110 1 -14 110 -13
SOUTHEAST
ASIA 12 251 5 -1 99 -1 -2 85 -3
B1 2020 2020 2050 2050 2080 2080
Global
annual mean
T rise since
1990 0.54 0 0.54 1.15 0 1.15 1.76 0 1.76
LDCs
(WORLD) 22 749 3 3 239 1 12 91 13
ASIA LDCs 16 432 4 1 53 1 1 22 2
OTHER
LDCs 6 317 2 2 187 1 11 69 16
AFRICA 4 250 2 1 127 1 8 34 23
LATIN
AMERICA 1 21 6 0 11 1 2 7 26
WESTERN
ASIA 1 46 2 0 49 1 1 27 4
CENTRALLY
PLANNED
ASIA 0 92 0 0 4 1 0 0 0
SOUTHEAST
ASIA 16 340 5 1 49 1 1 22 2
B2 2020 2020 2050 2050 2080 2080
Global
annual mean
T rise since
1990 0.61 0 0.61 1.31 0 1.31 2.08 0 2.08
LDCs
(WORLD) 31 630 5 11 348 3 -12 233 -5
ASIA LDCs 22 246 9 3 85 4 -2 54 -5
OTHER
LDCs 10 384 3 8 263 3 -10 180 -5
AFRICA 6 283 2 5 181 3 -8 113 -7
LATIN
AMERICA 2 51 4 1 26 5 -1 16 -6 Page 44
WESTERN 1 50 3 1 57 2 -1 51 -2
ASIA
CENTRALLY
PLANNED
ASIA 4 98 4 2 42 6 0 20 -2
SOUTHEAST
ASIA 17 148 12 1 42 2 -2 33 -6
Page 45
Figure 3.5
Page 46
Figure 3.6
Page 47
Figure 3.7. Millions at risk from climate change across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et
al., 2004).
Africa Africa
200 200
Scenario Scenario
A1FI A1FI
150 A2 A2
Millions at risk of hunger, without CO2 fertilisation
150
B1
Millions at risk of hunger, with CO2 fertilisation

B1
B2 B2
100
100
50
50
0
0
0 1 2 3 4
Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 1 2 3 4
-50
-50
Mexico, Central and South America (LAM) Mexico, Central and South America (LAM)
200 200
Scenario Scenario
A1FI A1FI
A2 150 A2
150
B1 B1
B2
B2
100
100
50
50
0
0
0 1 2 3 4
-50
-50
Page 48
Figure 3.8. Millions at risk from climate change across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et
al., 2004).
Western Asia (WAS) Western Asia (WAS)
200 200
Scenario Scenario
A1FI A1FI
150 A2 150 A2

B1 B1
B2 B2
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)
-50 -50
Centrally Planned Asia (CPA, includes China) Centrally Planned Asia (CPA, includes China)
200 200
Scenario Scenario
A1FI A1FI
150 A2 150 A2
B1 B1
B2 B2
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
-50 -50
Southeast Asia (SEA, includes India) Southeast Asia (SEA, includes India)
200 200
Scenario
A1FI
150 A2
B1 150
B2
100
100 Scenario
A1FI
A2
B1
50 B2
50
0
0 1 2 3 4
Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 1 2 3 4
-50
-50
Page 49
Key aspects or regional impacts on agriculture not covered by large scale
continental or global analyses
General points
• The studies do not include the impacts of sea level rise which will have impacts
on agriculture. For example, Between 2 and 3°C the associated sea level rise
would cause increased flooding in Bangladesh, damaging agriculture.
Similarly, low-lying coasts worldwide will be affected by rising sea levels and
salinisation.
• Studies do not take into account potential climate change induced yield
reductions due to potential changes in ecosystem services, for example
availability of soil nutrients and pollinators may decline as climate change
occur, there may be climate-change induced increases in pest outbreaks, and
increases in air pollutants such as tropospheric ozone which damages crops.
• Food quality can decline even if yields increase or remain constant. CO2
fertilisation can lead to declines in food quality.
• Between 0.9 and 1.4°C above 1990, poor farmers income declines globally
(Hare 2003). This information may not show in model results for countries
whose farmers have a range of incomes.
• Even if there are no overall impacts on the yield of a crop within a country as a
whole, this picture can mask a large amount of local variation. For example, in
Venezuela where a global temperature rise of 1.4-1.7°C has been predicted to
decrease maize yields by 10-15%, 15% decrease maize yield (Gitay . 2001);
adaptation could offset 10% of this but it hides huge local variation (Jones &
Thornton 2003.
Africa
• Between 1.4-1.9°C annual global mean temperature increase, fisheries are
predicted to be impacted NW Africa, E African lakes (ECF 2004) Malawi –
fishery damage removes primary protein source for 50% population(ECF 2004)
• Between 1.4-1.9°C food production in Southern Africa is predicted to be
threatened (ECF 2004) since there is a significant risk of 80% crop failure for
both commercial and subsistence agriculture (ECF 2004); average
• 10% loss maize production (1.7°C, 2055 IS92a, model CERES-maize, Jones &
Thornton 2003) However maize yields rise by 100% in the Ethiopian highlands,
whilst overall in Ethiopia there is little change, in other places the reductions are
huge. J&T assume no adaptation.
• In Southern Africa Kalahari dune activation threatens sub-Saharan agriculture
(Thomas . 2005)
• 1.9-3.4 crop failure rise from 50% to 75% (ECF 2004)
Australia and Russia
Page 50
At 3.7°C above 1990 temperature rise globally, large areas may be out of production
in both regions (Hare 2003). In Russia if local temperature rise in the 2070s was between
3 and 6°C, this would suggest a 5-12% drop in agricultural GDP in Russia and hence an
overall GDP loss of 14-41% in the agricultural regions (ECF 2004).
South Asia
If global annual mean temperatures rise by 2 to 3°C, food security in India could be at
risk, since changes in precipitation imply a 5 to 30% loss of rice and wheat yields (ECF
2004, consistent with Fast Track study), whist in China rice yields could change by +20
to -10% for global temperature increases between 2 and 2.5°C depending on the effects
of CO2 fertilisation (also consistent with Fast Track study).
Effect of collapse of the thermohaline circulation
Food production could be threatened by a collapse of the THC in the following areas due
to the associated changes in global circulation patterns.
3.2 Other Studies
(a) Fischer et al. 2002 IIASA Study
This study has similar aims to the Parry et al. 2004 work, and also makes use of the
BLS model. However the results are substantially more optimistic because the study
assumes a strong CO2 fertilisation effect. The study presents two sets of results, one
for impacts of climate change on existing cultivated land, which is thus directly
comparable with Parry et al. and another which presents impacts of climate change on
all land, assuming that new land is brought under cultivation. Even when results are
compared for existing land, there is still less impact of climate change under the
IIASA study, because (a) a set of 4 GCMs are used, which present smaller adverse
changes in rainfall and temperature and (b) optimistic assumptions are made about
adaptation, for example effects in the developing world are simulated whilst assuming
“an advanced level of inputs and management for currently cultivated areas”. Hence
in this simulation some production increases are seen for some developing countries.
(b) Pew Centre Study:
The Pew Centre study (Jorgenson . 2004) is a non-modelling review of literature which
investigates optimistic and pessimistic scenarios for the impacts of climate change on the
economy of the USA, including agriculture. As such it provides a few elements of an
unpacking matrix for the region, detailing how the use of different GCM patterns and
“impact model” affects the predictions of economic impacts from agriculture for different
climate scenarios. Effectively the “Impact model” simulates how much the climate
Page 51
change impacts on agricultural components of society, and thus incorporates in a simple
way both the socioeconomic conditions and the ability to adapt, folded into a single
concept. The “pessimistic”model is based on the results of Adams (1990, 1999) whilst
the optimistic one is based on the US National Climate Change Assessment, 2001.
Under the optimistic scenario temperature would need to rise 3.3°C in the USA for
negative impacts on agriculture to be seen, whilst the Adams view is that this threshold
is near or has already been crossed. The GCM patterns used by the Pew Centre
encompass a range of variations in precipitation so necessary for a comprehensive
analysis of the possible outcomes for agriculture. However a specific GCM analysis is
not carried out, which makes it difficult to place the Fast Track analysis in the context of
the GCM range studied. Instead, the Pew Centre analysis instead scopes the ranges of
temperature and precipitation change that the continent as a whole might experience. The
analysis is based on analysing the implications of the use of the range of damage
functions in the literature. “Pessimism” or “Optimism” has a greater effect than GCM
choice. The difference between the two involves both the inclusion or not of CO2
fertilisation and the level of assumed adaptive capacity. Table 3.5 shows a schematic
unpacking of these various influences on the simulations.
Table 3.5 Agriculture climate impacts simulations unpacking matrix for the USA, taken
from Pew Centre report, page 12
North Income
America
Factor Average annual percent change in Average annual percent change in unit
unit cost function at 1.3°C cost function at 4°C
None For 1.3C default is -0.2 (mean of Default is -7.8 (mean of -39.2 and
(estimate for +13.6 and -14.0 but includes some +23.6)
1 set of GCM variation)
assumptions)
GCM patt +13.6 to +20.4 in optimistic case -1.1 to +23.6 in optimistic case
OR +14.9 to -14.0 in pessimistic OR -88.1 to -39.2 in pessimistic case
case
Impact model Range expands to -14.0 to +20.4 Range expands to -88.1 to +23.6
Sands and Edmonds (2005) assess the effect of 1 and 2.5°C increases in global mean
temperature by 2050 and show across the USA that yields of maize, wheat and soybean
generally increase for a 2.5°C temperature rise only if full CO2 fertilisation is assumed,
consistent with the Fast Track analysis. However this study provides as assessment for
two different GCMs, and so the ranges given in the tables below reflect the range
resulting from the use of both GCMs with and without sulphate aerosol forcing. The
model allows for adaptation by crop switching and for conversion of forests to
agriculture. The model separates out the inclusion or not of adaptation to the use of the
additional precipitation that falls in some areas, and to the reduced precipitation in other
areas by bringing down the area under cultivation. This adaptation has a moderating
effect upon both gains and losses. However, CO2 fertilisation remains the most important
driver of results (Table 3.6). Comparing the table with Figure 7 of the Appendix, in
Page 52
which maize yields fall by 5-7% in North America in the absence of CO2 fertilisation, the
studies are very similar. However the Fast Track study shows gains up only 1% in maize
yields in the presence of CO2 fertilisation and this for smaller temperature rises, with
losses of 0-2% manifesting at 2.5°C. Thus this study is more optimistic than Fast Track
about the effects of CO2 fertilisation on maize yields.
Table 3.6. Maize yield changes from Sands and Edmonds (2005) for a 1-2.5°C
temperature increase.
MAIZE without CO2 with CO2 without CO2 with CO2
YIELD no change in no change in changed changed
CHANGES irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation
1°C 3.6% loss to 7.9-12.7% gain 2.1-0.7 % loss 5.5-7.3% gain
1% gain
2.5C 15.4-0.6 % 2.6% loss to 4.6-11.8% 3.2% loss –
loss 9.4% gain loss 2.5% gain
WHEAT without CO2 with CO2 without CO2 with CO2

YIELD no change in no change in changed changed
CHANGES irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation
1°C 2.1 to 5.2% 16-18.4% gain 2.9-3.5% loss 14.5-15.1%
loss gain
2.5°C 6.2-9.7% loss 11.1-12.8% 6.8-7.6% loss 7.7-10.9%
gain gain
(d) Darwin (Darwin, 2004; Darwin, 1999; Darwin & Kennedy, 2000, and Darwin et al.
1995) generally provides the upper limit for climate impacts upon agriculture since it
assumes perfect adaptation not only at the farm and policy level, but also assumes that
there are instantaneous land use changes and appropriate choice and availability of crops
to grow agriculture wherever possible as the geographical location of the climate
envelopes of cultivars changes. This latter assumption is known as the “hedonic” method
and has been strongly criticised as follows (Schlenker, 2004): the hedonic method, which
uses the spatial difference in bio-economics of agriculture between warm and cold
regions to predict the consequences of increasing temperatures in present-day cold
regions to those of present-day warm regions, assumes thus that changes in time and
space are equivalent, and that systems immediately just to a new stable state so that there
is no consideration of time-dependence, and only annual average regional temperatures
are considered, so that changes and seasonal variability in temperature or rainfall are not
considered (Schneider 1997). It also assumes that precipitation measures the water
supply for crops and that future changes in production costs will be capitalised in land
values in the same way that past production costs were capitalised in past land values,
both of which are problematic assumptions for the area of study, the USA, where large
areas of cropland are irrigated, and construction of new water systems would be very
much more costly than continued operations of existing ones. Using a hedonic model
tied to a national data set of farmland values that combines both dryland and irrigated
farming counties is likely to be questionable both on econometric grounds, because it
Page 53
combines what we expect to be two heterogeneous equations with different variables and
different coefficients into a single regression, and also on economic grounds, since we
expect it to understate future capital costs, especially those borne by farmers, in the areas
that will need additional surface water irrigation due to the effects of climate change.
Furthermore, potential increases in extreme weather events are not taken into account.
Finally, to realise these changes in yields large land use changes are required. For
example, to offset the impacts of CO2 doubling as simulated by the UKMO model in
2090, a 15% increase in world cropland is considered necessary, including a doubling of
the area farmed in Canada. Such large scale conversion of previously uncultivated land
would increase the stresses on ecosystems, which will already be strongly stressed by
climate change rendering a greater need for conservation of remaining natural habitat, in
particular to allow migration of fauna and flora to cooler locations.
This literature is analogous to the “optimistic” scenarios referred to in the study by the
Pew Centre since they underpin the US National Climate Change Assessment for
agriculture. It is very much more optimistic in its adaptation assumptions than the Fast
Track study, and in this author’s opinion unrealistically so.
Specifically, Darwin (1999, 2004) uses a series of CO2 doubling and other GCM
experiments’ input to the model FARM calibrated to 1990 economic conditions to derive
parameters of how crop production changes with climate change of temperature and
precipitation (without calculating directly effects on yields). He then scales these
parameters to derive impacts of a 1 and 5°C temperature change by multiplying by the T
change. Table 3.7 thus aims to provide an optimistic assessment of world impacts at
different degrees of T change. Although some results are given by region they are based
on an average of the different GCMs regional predictions for change in precipitation.
Darwin does provide results without CO2 fertilisation for regions, but CO2 fertilisation is
only modelled globally and in the absence of temperature rise. The quantities calculated
are world crop production, livestock production, food consumption, livestock and food
prices and per capita welfare. Only per capita welfare is provided on a regional basis.
The results are calculated from statistical regressions in the FARM model of the
relationship between the output variables and the changed climate or economic
conditions and contrast greatly with Fast Track analyses.
Table 3.7 From Darwin 2004: FARM analysis for 1990 economic conditions and no
CO2 fertilisation (% changes)
Temperature World World World crop World World
Change °C crop livestock price livestock food
production production price price
1 -0.22+/- -0.08+/- +0.58+/- +0.14+/-0.68 +0.03+/-
0.44 0.12 0.78 0.16
5.2 -1.16+/- -0.4+/- +3.0+/-2.07 +0.73+/-1.81 0.14+/-
1.15 0.33 0.41
Page 54
(e) A study in the SE USA (Mearns, 2003 (ed).) also based on the CERES crop models
was devoted to understanding scale influence on predictions of yields changes of 5 crops,
based on a single GCM scenario for CO2 doubling only (CSIRO) which may be used to
drive a finer scale model, the NCAR RCM (Tables 3.8, 3.9). There is no time dimension
to this study and the CSIRO model predicts a global temperature rise of 4.0°C for CO2
doubling above 1990. The study also investigates the role of CO2 fertilisation and of
adaptation. Adaptations considered for wheat, rice and maize are changes in sowing
dates, and not changes in cultivars. There is thus less adaptation considered in this study
than in the Fast Track study. However, for soybean and sorghum changes in cultivars
were also considered, bringing the inclusion of adaptation closer to that considered in
Fast Track.
Table 3.8
Crop Model: GCM, RCM GCM RCM GCM RCM
no CO2 with with with CO2 with CO2
fert CO2 CO2 fert and fert and
fert fert adaptation adaptation
Base % change
yield
(kg/ha)
Maize 8100 -15 -16 -2 -2 +6 +6
Wheat 4500 -36 -32 -26 -21 -25 -21
Rice 9600 -16 -19 -3 -5 2 6
Sorghum 6410 -36 -51 -26 -42 -10 -15
Soybean 2380 -49 -69 -26 -54 -8 -18
Table 3.9. Duration of growing season for various crops in SE USA (Tsvetsinskaya et
al. 2003)
Crop Model: GCM, RCM GCM RCM GCM RCM
no CO2 with with with CO2 with CO2
fert CO2 CO2 fert and fert and
fert fert adaptation adaptation
Base New
Maize 123 105 107 105 107 112 118
Wheat 214 206 201 206 203 208 212
Rice 128 110 112 110 112 122 126
For maize the strongest driver of yield change is CO2 fertilisation and then adaptation;
whilst for wheat adaptation had little impact and CO2 fertilisation a much smaller
impact. 2 For rice again CO2 fertilisation was key in predicting the changes, followed by
adaptation. Scale effects were largest for rice but the influence of the scale of the
modelling was smaller than the influence of the inclusion or not of adaptation, or the
2
This study models CO2 fertilisation to be more effective for maize in the USA than does Fast Track, and
much less effective for wheat; but conditions in the SE USA are not representative of the whole USA, so a
comparison is not valid, and the importance of this section is the contribution the study makes to the
sources of uncertainty in such estimates of climate impacts upon agriculture in the absence of an unpacking
matrix for the Fast track study.
Page 55
influence of the inclusion or not of CO2 fertilisation. Even with the most optimistic
assumptions yields of wheat still decreased. For soybean and sorghum the influences of
CO2 fertilisation, adaptation and scale of modelling on the predicted changes in yield
were all comparably large. However, consistent large negative responses to climate
change are a common feature across the various assumptions one might make in
attempting to predict the extent of yield reduction for soybean and sorghum even with
changes in cultivars.
Page 56
REFERENCES
1. Adams, R.M., McCarl, B.A., Segerson, K., Rosenzweig, C., Bryant, K.J., Dixon,
B.L., Conner, R., Evenson, R.E., and Ojima, D. 1999. Economic Effects of
Climate Change on US Agriculture. In Impacts of climate change on the US
Economy Mendelsohn, R., and Neumann, J.E. (Eds) Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK. Pp 18-54
2. Adams, R.M., Rosenzweig, C., Peart, J., Ritchie, B., McCarl, B., Glyer, J., Curry,
B., Jones, J., Boote, K., and Allen, L. 1990. Global climate change and US
agriculture. Nature 219-224.
3. Challinor, A.J., Wheeler, T.R., and Slingo, J.M. 2006. Assessing the
vulnerability of crop productivity to climate change thresholds using an integrated
crop-climate model. In Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (Schellnhuber, H.J.,
Cramer, W., Nakicenivic, N., Wigley, T., and Yohe, G. (eds), Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
4. Darwin, R, Tsigas, M., Leqandrowski, J., and Raneses, A.: 1995, World
Agriculture and Climate Change: Economic Adaptations. Agricultural economic
report number 703, US Dept of Agriculture.
5. Darwin, R., and Kennedy, D. 2000. Economic effects of CO2 fertilisation on
crops: transforming changes in yield into changes in supply. Environmental
Modelling and Assessment 5, 157-168
6. Darwin, R. 1999. A farmer’s view of the Ricardian approach to measuring
agricultural effects of climatic change. Climatic Change 41, 371-411.
7. Darwin, R. 2004. Effects of greenhouse gas emissions on world agriculture, food
consumption, and economic welfare. Climatic Change 66, 191-238.
8. European Climate Forum (ECF): 2004, ‘What is dangerous climate change?
Initial results of a symposium on Key Vulnerable Regions, Climate Change and
Article 2 of the UNFCCC’, held at Beijing, 27-30 October 2004, and presented at
Buenos Aires, 14 Dec 2004
9. Fischer, G., Frohberg, K., Parry, M.L., Rosensweig, C. 1996. Impacts of potential
climate change on global and regional food production and vulnerability. In
Page 57
Downing, T.E. (Ed) NATO ASI Series, Climate Change and World Food
Security, Vol. 137. Springer, Berlin.
10. Fischer, G., Shah, M., van Velthiuzen, H., Nachtergaele, F.O. 2001. Global agro-
ecological assessmet for agriculture in the 21st century. IIASA Research Report
02-02. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
11. Gitay, H., Brown, S., Easterling, W. and Jallow, B.: 2001, 'Chapter 5: Ecosystems
and Their Goods and Services', Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 237-342
12. Godwin, D., Singh, U., Ritchie, J.T., Alocilja, E.C. 1993. A user’s guide to
CERES-rice. Muscle Shoals International Fertiliser Development Centre.
13. Hare, W., 2003, ‘Assessment of Knowledge on Impacts of Climate Change –
Contribution to the specification of Art. 2 on the UNFCCC’, WGBU, Berlin 2003.
14. Hulme, M., Mitchell, J., Ingram, W., Johns, T., New, M., Viner, D., 1999.
Climate change scenarios for global impacts studies. Global Environmental
Change 9, S13-19.
15. Jones, P.G., and Thornton, P.K.: 2003, ‘The potential impacts of climate change
on maize production in Africa and Latin America in 2055’, Global
Environmental Change 13, 51-59.
16. Jorgenson, D.W., Goettle, R.J., Hurd, B.H., and Smith, J.B. US Market
Consequences of Climate Change, Pew Centre, 2004.
17. Long, S.P., Ainsworth, E.A., Leakey, A.D.B., and Morgan, P.B. 2005. Global
food insecurity: treatment of major food crops with elevated carbon dioxide or
ozone under large-scale fully open-air conditions suggests recent models may
have overestimated future yields. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 00 2011-2020
18. Parry, M., Arnell, N., McMichael, T., Nicholls, R., Martens, P., Kovats, S.,
Livermore, M., Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A. and Fischer, G.: 2001, 'Millions at
risk: defining critical climate change threats and targets', Global Environmental
Change 11, 181-183.
19. Ritchie J.T., Singh, U., Godwin, D., Hunt, L., 1989. A User’s Guide to CERES-
Maize v2.10. Muscle Shoals International Fertiliser Development Centre.
Page 58
20. Ritchie, J.T., and Otter, S., 1995. Description and performance of CERES-
Wheat: A user oriented wheat-yield model. In ARS Wheat Yield Project Willis,
W.O. (Ed) 159-175. ARS-38 Washington DC. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service.
21. Rosenzweig, C., and Iglesias, A 1994. Implications of climate change for
international agriculture: Crop Modelling Study. US Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, DC.
22. Rosenzweig, C., and Parry, M.L. 1994. Potential impacts of climate change on
world food supply. Nature 367, 133-138.
23. Rosenzweig, C., Parry, M., and Fischer, G. 1995. World Food Supply. In As
Climate Changes: International Impacts and Implications. Strzepeck, K.M., and
Smith, J.B. (Eds) Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press, pp. 27-56.
24. Rosenzweig, C.E., Tubiello, F., Goldberg,R., and Bloomfield, J. 2002. Increased
crop damage in the US from excess precipitation under climate change. Global
25. Royal Society 2005. Food crops in a changing climate: report of a Royal Society
Discussion held in April 2005. Policy Document 10/05, June 2005. ISBN 0
854036156 (available at www.royal-soc.ac.uk)
26. Sands, R., Edmonds, J. (2005) Climate change impacts for the conterminous
USA: an integrated assessment. Part 7: economic analysis of field crops and land
use with climate change. Climatic Change 69, 127-150
27. Parry, M., Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A., Fischer, G. and Livermore, M.: 1999,
'Climate change and world food security: a new assessment', Global
Environmental Change 9, S51-S68
28. Parry, M., Rosenzweig, C., and Livermore, M. 2005. Climate change, global
food supply and risk of hunger. Phil Trans R. Soc. B. 360, pp. 2125-2136.
29. Mearns, L. (Ed) Issues in the impacts of climate variability and change on
agriculture. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston. 2003.
30. Schlenker, W., Hanemann, M., and Fisher, A.: 2004, ‘Will US Agriculture Really
Benefit from Global Warming? Accounting for Irrigation in the Hedonic
Page 59
Approach’, CUDARE working paper, University of California, Berkeley. Paper
941 http://repositories.cdlib.org/are_ucb/941
31. Schneider, S.: 1997, ‘Integrated assessment modelling of global climate change:
transparent rational tool for policy making or opaque screen for hiding value-
laden assumptions?’, Environmental Modelling & Assessment 2, 229-249
32. Thomas, D.S.G., Knight, M., and Wiggs, G.S.F.: 2005, ‘Remobilization of
southern African desert dune systems by twenty-first century global warming’,
Nature 435, 1218-1222.
33. Tsvetsinskaya, E.A., Mearns, L.O., Mavromatis, T., Gao, W., McDanial. L., and
Downton, M.W. 2003 The effect of spatial scale of climatic change scenarios on
simulated maize, winter wheat and rice production in the SE United States.
Climatic Change 60, pp 37-71.
34. Carbone, G.J., Kiechle, W., Locke, C., Mearns, L.O., McDaniel, L., and
Downton, M.W. Response of soybean and sorgum to varying spatial scales of
climate change scenarios in the SE United States. Climatic Change 60, pp. 73-98,
2003.
35. Royal Society, 2005. Food crops in a changing climate: report of a Royal Society
Discussion held in 2005. Policy Document 10/05, ISBN 085403.
Page 60
4. REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON COASTAL FLOODING
Contribution by Robert J. Nicholls

The results for coastal flooding are based on the methods in the Fast Track and related
analyses (Nicholls, 2004; Nicholls and Lowe, 2004; 2006; Nicholls and Tol, 2006). They
first estimate the number of people potentially exposed to coastal flooding due to storm
surges due to different population and socio-economic scenarios, ignoring the effects of
sea defences. Then the actual experience or risk of flooding is considered, based on a
range of protection scenarios.
It is estimated that about 200 million people where exposed globally to flooding due to
storm surges in 1990. The bulk of this exposed population (>50%) was in South Asia and
East Asia. These regions continue to dominate exposure to coastal flooding through the
21st Century, although Africa increases in its relative contribution over time. In 1990, it is
estimated that 10 million people per year experienced flooding from storm surge (or
about 5% of the exposed population). The risk of flooding depends on sea-level rise,
population and socio-economic scenarios and most especially assumptions about
protection. Sea-level rise increases the number of people at risk. Socio-economic
scenarios are also important, as future world’s vary in vulnerable in flooding: the highest
number of people are threatened under the A2 scenario for the same sea-level rise
scenario due to the high population growth and the lower economic growth which
reduces adaptive capacity. However, increased protection can offset increases in flood
risk and the biggest uncertainty concerns the adaptation response to increased flood risk.
Taking an economically efficient viewpoint, protection looks to be widely affordable and
rationale to varying degrees in all the SRES worlds. However, protection cannot be
guaranteed and there are number of factors that suggest that protection might be less
widespread than suggested by economic optimisation, including lags in societal response
and issues such as attitudes to risk (see discussion in Nicholls and Tol, 2006).
Table 4.1 shows global estimates of the exposed population changes versus climate
change over the 21st Century, while Tables 4.2 to 44. show the risk of flooding versus
climate change for the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s, respectively. Table 4.5 illustrates the
regional incidence of flooding for one protection scenario in the 2080s, while Table 4.5
focuses on the small island sub-regions which are widely recognised as being especially
vulnerable to sea-level rise (Nurse and Sem, 2001).
Notes to Tables 4.1 to 4.6 below:

1. The baseline is the world without climate-induced sea-level rise – relative sea-
level rise occurs due to uplift/subsidence only. No allowance for enhance
subsidence due to groundwater and other fluid withdrawal is made in the baseline.
This could have important consequences for flood risk without climate change
and it exacerbates the impacts of climate-induced sea-level rise (Nicholls, 2004).
Page 61
2. Population growth (and decline) is assumed to be uniform across each country –
continuation of a net coastward migration as is presently observed would increase
the impacts as presented here (Nicholls, 2004).
3. The coastal flood plain is defined as the area below the 1 in 1,000 year return
period water level, ignoring the effects of flood defences.
4. Protection Scenarios from Nicholls (2004) and Nicholls and Lowe (2006) are as
follows:
• Constant Protection assumes constant (1990) protection standards.
• Evolving Protection assumes dynamic protection upgraded in line with
rising ability to protect (which is driven by GDP/capita), but with no
allowance for sea-level rise (i.e. the response is based on present climate
variability).
• Enhanced Evolving Protection includes further upgrade by a factor of 10
(e.g., a 1 in 1 year defence is upgraded to a 1 in 10 year defence, etc., up to
a limit of a 1 in 1000 year standard).
5. These Protection Scenarios are in essence arbitrary and cannot be compared with
cost-benefit frameworks as applied in a range of integrated assessment models.
Comparison with FUND by Nicholls and Tol (2006), suggests that Enhanced
Evolving Protection represents the closest approximation to cost-benefit analysis
in the coastal module of FUND.
6. The number of people flooded assumes no individual human response to the
flooding – in reality as people are flooded more frequently they are likely to
respond by migrating out of the flooded area if improved protection is not
possible.
7. Validation supports the regional and global estimates of flood exposure and risk
(Nicholls, 2004).
8. The relationship between temperature and “instantaneous” sea level rise assumed
in deriving Tables 4.1 to 4.6 is shown in Table 4.7. Temperature affects sea level
rise through thermal expansion of the ocean and also through melting ice sheets.
Using the IPCC scenarios A1FI and B1 to 2100, and the results from seven
climate models 1 (Figure 4.1), the relationship between the two parameters given
in Table 4.2 was derived. This analysis therefore reflects the uncertainties arising
from the use of different models, and is an improvement on earlier analyses which
only considered one climate model (e.g., Parry et al., 2001; Nicholls and Lowe,
2006). Data from the linear portion only of the graphs were used.
1
The seven models are HadCM2, HadCM3, CSIRO, PCM, GFDL, CSM, ECHAM4
Page 62
Figure 4.1 Relationship between instantaneous sea level rise and global annual mean
temperature rise relative to 1990 for seven different climate models reported in Houghton
et al (2001).
90
80
70
Sea Level Rise (relative to 1990)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Global Mean Temperature Rise (relative to 1990)
Page 63
Table 4.1. Coastal Flood Plain Population in the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s.
Global
Temperature Coastal Flood Plain Coastal Flood Plain Coastal Flood Plain
Rise (relative Population in 2020s Population in 2050s Population in 2080s
to 1990)
Population (millions) living in the Population (millions) living in the Population (millions) living in the
coastal flood plain in absence of coastal flood plain in absence of coastal flood plain in absence of
climate change and assuming climate change and assuming climate change and assuming
even rural/urban growth even rural/urban growth even rural/urban growth
Baseline (for
comparison)
Low population (A1/B1) 293 Low population (A1/B1) 317 Low population (A1/B1) 286
Medium population (B2) 296 Medium population (B2) 349 Medium population (B2) 374
High population (A2) 324 High population (A2) 434 High population (A2) 521
min max min max min max
0 - 1°C A1/B1 293 305 A1/B1 317 331 A1/B1 286 298
(0 4%) (0 4%) (0 4%)
A2 324 337 A2 434 452 A2 521 543
(0 4%) (0 4%) (0 4%)
B2 296 309 B2 349 363 B2 374 389
(0 4%) (0 4%) (0 4%)
1 - 2°C A1/B1 301 317 A1/B1 326 344 A1/B1 294 310
(3 8%) (3 8%) (5 9%)
A2 333 350 A2 446 469 A2 535 564
(3 8%) (3 8%) (5 8%)
B2 305 321 B2 358 378 B2 384 404
(3 8%) (3 8%) (5 8%)
2 - 3°C A1/B1 309 333 A1/B1 335 362 A1/B1 302 327
(5 14%) (6 14%) (6 14%)
A2 341 368 A2 457 493 A2 550 593
(5 14%) (6 14%) (6 14%)
B2 313 337 B2 368 397 B2 394 425
(5 14%) (6 14%) (6 14%)
3 - 4°C A1/B1 321 358 A1/B1 348 388 A1/B1 314 351
(10 22%) (10 22%) (10 23%)
A2 355 394 A2 475 529 A2 572 637
(10 22%) (10 22%) (10 22%)
B2 325 362 B2 382 426 B2 410 456
(10 22%) (10 22%) (10 22%)
Page 64
Table 4.2. Global Flood Risk in the 2020s: people flooded per year
Global Millions of people Millions of people Millions of people
Temperature experiencing coastal experiencing coastal experiencing coastal
Rise (relative flooding – constant flooding – evolving flooding – enhanced
to 1990) protection in 2020s protection in 2020s protection in 2020s
Population (millions) Population (millions)
Population (millions) experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in
experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and absence of climate change and
absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth even rural/urban growth
even rural/urban growth
Baseline (for
comparison) Low population (A1) 10 Low population (A1) 1
Low population (A1/B1) 16
Low population (B1) 13 Low population (B1) 2
Medium population (B2) 17
Medium population (B2) 12 Medium population (B2) 2
High population (A2) 18
High population (A2) 17 High population (A2) 1
min max min max
0 - 1°C min max A1 10 11 A1 1 1
A1/B1 16 23 (0 10%) (0 8%)
(0 39%) A2 17 24 A2 2 2
A2 18 26 (0 21%) (0 23%)
(0 39%) B1 13 15 B1 2 2
B2 17 23 (0 10%) (0 8%)
(0 39%) B2 12 15 B2 1 2
(0 25%) (0 23%)
A1 10 24 A1 1 3
1 - 2°C A1/B1 17 45 (3 150%) (3 130%)
(3 177%) A2 17 42 A2 2 5
A2 19 50 (3 146%) (2 139%)
(3 172%) B1 14 28 B1 2 3
B2 17 48 (3 114%) (2 103%)
(3 182%) B2 12 34 B2 1 4
(3 184%) (3 171%)
A1 11 82 A1 1 9
2 - 3°C A1/B1 29 103 (18 741%) (13 645%)
(76 530%) A2 25 109 A2 3 12
A2 32 112 (46 546%) (44 510%)
(76 510%) B1 16 87 B1 2 10
B2 29 109 (17 550%) (14 501%)
(74 545%) B2 18 102 B2 2 11
(47 746%) (44 686%)
A1 40 166 A1 5 19
3 - 4°C A1/B1 68 180 (313 1600%) (272 1390%)
(315 1001%) A2 68 191 A2 8 21
A2 74 199 (304 1027%) (286 960%)
(304 982%) B1 44 169 B1 5 19
B2 72 185 (233 1166%) (212 1060%)
(326 995%) B2 57 173 B2 6 19
(371 1330%) (343 1224%)
Page 65
Table 4.3. Global Flood Risk in the 2050s: people flooded per year.
experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and absence of climate change and
absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth even rural/urban growth
even rural/urban growth
Baseline (for
comparison) Low population (A1) 0 Low population (A1) 0
Low population (B1) 2 Low population (B1) 0
min max min max
0 - 1°C min max A1 0 1 A1 0 0
A1/B1 18 26 (0 57%) (0 6%)
(0 46%) A2 16 18 A2 2 2
A2 25 27 (0 13%) (0 11%)
(0 46%) B1 2 2 B1 0 0
B2 21 29 (0 21%) (0 6%)
(0 42%) B2 3 3 B2 0 1
(0 27%) (0 14%)
A1 0 2 A1 0 0
1 - 2°C A1/B1 19 54 (17 360%) (3 42%)
(46 201%) A2 17 40 A2 2 5
A2 27 72 (4 149%) (3 135%)
(46 186%) B1 2 4 B1 0 1
B2 22 62 (6 108%) (3 34%)
(42 201%) B2 3 15 B2 0 2
(7 108%) (4 288%)
A1 1 30 A1 0 3
2 - 3°C A1/B1 33 119 (98 6104%) (8 985%)
(84 568%) A2 19 125 A2 2 14
A2 47 155 (22 681%) (18 621%)
(84 513%) B1 2 32 B1 1 4
B2 36 140 (354 1662%) (10 683%)
(77 578%) B2 4 53 B2 1 6
(46 1907%) (23 1142%)
A1 6 68 A1 1 7
3 - 4°C A1/B1 79 206 (1066 14005%) (152 2260%)
(345 1057%) A2 67 258 A2 8 29
A2 105 279 (322 1517%) (294 1382%)
(314 1004%) B1 7 81 B1 1 9
B2 94 233 (307 4429%) (113 1841%)
(356 1030%) B2 23 124 B2 3 14
(761 4634%) (454 2749%)
Page 66
Table 4.4. Global Flood Risk in the 2080s: people flooded per year.
Population (millions/year) Population (millions/year) Population (millions/year)
experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in
absence of climate change and absence of climate change and absence of climate change and
even rural/urban growth even rural/urban growth even rural/urban growth
Baseline (for
comparison)
Low population (A1/B1) 15 Low population (A1/B1 0 Low population (A1/B1 0
min max min max
0 - 1°C min max A1 0 1 A1 0 0
A1/B1 15 34 (0 230%) (0 12%)
(0 118%) A2 11 15 A2 2 2
A2 30 61 (0 29%) (0 21%)
(0 104%) B1 0 1 B1 0 0
B2 22 47 (0 217%) (0 15%)
(0 109%) B2 1 2 B2 0 0
(0 174%) (0 30%)
A1 0 2 A1 0 0
1 - 2°C A1/B1 22 61 (63 615%) (3 43%)
(46 296%) A2 12 21 A2 2 2
A2 43 103 (6 82%) (3 61%)
(43 245%) B1 1 2 B1 0 0
B2 30 93 (70 732%) (4 60%)
(35 316%) B2 1 4 B2 0 1
(29 466%) (3 78%)
A1 1 30 A1 0 3
2 - 3°C A1/B1 45 159 (344 10309%) (21 1073%)
(191 935%) A2 17 178 A2 2 20
A2 79 285 (53 1462%) (39 1201%)
(164 848%) B1 1 30 B1 0 3
B2 64 222 (365 10173%) (26 1102%)
(184 888%) B2 3 52 B2 1 6
(320 6991%) (56 1468%)
A1 7 72 A1 1 8
3 - 4°C A1/B1 80 187 (2314 25159%) (225 2691%)
(423 1114%) A2 30 302 A2 4 34
A2 134 332 (166 2549%) (129 2069%)
(348 1006%) B1 8 72 B1 1 8
B2 119 256 (2477 24222%) (254 2691%)
(429 1044%) B2 10 106 B2 1 12
(1264 14345%) (245 3037%)
Page 67
Table 4.5 Regional Flood Risk in the 2080s, assuming Evolving Protection 2 (millions
of people experiencing flooding per year).
Temperature Rise relative to 1990
o
Regions 0 to 1 C 1 to 2 oC 2 to 3 oC 3 to 4 oC
Southern A1 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 5
Africa A2 0 1 0 3 1 6 4 24
B1 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 5
B2 0 0 0 1 0 5 2 8
West Africa A1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3
A2 0 1 0 1 1 12 2 14
B1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3
B2 0 1 0 2 1 15 2 18
North A1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 17
Africa A2 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 34
B1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 17
B2 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 19
Central A1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3
America A2 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 6
B1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3
B2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4
West Asia A1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
A2 0 1 0 2 2 2 2 5
B1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
B2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Australasia A1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
A2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
B1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
B2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
South A1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3
America A2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 7
B1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3
B2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4
South Asia A1 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 25
A2 7 8 7 9 9 100 12 156
B1 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 25
B2 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 37
North A1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
America A2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
B1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
B2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Europe A1 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 8
A2 0 0 0 1 0 5 3 9
B1 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 8
B2 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 7
2
Central Asia is excluded as it has no coastal areas.
Page 68
A1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
East Asia A2 4 4 4 4 4 36 4 40
B1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
B2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4
Table 4.6 Flood Risk for the Island sub-regions in the 2080s, assuming Evolving
Protection (thousands of people experiencing flooding per year).
Temperature Rise relative to 1990
o
Sub-Regions 0 to 1 C 1 to 2 oC 2 to 3 oC 3 to 4 oC
A1 0 2 0 39 4 410 75 565
Indian Ocean A2 1 4 1 60 7 634 93 855
B1 0 2 0 39 4 410 75 565
B2 1 3 1 55 6 581 88 791
A1 0 1 0 9 2 162 47 218
Pacific Ocean A2 0 2 0 18 3 319 93 428
B1 1 6 1 63 11 163 98 218
B2 0 1 0 13 2 233 66 304
A1 2 9 2 79 16 1589 325 2177
Caribbean A2 4 21 4 235 38 2772 652 3805
B1 2 9 2 79 16 1589 325 2177
B2 2 10 2 97 18 1849 379 2575
Table 4.7. Temperature vs. sea-level rise relationship from Figure 4.1.
Global Temperature Rise (relative Instantaneous Sea level Rise
to 1990)
0 – 1 °C 0 – 15 cm
1 – 2 °C 10 – 30 cm
2 – 3 °C 20 – 50 cm
3 – 4 °C 35 – 80 cm
Table 4.1 shows that the exposed population grows through the 21st century and sea-level
rise only plays a small part in this increase, as population growth dominates the trend.
However, sea-level rise causes large increases in flood risk (Tables 4.2 to 4.4), most
particularly if defences are assumed to be static (Constant Protection). Improved
protection reduces these impacts in absolute terms, especially Enhanced Protection.
Hence it is impossible to be prescriptive on the impacts of sea-level rise as they are
dependent on a range of factors, including issues such as our ability to respond which are
difficult to quantify. These results suggest that while potential impacts are significant –
actual impacts may be much smaller if we can realise our potential to adapt. Under this
optimistic scenario, a major consequence of sea-level rise is the direction of investment to
coast protection and related flood management (Nicholls and Tol, 2006). Regionally, five
regions contain most of the flood risk: North Africa, West Africa, Southern Africa, East
Asia, and most especially South Asia (Table 4.5). The vulnerable areas in Asia are link to
densely populated deltaic areas. While not important in terms of global impacts, small
Page 69
islands sub-regions experience significant impacts: in relative terms these impacts are
usually large compared to the baseline. Hence, small islands, populated deltaic areas in
South and East Asia and Africa appear most vulnerable and are likely areas where major
impacts will occur given sea-level rise.
Events such as Hurricane Katrina and its impacts on New Orleans in 2005 remind us that
all residents of the coastal flood plain are vulnerable to some degree – even in developed
countries. All flood defences have a residual risk which ultimately leads to failure –under
a scenario of rising sea level the consequences of such failure become progressively more
severe. More intense storms and more intense storm surges due to climate change as
suggested by some authors for tropical storms (e.g., Webster et al., 2005) would
exacerbate the risks considered here due to rising sea levels alone. Hence coastal areas
are a location of major risks under climate change and sea-level rise and the scope further
research to better understand these risks remains significant.
REFERENCES
Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P.J. and Xiaosu, D.
(eds.), 2001. Climate Change 2001. The Scientific Basis. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Nicholls, R.J., 2004. Coastal flooding and wetland loss in the 21st Century: Changes
under the SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environmental
Change, 14, 69-86.
Nicholls, R.J. and Lowe, J.A., 2004. Benefits of Mitigation of Climate Change for
Coastal Areas. Global Environmental Change, 14, 229-244.
Nicholls, R.J. and Lowe, J.A., 2006. Climate Stabilisation and Impacts of Sea-Level Rise.
In: Schellnhuber, H J., Cramer, W., Nakicenovic, N., Wigley, T. and Yohe, G (eds).
Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp
195-202.
Nicholls, R.J., and Tol, R.S.J., 2006. Regional to global implications of sea-level rise: An
analysis of the SRES scenarios. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A,
364, 1073–1095
Nurse, L., and G. Sem, 2001. Small Island States. In: McCarthy, J.J., Canziani, O.F.,
Leary, N.A., Dokken, D.J., & White, K.S. (eds.) Climate Change 2001: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 843-875.
Parry, M., Arnell, N., Mcmichael, T., Nicholls, R., Martens, P., Kovats, S., Livermore,
M., Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A. and Fischer, G., 2001. Millions at risk: defining
critical climate threats and targets. Global Environmental Change, 11(3), 1-3.
Webster, P. J., G. J. Holland, J. A. Curry & H.-R. Chang, 2005. Changes in tropical
cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science, 309
(5742), 1844-1846
Acknowledgements: Dr. Jason Lowe and Dr. Nicola Patmore contributed to the work on
the relationship between temperature and sea-level rise, especially Figure 4.1.
Page 70
5. REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH
Jeff Price, California State University, and Rachel Warren, UEA
Health determinates and outcomes that are sensitive to climate make up a large
proportion of the total global disease burden. Climate change will likely have impacts on
the distribution of vector borne and other infectious diseases, as well as on cardiovascular
and other diseases. It will likely cause increases in mortality associated with heat stress
and decreases in mortality associated with cold stress. Other possible impacts include an
increase in the number of deaths due to exposure to tropospheric ozone. Allergies may
also increase, as may respiratory illness from exposure to emissions from forest fires if
these increase as projected. Climate will also have impacts through increases in
malnutrition, additional deaths due to flooding associated with rivers or sea level rise,
diseases linked to flooding, and health problems associated with flooding and
environmental refugees. Climate change has been modelled to have already caused the
loss of 150,000 lives and 5.5 million disability adjusted life years (DALY) 1 in 2000
(McMichael et al. 2004). However, climate change also has some health benefits in
terms of reduced exposure to cold stress, and in some areas drying may reduce vector
borne disease. Hence the balance of positive and negative health effects will vary from
one location to another, and will alter over time if temperatures continue to rise and
precipitation patterns continue to change.
Life expectancy and other health indicators are improving in many countries. However,
there continues to be inequalities in health status within and between countries. Some of
the populations most vulnerable to the health impacts of climate change include the poor
and homeless in large urban areas, rural populations in semi-arid regions, those living in
low-income countries, water-stressed regions or in settlements in coastal and low-lying
areas, those suffering from under nutrition and those dependent on specific resources.
Whether an increase in potential for disease transmission leads to more frequent
occurrence of disease depends on many factors other than climate as well on the adaptive
capacity of the area. Nevertheless, projected changes in climate will increase the
pressures on public health infrastructure in many parts of the world. While
acclimatization and adaptation will reduce many health impacts, they will not eliminate
them.
In general, economic development is associated with improved capacity to adapt to

climate change, but critically important will be trends in other factors such as health care
and public health infrastructure. Some climate-specific adaptation measures have been
developed and implemented both within the health sector and beyond, mostly in relation
to preparedness for extreme events and infectious diseases. For example, the design and
implementation of climate-health warning systems, established to reduce effects of
1
A DALY is the sum of years of life lost due to premature death taking into account the age at death
compared to a maximum life expectancy plus the sum of years of life lives with disability taking into
account disease duration, age of onset and a disability weight that characterises the severity of disease.
Page 71
weather extremes as well as for the seasonal predictions of infectious diseases. However,
access to primary health care and basic education are essential elements of strategies to
cope with climate change, but are not available to millions of people.
Page 72
In this section temperature changes were inferred for standard IPCC scenarios from
Hulme et al. 1999 enabling McMichael et al (2003b) estimates for impacts for various
temperature changes to be aggregated to give ranges corresponding to ranges of
temperature change. Baseline estimates for current health risks by region are given in
Table 5.1a and b, and within the tables where the data is available. Most of these
numbers come from the Global Burden of Disease work performed by the WHO and are
only available for endpoints where there is a model available.
Table 5.1a. Current disease burden in terms of deaths by region and globally, in
year 2000
Global Africa Americas Europe Asia
Cause of death
(deaths (1000s))
Diarrhoeal diseases 1969 690 64 22 1192
Malaria 1120 957 1 0 162
Dengue 21 0 3 0 18
Protein–energy 3748 1767 50 18 1913
malnutrition
Source: (WHO 2002a; McMichael et al. 2003b; Ezzati et al. 2004)
Table 5.1b Current disease burden in terms of deaths (1000s) by region in 2002
Stern Region Diarrhoea Malaria Dengue Cardiovascular
North Africa 32.6 7.6 0 358
West Africa 446 562.8 .1 527
Southern Africa 344.6 292.8 .1 546.9
South Asia 759.6 22.9 12.2 4312.4
East Asia 171.6 20.5 3.8 3862.5
Australasia 3 .9 0 72.6
Europe 9.7 .1 0 2518
Central Asia 6.8 .1 0 2407.8
North America 1.7 0 0 999.4
Central 20.5 .4 1.6 230.6
America
South America 34.1 1.1 .5 698.4
West Asia 38 1.5 .3 170.9
Source : WHO 2005
5.1 Malaria Annually 400-500 million cases of malaria and 1 million deaths occur every
year, 90% of which are in Africa. The annual economic growth in countries with high
malaria transmission has historically been lower than in those without malaria (WHO
2006). Studies that looked solely at the transmission dynamics of the malaria or in the
ability of the malaria vector (various mosquito species) to spread projected that malaria
might extend into Europe and North America. However, most of these studies did not
take into account the past control measures leading to the current absence of the disease
from these areas (but see Van Lieshout et al 2004). Thus, effective public health
Page 73
infrastructure and an absence of a pool of infected human hosts makes it unlikely that the
disease would become become established (Rogers and Randolph 2000). However, some
localised areas in parts of Eastern Europe might experience isolated outbreaks where
socioeconomic conditions are poorer. In Africa, there is an estimated 5-7% increase in
the land area where malaria can be found, and a 13-18.9% increase in the number of
people exposed, and a 15-28% increase of person-months exposure by 2070-2099 but the
actual number of cases will depend on many factors (Tanser et al 2003). Most of the
increase in area is altitudinal not latitudinal, and if zero increase in area is assumed, the
person-months exposure still rises by 27.6-41.5%. Maps in Tanser’s publication show
that most of the increase in malaria is found in sub-Saharan (including East) Africa.
Tanser’s study assumes a static population (meaning that the increases are
underestimated, since population will increase) and a current state of development
(meaning that increases could be overestimated, because only current levels of adaptive
capacity are asummed). The study used the HadCM3 model and three SRES scenarios
to estimate temperature and rainfall changes only.
Table 5.2. Impacts of global mean temperature rise on exposure to and transmission of
falciparium malaria in Africa. Adapted from Tanser et al, 2003
Global Mean Area increase Population Person months Proportion of
Temp exposure exposure increase of PME
Change °C (millions) (millions) in areas of
existing
transmission
Baseline 15.24 (0%) 445 (0%) 3082
Additional:
0-1 0.28-0.56 27-33 (6.0- 138-369 32.3-65.8%
(1.8-3.7%) 7.1%) (4.5-12%)
1-2 0.38-0.78 39-62 243-544 (7.9- 22.3-53.0%
(2.5 -5.1%) (8.8-14%) 17.7%)
2-3 0.96 (6.3%) 68 (15.4%) 716 (23.2%) 41.5%
3-4 1.09 (7.2%) 84 (18.9%) 868 (28.2%) 27.6%
Tanser’s model, MARA, is one of only two models which has been validated directly to
account for the observed effect of climate variables on vector and parasite population
biology has a more rigorous spatial calibration to today’s exposure based on 3791
surveys. Thomas (2004) used the same model and estimates little increase in the area of
stable malaria zones over the next 30-40 years in Africa but by the second half of the
century strong altitudinal increases in stable areas are expected, agreeing with Tanser et
al (2003). WHO (2003) give the following ranges for increases in malaria risks under
climate change in 2030, based upon Tanser and Rogers and Randolph’s results. Also
shown are the estimates of thousands of days of life lost due to malaria in 2000.
Page 74
Table 5.3. Impacts of global mean temperature rise on exposure to and transmission of
malaria in world regions (McMichael et al 2003 (Eds))
Region 1000s 1000s 0-1°C 1-2°C

DALY/2002 DALY/2000 % increases %
due to climate increases
change only
Africa 36012 860 0-11% 0-17%
E Mediterranean 2050 112 0-27% 0-43%
Latin America & 108 3 0-18% 0-28%
Caribbean
SE Asia 3680 0 0-1% 0-2%
W Pacific 409 43 0-53% 0-83%
Developed countries 20 0 0-52% 0-27%
Unlike the aforementioned studies, van Lieshout et al (2004) take into account population
growth when assessing the response of malaria transmission to climate change. They
assess increases of falciparium and vivax malaria over the twenty-first century, taking
into account changes in temperature and precipitation. There are large differences
between the ensemble members A2a, A2b and A2c and also B2a and B2b because of the
varying predictions for precipitation. This makes it difficult to use this study to relate
impacts to temperature because precipitation also varies between the scenarios and this
has a profound effect as drying induces a reduction in transmission zones. Estimates are
based on the current level of adaptation, which means that impacts could be
overestimated.
Table 5.4a Additional millions at risk to >3months exposure to malaria in different

world regions in 2080 (from Van Lieshout et al 2004)
2080s A1F1 A2a A2b A2c B1 B2a B2b
(+4.3C) (+3.5C) (+3.6C) (+3.6C) (+2.4C) (2.7C) (2.7C)
A 0 -24 -12 -66 3 14 24
B 86 39 165 240 -13 -32 11
C 97 -363 -31 132 -106 -232 153
D 28 25 15 32 30 113 162
E -82 -162 -159 -166 -58 -88 -58
F -27 -44 -30 -16 -8 -10 4
World +100 -528 -52 156 -153 -236 297
Page 75
Table 5.4b Further regional detail on additional millions at risk to >3months exposure to
malaria in different world regions in 2080 (from Van Lieshout et al 2004)
2080s A1F1 A2 B1 B2
(+4.3C) (average) (+2.4C) (average)
(+3.5C) (2.7C)
A, North America -15 -46 -9 11
A, Australasia 17 17 13 9
A, W Europe -1 -1 -1 0
B, Central Europe -1 -1 -1 -1
C, Eastern Europe 1 1 1 1
B, Latin America -92 -169 -29 -49
B, SE Asia 0 -1 0 0
B, West Asia 0 0 0 0
B, East Asia 82 143 -6 7
D, SE Asia 102 -77 -104 -35
D, West Asia 23 16 -2 62
D, Western S America -19 -42 -12 -17
D, West Africa -46 -35 -25 -8
E, Sub-Saharan Africa 49 53 21 51
World +100 -141 -153 31
Key: A = malaria free/low malaria counties W Europe, N America and Australasia

B = Central Europe, SE & E Asia and parts of W Asia and Latin America
where health systems are good and malaria incidence is low
C = Bolivia & India where health systems are good and malaria incidence is high
D = West Africa, parts of South America, Russia, parts of W Asia, and South Asia
where health systems are poor and malaria incidence is low
E = N South America and Parts of Sub-Saharan (Southern) Africa where health
systems are poor and malaria incidence is high
F = Parts of Sub-Saharan : very poor areas with high malaria incidence
Note that scenario A2a has drying in India whilst A2b has an increase in precipitation,
hence the very different outcomes for the same temperature rise.
Comparing Van Lieshout et al. with Tanser et al. 2003, in which HadCM3 B1, A2a and
A1F1 scenarios were used, both studies show an increase in malaria in sub-Saharan
Africa (Risks decrease in group E countries overall in van Lieshout et al. due to drying
in South America). In the 2080s, Fast Track is showing around 50 million additional
persons at risk in sub-Saharan Africa group E countries, whist Tanser shows overall
increases of 80 additional millions at risk in a similar region of sub-Saharan Africa with
the same adaptation assumptions and a constant population. Tanser also highlights the
problem of increasing person-months exposure in areas which are already affected, whilst
van Lieshout et al suggest that in “group F” very poor countries with a high incidence of
Page 76
malaria (which are entirely in sub-Saharan Africa), malaria incidence is so high and
occurs year round, so that climate change has no exacerbating effect. This likely
explains the discrepancy between the two studies. The difference may also arise from the
use of different models, metrics and regional definitions: Tanser uses an empirical model
to calculate persons exposed and total person-months exposure, whilst van Lieshout uses
a calibrated theoretical approach to calculate additional persons exposed for >1 month or
>3 months. In the fact the similarity of the results, given the two different approaches,
rather provides additional confidence in the outputs. However, Thomas et al. (2004)
suggests reductions in malaria around the Sahel and in semi-arid Southern Africa due to
drying, whilst there are localised increases in highlands and uplands.
5.2 Dengue In 1990, 30% of the world’s population (1.5 billion people) lived in regions
with a dengue risk of >50%. Dengue fever causes 21000 deaths annually, mostly in
Asia. Hales et al. (2002) used a vector-specific model to predict population exposures in
2085. Outputs from the HadCM2 and CGCMa2, scenario IS92a, projected that an
additional 5-7 billion people were at risk of dengue compared to 3.5 billion in the absence
of climate change (taking into account future population growth). Areas where dengue
is projected to increase in aerial extent include India and China, Florida and the South
Texas coast of North America, Northern Australia, West, Central and East Africa, central
South America, and Western Asia. In Australia, a 3-5 fold increase of dengue is
estimated to have an annual economic cost of AU$300,000 – AU$400,000.
5.3 Heat Stress 35,000 deaths were directly attributable to the 2003 European heat
wave, and it has been estimated that the probability of such events has doubled since pre-
industrial times (Stott et al. 2004). Effects of heat waves are concentrated in older age
groups or in higher risk groups (i.e., homeless). Overall, higher temperatures contribute
approximately 1-4% to the mortality of the elderly in Europe (Pattenden et al. 2003). As
populations age in the future many more will be at a higher risk from heat-related
mortality. The frequency of heat waves has been projected to increase in frequency and
duration in both Chicago (increase of 25% in frequency, approximately 3 days in
duration) and Paris (increase of 31% in frequency and 3-5 days in duration) by the end of
the century (2080-2099; Meehl and Tebaldi, 2004).
Future projections include the probability of 2800 heat deaths per year in the UK for the
2050s (a 250% increase) under the UKCIP medium high scenario (Keatings et al 2002).
Excess mortality from heat in 5 Eastern US cities in 2020 is predicted to reach -8% to
+361%, and 0 to 682% in 2050, based on UKMO, GFDL and Max Planck (scenario?). In
California, the annual number of days classified as heat wave conditions are projected to
increase under both the B1 and A1FI scenarios with 319-1182 additional deaths (baseline
of 165). However, adaptation may offset some of the impacts.
5.4 Cold-related mortality Cold waves can be a problem in temperate climates and
higher elevations in the tropics with increasing health problems found in the elderly, poor
and homeless (among others). Mortality in these cases is often attributable to failures in
infrastructure (heating). Overall, reductions in cold-associated mortality are expected to
be greater than heat-associated mortality in most temperate areas. However, these
Page 77
numbers have to be treated with caution as heat wave associated mortality often comes
from extreme events and may not be adequately captured in climate models. In the UK
greater reductions in cold-related mortality than occur for heat stress are expected
(Keatings et al 2002). However, in 4 US Mid-Atlantic cities, overall increases in heat
related mortality exceed reductions in cold related mortality in both 2020 and 2050,
taking into account acclimatization and projected population changes (Benson et al.
2000). In a fifth city, winter mortality actually increased slightly in 2020 and 2050.
5.5 Cardiovascular disease

Small increases in the risk of cardiovascular disease are expected as climate changes
(McMichael et al 2003b (Eds)).
Table 5.5 Climate-change induced increases in the risk of cardiovascular disease relative
to 1990 (from (McMichael et al 2003b (Eds)).
Region 0-1°C 1-2°C

Africa 0-0.8% 0-1.1%
E Mediterranean 0-0.7% 0-0.7%
Latin America & Caribbean 0-0.5% 0-0.7%
SE Asia 0-0.9% 0-1.3%
W Pacific 0% 0%
Developed countries -0.2% to 0% -0.1% to 0%
5.6 Diarrhoea
Significant increases in the incidence of diarrhoea are expected as climate changes.
Diarrhoeal disease is actually the disease which currently has the highest global death toll
of nearly 2 million annually, of which 1 million are in Asia and 0.7 million in Africa.
Increases in daily temperature will likely increase the number of cases of some common
forms of food poisoning in temperate regions (impacts in the tropics are unknown).
However, it is difficult to properly estimate either the current level of diarrhoea or to
properly model future impacts from diarrhoea as there are many different agents and
exposure pathways. The overall incidence of diarrhoea is likely higher than is reported.
The days of life lost due to climate change in the year 2000 are also shown.
Page 78
Table 5.6. Climate-change induced increases in diarrhoea relative to 1990 (McMichael et
al 2003b (Eds))
Region 1000s 1000s 0-1°C 1-2°C
DALY/2002 DALY/2000 % increase in % increase
due to climate risk in risk
change only
Africa 21524 414 -1% to +13% -0.1 to
+16%
E Mediterranean 10784 291 -2% to +11% -2% to
+16%
Latin America & 2692 17 -6% to +6% -8% to +8%
Caribbean
SE Asia 22377 640 -1% to +13% -1% to
+17%
W Pacific 4097 89 -5% to +6% -8% to
+9%
Developed countries 977 0 -6% to +6% -6% to +6%
5.7 Flooding Very large increases in flood deaths are expected due to climate change
but they are based on a small baseline. Tables 5.7 and 5.8 show WHO predictions for
these increases. The impacts of flooding are particularly severe in areas of environmental
degradation, and in communities lacking basic public infrastructure, including sanitation
and hygiene. Thus increases in frequency and intensity of flood events will test the
integrity of water management systems and increase water-borne disease. In Australia
annual flood related deaths may increase by up to 240% by 2020 (McMichael et al.
2003a).
Table 5.7 Climate-change induced increases in inland flood deaths under climate change
relative to 1990 (McMichael et al 2003b (Eds))
Region 0-1C 1-2C convert to factors and
round up
Africa 0-216% 1-3.2 0-127% 1-2.3
E Mediterranean 0-559% 1-6.6 0-583% 1-6.8
Latin America & Caribbean 0-343% 1-4.4 0-324% 1-4.3
SE Asia 0-149% 1-2.5 0-75% 1-1.7
W Pacific 0-170% 1-2.7 0-213% 1-3.2
Developed countries 0-769% 1-8.7 0-779% 1-8.8
Page 79
Table 5.8. Climate-change induced increases in coastal flood deaths relative to 1990
(McMichael et al 2003b (Eds))
Region 0-1C 1-2C
Africa 13-59% 2.1-2.6 20-79% 1.2-1.8
E Mediterranean 80-346% 2.8-4.5 116-461% 2.2-5.6
Latin America & Caribbean 57-243% 1.6-3.4 80-320% 1.8-4.2
SE Asia 4-15% 1.0-1.2 6-21% 1.1-1.2
W Pacific 2-8% 1.0-1.1 3-10% 1.0-1.1
Developed countries 34-181% 1.3-2.8 32-127% 1.3-2.3
5.8 Tropospheric ozone induced deaths Human mortality can ensue from exposure of
vulnerable individuals to concentrations of tropospheric ozone above a certain threshold.
This threshold is exceeded in some areas for varying numbers of days each year. Under
climate change, the frequency of these high ozone episodes is expected to increase since
increased temperature enhances tropospheric ozone production. Hence, mortality due to
these air pollution episodes is likely to increase. For example, in the New York region, a
4.5% increase in ozone deaths is expected for an A2 scenario with the GISS GCM
(Knowlton et al 2004). Again, the actualmagnitude of the impact will depend on
adaptation measures.
REFERENCES
Benson, K., P. Kacagil, and J. Shortle. 2000: Climate change and health in the Mid-
Atlantic Region. Climate Research 14: 245-253.
Ezzati, M., A. Lopez, A. Rodgers, and C. Murray, Eds., 2004: Comparative

quantification of health risks: global and regional burden of disease due to selected
major risk factors. Vols. 1 and 2. World Health Organization, 2235 pp.
Hales, S., N. de Wet, J. Macdonald, and A. Woodward, 2002: Potential effect of

population and climate changes on global distribution of dengue fever: an empirical
model. Lancet, 360, pp. 830-834.
Keatings, W.R., G.C. Donaldson, R.S. Kovats, and A. McMichael, 2002: Heat and cold
related mortality morbidity and climate change. In: Health Effects of Climate
Change in the UK. Department of Health, London
Knowlton, K., J.E. Rosenthal, C. Hogrefe, B. Lynn, S. Gaffin, R. Goldberg, C.
Rosenzweig, K. Civerolo, J.Y. Ku, and P.L. Kinney, 2004: Assessing ozone-related
health impacts under a changing climate. Environ Health Perspect, 112(15), pp.
1557-63.
McMichael, A., R. Woodruff, P. Whetton, K. Hennessy, N. Nicholls, S. Hales, A.

Woodward, and T. Kjellstrom, 2003a: Human Health and Climate Change in
Oceania: Risk Assessment 2002. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.
McMichael, A.J., Campbell-Lendrum, D.H., Corvalan, C.F., Ebi, K.L., Githeko, A.,
Page 80
Scheraga, J.D., and Woodward.A (Eds) 2003b Climate Change and Human
Health: Risks and Responses WHO, Geneva.
Meehl, G. and C. Tebaldi, 2004: More intense, more frequent and longer lasting heat
waves in the 21st century. Science, 305, 994-997.
Pattenden, S., B. Nikiforov, and B. G. Armstrong, 2003: Mortality and temperature in
Sofia and London. J Epidemiol and Community Health, 57, 628-633.
Rogers, D.J., and S.E. Randolph, 2000: The global spread of malaria in a future, warmer
world. Science, 289, pp. 1763-1765.
Tanser F.C., Sharp B., and Le Sueur D.:2003, ‘Potential effect of climate change on
malaria transmission in Africa’, Lancet 362, 1792-1798.
Thomas, C.J., G. Davies, and C.E. Dunn, 2004: Mixed picture for changes in stable
malaria distribution with future climate in Africa. Trends in parasitology, 20(5), pp.
216-220.
Van Lieshout, M., Kovats, R.S., Livermore, M.T., Martens, P.: 2004, ‘Climate change
and malaria: Analysis of the SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios’, Global
WHO, 2002a: World Health Report 2002. Reducing risks, promoting healthy life. WHO,
Geneva, 268 pp.
WHO. 2005. World Health Statistics Online - Death and Daly Estimates for 2002 by
Cause for WHO Member States.
http://www.who.int/entity/healthinfo/statistics/bodgbddeathdalyestimates.xls
WHO, 2006: Economic costs of malaria. Roll Back Malaria Infosheet 10.
http://www.rbm.who.int/cmc_upload/0/000/015/363/RBMInfosheet_10.htm. Accessed
25 May 2006.
Page 81
6. REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
Contribution by Nigel Arnell

Climate change has a potential impact on the demand for energy for heating and cooling.
Energy requirements for heating or cooling are strongly related to cumulative
temperature anomalies (Diaz and Quayle, 1980), as represented by heating degree days
(HDD) and cooling degree days (CDD) respectively. Both HDD and CDD are calculated
with reference to a base temperature, defined as the target "comfort" temperature, and are
calculated from daily temperatures Ti.
HDD = Σ (B - Ti) where Ti is less than B
CDD = Σ (Ti – B) where Ti is greater than B
In North America and in most international-scale studies, the base temperature is taken to
be 65oF or 18oC. An estimate of regional energy requirements can be determined by
calculating regional population-weighted heating or cooling degree days, where the
values for each point of calculation (e.g. grid cell) are weighted by the population in that
area. Regional population-weighted heating degree days are used in the US and other
countries for forecasting seasonal energy use.
Figure 6.1 shows the change in grid-cell HDDs and CDDs across the world relative to the
1961-1990 baseline, based on rescaled HadCM3 climate scenarios and using a base
temperature of 18oC. Different climate models would give different patterns, although
temperature changes are quite consistent between models.
Figure 6.2 shows the percentage change in global population-weighted heating degree
days and population-weighted cooling degree days, with temperature increases above
1990 (the relationships are virtually identical with different SRES population projections
(A1/B1, A2 or B2) and different time horizons, because the different population
projections have broadly the same relative spatial patterns). With a 2oC rise in
temperature, global heating requirements fall by approximately 20%, but global cooling
requirements rise by over 30% (relative to the situation without climate change). These
changes assume no change to the target "comfort" base temperature, and implicitly
therefore assume no adaptation (in the sense of accepting warmer temperatures).
Page 82
Figure 6.1
Page 83
Global
100
75
50
% change
25
0
-25
-50
-75
-100
0 1 2 3 4 5
Temperature change (oC)
Heating energy demand Co o ling energy demand
Figure 6.2: Global climate-driven energy demand and temperature change
There is of course considerable regional variation in changes in energy requirements.

Figure 6.3 shows percentage change in energy demands for a 2oC rise in temperature by
region: cooling energy demands rise by between 20 and 170%, and heating energy
demands fall by between 16 and 90%.
For a given global temperature change, the key driver of uncertainty in

estimates of changes in regional heating and cooling energy requirements
is the change in seasonal temperature across the region (as simulated by
different GCMs). Differences in population have very little effect on
changes in regional heating/cooling requirements. Translating
requirements into demands and consumption is highly uncertain, as it
would depend on energy sources, energy efficiency, and total population.
Page 84
Effect of 2oC rise in global temperature
200
100
-100
Heating Cooling
Figure 6.3: Effect of a 2oC rise in global average temperature on heating and cooling
energy requirements
Translating changes in heating and cooling degree days into energy consumption is
difficult, because energy use will depend on the technologies used to generate heating
and cooling (which will include passive building measures).
Figure 6.4 shows how Figure 6.2 breaks down across the regions.
Page 85
Figure 6.4
150 100
100
50
50
0
0
-50 -50
- 100 - 100
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
o
Temperat ure change ( C) Temperat ure change ( oC)

150 100
100
50
50
0
0
- 50 - 50
-100 -100
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Temperat ure change ( oC) Temperature change ( o C)

150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
- 50 - 50
-100 -100
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Temperature change ( o C) Temperat ure change ( oC)
Europe Form er Soviet Union

400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
- 100 -100
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Temperat ure change ( o C) Temperature change ( oC)
Page 86
North Am erica Caribbean
200 100
150
50
100
50 0
0
- 50
-50
- 100 -100
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Temperature change ( o C) Temperat ure change ( o C)
Central Am erica South Am erica

150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
- 50 - 50
-100 -100
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Temperat ure change ( o C) Temperature change ( oC)
Central Am erica
150
100
50
- 50
-100
0 1 2 3 4 5
Temperat ure change ( o C)
REFERENCES
Diaz, H.F., and R.G. Quayle, 1980: Heating Degree Day Data Applied to Residential
Heating Energy Consumption. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 3, 241-246
CCIRG (1996) Impacts of Climate Change in the United Kingdom. HMSO: London
Page 87
7. REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON ECOSYSTEMS
Contribution by Rachel Warren

UEA
Impacts of climate change are already being seen within ecosystems across the globe
(Root et al 2003) and impacts are expected to escalate quickly as temperatures rise.
Major conclusions from this review are:
• Impacts appear to take off strongly at temperatures of around 1.5°C above 1990
levels (or 2°C above pre-industrial levels).
• All predicted extinction rates for temperature rise of around 1.5°C or above
greatly exceed current extinction rates
• Major biome losses occur in tundra, wooded tundra (taiga), cool conifer forest and
temperate deciduous forests. With a 3°C rise in temperature, each biome loses
variously between 7 and 74% of its extent such that 22% of the land surface is
transformed, these areas supporting low biodiversity.
• Climate change and land use change will act synergistically to reduce
biodiversity.
• The major world ecosystems at greatest risk of complete loss due to climate
change are (a) coral reefs and (b) Arctic ecosystems
• Losses of species from biodiversity hotspots due to climate change could number
into the thousands or tens of thousands of species.
• Acidification of the ocean, a direct consequence of increased carbon dioxide

concentrations, has the potential to disrupt the marine ecosystem, at the very least
halting the growth of corals (which is likely to occur at a concentration of 500
ppm CO2) and damaging molluscs and coccolithiphores (types of plankton) at the
base of the food chain (Turley et al. 2006, Kleypas et al. 2001).
The regional tables accompanying this report detail how some key impacts accrue in
different regions of the world as temperatures rise. Key, globally significant changes in
biodiversity and ecosystems as a result of increasing levels of global annual mean
temperature change are summarised in Table 7.1, whilst impacts resulting from various
rates of climate change may be found in Table 7.2. These are not, however, a
comprehensive list of all possible impacts on biodiversity – this is not available in the
Page 88
Table 7.1: Some world ecosystem statistics as a function of increasing temperature rise
Temperat % biomes transformed % species Ecosystem losses of global Iconic species losses References
ure rise extinct significance (examples)
above
1990 (°C)
0-0.5 Tropical high mountain Still 1999,
(cloud) forest loss, coral reef Hoegh-Guldberg
losses 1999
0.5-1 At ~1°C: 10% Global 9-31% At 1C: loss 47% wooded Endemic reptiles, Thomas 2004b;
Ecosystems transformed (mean tundra and 23% loss cool amphibians in Leemans & Eickhout
(5 GCMS: HadCM2, 18%) conifer forest. Ecosystems Queensland 2004,
GFDL, ECHAM4 species variously lose between 2 to rainforest; regional Williams 2003
CSIRO, MK2 extinct 47% of their extent. functional extinction
CGCM1) coral reefs
1-1.5 At 1.4°C Coral reefs bleached and Polar bear Hoegh Guldberg
15-37% functionally extinct; risks to Coral reef fish and 1999; ACIA 2004;
(mean many ecosystems; no Arctic corals; Golden Folkestad 2005, Still
24%) summer sea ice; declines in Bowerbird 1999
species global migrant geese and
extinct shorebirds that nest in high
globally Arctic; cloud forests lose 100s
of metres of elevational extent
1.5-2 At ~2°C, 16% global At 2°C, Extinction rates take off e.g. 8 – 12% of 277 Leemans & Eickhout
ecosystems 21-52% Succulent Karoo reduced to medium/large 2003. Thomas 2004b
transformed: (mean 20% of area, threatening 2800 mammals in 141 Thuiller 2006
ecosystems variously 35%) plants with extinction; 5 S African national Midgley 2002
lose between 5 and 66% species African parks lose > 40% parks critically
of their extent extinct plant species endangered/extinct
2-2.5 Amazon forest may Extinction At 2.4°C, large losses Risk extinction of Leemans & Eickhout
collapse driving s continue migratory bird habitat 90% Hawaiian 2004, Nicholls 1999,
millions of species to to increase worldwide honeycreeper birds Najjar 2000
extinction; 66 of 165 50% loss world’s most Sorenson 1998 ;
rivers studied lose productive duck habitat Xenopoulos 2005,
>10% of fish species (several GCMs) Benning 2002
2.5-3 At ~3°C, few Extinction At ~3°C 50% all nature High extinction rates Nicholls 1999,
ecosystems adapt; 22% s continue reserves cannot fulfil e.g. S Africa Leemans & Eickhout
are transformed: to increase conservation objectives mammals (24 – 2004
ecosystems variously 59%), birds (28 – Thomas 2004
lose 7 - 74% of their 40%), butterflies (13
extent; 22% loss – 70%), invertebrates
coastal wetlands (18 – 80%), reptiles
(21 – 45%)
3-3.5 Further ecosystem Extinction 60% loss tundra and 44% loss 30 – 40% of 277 Neilson 1997
transformation rates very taiga mammals in 141 Thuiller 2006
high African parks
critically
endangered/extinct;
15 – 20% endangered
3.5-4 Further ecosystem Extinction Loss of forest Villiers-Ruiz 1998
transformation rates wintering habitat of
extremely Monarch butterfly
high 90-100% loss
Queensland rainforest
Page 89
literature, and the scope of this study was sufficient only to highlight some key examples
of the kinds of effects that are expected. Where blanks occur in the tables it does not
imply that there are no impacts, and when temperatures beyond those listed are
considered, impacts would be expected to continue to accrue (cumulatively) as climate
changes further.
All studies listed in the tables were supported by modelling calculations. Most of the
species extinction predictions are based upon species-area relationships. The regional
estimates from Thomas 2004 and the Africa mammal and plant extinction estimates from
Thuiller 2006 are examples. The global estimates from Thomas 2004 are based on
species area relationships, so the actual global percentages of species extinct are more
uncertain than the local ones. This is because the coefficients in the species-area
relationships can affect the estimates of extinction rates and the coefficients are uncertain.
Many studies including Thomas 2004 take into account the range of outcomes depending
on whether species disperse or not in response to changing temperatures.
Malcolm (2006) considered the consequences of doubled carbon dioxide levels for global
biodiversity hotspots, using a range of GCMs and two dynamic vegetation models.
Hence a range of global temperature changes of between and is implied. The study
found that several hotspots (S Africa, Caribbean, Indo-Burma, Mediterranean, Central
China, Tropical Andes) were particularly vulnerable to climate change losing over 100
species for all the resultant CO2 doubling scenarios. Vertebrate extinctions reached 42-
737 species in the tropical Andes, and 21-377 in the Caribbean, 10-214 in Indo-Burma,
and plant extinctions reached over 2000 species in S Africa, Caribbean, Indo-Burma,
Mediterranean, SW Australia and Tropical Andes). In the worst case 39-43% biota could
be lost in the hotspots leading to the loss of some 56,000 endemic plants species and
3,700 endemic vertebrate species. In summary, thousands to tens of thousands of species
are predicted to be lost from biodiversity hotspots if carbon dioxide concentrations are
doubled.
Aside from the specific impacts tabulated below, a number of serious concerns exist
which concern ecosystems in general as they respond to climate change. These may have
very large ramifications which are not included in the tables below, since their effects are
rather unpredictable. They also have ramifications for human systems, and there is in
general little study of how these impacts also affect human systems: for example it is
assumed in the study of agriculture that a ready supply of pollinators will remain to
pollinate our crops. The specific concerns include:
• Predator-prey and pollinator-plant relationships do not shift in concert as climate

changes. This means that pest outbreaks and extinctions may occur which are not
taken account of in the tables below, and the consequences of these ecosystem
changes have not been taken into account in the studies of human systems in the
other tables above. There may be large consequences for agriculture (which is a
managed ecosystem). (Burkett 2005, Price 2002).
Page 90
Table 7.2: Effects of rate of temperature rise upon world ecosystems
Rate of Reference
temperature rise
(°C/decade)
0-0.05 0.05°C decade Biodiversity van Vliet &
proposed reduced as Leemans
threshold for competition 2006;
damage to permits only Malcolm
ecosystems survival of 2002
more mobile
opportunistic
species e.g.
“weeds”
0.05-0.1 0.1°C/ decade 50% Vellinga &
proposed ecosystems Swart 1991;
threshold for able to adapt Leemans &
damage to to Eickhout
ecosystems 0.1°C/decade; 2003;
0.1-0.3 Current rate is 30% Leemans &
0.17+/- 0.05 ecosystems Eickhout
/decade able to adapt 2003
to IPCC 2001
0.3°C/decade
0.3-0.5 At Low Leemans &
0.4°C/decade biodiversity, Eickhout
all ecosystems aggressive, 2003;
deteriorate: opportunistic Neilson
current rate species 1993
0.46°C/decade dominate the
in Arctic globe
• As temperature increases forest ecosystems are increasingly disrupted by fire.
This is particularly important in boreal regions such as Canada, Alaska and
Russia, and also in areas which are drying as a result of climate change, such as
the Mediterranean. (Gitay 2001, Mouillot 2002)
• As temperature increases forest ecosystems are increasingly disrupted by pests.

This is particularly important in boreal and temperate zones such as Eurasia and
North America. (Gitay 2001)
• Vulnerability to pests and diseases and fire is greater at higher rates of change of
temperature.
• For sea level rise in excess of 5mm/year coastal erosion and loss of protective
coastal ecosystems such as coral reefs and mangroves would occur, destroying
natural coastal defences. Coastal wetlands would also be lost (Donnelly &
Bertness 2001, IPCC 2001) (Sea level rise ecosystem impact table may be added
or alternatively converted to T and extra entries added to table E1)
Page 91
• The studies do not include the effects of land use change. This means that species
extinctions are likely to proceed more rapidly than the tables suggest, since
overall ecosystems will be impacted by a combination of climate change, land use
change, invasive species, acid deposition and eutrophication. Studies project a
significant reduction in native vegetation (principally forest) in non-industrialised
countries and arid regions due to expansion of agricultural or urban land use
driven principally by population growth, especially in Africa, South America and
in South Asia where a reduction in native habitat will result in biodiversity loss.
• Globally, biodiversity (represented by species richness and relative abundance)

may decrease by 12-16% by 2050 (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) due
to a combination of climate change and land use change, and are likely in
virtually all biomes with tropical forest and woodland, savanna and warm mixed
forest accounting for 80% of the species lost (~30,000 species) by 2050
• Land use change is a primary driver of habitat loss and one author considers that
it remains a more significant driver of extinctions than climate change out to
2100, except in the Arctic where it remains the only significant driver (Sala
2000). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment considers that between the
present day and 2050, climate change is about twice as strong a driver for
biodiversity loss in the Arctic tundra as land use change, whilst in cool conifer
forest and savannas they consider it be to 2 to 3 times more important (Figure
10.17, Biodiversity Across Scenarios, MEA). For other ecosystems such as
temperate deciduous forests and warm mixed forests they consider land use
change to be a stronger driver of biodiversity loss by a factor of about 4.
However, an analysis of the SRES scenarios to 2100 (Strengers 2004) predicts
that deforestation stops in all scenarios except A2, suggesting that beyond 2050
climate change will be the major driver for biodiversity loss rather than land use
change. Malcolm (2006) finds that by 2100, climate-change induced extinction
rates in hotspots for biodiversity in the tropics exceed the predicted extinctions
from deforestation, suggesting that at least in some cases climate change is a more
serious threat to biodiversity than land use change. For tropical forests the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment does not take account of the detailed analysis
of Malcolm 2006 upon tropical forest biodiversity hotspots, and instead estimates
a very small effect of climate change in biodiversity loss. However, it has to be
recalled that the MEA considers changes only as far out as 2050, on which
timescale the drying and collapse of the Amazon would not be expected to occur,
and temperature rises in other tropical areas would be considerably smaller than in
the 2100 timescale considered by SRES or by Malcolm. In summary it is likely
that only temperate and warm mixed forests might have a smaller impact from
climate change than from land use change. If, as Scholze 2006 suggests, there is a
44% risk of a terrestrial carbon source with a 3°C temperature rise above 1990,
this would imply a worldwide decline of forests and grassland. Thus for these
temperature rises climate change could become a stronger driver of biodiversity
loss than land use change in all ecosystem types. Thomas (2004) considers that
climate change is likely to be the greatest threat to biota in many or most regions.
Page 92
• Climate change will affect the areas which are currently being preserved from
land use change for conservation regions, since with a 3°C temperature rise from
1990 50% of nature reserves will not be able to fulfil their conservation objectives
(Leemans & Eickhout 2004). Hence in the absence of climate change, extinctions
might be prevented through careful nature conservation policy. In the presence of
climate change, this will be more difficult since conservation areas become
unsuitable for the species which they are deisgned to protect. Actual extinction
rates will depend significantly on how climate change and other drivers of
extinction interact (Sala 2000).
• Existing and future land use change will impede the migration of species as they
attempt to adapt their geographical ranges to account for changes in temperature
and rainfall. Table 7.4 shows how biomes have been affected by existing land use
change.
Table 7.4. Current State of Biomes

Biome name Current Area (M % transformed by Potential Area
km2) land use change
Desert 22.7 3.5 23.5
Grassland 42.6 28.6 59.7
Tropical forest 17.5 34 26.5
Temperate forest 10.4 67 31.5
Boreal forest 13.7 25 54.8
Tundra 5.6 0.3 5.6
Wetlands 10.3 11 11.6
REFERENCES
Bakkenes, M., J.R.M. Alkemade, F. Ihle, R. Leemans, and J.B. Latour, 2002: Assessing
effects of forecasted climate change on the diversity and distribution of European higher
plants for 2050. Global Change Biology, 8(4), pp. 390-407.
Beaumont, L.J., and L. Hughes, 2002: Potential changes in the distributions of
latitudinally restricted Australian butterfly species in response to climate change.
Global Change Biology, 8(10), pp. 954-971.
Benning, T.L., D. Lapointe, C.T. Atkinson, and P.M. Vitousek, 2002: Interactions of
climate change with biological invasions and land use in the Hawaiian Islands: Modeling
the fate of endemic birds using a geographic information system.
Proceedings of the National Academy of sciences of the United States of America,
99(22), pp. 14246-14249.
Burkett, V. R., D. A. Wilcox, et al. (2005). "Nonlinear dynamics in ecosystem response
to climatic change: Case studies and policy implications." Ecological Complexity
2(4): 357-394.
Page 93
Cox, P.M., R.A. Betts, M. Collins, P.P. Harris, C. Huntingford, and C.D. Jones, 2004:
Amazonian forest dieback under climate-carbon cycle projections for the 21st century.
Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 78(1-3), pp. 137-156.
Donnelly, J.P. and Bertness, M.D.: 2001, 'Rapid shoreward encroachment of salt marsh
cordgrass in response to accelerated sea-level rise', Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the USA 98 14218-23
ECF (ed.) 2004: What is dangerous climate change? Initial results of a symposium on key
vulnerable regions climate change and article 2 of the UNFCCC. International
Symposium, Beijing, Inda;27-30 October, ECF: European Climate Forum, Buenos Aires,
Argentina, pp. 39.
Eliot, I., C.M. Finlayson, and P. Waterman, 1999: Predicted climate change, sea-level
rise and wetland management in the Australian wet-dry tropics.
Wetlands Ecology and Management, 7(1 - 2), pp. 63-81.
Erasmus, B.F.N., A.S. Van Jaarsveld, S.L. Chown, M. Kshatriya, and K.J. Wessels, 2002:
Vulnerability of South African animal taxa to climate change. Global Change Biology,
8(7), pp. 679-693.
Forcada, J., P.N. Trathan, K. Reid, E.J. Murphy, and J.P. Croxall, 2006: Contrasting
population changes in sympatric penguin species in association with climate warming.
Global Change Biology, 12, pp. 411-423.
Galbraith, H., R. Jones, R. Park, J. Clough, S. Herrod-Julius, B. Harrington, and G. Page,
2002: Global climate change and sea level rise: Potential losses of intertidal habitat for
shorebirds. Waterbirds, 25(2), pp. 173-183.
Gitay, H., S. Brown, W. Easterling, and B. Jallow, 2001: Ecosystems and their goods and
services. In: Climate Change 2001 - Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) [McCarthy, J.J., O.F. Canziani, N.A.
Leary, D.J. Dokken, and K.S. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
a.o., pp. 237-342.
Halloy, S.R.P., and A.F. Mark, 2003: Climate-change effects on alpine plant biodiversity:
A New Zealand perspective on quantifying the threat.
Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 35(2), pp. 248-254.
Hannah, L., G.F. Midgley, T. Lovejoy, W.J. Bond, M. Bush, J.C. Lovett, D. Scott, and
F.I. Woodward, 2002: Conservation of biodiversity in a changing climate.
Conservation Biology, 16(1), pp. 264-268.
Hilbert, D.W., M. Bradford, T. Parker, and D.A. Westcott, 2004: Golden bowerbird
(Prionodura newtonia) habitat in past, present and future climates: predicted extinction of
a vertebrate in tropical highlands due to global warming. Biological Conservation,
116(3), pp. 367.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., 1999: Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world's
coral reefs. Marine and Freshwater Research, 50(8), pp. 839-866.
Page 94
Hughes, L., E.M. Cawsey, and M. Westoby, 1996: Climatic range sizes of Eucalyptus
species in relation to future climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters,
5(1), pp. 23-29.
Johnson, W.C., B.V. Millett, T. Gilmanov, R.A. Voldseth, G.R. Guntenspergen, and D.E.
Naugle, 2005: Vulnerability of northern prairie wetlands to climate change. Bioscience,
55(10), pp. 863-872.
Kerr, J., and L. Packer, 1998: The impact of climate change on mammal diversity in
Canada. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 49(2-3), pp. 263-270.
Kleypas, J.A., Buddermeier, R.W., and Gattuso, J.P. 2001. The future of coral reefs in an
age of global change Int. J. Earth Sciences 90, 426-427.
Leemans, R and Eickhout, B.: 2003, ‘Analysing ecosystems for different levels of climate
change’, Report to OECD Working Party on Global and Structural Policies
ENV/EPOC/GSP 5/FINAL. OECD.
Leemans, R., and B. Eickhout, 2004: Another reason for concern: regional and global
impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change.
Global Environmental Change, 14(3), pp. 219-228.
Malcolm, J.R., Markham, A., Neilson, R.P. & Garaci, M., 2002. Estimated migrationrates
under scenarios of global climate change. J.ÊBiogeogr., 29(7): 835-849
Malcolm, J. R., C. R. Liu, et al. (2006). Global warming and extinctions of endemic
species from biodiversity hotspots. Conservation Biology 20(2): 538-548.
McDonald, K.A., and J.H. Brown, 1992: Using montane mammals to model extinctions
due to global change. Conservation Biology, 6, pp. 409-415.
Midgley, G.F., L. Hannah, D. Millar, M.C. Rutherford, and L.W. Powrie, 2002:
Assessing the vulnerability of species richness to anthropogenic climate change in a
biodiversity hotspot. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 11(6), pp. 445-451.
Midgley, G.F., L. Hannah, D. Millar, W. Thuiller, and A. Booth, 2003: Developing
regional and species-level assessments of climate change impacts on biodiversity in the
Cape Floristic Region. Biological Conservation, 112(1-2), pp. 87-97.
Mouillot, F., S. Rambal, and R. Joffre, 2002: Simulating climate change impacts on fire
frequency and vegetation dynamics in a Mediterranean-type ecosystem.
Global Change Biology, 8(5), pp. 423-437.
Najjar, R.G., 2000: The potential impacts of climate change on the mid-Atlantic coastal
region (vol 14, pg 219, 2000). Climate Research, 15(2), pp. 160-160.
Neilson, R.P.: 1993, ‘Vegetation redistribution: a possible biosphere source of CO2

during climatic change’, Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 70, 659-673
Neilson, R.P., I.C. Prentice, B. Smith, T. Kittel, and D. Viner, 1998: Simulated changes
in vegetation distribution under global warming. In: Regional impacts of climatic
change: An assessment of vulnerability. A special report of the Intergovernmental Panel
Page 95
on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group II [Watson, R.T., M.C. Zinyowera, R.H.
Moss, and D.J. Dokken (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 439-
456.
Ni, J., 2001: Carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems of China: Estimates at different
spatial resolutions and their responses to climate change. Climatic Change, 49(3), pp.
339-358.
Nicholls, R.J., F.M.J. Hoozemans, and M. Marchand, 1999: Increasing flood risk and
wetland losses due to global sea-level rise: regional and global analyses.
Global Environmental Change, 9, pp. S69-S87.
Peterson, A.T., M.A. Ortega-Huerta, J. Bartley, V. Sanchez-Cordero, J. Soberon, R.H.
Buddemeier, and D.R.B. Stockwell, 2002: Future projections for Mexican faunas under
global climate change scenarios. Nature (London), 416(6881), pp. 626-629.
Preston, B.L., 2007: Risk-based reanalysis of the effects of climate change on U.S. cold-
water habitat. Climatic Change, pp. 29 (submitted).
Price, J.T., and T.L. Root, 2005: Potential Impacts of climate change on Neotropical
migrants: management implications. In: Bird Conservation Implementation and
Integration in the Americas [Ralph, C.J., and T.D. Rich (eds.)]. U.S. Forest Service,
Arcata, CA, pp. 1123-1128.
Root, T.L., Price, J.T., Schneider, S.H., Rosenzweig, C., and Pounds, J.A. (2003)
Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421, no 6918, 57-60.
Rutherford, M.C., G.F. Midgley, W.J. Bond, L.W. Powrie, R. Roberts, and J. Allsopp
(eds.), 2000: Plant biodiversity: Vulnerability and adaptation assessment. Department of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria, South Africa, 59pp.
Sala, O. E., I. F. S. Chapin, et al. (2000). "Global biodiversity scenarios for the year
2100." Science 287(5459): 1770-1774.
Scholze, M., W. Knorr, et al. (2007). "A climate change risk analysis for world
ecosystems."Proceedings of the National Academy of sciences of the United State
s of America: 19(submitted).
Sheppard, C.R.C., 2003: Predicted recurrences of mass coral mortality in the Indian
Ocean. Nature (London), 425(6955), pp. 294-297.
Sorenson, L.G., R. Goldberg, T.L. Root, and M.G. Anderson, 1998: Potential effects of
global warming on waterfowl populations breeding in the Northern Great Plains.
Climatic Change, 40(2), pp. 343-369.
Still, C.J., P.N. Foster, and S.H. Schneider, 1999: Simulating the effects of climate
change on tropical montane cloud forests. Nature (London), 398(6728), pp. 608-610.
Symon, C., L. Arris, and B. Heal (eds.), 2005: Arctic climate impact assessment (ACIA) -
Scientific report. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1042pp.
Theurillat, J.P., and A. Guisan, 2001: Potential impact of climate change on vegetation in
the European Alps: a review. Climatic Change, 50, pp. 77-109.
Theurillat, J.P., F. Felber, P. Geissler, J.M. Gobat, M. Fierz, A. Fischlin, P. Küpfer, A.
Schlüssel, C. Velluti, G.F. Zhao, and J. Williams, 1998: Sensitivity of plant and soil
ecosystems of the Alps to climate change. In: Views from the Alps: regional
Page 96
perspectives on climate change [Cebon, P., U. Dahinden, H.C. Davies, D.M. Imboden,
and C.C. Jager (eds.)]. MIT Press, Boston, Massachusetts a.o., pp. 225-308.
Thomas, C.D., A. Cameron, R.E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L.J. Beaumont, Y.C. Collingham,
B.F.N. Erasmus, M.F. de Siqueira, A. Grainger, L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. Huntley, A.S.
van Jaarsveld, G.F. Midgley, L. Miles, M.A. Ortega-Huerta, A.T. Peterson, O.L. Phillips,
and S.E. Williams, 2004: Extinction risk from climate change. Nature (London),
427(6970), pp. 145-148.
Thuiller, W., G.F. Midgley, G.O. Hughes, B. Bomhard, G. Drew, M.C. Rutherford, and
F.I. Woodward, 2007: Endemic species and ecosystem sensitivity to climate change in
Namibia. Global Change Biology, 12, pp. 18(in press).
Thuiller, W., O. Broenniman, G. Hughes, J.R.M. Alkemades, G.F. Midgley, and F. Corsi,
2006: Vulnerability of African mammals to anthropogenic climate change under
conservative land transformation assumptions. Global Change Biology, 12, pp. 1-17.
Thuiller, W., S. Lavorel, M.B. Araujo, M.T. Sykes, and I.C. Prentice, 2005: Climate
change threats to plant diversity in Europe.
Proceedings of the National Academy of sciences of the United States of America,
102(23), pp. 8245-8250.
Turley,C., Blackford, J.C., Widdicombe, S., Lowe, D., Nightingale, P.D., and Rees, A.P.,
2006. Reviewing the impact of increased atmospheric CO2 on oceanic pH and the marine
ecosystem. In: Avoiding dangerous climate change [Schellnhuber, H.J.p.C.W., N.
Nakicenovic, T. Wigley, and G. Yohe (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK, pp. 93-131.
vanVliet, A., and Leemans, R., 2006. Rapid species’ responses to changes in climate
require stringent climate projection targets. In: Avoiding dangerous climate change
[Schellnhuber, H.J.p.C.W., N. Nakicenovic, T. Wigley, and G. Yohe (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 93-131.
Vellinga, P. and Swart, R.J.: 1991, ‘The greenhouse marathon: A proposal for a global
strategy’, Climatic Change, 18, 7-12
Villers-Ruiz, L., and I. Trejo-Vazquez, 1998: Impact of climatic change in forests and
natural protected areas of Mexico. Interciencia, 23(1), pp. 10-13.
Warren, R., 2006: Impacts of global climate change at different annual mean global
temperature increases. In: Avoiding dangerous climate change [Schellnhuber,
H.J.p.C.W., N. Nakicenovic, T. Wigley, and G. Yohe (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 93-131.
Williams, S.E., E.E. Bolitho, and S. Fox, 2003: Climate change in Australian tropical
rainforests: an impending environmental catastrophe.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London - Series B Biological Sciences, 270(1527),
pp. 1887-1892.
Xenopoulos, M.A., D.M. Lodge, J. Alcamo, M. Marker, K. Schulze, and D.P. Van
Vuuren, 2005: Scenarios of freshwater fish extinctions from climate change and water
withdrawal. Global Change Biology, 11(10), pp. 1557-1564.
Page 97
Zockler, C., and I. Lysenko, 2000: Waterbirds on the edge. WCMC Biodiversity Series
No. 11, UNEP/WCMC, 27pp.
Page 98
8. REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON GLOBAL VEGETATION
Contribution by Peter Levy

CEH Edinburgh
Friedlingstein et al. (2006) present a review of 11 models which simulate the interactions
between climate and natural vegetation, focusing on the uncertainties surrounding the
climate-carbon cycle feedback. The models were forced by historical and SRES A2
emissions of CO2 for the 1850-2100 time period. All models show that future climate
change will reduce the efficiency of the Earth system to sequester carbon. A larger
fraction of carbon will remain airborne by 2100 than in the absence of the feedback
process. The models variously estimate 20-200 ppm additional CO2 concentration, with
most estimating between 50-100 ppm.
The following tables and graphs summarise the Fast-Track modelling results of Levy et
al. (2004), which are based on a further (12th) global vegetation model, 'HyLand', which
was used to simulate the effects of changes in climate, CO2 concentration and land use on
natural ecosystems. This model simulates 76 ppm of additional CO2 to remain in the
atmosphere by 2100, in the centre of the range provided bby Friedlingstein. In the
Hyland outputs summarised here the changes were prescribed by all four SRES
scenarios: A1f, A2, B1 and B2. Under all SRES scenarios simulated, the terrestrial
biosphere was predicted to be a net sink for carbon over most of the 21st century. This
sink peaks in around 2050 and then diminishes rapidly towards the end of the century as a
result of climate change, in line with the other 11 models referred to above. The value of
0.66 PgC/yr carbon sink in 1990 lies in the mean for the range of 11 models reviewed by
Friedlingstein.
Here, these results are summarised with respect to the increase in global temperature
relative to 1990.
Summary matrix
The summary table shows minima and maxima for model output variables, classified by
the increase in global temperature relative to 1990. The following variables are shown:
Carbon sequestration (Pg C y-1); Change in forest percent cover since 1990; Change in
grassland percent cover since 1990; and Change in desert percent cover since 1990.
Tables are given for the entire globe and for the regions defined earlier. As CO2 is the
dominating influence on the vegetation, columns are shown for default sensitivity to
elevated CO2 and no sensitivity to CO2 (labelled 'CO2' and 'NoCO2' respectively).
Without the effects of elevated CO2, the effects of climate change are much more severe.
This is of concern, as the long-term and large-scale effects of elevated CO2 are still open
to question.
Page 99
Bar Graphs
The figure shows the influence of the three main input factors on the predicted net carbon
sequestration of the terrestrial biosphere over the periods 2090-2100 and 1990-2100 in
four SRES scenarios (A1F, A2C, B1 & B2B). Grey bars show the predicted value when
all factors are included in the simulation; other bars show the contribution from climate
change, elevated CO2 and land use change to this value. Note that there are interaction
effects. Averaged over the period 1990 to 2100, the net sink varies between scenarios,
from ~2 to 6 Pg C y-1. Differences are largely the result of differences in CO2
concentrations. A CO2 fertilisation effect on natural ecosystems is considered less
important than for crops, since over the annual seasonal cycle effects cancel, unlike the
situation for crops which are harvested each year.
Effects of climate change are opposite to that of elevated CO2 and slowly convert the
terrestrial biosphere from a sink for CO2 to a source. Land use change also results in a
loss of carbon to the atmosphere in the B2B scenario, in which the increase in cropland
area continues. In the other scenarios, there is a decrease in croplands and grassland,
with a corresponding increase in natural vegetation, resulting in a net sink to the
biosphere. The credibility of these results depends on the accuracy of the predictions of
land use change in the SRES scenarios, and these are highly uncertain.
15
2090 to 2100 elevated CO2
climate change
land use change
10 All factors
Carbon flux (Pg C y-1)
sink
0
source
-5
-10
A1f A2 B1 B2
SRES scenario
kk
Page 100
10
1990 to 2100 elevated CO2
climate change
8 land use change
All factors
6
Carbon flux (Pg C y-1)
sink
0
source
-2
-4
A1f A2 B1 B2
SRES scenario
Contour plot
The figure shows the response of global carbon sequestration (Pg C y-1, averaged over
2090 to 2099) to the increase in global temperature relative to 1990 (dT) and CO2
concentration (ppm). Points show the combination of dT and CO2 that occur in the
available simulations and a response surface has been fitted to these. Positive values
(green) indicate a terrestrial sink for CO2, negative values (red) indicate a source to the
atmosphere. The extreme values are unlikely to occur because the driving variables (CO2
and dT) are so closely linked. More simulations would be required to define this
response surface in more detail.
Page 101
Unpacking matrix
This table gives the change in four model output variables with independent changes in
three input factors:
CCh = climate change
CO2 = change in CO2
LUC = land use change.
The effect of these factors is quantified in two ways. The first gives variability deriving
from uncertainty in model sensitivity, the second gives variability deriving from
uncertainty in the input factors, assuming the model is correct. More precise definitions
are given below, but this is probably best explained by an example: In the top left section
of the matrix (Global, Carbon sequestration), "Model sensitivity" to Climate Change is -
4.71, meaning that the mean effect of including climate change in simulations reduces
Carbon sequestration by an average of 4.71 Pg C y-1. "Input variability" is 5.304,
meaning that the range of climate change within the four SRES scenarios produces a
range of 5.304 Pg C y-1 around the mean Carbon sequestration. For Model sensitivity,
the factors tend to counter-balance each other, so the overall mean effect (0.958, "All") is
smaller than for individual factors. However, the range of variation from individual
factors accumulates in the overall Input variability (10.34), though not in a simple
additive way because of interaction effects.
Detailed definition:
We have simulations for each of the four SRES scenarios (default runs); plus for each
SRES scenario, we have three further simulations where there is no change from 1990 in
one input factor, either climate, CO2 or land use (noCC, noCO2 & noLUC) ie. 12
simulations in all.
Page 102
1. "Model sensitivity" is given by the mean difference in output X between default and
noCC runs. [and analagously for other factors]
2. "Input variability" is given by the range* in differences between default and noCC
runs. [and analagously for other factors]
* actually 2 x the standard deviation is used, as this is less sensitive to extreme values.
10
Carbon sequestration
5
PgC/yr
-5 With CO2 low
-10 With CO2 high

1990 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-
Without CO2 low
5
Tem perature Change C Without CO2 high
Summary Table. Net Equilibrium Biome Changes and Carbon Sequestration for
different global mean temperature rises.
Global
C sequestration Change in grassland Change in desert
dT °C (Pg C y-1) Change in forest % % %
CO2 NoCO2 CO2 NoCO2 CO2 NoCO2 CO2 NoCO2
Baseline
(1990) 0.66 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 103
0-1 3.09 0.19 0.70 0.57 0.00 -0.44 -1.14 -0.38
4.35 1.19 0.89 0.76 0.32 -0.25 -0.70 -0.19
1-2 2.60 -1.60 1.84 0.89 -0.89 -1.21 -1.97 -0.57
6.56 0.00 2.41 1.27 -0.19 -0.38 -0.95 0.32
2-3 0.89 -3.28 3.11 1.21 -1.78 -1.46 -3.87 -0.83
7.80 -0.38 4.64 1.97 -0.76 -0.89 -1.97 -0.13
3-4 -0.61 -4.44 3.43 0.89 -1.27 -1.02 -3.87 -0.38
6.83 -1.51 4.95 1.33 -1.08 -0.95 -2.16 0.13
4-5 3.06 -5.85 5.84 1.14 -0.70 -1.65 -5.14 0.51
3.06 -5.85 5.84 1.14 -0.70 -1.65 -5.14 0.51
Arctic
Change in grassland Change in desert
dT °C C sequestration Change in forest % % %
Baseline
(1990) -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
-0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-2 -0.01 -0.02 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.57 0.00
-0.01 -0.01 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.57 0.00
2-3 0.00 -0.01 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.00 -0.57 -0.57
0.00 -0.01 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.00 -0.57 -0.57
3-4 0.01 -0.01 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.00 -0.57 -0.57
0.01 -0.01 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.00 -0.57 -0.57
4-5 0.04 0.00 0.57 0.57 3.41 0.00 -3.98 -0.57
0.04 0.00 0.57 0.57 3.41 0.00 -3.98 -0.57
Australasia
Baseline
(1990) 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.59 0.07 3.85 3.85 -5.13 -5.13 0.00 0.00
0.90 0.38 5.13 5.13 -3.85 -3.85 0.00 0.00
1-2 -0.09 -0.70 5.13 3.85 -8.97 -5.13 0.00 0.00
0.88 0.07 8.97 5.13 -5.13 -3.85 0.00 0.00
2-3 -0.52 -1.24 6.41 0.00 -10.26 -5.13 0.00 0.00
0.50 -0.33 10.26 5.13 -6.41 0.00 0.00 0.00
3-4 -0.40 -0.88 10.26 0.00 -10.26 -2.56 0.00 0.00
0.47 -0.47 10.26 2.56 -10.26 -1.28 0.00 1.28
4-5 -0.80 -1.67 14.10 2.56 -14.10 -8.97 0.00 6.41
-0.80 -1.67 14.10 2.56 -14.10 -8.97 0.00 6.41
Central_America
Baseline
(1990) 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 -0.05 -0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 104
0.22 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-2 0.05 -0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.57 0.00
0.24 -0.01 0.00 0.00 3.57 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-3 -0.14 -0.26 0.00 0.00 3.57 0.00 -3.57 0.00
0.26 -0.03 0.00 0.00 3.57 0.00 -3.57 0.00
3-4 -0.11 -0.20 0.00 -7.14 3.57 7.14 -3.57 0.00
0.15 -0.19 0.00 -7.14 3.57 7.14 -3.57 0.00
4-5 -0.05 -0.38 0.00 -10.71 7.14 3.57 -7.14 7.14
-0.05 -0.38 0.00 -10.71 7.14 3.57 -7.14 7.14
Central_Asia_&EE
Baseline
(1990) 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.03 -0.05 -0.35 -0.35 0.35 0.00 -0.70 -0.35
0.15 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 -0.35 0.00
1-2 0.22 0.05 -0.70 -1.06 0.70 -0.70 -1.41 -1.06
0.37 0.12 0.70 0.35 0.70 0.70 0.00 1.76
2-3 0.35 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.35 -3.87 -2.82
0.83 0.31 1.76 1.76 2.11 1.06 -1.06 -0.70
3-4 0.40 0.16 -0.70 -0.70 2.11 1.06 -4.23 -2.82
1.03 0.49 1.76 1.76 2.47 1.06 -1.41 -0.35
4-5 1.22 0.58 1.76 1.76 5.63 1.06 -7.39 -2.82
1.22 0.58 1.76 1.76 5.63 1.06 -7.39 -2.82
East_Asia
Baseline
(1990) -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.12 -0.05 0.00 0.00 0.69 -0.69 -1.39 0.00
0.19 0.03 0.69 0.69 1.39 -0.69 -0.69 0.69
1-2 0.21 -0.04 2.08 0.69 -0.69 -1.39 -2.78 -1.39
0.52 0.15 2.08 2.08 0.69 0.69 -1.39 -0.69
2-3 0.26 -0.02 4.86 3.47 -2.08 -2.78 -7.64 -2.78
1.11 0.47 6.94 4.86 0.69 -0.69 -3.47 -1.39
3-4 0.23 -0.04 6.25 3.47 0.69 -2.08 -9.03 -2.78
1.21 0.55 8.33 4.86 0.69 -1.39 -6.94 -2.08
4-5 1.40 0.50 9.72 5.56 2.08 -2.08 -11.81 -3.47
1.40 0.50 9.72 5.56 2.08 -2.08 -11.81 -3.47
Europe
Baseline
(1990) 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.02 -0.02 1.35 0.00 -1.35 -1.35 -1.35 0.00
0.08 0.04 1.35 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 105
1-2 0.02 -0.03 0.00 0.00 -1.35 -1.35 -2.70 -1.35
0.14 0.06 1.35 1.35 1.35 0.00 1.35 1.35
2-3 0.04 -0.02 1.35 0.00 -2.70 -1.35 -2.70 -1.35
0.37 0.17 5.41 1.35 0.00 0.00 -1.35 1.35
3-4 0.06 0.00 2.70 -1.35 -5.41 0.00 -2.70 -1.35
0.43 0.21 8.11 1.35 -2.70 0.00 0.00 1.35
4-5 0.48 0.19 10.81 1.35 -8.11 -1.35 -2.70 0.00
0.48 0.19 10.81 1.35 -8.11 -1.35 -2.70 0.00
North_Africa
Baseline
(1990) 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.08 0.04 2.94 2.94 -1.47 -2.94 -1.47 -1.47
0.09 0.05 2.94 2.94 -1.47 -1.47 -1.47 0.00
1-2 0.06 0.00 5.88 2.94 -4.41 -4.41 -2.94 0.00
0.11 0.01 7.35 4.41 -2.94 -2.94 -1.47 0.00
2-3 -0.01 -0.05 7.35 4.41 -7.35 -8.82 -2.94 0.00
0.09 -0.02 8.82 5.88 -5.88 -4.41 0.00 4.41
3-4 -0.04 -0.08 7.35 4.41 -7.35 -11.77 -1.47 5.88
0.00 -0.08 8.82 5.88 -7.35 -10.29 0.00 5.88
4-5 -0.07 -0.09 7.35 5.88 -8.82 -11.77 1.47 5.88
-0.07 -0.09 7.35 5.88 -8.82 -11.77 1.47 5.88
North_America
Baseline
(1990) 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.26 0.09 -0.43 -0.43 0.85 0.43 -2.13 -1.28
0.43 0.25 0.43 0.43 1.70 0.85 -0.85 -0.43
1-2 0.26 -0.01 0.43 0.00 1.70 0.43 -2.98 -2.98
0.63 0.22 1.28 0.85 1.70 2.13 -2.13 -0.85
2-3 0.32 0.03 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.68 -3.40
0.84 0.33 2.98 0.85 2.13 2.55 -2.98 -0.85
3-4 0.29 -0.04 1.28 -0.43 0.85 0.85 -4.26 -1.70
0.92 0.23 3.40 0.85 1.70 1.70 -2.98 -1.28
4-5 0.97 0.22 3.83 0.85 2.13 2.13 -5.96 -2.98
0.97 0.22 3.83 0.85 2.13 2.13 -5.96 -2.98
South_America
Baseline
(1990) 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.64 -0.12 1.22 1.22 -1.22 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61
1.17 0.34 1.83 1.22 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61
1-2 0.68 -0.42 3.66 1.22 -4.27 -1.22 -0.61 -0.61
Page 106
1.48 -0.27 4.88 1.83 -3.05 -1.22 -0.61 0.00
2-3 -0.48 -1.56 5.49 0.61 -6.71 -2.44 -0.61 0.61
0.81 -0.50 6.71 1.22 -4.88 -1.22 1.22 1.83
3-4 -1.29 -2.10 6.10 0.00 -6.71 -3.66 0.00 1.83
0.04 -1.60 6.10 1.83 -6.10 -1.83 0.61 1.83
4-5 -2.48 -3.53 5.49 -4.27 -6.71 -3.05 1.22 7.32
-2.48 -3.53 5.49 -4.27 -6.71 -3.05 1.22 7.32
South_Asia
Baseline
(1990) -0.23 -0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.01 -0.14 2.33 2.33 -1.16 -1.16 -4.65 -1.16
0.08 -0.08 3.49 2.33 2.33 -1.16 -2.33 -1.16
1-2 0.14 -0.08 6.98 2.33 -6.98 -5.81 -5.81 -1.16
0.38 0.01 8.14 3.49 -1.16 -2.33 -1.16 2.33
2-3 -0.04 -0.22 8.14 4.65 -3.49 -5.81 -18.61 -3.49
0.93 0.20 13.95 5.81 4.65 -2.33 -4.65 1.16
3-4 0.15 -0.08 11.63 4.65 0.00 -3.49 -22.09 -4.65
1.02 0.22 15.12 5.81 6.98 -1.16 -11.63 -1.16
4-5 0.99 0.07 17.44 5.81 4.65 1.16 -22.09 -6.98
0.99 0.07 17.44 5.81 4.65 1.16 -22.09 -6.98
Southern_Africa
Baseline
(1990) 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.30 -0.15 0.00 0.00 1.75 0.00 -1.75 0.00
0.78 0.26 0.00 0.00 1.75 0.00 -1.75 0.00
1-2 0.53 -0.18 1.75 0.00 0.00 -1.75 -2.63 0.88
1.01 -0.07 1.75 0.88 0.88 -0.88 -1.75 1.75
2-3 0.20 -0.37 2.63 0.00 -3.51 -3.51 -2.63 0.00
1.34 -0.14 5.26 0.88 -1.75 0.00 -0.88 3.51
3-4 0.09 -0.69 3.51 0.00 -3.51 -1.75 -2.63 0.88
1.30 -0.31 6.14 0.00 -2.63 -0.88 -0.88 1.75
4-5 1.24 -0.79 8.77 0.88 -7.90 -3.51 -0.88 2.63
1.24 -0.79 8.77 0.88 -7.90 -3.51 -0.88 2.63
West_Africa
Baseline
(1990) 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.40 -0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.10 0.00
0.53 0.06 0.00 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-2 0.50 -0.10 1.10 0.00 0.00 -1.10 -2.20 0.00
0.95 -0.01 1.10 1.10 1.10 -1.10 -1.10 1.10
Page 107
2-3 0.08 -0.31 2.20 0.00 -3.30 -6.59 -3.30 0.00
0.78 -0.16 4.40 1.10 0.00 -1.10 1.10 6.59
3-4 0.00 -0.56 2.20 -1.10 -4.40 -5.50 1.10 2.20
0.21 -0.49 2.20 1.10 -3.30 -3.30 2.20 6.59
4-5 0.07 -0.93 4.40 -1.10 -5.50 -8.79 1.10 9.89
0.07 -0.93 4.40 -1.10 -5.50 -8.79 1.10 9.89
West_Asia
Baseline
(1990) 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-2 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6.06 0.00
0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.06 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-3 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6.06 0.00
0.04 0.00 3.03 0.00 6.06 0.00 0.00 0.00
3-4 0.01 0.00 3.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6.06 0.00
0.05 0.00 3.03 0.00 3.03 0.00 -3.03 0.00
4-5 0.04 0.00 3.03 0.00 3.03 0.00 -6.06 0.00
0.04 0.00 3.03 0.00 3.03 0.00 -6.06 0.00
References
Levy, P.E., Cannell, M.G.R. and Friend, A.D. (2004) Modelling the impact of future
changes in climate, CO2 concentration and land use on natural ecosystems and the
terrestrial carbon sink. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions,
14, 21-30.
Friedlingstein, P, Cox, P., Betts, R., Bopp, L., von Bloh, W., Brovkin, V., Cadule, P.,
Doney, S., Eby, M., Fung, I., Bala, G., John, J., Jones, C., Joos, F., Kato, T., Kawamiya,
M., Knorr, W., Lindsay, K., Matthews, H.D., Raddatz, T., Rayner, P., Reick, C.,
Roeckner, E., Schnitzler, K.-G., Schnur, R., Strassman, K., Weaver, A.J., Yoshikawa, C.,
and Zeng, N. 2006. Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis, results from the C4MIP
model intercomparison.
Page 108
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is very grateful to Matthew Livermore and Ana Iglesias
for providing the raw Fast Track agriculture data for analysis, and also for very helpful
discussions regarding agricultural impacts; to Jason Lowe and Nicola Patmore for providing the
relationships between temperature and sea level rise; and to Sarah Winne and Rita Yu for
assistance with tabulation. The project was funded by a grant from the UK Treasury.
Page 109
APPENDIX
Table A1. Regions used in the project and their component countries
Stern region Countries
North Africa (NAF) Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco,

Tunisia
West Africa (WAF) Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Gambia,
Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali,
Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo
Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African
Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Rwanda, Sao
Tomé and Principe
Southern Africa (SAF) Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya,
Madagascar, Mauritius, Reunion, Seychelles,
Somalia, Sudan, Uganda
Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi,
Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland,
Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe
South Asia (SAS) Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran,
Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka
Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines,
Singapore
East Asia (EAS) Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam
China, North Korea, South Korea, Japan,
Mongolia
Australasia (AUS) Australia, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Nauru,
New Zealand, Papau New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga,
plus Melanesia and Micronesia
Europe (EUR) Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel,
Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United
Kingdom
Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Macedonia,
Turkey, Yugoslavia
Central Asia (Russia and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Russia, Georgia,
Former Soviet Union) (CAS) Moldova, Ukraine
Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbeckistan
North America (NAM) Canada
United States
Central America (CAM) Caribbean islands, including Bahamas, Cuba,
Domenica, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica,
Trinidad and Tobago
Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama
South America (SAM) Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia,
Ecuador, French Guyana, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru,
Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela
West Asia (WAS) Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza
Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Page 110
Table A2. SRES-Specific Regional Population Totals in used Fast Track Analyses,
and matching detail of populations exposed to water stress
Total population Population < 1000m3/capita/year

A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2
1995 133 1995 124.9
2025 223 251.3 213.6 2025 212 239.8 203.6
2055 279.3 414.4 274.3 2055 269.7 403.8 262.5
2085 312.1 609.5 321.8 2085 303.1 603.1 311.6
1995 276.6 1995 13.5
2025 594.7 621 598.5 2025 61.4 64 61.5
2055 788.9 919.3 915 2055 137.3 259.9 241.2
2085 782.1 1012.3 1106.6 2085 135.4 289.8 431.8
South and East Africa South and East Africa
1995 284.5 1995 15.4
2025 539.4 571.4 591.9 2025 71.6 75.9 110.6
2055 699.3 850.3 890 2055 191.4 336.8 380.4
2085 691.4 966.5 1074.2 2085 151.2 389.4 501.6
1995 1635.6 1995 428.1
2025 2458.8 2660.5 2485 2025 1439.6 1551.8 1429.6
2055 2755.7 3576.9 3028.7 2055 1664.3 2483.1 1982.4
2085 2404 4057.7 3214.8 2085 1432.5 2849.7 2276
East Asia East Asia
1995 1566.6 1995 664.5
2025 1795.3 2100.3 1900.5 2025 749.5 893.7 794.8
2055 1628.7 2659.9 1953.5 2055 665.4 1833 805.7
2085 1263.5 3310.2 1940.4 2085 428.9 2461.2 806.4
1995 26.9 1995 0
2025 38.1 41 38.2 2025 0 0 0
2055 44.1 54.1 41 2055 0 0 0
2085 38.6 59.9 31.6 2085 0 0 0
Europe Europe
1995 579.2 1995 221
2025 629.1 647.3 604.7 2025 162.4 183.9 131.4
2055 624.6 681 578.4 2055 176 216.1 136.4
2085 588.6 743 574.6 2085 148.4 303.5 138.3
Former Soviet Former Soviet Union
Union
1995 284.3 1995 15.4
2025 302.7 327.1 290.1 2025 8.4 10.2 7.9
2055 296.2 400.8 281.9 2055 10.6 137.6 11.5
2085 264.6 509.1 268.7 2085 9.2 193.5 10.4
North America North America
1995 295.3 1995 46.7
2025 374.9 388.1 367.5 2025 73.6 76.2 72.1
2055 432.9 477.2 384.7 2055 85.1 98.7 75.5
2085 486.4 607.6 394.7 2085 95.6 151.5 77.6
Caribbean Caribbean
1995 30.1 1995 0
2025 38 43.7 41.3 2025 0 0 0
2055 39.3 58.4 49.7 2055 0 36.4 27.6
2085 38.5 77.5 52.8 2085 0 48 33.9
1995 123.3 1995 22.7
2025 184.6 212.5 187.9 2025 29.6 60.9 29.8
Page 111
2055 207.2 310.7 232.6 2055 58 129.7 64.5
2085 187.8 411.5 247 2085 32.5 178 68.4
1995 324.2 1995 2.9
2025 460 527.3 461.1 2025 5.6 6.4 5.7
2055 509.2 766.9 543.6 2055 6.4 28.7 7.4
2085 463.3 1016.2 577.6 2085 5.8 88.2 7.9
West Asia West Asia
1995 85.4 1995 67.9
2025 211.9 240 185.8 2025 188.6 234.9 164.7
2055 322.2 500.7 272.9 2055 322.2 500.7 273
2085 319.5 709.3 319.9 2085 319 709.3 319.9
Global Global
1995 5644.9 1995 1623.1
2025 7850.5 8631.5 7966.3 2025 3002.4 3398 3011.6
2055 8627.6 11670.5 9446.1 2055 3586.4 6464.6 4268.1
2085 7840.3 14090.2 10124.8 2085 3061.3 8265 4983.8
Table A3. (taken from Preston, 2005)
Page 112
Table A4. Impact of Global Annual Mean Temperature Increase (as modelled by 5 GCMs) for water stress amongst populations of the world regions: detail of
transition between stress classes
Increase in Decrease Move into Move out

All stress + in stress + stressed of stressed Increase in
GCMs 2085 move in move out class class stress
North
Africa A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2
0-1 0 - 169 0 - 330 3 - 184 0 - 144 0 - 290 0 - 142 0- 1 0- 1 3- 4 0- 20 0- 5 0- 20 0- 167 0- 329 0
1-2 88 - 301 169 - 594 101 - 312 0 - 147 0 - 299 0 - 148 0- 3 0- 1 3- 6 0- 76 0- 41 0- 75 87- 298 169- 593 97
2-3 155 - 304 296 - 599 163 - 315 0 - 149 0 - 303 0 - 150 0- 5 0- 3 3- 7 0- 78 0- 153 0- 78 154- 299 296- 596 15
3-4 154 - 305 293 - 599 162 - 315 0 - 148 0 - 300 0 - 149 0- 6 0- 4 3- 7 0- 80 0- 157 0- 80 153- 299 293- 596 15
4-5 154 - 306 293 - 603 162 - 318 0 - 148 0 - 300 0 - 149 0- 6 0- 6 3- 10 0- 81 0- 157 0- 81 153- 300 293- 597 15
2
West Africa A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2
0-1 17 - 258 19 - 357 23 - 407 0 - 129 0 - 271 0 - 288 0- 79 0- 22 0- 37 0- 69 0- 3 0- 113 15- 179 19- 334 23
1-2 22 - 277 34 - 376 32 - 472 0 - 136 0 - 276 0 - 292 0- 81 0- 38 0- 75 0- 82 0- 107 0- 113 22- 198 26- 354 32
2-3 27 - 294 50 - 403 59 - 517 0 - 136 1 - 279 0 - 309 0- 104 0- 39 0- 98 0- 82 0- 110 0- 120 27- 214 33- 372 40
3-4 40 - 301 50 - 413 59 - 517 0 - 136 1 - 279 0 - 351 0- 112 0- 65 0- 98 0- 97 0- 110 0- 157 27- 214 33- 372 40
4-5 40 - 322 50 - 461 59 - 564 0 - 185 1 - 343 2 - 375 0- 133 0- 88 0- 178 0- 119 0- 154 1- 311 27- 214 33- 372 40
3
South and
East Africa A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2
0-1 4 - 191 5 - 324 8 - 444 0 - 229 1 - 416 0 - 472 0- 25 0- 12 0- 5 0- 151 0- 194 0- 200 4- 166 4- 312 8
1-2 21 - 231 12 - 403 44 - 496 23 - 260 29 - 455 38 - 521 0- 60 3- 44 0- 29 0- 155 1- 250 0- 279 7- 197 9- 358 41
2-3 33 - 307 15 - 432 51 - 529 33 - 260 43 - 455 50 - 521 0- 91 5- 46 2- 46 0- 155 1- 250 0- 279 7- 215 9- 385 45
3-4 35 - 319 20 - 429 57 - 574 42 - 260 62 - 455 59 - 535 0- 103 11- 47 4- 56 1- 174 1- 250 0- 283 7- 215 9- 381 45
4-5 36 - 320 21 - 526 57 - 569 51 - 260 75 - 455 72 - 535 0- 109 11- 151 4- 56 1- 174 1- 315 0- 287 7- 211 9- 376 45
4
South Asia A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2
0-1 26 - 123 60 - 376 34 - 175 0 - 1593 39 - 2756 0 - 2284 0- 23 0- 314 0- 31 0- 710 0- 164 0- 884 26- 114 60- 273 34
1579 - 1361 -
1-2 35 - 156 275 - 387 47 - 221 961 - 1597 2780 2300 0- 55 0- 314 5- 33 25- 947 39- 1102 0- 1106 35- 137 73- 352 42
1044 - 1723 - 1473 -
2-3 39 - 264 169 - 812 47 - 356 1602 2789 2299 4- 59 0- 345 5- 33 563- 1345 39- 1278 99- 1321 35- 204 73- 466 42
1051 - 1735 - 1481 -
3-4 39 - 281 288 - 879 47 - 409 1602 2789 2306 4- 59 0- 407 5- 33 576- 1454 39- 1968 358- 1844 35- 222 73- 534 42
1170 - 1917 - 1633 -
4-5 37 - 327 237 - 1010 48 - 425 1602 2789 2306 4- 80 0- 438 5- 33 642- 1454 270- 2091 807- 1977 33- 246 69- 572 40
5
East Asia A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2
0-1 0 - 17 0 - 1147 0 - 154 0 - 307 1 - 1859 0 - 546 0- 0 0- 39 0- 23 0- 27 0- 97 0- 28 0- 17 0- 1112 0
1-2 2 - 136 10 - 1571 4 - 250 15 - 371 197 - 2311 113 - 771 0- 40 0- 272 0- 67 0- 28 0- 111 0- 56 2- 133 10- 1299 4
2-3 Page 113 2 - 140 41 - 1577 4 - 300 47 - 375 627 - 2323 182 - 778 0- 40 0- 272 0- 109 0- 30 5- 173 0- 58 2- 137 41- 1305 4
3-4 2 - 140 41 - 1584 4 - 727 47 - 375 748 - 2323 182 - 778 0- 61 0- 272 0- 595 0- 30 7- 201 0- 109 2- 137 41- 1311 4
4-5 2 - 160 12 - 1584 4 - 781 80 - 376 748 - 2326 238 - 756 0- 76 0- 272 0- 649 0- 295 7- 270 0- 131 2- 156 12- 1311 4
6
Australasia A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2
0-1 0- 2 0- 3 0- 2 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 2 0- 3 0- 2 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0
1-2 0- 2 0- 3 0- 2 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 2 0- 3 0- 2 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0
2-3 0- 2 0- 3 0- 2 0- 1 0- 2 0- 1 0- 2 0- 3 0- 2 0- 1 0- 2 0- 1 0- 0 0- 0 0
3-4 0- 4 0- 6 0- 3 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 4 0- 6 0- 3 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0
4-5 0- 4 0- 6 0- 3 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 4 0- 6 0- 3 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0
7
Europe A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2
0-1 34 - 233 58 - 433 31 - 238 0- 0 0- 0 0 - 15 5- 38 0- 101 0- 34 0- 0 0- 0 0- 15 29- 194 58- 332 29
1-2 99 - 315 197 - 489 89 - 328 0 - 41 0 - 47 0 - 53 19- 91 28- 122 7- 97 0- 0 0- 0 0- 15 69- 223 151- 366 66
2-3 119 - 364 237 - 550 102 - 341 0 - 58 0 - 67 0 - 69 23- 140 59- 184 32- 111 0- 0 0- 0 0- 15 70- 223 177- 366 67
3-4 179 - 441 287 - 567 193 - 429 0 - 58 0 - 68 0 - 69 38- 217 83- 200 37- 198 0- 0 0- 0 0- 15 87- 223 204- 366 10
4-5 205 - 450 297 - 590 213 - 440 0 - 58 0 - 68 0 - 69 61- 237 88- 276 62- 269 0- 0 0- 0 0- 15 91- 223 208- 366 10
8
Former
Soviet
Union A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2
0-1 0 - 10 7 - 94 0 - 23 0 - 34 0 - 101 0 - 35 0- 8 0- 7 0- 14 0- 33 0- 32 0- 32 0- 9 7- 89 0
1-2 5 - 47 47 - 190 10 - 52 0 - 37 0 - 112 0 - 37 0- 10 2- 13 4- 19 0- 36 0- 36 0- 32 3- 38 40- 183 4
2-3 14 - 52 98 - 228 16 - 59 0- 6 0 - 112 0- 6 0- 20 4- 58 7- 22 0- 4 0- 36 0- 2 3- 38 40- 220 4
3-4 14 - 59 98 - 248 24 - 65 0- 6 0 - 112 0- 6 3- 21 7- 64 15- 25 0- 4 0- 36 0- 2 3- 39 40- 223 4
4-5 24 - 75 96 - 316 33 - 83 0- 6 0 - 112 0- 7 6- 66 7- 122 18- 73 0- 4 0- 36 0- 2 2- 40 38- 226 3
9
North
America A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2
0-1 0 - 92 0 - 130 0 - 57 0 - 26 0 - 33 0 - 19 0- 21 0- 14 0- 9 0- 2 0- 2 0- 0 0- 71 0- 116 0
1-2 24 - 106 32 - 172 16 - 84 0 - 26 2 - 33 0 - 20 0- 23 2- 43 0- 27 0- 2 0- 26 0- 0 24- 91 29- 129 16
2-3 46 - 136 92 - 173 26 - 86 0 - 26 8 - 33 0 - 20 0- 53 29- 43 0- 29 0- 2 0- 26 0- 2 31- 91 63- 129 26
3-4 67 - 138 109 - 206 48 - 110 0 - 26 11 - 33 0 - 21 0- 53 31- 92 1- 51 0- 2 0- 26 0- 5 62- 91 77- 133 47
4-5 85 - 183 109 - 247 48 - 112 0 - 26 17 - 59 0 - 21 22- 92 31- 114 1- 53 0- 2 0- 26 0- 5 62- 91 77- 140 47
10
Caribbean A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2
0-1 0 - 19 0 - 51 0 - 33 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 17 0- 4 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 1 0- 48 0
1-2 0 - 19 0 - 55 0 - 35 0- 1 0- 3 0- 1 0- 19 0- 7 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 1 0- 51 0
2-3 0 - 24 0 - 73 0 - 38 0- 1 0- 3 0- 1 0- 24 0- 25 0- 4 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 1 0- 51 0
3-4 0 - 24 0 - 75 0 - 49 0- 1 0 - 48 0 - 33 0- 24 0- 27 0- 15 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 1 0- 51 0
4-5 0 - 21 0 - 75 0 - 47 0- 1 0 - 48 0 - 33 0- 21 0- 27 0- 13 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 1 0- 51 0
11
Central A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2
Page 114
America
0-1 0 - 65 0 - 173 0 - 83 0 - 28 0 - 66 0 - 39 0- 2 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 62 0- 173 0

1-2 4 - 65 9 - 173 5 - 104 0 - 30 0 - 105 0 - 42 0- 22 0- 24 0- 22 0- 1 0- 0 0- 0 4- 62 8- 173 4
2-3 5 - 65 11 - 246 5 - 104 0 - 51 0 - 151 0 - 70 0- 23 0- 95 0- 22 0- 1 0- 0 0- 3 5- 62 9- 173 5
3-4 4 - 81 10 - 257 5 - 142 0 - 51 0 - 151 0 - 70 0- 23 2- 109 0- 76 0- 1 0- 1 0- 3 2- 62 8- 175 5
4-5 4 - 86 10 - 266 6 - 139 0 - 51 0 - 151 0 - 70 0- 59 2- 122 0- 76 0- 1 0- 4 0- 4 2- 62 8- 175 5
12
South
America A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2
0-1 0- 1 1 - 146 0 - 35 0- 1 0 - 106 0- 2 0- 0 0- 62 0- 34 0- 0 0- 106 0- 0 0- 0 1- 132 0
1-2 0 - 47 39 - 170 0 - 52 0- 1 0 - 107 0- 2 0- 47 11- 106 0- 51 0- 1 0- 106 0- 0 0- 0 5- 132 0
2-3 1 - 47 72 - 272 16 - 70 0- 1 0 - 108 0- 2 0- 47 11- 179 14- 65 0- 1 0- 108 0- 0 0- 4 4- 140 0
3-4 15 - 47 124 - 226 19 - 106 0- 1 0 - 135 0- 2 11- 47 39- 158 14- 106 0- 1 0- 131 0- 2 0- 4 30- 163 0
4-5 15 - 58 180 - 299 20 - 106 0- 3 0 - 143 0- 4 11- 58 39- 215 17- 106 0- 1 0- 135 0- 2 0- 4 30- 141 0
13
West Asia A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2
0-1 39 - 158 78 - 355 39 - 165 0 - 123 0 - 286 0 - 113 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 26 0- 6 0- 27 39- 158 78- 355 39
1-2 117 - 216 240 - 488 120 - 205 0 - 168 0 - 388 0 - 169 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 35 0- 54 0- 36 117- 216 240- 488 12
2-3 95 - 218 191 - 492 98 - 207 0 - 191 0 - 446 0 - 188 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 38 0- 74 0- 40 95- 218 191- 492 98
3-4 95 - 226 191 - 510 98 - 216 0 - 201 0 - 467 0 - 198 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 50 0- 75 0- 37 95- 226 191- 510 98
4-5 95 - 217 191 - 490 98 - 205 0 - 202 0 - 468 0 - 199 0- 0 0- 0 0- 0 0- 50 0- 75 0- 52 95- 217 191- 490 98
Globe A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2

0-1 304 - 946 769 - 3047 392 - 1409 197 - 2491 949 - 5082 460 - 3866 8- 181 23- 476 7- 110 2- 944 1- 513 0- 1174 277- 801 694- 2868 375
2074 - 1002 - 1079 - 1841 - 1534 - 1909-
1-2 731 - 1459 4439 2178 2709 5579 4114 64- 242 117- 707 53- 314 66- 1273 48- 1722 38- 1566 665- 1255 3909 824
2311 - 1167 - 1341 - 2537 - 1976 - 2074-
2-3 814 - 1827 5182 2614 2795 5882 4216 71- 415 194- 887 141- 423 566- 1667 55- 2032 203- 1882 718- 1412 4294 84
2646 - 1264 - 1384 - 2649 - 2018 - 2232-
3-4 964 - 2028 5391 3293 2802 5927 4268 135- 546 368- 1191 131- 1007 580- 1843 240- 2762 578- 2442 693- 1481 4464 816
2978 - 1210 - 1592 - 3040 - 2253 - 2305-
4-5 979 - 2144 5822 3375 2807 5959 4278 183- 627 419- 1306 161- 1048 711- 1863 720- 2972 811- 2601 690- 1517 4516 812
Page 115
Table A5a % Changes in Maize yields with respect to 1990 with CO2 fertilisation
B1a2020 A2a2020 A2c2020 B2a2020 B2b2020 A2b2020 A1F2020 B1a2050 B2a2050 B2b2050 A2c2050
delT1990
HadCM3 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.61 0.61 0.63 0.70 1.15 1.26 1.36 1.55
North Africa -4.96 -5.27 -3.97 -7.24 -5.67 -4.38 -4.42 -7.62 -10.46 -8.20 -7.91
West Africa -4.50 -3.95 -2.63 -4.40 -4.71 -3.42 -3.66 -6.32 -7.58 -7.79 -5.43
Southern Africa -3.60 -3.09 -2.46 -4.75 -4.09 -3.10 -3.19 -6.55 -7.86 -7.67 -6.17
South Asia -4.90 -4.90 -5.48 -6.51 -6.16 -4.61 -5.50 -8.44 -9.48 -9.63 -9.27
East Asia -0.62 -0.48 -1.26 -1.94 -1.20 -0.13 0.56 -2.91 -3.76 -2.79 -3.75
Australasia -3.46 -2.46 -3.09 -1.59 -2.98 -1.47 -2.56 -4.56 -4.80 -4.86 -3.77
Europe -3.37 -2.74 -2.40 -4.49 -3.82 -2.09 -2.86 -4.57 -5.37 -5.36 -4.22
C Asia & E Eur -8.57 -6.16 -4.89 -8.85 -7.09 -5.89 -6.19 -8.29 -9.33 -12.48 -10.92
N America -0.87 0.76 0.08 -0.63 -0.24 0.53 0.31 -2.02 -1.91 -1.57 -0.92
C America -3.51 -0.81 -0.93 -3.15 -2.13 -2.22 -0.83 -4.48 -3.64 -3.61 -2.40
S America -3.64 -1.98 -1.50 -3.17 -3.04 -3.14 -1.59 -5.22 -4.81 -4.77 -3.81
W Asia & Mid E -5.08 -5.44 -5.36 -7.11 -6.03 -5.03 -5.54 -8.34 -10.85 -8.66 -9.02
WORLD -3.51 -2.76 -2.58 -4.24 -3.72 -2.55 -2.72 -5.29 -6.10 -5.79 -4.94
Table A5a (contd) % Changes in Maize yields with respect to 1990 with CO2 fertilisation
A2b2050 A2a2050 B1a2080 A1F2050 B2a2080 B2b2080 A2a2080 A2b2080 A2c2080 A1F2080
delT1990
HadCM3 1.59 1.62 1.76 1.96 2.05 2.10 2.91 2.98 3.02 3.67
North Africa -8.19 -9.39 -10.20 -10.85 -13.24 -18.56 -16.95 -14.51 -16.23 -21.86
West Africa -6.03 -6.59 -8.61 -8.33 -10.22 -11.35 -12.79 -12.45 -12.34 -18.57
Southern Africa -6.72 -8.16 -9.68 -9.74 -11.67 -12.42 -15.00 -14.16 -14.32 -20.84
South Asia -8.30 -9.24 -9.99 -10.14 -10.13 -12.70 -10.20 -10.45 -11.93 -12.11
East Asia -2.30 -3.30 -4.24 -2.53 -3.82 -4.06 -4.38 -3.95 -6.66 -7.47
Australasia -4.15 -2.00 -6.07 -5.29 -3.79 -4.59 -3.99 -5.21 -5.41 -7.16
Europe -4.12 -3.96 -5.60 -4.28 -4.50 -5.44 -3.61 -3.16 -3.73 -3.80
C Asia & E Eur -11.37 -10.38 -11.82 -11.56 -9.99 -11.71 -11.41 -13.70 -12.04 -15.07
N America -0.07 0.12 -3.37 -1.31 -0.03 -1.36 -1.48 -1.23 -3.57 -2.16
C America -2.74 -2.57 -5.07 -2.34 -2.47 -2.85 -1.95 -3.07 -1.98 -2.50
S America -5.04 -4.27 -7.30 -3.66 -4.93 -5.49 -5.90 -5.83 -6.08 -6.31
W Asia & Mid E -9.31 -9.84 -11.02 -12.84 -12.65 -17.79 -15.46 -14.18 -15.39 -19.81
WORLD -4.96 -5.03 -6.91 -5.85 -6.29 -7.71 -6.90 -6.61 -7.31 -8.91
Page 116
Table A5b % Changes in Maize yields with respect to 1990 without CO2 fertilisation
B1a2020 A2a2020 A2c2020 B2a2020 B2b2020 A2b2020 A1F2020 B1a2050 B2a2050 B2b2050 A2c2050
delT1990
HadCM3 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.61 0.61 0.63 0.70 1.15 1.26 1.36 1.55
North Africa -4.96 -6.27 -4.97 -7.24 -5.67 -5.38 -5.42 -8.62 -11.46 -9.20 -10.91
West Africa -4.50 -4.95 -3.63 -4.40 -4.71 -4.42 -4.66 -7.32 -8.58 -8.79 -8.43
Southern Africa -3.60 -4.09 -3.46 -4.75 -4.09 -4.10 -4.19 -7.55 -8.86 -8.67 -9.17
South Asia -4.90 -5.90 -6.48 -6.51 -6.16 -5.61 -6.50 -9.44 -10.48 -10.63 -12.27
East Asia -0.62 -1.48 -2.26 -1.94 -1.20 -1.13 -0.44 -3.91 -4.76 -3.79 -6.75
Australasia -3.46 -3.46 -4.09 -1.59 -2.98 -2.47 -3.56 -5.56 -5.80 -5.86 -6.77
Europe -3.37 -3.74 -3.40 -4.49 -3.82 -3.09 -3.86 -5.57 -6.37 -6.36 -7.22
C Asia & E Eur -8.57 -7.16 -5.89 -8.85 -7.09 -6.89 -7.19 -9.29 -10.33 -13.48 -13.92
N America -0.87 -0.24 -0.92 -0.63 -0.24 -0.47 -0.69 -3.02 -2.91 -2.57 -3.92
C America -3.51 -1.81 -1.93 -3.15 -2.13 -3.22 -1.83 -5.48 -4.64 -4.61 -5.40
S America -3.64 -2.98 -2.50 -3.17 -3.04 -4.14 -2.59 -6.22 -5.81 -5.77 -6.81
W Asia & Mid E -5.08 -6.44 -6.36 -7.11 -6.03 -6.03 -6.54 -9.34 -11.85 -9.66 -12.02
WORLD -3.51 -3.76 -3.58 -4.24 -3.72 -3.55 -3.72 -6.29 -7.10 -6.79 -7.94
Table A5b (contd) % Changes in Maize yields with respect to 1990 without CO2 fertilisation
A2b2050 A2a2050 B1a2080 A1F2050 B2a2080 B2b2080 A2a2080 A2b2080 A2c2080 A1F2080
delT1990
HadCM3 1.59 1.62 1.76 2.05 2.10 2.91 2.91 2.98 3.02 3.67
North Africa -11.19 -12.39 -12.20 -17.24 -22.56 -23.95 -14.85 -21.51 -23.23 -29.86
West Africa -9.03 -9.59 -10.61 -14.22 -15.35 -19.79 -12.33 -19.45 -19.34 -26.57
Southern Africa -9.72 -11.16 -11.68 -15.67 -16.42 -22.00 -13.74 -21.16 -21.32 -28.84
South Asia -11.30 -12.24 -11.99 -14.13 -16.70 -17.20 -14.14 -17.45 -18.93 -20.11
East Asia -5.30 -6.30 -6.24 -7.82 -8.06 -11.38 -6.53 -10.95 -13.66 -15.47
Australasia -7.15 -5.00 -8.07 -7.79 -8.59 -10.99 -9.29 -12.21 -12.41 -15.16
Europe -7.12 -6.96 -7.60 -8.50 -9.44 -10.61 -8.28 -10.16 -10.73 -11.80
C Asia & E Eur -14.37 -13.38 -13.82 -13.99 -15.71 -18.41 -15.56 -20.70 -19.04 -23.07
N America -3.07 -2.88 -5.37 -4.03 -5.36 -8.48 -5.31 -8.23 -10.57 -10.16
C America -5.74 -5.57 -7.07 -6.47 -6.85 -8.95 -6.34 -10.07 -8.98 -10.50
S America -8.04 -7.27 -9.30 -8.93 -9.49 -12.90 -7.66 -12.83 -13.08 -14.31
W Asia & Mid E -12.31 -12.84 -13.02 -16.65 -21.79 -22.46 -16.84 -21.18 -22.39 -27.81
WORLD -7.96 -8.03 -8.91 -10.29 -11.71 -13.90 -9.85 -13.61 -14.31 -16.91
Page 117
Table A6a % Changes in Rice Yields with respect to 1990 with CO2 fertilisation
B1a2020 A2a2020 A2c2020 B2a2020 B2b2020 A2b2020 AIF2020 B1a2050 B2a2050 B2b2050
delT1990
HadCM3 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.61 0.61 0.63 0.70 1.15 1.26 1.36
North Africa -2.03 -1.45 -0.65 -3.10 -2.26 -1.02 -1.26 -0.96 -3.60 -1.74
West Africa -2.36 -1.71 -1.33 -3.03 -2.79 -1.77 -1.90 -1.37 -2.52 -2.21
Southern Africa -1.91 -1.34 -0.78 -2.82 -2.44 -1.31 -1.65 -1.79 -3.37 -3.10
South Asia -2.17 -1.59 -2.20 -3.00 -2.92 -1.53 -2.40 -1.26 -1.99 -2.38
East Asia -0.35 0.33 0.32 -0.97 -1.02 0.37 -0.30 1.00 0.49 -0.44
Australasia -0.39 0.44 0.09 -0.45 -0.74 -0.03 0.26 1.80 2.01 1.83
Europe -1.65 2.27 0.49 0.73 0.00 0.53 1.09 2.88 2.64 2.67
C Asia & E Eur -7.57 -5.16 -3.89 -7.85 -6.09 -4.89 -5.19 -4.29 -5.33 -8.48
N America -0.95 2.63 1.47 -0.54 -0.14 0.25 2.08 -1.17 -0.06 -0.02
C America -8.58 -4.10 -4.54 -6.02 -5.32 -6.75 -4.86 -6.86 -5.61 -6.70
S America -6.65 -1.23 -3.09 -4.20 -3.67 -4.41 -3.53 -4.67 -2.76 -5.76
WORLD -3.44 -1.00 -1.53 -2.76 -2.55 -2.13 -1.83 -1.69 -1.82 -2.43
Table A6a (contd) % Changes in Rice Yields with respect to 1990 with CO2 fertilisation
A2c2050 A2b2050 A2a2050 B1a2080 AIF2050 B2a2080 B2b2080 A2a2080 A2b2080 A2c2080 AIF2080
delT1990
HadCM3 1.55 1.59 1.62 1.76 1.96 2.05 2.1 2.91 2.98 3.02 3.67
North Africa 0.30 -0.69 -1.78 -4.46 -8.36 -2.79 -5.64 -9.32 -6.10 -6.68 -18.27
West Africa 0.47 -0.27 -1.33 -4.52 -2.40 -1.38 -3.22 -3.84 -1.33 -1.36 -9.02
Southern Africa -0.35 -1.23 -2.75 -6.04 -6.98 -3.55 -6.04 -6.55 -5.83 -5.55 -15.74
South Asia -0.62 0.21 -0.48 -3.46 2.95 -0.23 -0.24 -1.92 2.56 1.25 -1.02
East Asia 1.26 2.21 2.32 -1.65 3.89 1.48 1.97 2.11 1.93 3.04 -1.84
Australasia 4.32 3.91 3.88 0.54 9.59 5.24 5.06 4.94 9.92 9.30 7.24
Europe 5.20 5.14 5.37 2.08 10.23 6.39 4.49 5.99 10.24 10.66 5.14
C Asia & E Eur -5.92 -6.37 -5.38 -8.82 -1.41 -5.56 -3.99 -5.71 -3.70 -2.04 -6.07
N America 1.11 0.78 2.60 -3.14 2.13 -1.37 1.68 -2.23 1.00 1.81 1.00
C America -5.48 -4.68 -4.90 -8.28 1.87 -2.69 -3.80 -5.00 1.42 1.87 0.09
S America -3.63 -0.97 -2.52 -6.20 1.12 -0.43 -2.81 -2.89 1.18 -0.51 -3.57
WORLD -0.33 0.09 -0.49 -3.90 1.60 0.04 -1.24 -1.81 1.63 1.49 -3.52
Page 118
Table A6b % Changes in Rice Yields with respect to 1990 without CO2 fertilisation
B1a2020 A2a2020 A2c2020 B2a2020 B2b2020 A2b2020 AIF2020 B1a2050 B2a2050 B2b2050
delT1990
HadCM3 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.61 0.61 0.63 0.7 1.15 1.26 1.36
North Africa -3.03 -3.45 -2.65 -4.10 -3.26 -3.02 -3.26 -5.96 -8.60 -6.74
West Africa -3.36 -3.71 -3.33 -4.03 -3.79 -3.77 -3.90 -6.37 -7.52 -7.21
Southern Africa -2.91 -3.34 -2.78 -3.82 -3.44 -3.31 -3.65 -6.79 -8.37 -8.10
South Asia -3.17 -3.59 -4.20 -4.00 -3.92 -3.53 -4.40 -6.26 -6.99 -7.38
East Asia -1.35 -1.67 -1.68 -1.97 -2.02 -1.63 -2.30 -4.00 -4.51 -5.44
Australasia -1.39 -1.56 -1.91 -1.45 -1.74 -2.03 -1.74 -3.20 -2.99 -3.17
Europe -2.65 0.27 -1.51 -0.27 -1.00 -1.47 -0.91 -2.12 -2.36 -2.33
C Asia & E Eur -8.57 -7.16 -5.89 -8.85 -7.09 -6.89 -7.19 -9.29 -10.33 -13.48
N America -1.95 0.63 -0.53 -1.54 -1.14 -1.75 0.08 -6.17 -5.06 -5.02
C America -9.58 -6.10 -6.54 -7.02 -6.32 -8.75 -6.86 -11.86 -10.61 -11.70
S America -7.65 -3.23 -5.09 -5.20 -4.67 -6.41 -5.53 -9.67 -7.76 -10.76
WORLD -4.44 -3.00 -3.53 -3.76 -3.55 -4.13 -3.83 -6.69 -6.82 -7.43
Table A6b (contd) % Changes in Rice Yields with respect to 1990 without CO2 fertilisation
A2c2050 A2b2050 A2a2050 B1a2080 AIF2050 B2a2080 B2b2080 A2a2080 A2b2080 A2c2080 AIF2080
delT1990
HadCM3 1.55 1.59 1.62 1.76 1.96 2.05 2.1 2.91 2.98 3.02 3.67
North Africa -7.70 -8.69 -9.78 -9.46 -12.79 -15.64 -19.32 -25.36 -23.10 -23.68 -35.27
West Africa -7.53 -8.27 -9.33 -9.52 -11.38 -13.22 -13.84 -19.40 -18.33 -18.36 -26.02
Southern Africa -8.35 -9.23 -10.75 -11.04 -13.55 -16.04 -16.55 -23.98 -22.83 -22.55 -32.74
South Asia -8.62 -7.79 -8.48 -8.46 -10.23 -10.24 -11.92 -14.05 -14.44 -15.75 -18.02
East Asia -6.74 -5.79 -5.68 -6.65 -8.52 -8.03 -7.89 -13.11 -15.07 -13.96 -18.84
Australasia -3.68 -4.09 -4.12 -4.46 -4.76 -4.94 -5.06 -7.41 -7.08 -7.70 -9.76
Europe -2.80 -2.86 -2.63 -2.92 -3.61 -5.51 -4.01 -6.77 -6.76 -6.34 -11.86
C Asia & E Eur -13.92 -14.37 -13.38 -13.82 -15.56 -13.99 -15.71 -18.41 -20.70 -19.04 -23.07
N America -6.89 -7.22 -5.40 -8.14 -11.37 -8.32 -12.23 -14.87 -16.00 -15.19 -16.00
C America -13.48 -12.68 -12.90 -13.28 -12.69 -13.80 -15.00 -15.13 -15.58 -15.13 -16.91
S America -11.63 -8.97 -10.52 -11.20 -10.43 -12.81 -12.89 -15.88 -15.82 -17.51 -20.57
WORLD -8.33 -7.91 -8.49 -8.90 -9.96 -11.24 -11.81 -15.40 -15.37 -15.51 -20.52
Page 119
Table A7a % Changes in Wheat yields with respect to 1990, with CO2 fertilisation
B1a2020 A2a2020 A2c2020 B2a2020 B2b2020 A2b2020 A1F2020 B1a2050 B2a2050 B2b2050
delT1990
HadCM3 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.61 0.61 0.63 0.7 1.15 1.26 1.36
North Africa -0.07 0.45 1.15 -1.20 -0.33 0.89 0.60 -0.06 -2.80 -0.75
West Africa -0.92 -0.14 0.87 -0.74 -1.05 0.21 -0.11 -0.64 -2.05 -2.03
Southern Africa 0.32 0.86 1.41 -0.62 -0.25 0.88 0.51 -0.76 -2.35 -2.14
South Asia -3.51 0.38 -2.92 -0.29 -0.90 -1.25 -4.64 -1.34 -0.36 -0.34
East Asia 1.50 1.05 -0.08 0.91 0.78 2.32 0.44 2.49 2.07 2.11
Australasia 2.22 3.00 3.11 3.77 3.42 5.13 3.48 4.77 4.41 4.54
Europe -1.45 1.85 1.24 -0.47 0.13 0.90 1.17 1.46 0.89 0.38
C Asia & E Eur -5.57 -3.16 -1.89 -5.85 -4.09 -2.89 -3.19 -3.29 -4.33 -7.48
N America 1.86 3.65 2.39 1.53 2.38 3.89 5.21 1.96 2.59 1.25
C America -5.43 -1.31 -1.84 -4.15 -3.62 -3.74 -1.54 -5.57 -4.01 -4.31
S America -3.44 2.62 -0.11 -0.89 -0.69 -1.05 -0.61 -1.99 0.68 -3.62
W Asia & Mid E -0.87 -0.74 -0.99 -2.24 -1.54 -0.56 -1.22 -1.68 -4.26 -2.03
WORLD -1.13 1.23 0.71 -0.63 -0.21 0.61 0.46 0.28 -0.33 -0.62
Table A7a (contd). % Changes in Wheat yields with respect to 1990, with CO2 fertilisation
A2c2050 A2b2050 A2a2050 B1a2080 A1F2050 B2a2080 B2b2080 A2a2080 A2b2080 A2c2080 A1F2080
delT1990
HadCM3 1.55 1.59 1.62 1.76 1.96 2.05 2.1 2.91 2.98 3.02 3.67
North Africa 2.08 1.10 0.12 -1.55 -2.12 -4.68 -8.77 -7.41 -5.16 -5.83 -17.28
West Africa 2.27 1.42 0.77 -1.98 -1.18 -3.27 -4.28 -3.29 -2.70 -2.37 -11.59
Southern Africa 1.61 0.72 -0.86 -3.19 -2.78 -5.27 -5.66 -6.36 -5.25 -4.91 -15.32
South Asia -0.06 2.89 0.35 0.88 0.86 0.88 -0.42 3.26 4.16 -0.46 -0.68
East Asia 3.51 5.05 4.24 2.28 3.21 3.22 3.24 4.34 3.14 2.04 -3.95
Australasia 8.37 8.02 9.49 5.49 8.00 8.49 7.89 13.49 12.31 12.78 10.56
Europe 3.77 3.65 3.93 1.70 3.57 2.55 2.88 7.42 7.21 7.28 2.70
C Asia & E Eur -3.92 -4.37 -3.38 -5.82 -4.56 -2.99 -4.71 -0.41 -2.70 -1.04 -5.07
N America 4.98 4.08 6.38 1.55 1.27 3.88 0.44 5.20 0.77 6.35 1.74
C America -3.39 -3.31 -1.33 -5.65 -3.70 -2.75 -5.51 0.05 -2.83 -3.65 -6.54
S America -0.08 3.89 1.91 -1.01 3.47 0.68 1.15 4.96 4.76 1.31 -0.20
W Asia & Mid E -0.15 -0.87 -1.24 -3.28 -4.76 -4.74 -9.47 -5.64 -4.34 -5.01 -13.58
WORLD 2.45 2.56 2.25 -0.09 1.20 0.11 -0.58 2.65 2.64 2.32 -3.48
Page 120
Table A7b % Changes in Wheat yields with respect to 1990 without CO2 fertilisation
B1a2020 A2a2020 A2c2020 B2a2020 B2b2020 A2b2020 A1F2020 B1a2050 B2a2050 B2b2050
delT1990
HadCM3 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.61 0.61 0.63 0.7 1.15 1.26 1.36
North Africa -3.07 -3.55 -2.85 -4.20 -3.33 -3.11 -3.40 -6.06 -8.80 -6.75
West Africa -3.92 -4.14 -3.13 -3.74 -4.05 -3.79 -4.11 -6.64 -8.05 -8.03
Southern Africa -2.68 -3.14 -2.59 -3.62 -3.25 -3.12 -3.49 -6.76 -8.35 -8.14
South Asia -6.51 -3.62 -6.92 -3.29 -3.90 -5.25 -8.64 -7.34 -6.36 -6.34
East Asia -1.50 -2.95 -4.08 -2.09 -2.22 -1.68 -3.56 -3.51 -3.93 -3.89
Australasia -0.78 -1.00 -0.89 0.77 0.42 1.13 -0.52 -1.23 -1.59 -1.46
Europe -4.45 -2.15 -2.76 -3.47 -2.87 -3.10 -2.83 -4.54 -5.11 -5.62
C Asia & E Eur -8.57 -7.16 -5.89 -8.85 -7.09 -6.89 -7.19 -9.29 -10.33 -13.48
N America -1.14 -0.35 -1.61 -1.47 -0.62 -0.11 1.21 -4.04 -3.41 -4.75
C America -8.43 -5.31 -5.84 -7.15 -6.62 -7.74 -5.54 -11.57 -10.01 -10.31
S America -6.44 -1.38 -4.11 -3.89 -3.69 -5.05 -4.61 -7.99 -5.32 -9.62
W Asia & Mid E -3.87 -4.74 -4.99 -5.24 -4.54 -4.56 -5.22 -7.68 -10.26 -8.03
WORLD -4.13 -2.77 -3.29 -3.63 -3.21 -3.39 -3.54 -5.72 -6.33 -6.62
Table A7b (contd) % Changes in Wheat yields with respect to 1990 without CO2 fertilisation
A2c2050 A2b2050 A2a2050 B1a2080 A1F2050 B2a2080 B2b2080 A2a2080 A2b2080 A2c2080 A1F2080
delT1990
HadCM3 1.55 1.59 1.62 1.76 1.96 2.05 2.1 2.91 2.98 3.02 3.67
North Africa -7.92 -8.90 -9.88 -9.55 -13.12 -15.68 -19.77 -25.41 -23.16 -23.83 -35.28
West Africa -7.73 -8.58 -9.23 -9.98 -12.18 -14.27 -15.28 -21.29 -20.70 -20.37 -29.59
Southern Africa -8.39 -9.28 -10.86 -11.19 -13.78 -16.27 -16.66 -24.36 -23.25 -22.91 -33.32
South Asia -10.06 -7.11 -9.65 -7.12 -10.14 -10.12 -11.42 -14.74 -13.84 -18.46 -18.68
East Asia -6.49 -4.95 -5.76 -5.72 -7.79 -7.78 -7.76 -13.66 -14.86 -15.96 -21.95
Australasia -1.63 -1.98 -0.51 -2.51 -3.00 -2.51 -3.11 -4.51 -5.69 -5.22 -7.44
Europe -6.23 -6.35 -6.07 -6.30 -7.43 -8.45 -8.12 -10.58 -10.79 -10.72 -15.30
C Asia & E Eur -13.92 -14.37 -13.38 -13.82 -15.56 -13.99 -15.71 -18.41 -20.70 -19.04 -23.07
N America -5.02 -5.92 -3.62 -6.45 -9.73 -7.12 -10.56 -12.80 -17.23 -11.65 -16.26
C America -13.39 -13.31 -11.33 -13.65 -14.70 -13.75 -16.51 -17.95 -20.83 -21.65 -24.54
S America -10.08 -6.11 -8.09 -9.01 -7.53 -10.32 -9.85 -13.04 -13.24 -16.69 -18.20
W Asia & Mid E -10.15 -10.87 -11.24 -11.28 -15.76 -15.74 -20.47 -23.64 -22.34 -23.01 -31.58
WORLD -7.55 -7.44 -7.75 -8.09 -9.80 -10.89 -11.58 -15.35 -15.36 -15.68 -21.48
Footnote: yield changes were aggregated to the Stern regions using the weighted sums of the country yield reductions produced by Fast Track. FAO1990
actual yields from each country were used for the scaling. It was considered invalid to use the areas under production for scaling as these might change.
Page 121
Table A8a Country classifications in this project and in the BLS, showing the most important
cereal crops grown in each region
Stern region Most important Equivalen Countries (Stern) Countries (BLS) “Exception”
crop(s) t BLS countries
region
North Africa Wheat forms 90- AFRICA Algeria, Egypt, Algeria BLS classes
100% cereal crop in Libya, Mauritania, Angola Libya in W
all countries except Morocco, Tunisia Benin Asia
Mauritania where Botswana
rice is key and in Burkina Faso
Egypt where wheat, Burundi
rice and maize are all Cameroon
important Central African
West Africa Maize forms 70-90% AFRICA Benin, Burkina Faso, Republic
of the cereal crop in Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Chad
all countries except in Gambia, Ghana, Congo
French Guiana where Guinea, Guinea Egypt
100% rice Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Equatorial
Niger, Nigeria, Guinea
Senegal, Sierra Eritrea
Leone, Togo Ethiopia
Burundi, Cameroon, French Guiana
Cape Verde, Central Gabon
African Republic, Gambia, The
Congo, Democratic Ghana
Republic of the Guinea
Congo, Equatorial Guinea-Bissau
Guinea, Gabon, Israel
Rwanda, Sao Tomé Ivory Coast
and Principe Kenya
Southern Maize forms 75- AFR Comoros, Djibouti, Liberia
Africa 100% of cereal crop Eritrea, Ethiopia, Madagascar
in most countries Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi
except in Sudan (90% Mauritius, Reunion, Mali
wheat), Madagascar Seychelles, Somalia, Mauritania
(93% rice), Ethiopia Sudan, Uganda Morocco
(61% maize and 38% Angola, Botswana, Mozambique
wheat), Eritrea (66% Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia
wheat and 33% Mozambique, Niger
maize) Namibia, South Nigeria
Africa, Swaziland, Rwanda
Tanzania, Zambia, Senegal
Zimbabwe Sierra Leone
Page 122
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania, United
Republic of
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Western Sahara
Zaire
Zambia
Zimbabwe
South Asia Rice forms 75-100% South-east Afghanistan, Bangladesh Afghanistan
cereal crop in most Asia Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma is classed in
countries except in (SEA) Brunei, India W Asia in
Afghanistan (79% Indonesia, Indonesia BLS
wheat), Bhutan (53% Malaysia, Malaysia
rice, 42% maize), Philippines, Nepal Brunei, and
India (63% rice, 32% Singapore Pakistan Bhutan are
wheat), Iran (73% India, Papua New classed in E
wheat), Nepal (61% Iran, Guinea Asia in BLS
rice, 22% maize, 17% Maldives, Philippines
wheat), Pakistan Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka Iran is
(69% wheat, 26% Sri Lanka Thailand classed in W
rice) Asia in BLS
Papua New
Guinea is
classed in
Australasia
in Stern
Bhutan is
classed in E
Asia in
Stern
Thailand is
classed in
East Asia in
Stern
Page 123
East Asia Rice forms 80-100% Centrally Cambodia, Laos, Bhutan Both Koreas
cereal crop except in Planned Myanmar, Thailand, Brunei and Japan
Mongolia (100% Asia Vietnam Cambodia are in PAO
wheat), China (45% (CPA) China, North Korea, China in BLS but
rice, 25% wheat and South Korea, Japan, Laos in East Asia
29% maize) Mongolia Mongolia in Stern
Taiwan
Vietnam Stern classes
Bhutan in S
Asia
BLS has
Thailand in
S Asia
Australasia Wheat is the key crop Pacific Australia, Fiji, Both Koreas
in the region (but also Australia French Polynesia, Australia and Japan
maize in New Oceania Guam, Nauru, New Japan are in PAO
Zealand) (PAO) Zealand, Papua New Korea, in BLS but
Guinea, Samoa, Democratic in East Asia
Tonga, plus People's in Stern
Melanesia and Republic of
Micronesia Korea, Republic BLS
of includes
New Zealand Papua New
Guinea in S
Asia
Europe Wheat is the Europe Andorra, Austria, Albania Some
dominant cereal crop (EUR) Belgium, Denmark, Austria Eastern
in Europe with maize Finland, France, Belgium European
being more important Germany, Greece, Denmark countries
only in southern Iceland, Ireland, France and Russia
countries such as Israel, Italy, Germany are included
Georgia, Greece, Luxembourg, Malta, Greece in Europe in
Bosnia-Herzegovina Netherlands, Norway, Ireland Stern and in
Croatia, Romania, Portugal, Spain, Italy Central Asia
Italy, Austria, Spain Sweden, Switzerland, Luxembourg & FSU in
and Portugal. Only United Kingdom Macedonia BLS.
Romania grows rice Albania, Bosnia, Netherlands
to a significant extent Bulgaria, Croatia, Portugal
(12% cereal crop). Cyprus, Czech Spain
(UK data is 100% Republic, Estonia, Switzerland
wheat!) Hungary, Latvia, United Kingdom
Lithuania, Poland, Bosnia and
Romania, Slovakia, Herzegovina
Slovenia, Macedonia, Bulgaria
Page 124
Turkey, Yugoslavia, Byelarus
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Croatia
Belarus, Russia, Czech Republic
Georgia, Moldova, Estonia
Ukraine Finland
Georgia
Hungary
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Central Asia Wheat forms 78-96% Former Kazakhstan, Lithuania
(Russia and of the cereal crop Soviet Kyrgystan, Moldova
Former Soviet Union and Tajikistan, Montenegro
Union) Eastern Turkmenistan, Norway
Europe Uzbeckistan Poland
(FSU+EE Romania
U) Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Sweden
Ukraine
North Canada & Alaska: North Canada Canada

America 80% wheat America United States United States
USA: 77% maize (NAM)
Central Rice and maize are Latin Caribbean islands, Argentina
America key crops in different America including Bahamas, Belize
countries in this (LAM) Cuba, Domenica, Bolivia
region. Wheat has a Dominican Republic, Brazil
small importance Haiti, Jamaica, Chile
(15% cereal crop) in Trinidad and Tobago Colombia
Mexico Belize, Costa Rica, El Costa Rica
Salvador, Guatemala, Cuba
Honduras, Mexico, Djibouti
Nicaragua, Panama Dominican
South Rice forms 50-99% Latin Argentina, Bolivia, Republic
America of the cereal crop in America Brazil, Chile, Ecuador
Colombia, Ecuador, (LAM) Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador
Guyana, Peru, French Guyana, Guatemala
Suriname and Guyana, Paraguay, Guyana
Uruguay, whilst Peru, Suriname, Haiti
wheat is important in Uruguay, Venezuela Honduras
Argentina and Chile Jamaica
(50-60% of cereal Mexico
crop) and maize is Nicaragua
Page 125
important in Bolivia, Panama
Brazil and Venezuela Paraguay
(50-70% cereals). Peru
Most countries grow Puerto Rico
at least 2 of these 3 Suriname
cereals in significant Trinidad
amounts. Uruguay
Venezuela
West Asia Wheat forms 75- West Asia Iraq, Jordan, Libya is in
100% cereal crop (WAS) Lebanon, Syria, Gaza Afghanistan N Africa in
except in Kuwait, Bahrain, Kuwait, Armenia Stern
UAE and Qatar Oman, Qatar, Saudi Azerbaijan Iran and
where maize is the Arabia, United Arab Cyprus Afghanistan
key crop Emirates, Yemen Iran are in S Asia
Iraq in Stern
Jordan Kyrgyzstan,
Kuwait Tajikistan,
Kyrgyzstan Turkmenista
Lebanon n
Libya are in C
Oman Asia in
Qatar Stern
Saudi Arabia Armenia,
Syria Azerbaijan,
Tajikistan Cyprus and
Turkey Turkey are
Turkmenistan in Europe in
United Arab Stern
Emirates Syria is in
Uzbekistan W Asia in
Yemen Stern
Table A8b. FAO relative weights for cereals

FAO
Cultivar
Weights
Stern Region (1961-90)
COUNTRY WH%GR RI%GR MZ%GR
Australia AUS 94.88855279 3.865797753 1.245649457
Page 126
New Zealand AUS 56.91391001 0 43.08608999
Papua New Guinea AUS 0 26.53061224 73.46938776
Belize CAM 0 24.32432432 75.67567568
Costa Rica CAM 0 88.16234445 11.83765555
El Salvador CAM 0 8.068796548 91.93120345
Guatemala CAM 2.006022301 1.808553157 96.18542454
Mexico CAM 15.48520853 1.808095616 82.70669585
Nicaragua CAM 0 44.51627427 55.48372573
Panama CAM 0 68.36978279 31.63021721
Puerto Rico CAM 0 98.42519685 1.57480315
Cuba CAR 0 81.83760684 18.16239316
Dominican Republic CAR 0 91.71185667 8.288143329
Haiti CAR 0 31.96433811 68.03566189
Jamaica CAR 0 0.737644455 99.26235554
Trinidad CAR 0 65.60973932 34.39026068
Kazakhstan CAS 95.6605539 2.818708831 1.52073727
Kyrgyzstan CAS 83.34197787 0.907676349 15.75034578
Tajikistan CAS 89.31506849 6.575342466 4.109589041
Turkmenistan CAS 78.18181818 10.90909091 10.90909091
Uzbekistan CAS 78.36166924 13.91035549 7.72797527
Armenia CAS 96.94171956 0 3.058280439
Azerbaijan CAS 97.05608099 1.07899294 1.864926069
Belarus CAS 99.23954373 0 0.760456274
Georgia CAS 31.18466899 0 68.81533101
Moldova CAS 43.06505726 0 56.93494274
Russia CAS 95.94102308 1.069025304 2.989951613
Ukraine CAS 87.59156417 0.530504493 11.87793133
Cambodia EAS 0 98.13118874 1.868811261
China EAS 25.38844697 45.25139383 29.36015921
Japan EAS 3.565688545 96.43244695 0.00186451
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of EAS 2.288329519 52.63157895 45.08009153
Korea, Republic of EAS 0.151613322 98.84668108 1.001705598
Laos EAS 0 94.76432946 5.235670541
Mongolia EAS 100 0 0
Taiwan EAS 1 1 1
Thailand EAS 0.002674268 82.92491107 17.07241466
Vietnam EAS 0 94.49870048 5.50129952
Albania EUR 55.8302431 0.082406263 44.08735064
Austria EUR 41.66728565 0 58.33271435
Belgium EUR 89.90773866 0 10.09226134
Bosnia and Herzegovina EUR 21.96156395 0 78.03843605
Page 127
Bulgaria EUR 61.90641248 0.346620451 37.74696707
Croatia EUR 28.21865762 0 71.78134238
Cyprus EUR 1 1 1
Czech Republic EUR 95.67020296 0 4.32979704
Denmark EUR 100 0 0
Estonia EUR 100 0 0
Finland EUR 100 0 0
France EUR 71.05410357 0.227498681 28.71839775
Germany EUR 86.6231331 0 13.3768669
Greece EUR 45.72621711 5.259629408 49.01415348
Hungary EUR 39.47102766 0.070664244 60.4583081
Ireland EUR 100 0 0
Israel EUR 98.66666667 0 1.333333333
Italy EUR 42.12950717 7.511031432 50.3594614
Latvia EUR 100 0 0
Lithuania EUR 100 0 0
Luxembourg EUR 1 1 1
Macedonia EUR 62.05166844 5.132281716 32.81604984
Montenegro EUR 1 1 1
Netherlands EUR 93.56979574 0 6.430204262
Norway EUR 100 0 0
Poland EUR 96.07840919 0 3.921590814
Portugal EUR 28.34398839 12.02175265 59.63425896
Romania EUR 24.6094087 0.180823871 75.20976743
Slovakia EUR 69.55069309 0 30.44930691
Slovenia EUR 31.59483404 0 68.40516596
Spain EUR 58.05783763 7.164299897 34.77786247
Sweden EUR 100 0 0
Switzerland EUR 77.02258028 0 22.97741972
Turkey EUR 89.03582592 1.346477519 9.617696562
United Kingdom EUR 100 0 0
Algeria NAF 99.93479754 0.050258833 0.014943626
Egypt NAF 36.30876952 30.99113179 32.70009869
Lebanon NAF 91.46341463 0 8.536585366
Libya NAF 99.68551593 0 0.314484068
Mauritania NAF 0.509937405 81.11319336 18.37686924
Morocco NAF 95.35076013 0.860056993 3.789182881
Tunisia NAF 100 0 0
Alaska NAM 79.80398458 0 20.19601542
Canada NAM 79.80398458 0 20.19601542
United States NAM 20.32238985 2.539318426 77.13829172
Page 128
Angola SAF 1.167793198 5.838965989 92.99324081
Botswana SAF 3.765690377 0 96.23430962
Djibouti SAF 0 0 100
Eritrea SAF 66.66666667 0 33.33333333
Ethiopia SAF 38.85601578 0 61.14398422
Kenya SAF 13.61867704 2.33463035 84.04669261
Lesotho SAF 13.57204431 0 86.42795569
Madagascar SAF 0.149031297 93.14456036 6.706408346
Malawi SAF 0.123902473 3.887219313 95.98887821
Mozambique SAF 0.183823529 12.77573529 87.04044118
Namibia SAF 18.38565022 0 81.61434978
Somalia SAF 0.689655172 1.379310345 97.93103448
South Africa SAF 21.05094229 0.023286518 78.9257712
Sudan SAF 90.39451115 0.343053173 9.262435678
Swaziland SAF 0.198019802 0.330033003 99.47194719
Tanzania, United Republic of SAF 2.413238336 21.08136061 76.50540106
Uganda SAF 1.058823529 9.647058824 89.29411765
Zaire SAF 1 1 1
Zambia SAF 4.046450555 0.896693443 95.056856
Zimbabwe SAF 9.690593203 0.013843705 90.29556309
Argentina SAM 58.21314103 3.547494172 38.2393648
Bolivia SAM 9.40614734 32.53125802 58.06259464
Brazil SAM 7.377814048 21.93906202 70.68312394
Chile SAM 53.0593432 6.661408934 40.27924787
Colombia SAM 2.461921929 61.2779832 36.26009487
Ecuador SAM 1.456528175 67.00346242 31.5400094
Guyana SAM 0 99.41520468 0.584795322
Paraguay SAM 42.2493656 6.899637397 50.850997
Peru SAM 6.833028657 55.66843458 37.49853677
Suriname SAM 0 99.85566318 0.144336822
Uruguay SAM 36.61548085 56.45494458 6.929574572
Venezuela SAM 0.030323981 42.99973646 56.96993956
Afghanistan SAS 78.86904762 10.41666667 10.71428571
Bangladesh SAS 4.63235564 95.35859368 0.009050675
Bhutan SAS 5.319148936 53.19148936 41.4893617
Brunei SAS 0 100 0
India SAS 32.30632713 62.84411243 4.849560444
Indonesia SAS 0 84.59263543 15.40736457
Iran SAS 73.6413164 19.74101076 6.617672848
Malaysia SAS 0 97.80273438 2.197265625
Nepal SAS 16.76875399 61.42870387 21.80254214
Page 129
Pakistan SAS 68.6622807 26.22319688 5.114522417
Philippines SAS 0 72.34170676 27.65829324
Sri Lanka SAS 0 98.42619873 1.573801267
Cameroon WAF 0.049723414 6.718876251 93.23140034
Central African Republic WAF 0 16.51982379 83.48017621
Benin WAF 0 4.145310366 95.85468963
Burkina Faso WAF 0 24.42159383 75.57840617
Burundi WAF 4.635327606 21.40524047 73.95943192
Chad WAF 0.474547316 58.76861751 40.75683518
Congo WAF 0.584795322 27.94022092 71.47498376
Equatorial Guinea WAF 1 1 1
French Guiana WAF 0 99.90692898 0.093071023
Gabon WAF 0 2.597402597 97.4025974
Gambia, The WAF 0 66.18981747 33.81018253
Ghana WAF 0 17.63383551 82.36616449
Guinea WAF 0 89.35101177 10.64898823
Guinea-Bissau WAF 0 93.11731168 6.882688315
Ivory Coast WAF 1 1 1
Liberia WAF 0 100 0
Mali WAF 0.432224992 64.80601698 34.76175803
Niger WAF 3.488372093 81.39534884 15.11627907
Nigeria WAF 0.464326161 35.35673839 64.17893545
Rwanda WAF 7.170294494 7.042253521 85.78745198
Senegal WAF 0 62.66690254 37.33309746
Sierra Leone WAF 0 97.7783325 2.221667499
Togo WAF 0 11.3661832 88.6338168
Western Sahara WAF 1 1 1
Iraq WAS 76.69616519 15.92920354 7.374631268
Jordan WAS 96.07476636 0 3.925233645
Kuwait WAS 1.869158879 0 98.13084112
Oman WAS 100 0 0
Qatar WAS 27.27272727 0 72.72727273
Saudi Arabia WAS 99.45498667 0 0.545013327
Syria WAS 94.22462802 0.002309225 5.773062751
United Arab Emirates WAS 12.78451393 0 87.21548607
Yemen WAS 74.72078671 0 25.27921329
Note: CAR is a subregion of CAM
Page 130
Figure A1. Impacts of climate change on wheat yields across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004).
16
2 Scenario
A1f
A2a
A2b

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) A2c
B1a
0 12 B2a
B2b
0 1 2 3 4
-2
-4
Scenario
A1f
4
A2a
A2b
-6 A2c
B1a
B2a
B2b
0
-8 0 1 2 3 4
2
0
0 1 2 3 4
0
0 1 2 3 4
-2
-10
-4
-15
Scenario
A1f
A2a -6
Scenario
A2b A1f
-20 A2c A2a
B1a A2b
B2a A2c
B2b -8 B1a
B2a
-25 B2b
Page 131
0
0 1 2 3 4
0 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

0 1 2 3 4
-2
-5
-4
-10
-6 Scenario
-15
A1f
Scenario A2a
A1f A2b
A2a A2c
A2b B1a
-20 A2c B2a
-8 B2b
B1a
B2a
B2b
-25
Page 132
East Asia East Asia
0 6
0 1 2 3 4

4
-5
2
-10
Scenario
A1f
A2a
0
A2b
-15 A2c 0 1 2 3 4
B1a Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)
B2a
B2b Scenario
-2
A1f
-20 A2a
A2b
A2c
B1a
-4 B2a
B2b
-25
Europe Europe
0 8
0 1 2 3 4
A1f
A2a
6 A2b
A2c
-4
B1a
B2a
B2b
4
-8
Scenario
A1f 2
A2a
A2b
A2c
-12 B1a
B2a 0
B2b
0 1 2 3 4
-2
-16
Page 133
0 4
0 1 2 3 4

0 1 2 3 4
-4
Scenario -8
-20 A1f
A2a
Scenario
A2b
A1f
A2c -12 A2a
B1a A2b
B2a A2c
B2b B1a
-30
-16 B2a
B2b
-20
-40
Page 134
North America Scenario North America
4 A1f
8
A2a
A2b
A2c
0 B1a

B2a
0 1 2 3 4 B2b
-4
-8
4
Scenario
A1f
A2a
-12 A2b
A2c
B1a
2
B2a
-16 B2b
-20
0
0 1 2 3 4
4
0
0 1 2 3 4
0
0 1 2 3 4
-10
-4
-20
Scenario
-8
A1f
A2a Scenario
A2b A1f
A2c A2a
B1a A2b
-30 -12 A2c
B2a
B2b B1a
B2a
B2b
-16
-40
Page 135
6
0

0 1 2 3 4
4
Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO 2 fertilisation
-4
-8
0 1 2 3 4
Scenario
-12 A1f
-2 A2a
Scenario
A2b
A1f
A2c
A2a
B1a
A2b
B2a
-16 A2c B2b
B1a -4
B2a
B2b
-20
Page 136
6
A1f
0 A2a
0 1 2 3 4 A2b
4

A2c
B1a
B2a
-4 B2b
2
-8
0
0 1 2 3 4
-12 -2
Scenario
A1f
A2a
A2b -4
-16 A2c
B1a
B2a
B2b
-6
-20
4
0
0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 4
-4
Scenario
A1f
A2a
A2b
-20 Scenario
A2c
B1a A1f
B2a A2a
B2b -8 A2b
A2c
B1a
B2a
-30 B2b
-12
Page 137
Western Asia West Asia
0
0 1 2 3 4
0
0 1 2 3 4

-4
-10
-8
-20
Scenario
A1f
A2a
Scenario A2b
A1f -12 A2c
A2a B1a
-30
A2b B2a
A2c B2b
B1a
B2a
B2b
-16
-40
Page 138
Figure A5. Impacts of climate change on maize yields across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004).
0
0 1 2 3 4

-2
-4
-4
-8
Scenario
A1f
A2a
A2b -6 Scenario
-12 A2c A1f
B1a A2a
B2a A2b
B2b A2c
B1a
B2a
-8 B2b
-16
0
0 1 2 3 4
Scenario
-1
A1f
A2a
A2b
A2c
-4 B1a -2
B2a
B2b
-3
-8
-4 Scenario
A1f
A2a
A2b
A2c
-5
B1a
B2a
-12 B2b
-6
Page 139
0
0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 4

-5 Scenario -4
A1f Scenario
A2a A1f
A2b A2a
A2c A2b
-10 B1a A2c
B2a -8 B1a
B2b B2a
B2b
-15
-12
-20
-16
-25
Page 140
East Asia East Asia
0
0 1 2 3 4

-4 0 1 2 3 4
-2
-8
Scenario -4
A1f
A2a
A2b Scenario
-12 A2c A1f
B1a A2a
-6
B2a A2b
B2b A2c
B1a
B2a
-16 B2b
-8
Europe Europe
0
0 1 2 3 4
Scenario
A1f
Scenario A2a
A1f A2b
A2a -2 A2c
-4 B1a
A2b
A2c B2a
B1a B2b
B2a
B2b
-4
-8
-6
-12
Page 141
0
0 1 2 3 4
-4

-5
-10 -8
-15 -12
Scenario
Scenario A1f
A1f A2a
-20 A2a -16 A2b
A2b A2c
A2c
B1a
B1a
B2a
-25 B2a
-20 B2b
B2b
-30
-24
Page 142
North America Scenario
Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) A1f
0 A2a
North America A2b
0 1 2 3 4 1 A2c
B1a
B2a
B2b

0
-4 0 1 2 3 4
-1
Scenario
A1f
-2
-8 A2a
A2b
A2c
B1a
B2a -3
B2b
-12
-4
0
0 1 2 3 4
-4
-8
-10
-12
Scenario
A1f
Scenario A2a
A1f
-16 A2b
-20 A2a
A2c
A2b
B1a
A2c
B2a
B1a
-20 B2b
B2a
B2b
-30 -24
Page 143
0
0 1 2 3 4
Scenario

A1f
A2a
-2 Scenario
-4 A2b
A1f
A2c
A2a
B1a
A2b
B2a
A2c
B2b
B1a
-4 B2a
-8 B2b
-12
-6
-16 -8
Page 144
0
0 1 2 3 4

-5
-4 Scenario
A1f
A2a
A2b
A2c
-10
B1a
B2a
-8
B2b
-15 Scenario
A1f
A2a
A2b
A2c -12
B1a
-20
B2a
B2b
-25
-16
0
0 1 2 3 4
-5 -4
-10
-8
-15
Scenario
Scenario -12 A1f
A1f A2a
-20 A2a A2b
A2b A2c
A2c B1a
B1a B2a
-16
-25 B2a B2b
B2b
-30 -20
Page 145
West Asia West Asia
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

-4 -4
Scenario Scenario
A1f A1f
A2a A2a
A2b A2b
-8 A2c -8 A2c
B1a B1a
B2a B2a
B2b B2b
-12 -12
-16 -16
-20 -20
Page 146
Figure A9. Impacts of climate change on rice yields across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004).
0
0 1 2 3 4 Scenario
A1f
A2a

A2b
-2 8 A2c
B1a
B2a
B2b
-4
Scenario
A1f
-6
A2a
A2b Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)
A2c 0
B1a
B2a 0 1 2 3 4
-8
B2b
-4
-10
0
0 1 2 3 4

-4
0
Scenario
A1f 0 1 2 3 4
A2a
A2b
-8 A2c
B1a
B2a -4
B2b Scenario
A1f
A2a
-12
A2b
A2c
B1a
-8 B2a
B2b
-16
-12
-20
Page 147
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

-5 -2
-4
-10
-6
-15
Scenario
A1f Scenario
A2a -8 A1f
-20 A2b A2a
A2c A2b
B1a A2c
B1a
B2a
-10 B2a
B2b
-25 B2b
Page 148
East Asia East Asia
0 Scenario
A1f
0 1 2 3 4 A2a
A2b

A2c
-4 B1a
B2a
B2b
2
-8
Scenario
A1f
A2a
0
A2b
A2c 0 1 2 3 4
B1a
B2a
-16
B2b
-2
-20
Europe Europe
4 12
Scenario
A1f
A2a
A2b
A2c
B1a
0 8
B2a
0 1 2 3 4 B2b
-4 4
Scenario
A1f
A2a Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)
-8 0
A2b
A2c 0 1 2 3 4
B1a
B2a
B2b
-12 -4
Page 149
0
0 1 2 3 4
0

0 1 2 3 4
-10
-4
-8
-20
Scenario
Scenario A1f
A1f A2a
-12
A2a A2b
A2b A2c
A2c B1a
B1a B2a
-30 -16
B2a B2b
B2b
-20
-40
Page 150
North America North America
4 4


0
0 1 2 3 4 2
-4

0
0 1 2 3 4
-8
Scenario
Scenario
A1f
A1f
A2a
A2a
A2b -2
A2b
-12 A2c
A2c
B1a
B1a
B2a
B2a
B2b
B2b
-16
-4

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
-10 -4
-8
-20
Scenario Scenario
A1f A1f
A2a A2a
A2b A2b
A2c A2c
B1a -12
-30 B1a
B2a B2a
B2b B2b
-16
-40
Page 151
0
0 1 2 3 4

-4
0
0 1 2 3 4
-8
-2
-12
-4
Scenario
-16
A1f
Scenario A2a
A1f
A2b
A2a
-6 A2c
-20 A2b
A2c
B1a
B1a B2a
B2a B2b
B2b
-24
-8
Page 152
0
0 1 2 3 4
Scenario
A1f
A2a

-4 A2b
2 A2c
B1a
B2a
B2b
-8

0
Scenario
A1f 0 1 2 3 4
-12
A2a
A2b
A2c
B1a
B2a -2
-16
B2b
-20
-4
0
0 1 2 3 4
0
-5
0 1 2 3 4
-2
-10
-15
-4
Scenario
A1f
Scenario
A1f
A2a
A2a
-20 A2b -6
A2b
A2c
B1a A2c
B2a B1a
B2b B2a
-25 -8 B2b
-30 -10
Page 153
Table A9 Global cereal land area (defined at 50% of cropland) as specified in the SRES and BLS (areas in Mha) (Arnell et al. 2004)
YEAR BLS SRES
A1F1 A2 B1 B2 A1F1 A2 B1 B2
1990s 747 746 747 746 736 730 718 730
2020s 872 875 874 880 744 784 754 777
2050s 928 995 918 947 644 841 697 821
2080s 972 1091 939 995 422 905 583 867
Table A10 (a). Percentage changes in cereal production (with CO2 fertilisation)
B1PC2020 A2PC2020 B2PC2020 A1PC2020 B1PC2050 B2PC2050 A2PC2050 B1PC2080 A2PC2080 A1PC2050 B2PC2080 A1PC20802
delT1990 0.54 0.56 0.61 0.70 1.15 1.26 1.62 1.76 1.91 1.96 2.05 3.67
WORLD -1.0 -0.8 -1.3 -0.8 -1.2 -1.7 -0.9 -2.3 -0.4 -1.1 -1.4 -1.9
NAM 3.4 4.6 3.5 4.7 1.9 3.2 7.0 1.5 6.1 3.1 8.8 4.1
WEU 1.2 3.2 2.7 1.3 1.7 -0.4 2.2 0.7 2.9 3.3 -0.6 3.4
PAO 5.8 3.8 13.8 6.0 9.9 9.0 12.5 12.8 5.9 10.0 7.6 0.1
EEU+FSU -10.4 -8.5 -11.0 -7.5 -9.1 -10.0 -12.2 -11.4 -9.6 -12.7 -11.6 -10.2
AFR -3.5 -3.4 -3.9 -3.3 -5.4 -6.4 -7.1 -7.2 -13.9 -7.3 -11.4 -17.6
LAM -1.8 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -1.4 -1.7 -2.7 -0.6 0.6 1.3 -1.9 2.8
WAS -1.3 0.0 -0.7 -1.2 -3.7 -2.0 -0.9 -4.7 2.3 -4.0 -4.6 -10.2
CPA 0.1 -1.8 -1.5 -1.0 0.1 -0.4 0.9 0.1 3.9 1.3 1.6 2.0
SEA -1.2 -1.6 -2.3 -3.1 -1.1 -2.7 -2.4 -3.6 -0.9 -1.8 -2.8 -2.6
ROW+NES 0.9 1.6 1.3 0.8 1.4 1.4 2.6 1.8 4.5 3.5 1.8 5.3
Table A10(b) Percentage changes in cereal production (without CO2 fertilisation)
B1PC2020 A2PC2020 B2PC2020 A1PC2020 B1PC2050 B2PC2050 A2PC2050 B1PC2080 A2PC2080 A1PC2050 B2PC2080 A1PC20802
delT1990 0.54 0.56 0.61 0.70 1.15 1.26 1.62 1.76 1.91 1.96 2.05 3.67
WORLD -1.5 -1.6 -1.8 -1.7 -3.2 -3.9 -4.4 -5.3 -8.4 -5.7 -5.8 -10.4
NAM 2.1 2.9 2.0 3.3 -4.2 -3.4 -4.6 -5.9 -17.4 -9.8 -4.6 -13.9
WEU 1.1 2.9 2.3 0.3 -0.6 -2.4 2.1 -1.7 5.9 -1.9 -5.7 -7.4
PAO 7.4 5.9 15.4 8.3 13.4 13.6 17.1 17.5 9.2 15.4 12.3 2.9
EEU+FSU -10.5 -9.1 -11.1 -8.3 -11.0 -12.3 -18.3 -14.0 -19.4 -17.4 -17.4 -19.1
AFR -3.3 -3.9 -3.9 -3.6 -5.5 -4.9 -6.2 -7.7 -14.8 -7.4 -11.3 -20.5
LAM 0.3 1.2 0.8 1.0 7.4 3.1 8.5 6.5 11.9 14.1 7.0 20.3
WAS -2.8 -1.7 -2.2 -3.2 -6.4 -5.1 -1.3 -9.1 -0.3 -9.9 9.0 -10.0
CPA -0.8 -3.4 -2.3 -2.6 -2.8 -3.2 -3.7 -3.8 -5.7 -4.7 -3.7 -8.6
SEA -1.8 -2.8 -3.0 -4.1 -3.1 -5.3 -7.4 -6.5 -12.8 -6.4 -8.3 -13.3
ROW+NES 0.9 1.3 1.5 0.4 2.2 3.1 2.9 1.5 7.0 4.2 3.4 7.6
Page 154
Table A10 (c) Actual changes in cereal production (with CO2 fertilisation)
B1ACT2020 A2ACT2020 B2ACT2020 A1ACT2020 B1ACT2050 B2ACT2050 A2ACT2050 B1ACT2080 A2ACT2080 A1ACT2050 B2ACT2080 A1ACT2080
delT1990 0.54 0.56 0.61 0.70 1.15 1.26 1.62 1.76 1.91 1.96 2.05 3.67
WORLD -27.1 -21.3 -34.4 -20.6 -41.6 -60.1 -34.6 -87.0 -20.5 -39.1 -56.6 -73.8
NAM 19.4 26.4 19.7 27.0 12.7 21.2 48.3 11.0 47.4 20.8 63.2 29.2
WEU 1.8 5.1 4.3 2.0 2.8 -0.6 3.8 1.2 5.2 5.4 -1.0 5.8
PAO 3.0 2.3 7.8 3.3 6.4 6.6 10.5 7.5 5.6 7.0 5.7 0.1
EEU+FSU -37.3 -31.3 -40.2 -27.0 -37.3 -43.8 -57.7 -53.5 -56.9 -53.4 -62.6 -49.6
AFR -5.7 -5.8 -6.6 -5.4 -14.3 -18.1 -21.1 -23.1 -61.0 -19.3 -43.7 -58.4
LAM -3.5 -2.2 -1.7 -1.6 -3.1 -4.5 -9.7 -1.3 3.3 3.4 -5.5 6.9
WAS -1.1 0.0 -0.6 -1.0 -4.0 -2.2 -1.0 -5.0 3.8 -4.3 -5.3 -10.6
CPA 0.5 -9.9 -8.2 -5.2 0.6 -3.0 6.6 0.9 34.3 9.0 13.8 17.2
SEA -5.0 -7.5 -10.2 -13.6 -6.8 -17.4 -17.5 -26.8 -8.8 -11.6 -23.6 -20.9
ROW+NES 0.8 1.5 1.3 0.8 1.5 1.6 3.3 2.1 6.7 3.9 2.4 6.4
Table A10 (d) Actual changes in cereal production (without CO2 fertilisation)
B1ACT2020 A2ACT2020 B2ACT2020 A1ACT2020 B1ACT2050 B2ACT2050 A2ACT2050 B1ACT2080 A2ACT2080 A1ACT2050 B2ACT2080 A1ACT2080
delT1990 0.54 0.56 0.61 0.70 1.15 1.26 1.62 1.76 1.91 1.96 2.05 3.67
WORLD -38.4 -44.6 -48.6 -44.3 -106.8 -135.0 -166.9 -198.6 -404.7 -195.7 -237.1 -402.6
NAM 11.9 16.8 11.3 18.7 -28.6 -22.9 -32.0 -42.1 -135.3 -66.3 -33.1 -100.0
WEU 1.7 4.6 3.7 0.5 -1.0 -4.1 3.5 -2.8 10.4 -3.2 -9.8 -12.6
PAO 3.8 3.4 8.7 4.5 8.6 10.0 14.4 10.2 8.9 10.8 9.2 2.0
EEU+FSU -37.6 -33.8 -40.8 -29.8 -45.3 -54.0 -86.4 -65.6 -115.2 -73.3 -94.3 -93.3
AFR -5.4 -6.5 -6.6 -5.9 -14.6 -13.8 -18.5 -24.8 -65.1 -19.7 -43.2 -67.7
LAM 0.6 2.6 1.7 2.0 17.0 8.4 30.6 13.6 60.1 35.5 19.9 49.3
WAS -2.4 -1.5 -1.9 -2.7 -6.9 -5.5 -1.5 -9.6 -0.5 -10.7 10.3 -10.4
CPA -4.1 -18.2 -12.6 -14.0 -19.2 -22.5 -26.3 -31.9 -50.5 -32.4 -31.4 -72.4
SEA -7.8 -13.2 -13.6 -18.1 -19.3 -34.3 -54.3 -47.5 -127.9 -41.2 -69.1 -106.6
ROW+NES 0.8 1.3 1.4 0.4 2.4 3.6 3.6 1.7 10.4 4.7 4.4 9.1
Page 155
Table A11 Unpacking Matrix for Dynamic Vegetation Changes and Carbon Sequestration
Carbon sequestration (Pg C Change in forest percent Change in grassland percent Change in desert percent
2100 y-1) cover since 1990 cover since 1990 cover since 1990
Source of Model Input Model Input Model Input Model Input
variation sensitivity variability sensitivity variability sensitivity variability sensitivity variability
Global
CCh -4.71 5.304 0.1111 0.3 -0.03175 1.2114 -0.0793 1.3612
CO2 5.998 6.128 3.3175 2.1358 0.0635 1.1958 -3.3809 3.2696
LUC 1.585 4.186 -0.3175 0.9446 -0.01585 0.5808 0.3333 1.5216
All 0.958 10.34 1.0371 3.6044 0.0053 0.9432 -1.0423 4.0136
Arctic
CCh 0.0186 0.031574 0.14205 0.5682 0.8523 3.41 -0.9943 3.264
CO2 0.0218 0.030324 0 0 0.8523 3.41 -0.8523 3.41
LUC -0.00038 0.0009 0 0 0 0 0 0
All 0.013342 0.030672 0.04735 0.328 0.5682 2.654 -0.6155 2.63
Australasia
CCh -1.1132 1.3232 -2.564 3.626 2.564 3.626 0 0
CO2 0.6024 0.7594 9.615 3.31 -7.692 3.626 -1.9231 6.104
LUC -0.0051 0.1086 0 0 0 0 0 0
All -0.172 1.685 2.35 11.248 -1.709 9.49 -0.641 3.708
Central_America
CCh -0.25353 0.3236 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO2 0.22535 0.2612 6.25 8.988 -2.5E-05 8.248 -6.25 10.714
LUC 0.06003 0.1726 0 0 0 0 0 0
All 0.01062 0.4768 2.083 7.74 -8.3E-06 4.308 -2.083 8.318
Central_Asia_&EE
CCh 0.466 0.3334 1.0564 0 1.585 3.66 -2.641 3.66
CO2 0.4067 0.4246 0 0 1.761 3.942 -1.761 3.942
LUC 0.1857 0.5038 -0.6162 2.4648 -0.264 1.056 0.88 2.336
All 0.3528 0.4606 0.1467 1.9336 1.027 3.442 -1.174 4.376
East_Asia
CCh 0.2422 0.2086 2.778 1.6038 2.778 3 -5.556 2.536
CO2 0.5348 0.6028 3.125 1.793 2.778 1.964 -5.903 3.674
LUC 0.369 0.8232 -0.347 1.389 0 0 0.347 1.388
All 0.382 0.5986 1.852 3.5698 1.852 3.316 -3.704 6.47
Europe
CCh 0.0721 0.0984 1.351 2.206 -1.689 1.352 0.3378 1.3514
CO2 0.1552 0.2348 5.743 5.992 -4.054 4.934 -1.6892 1.3514
LUC 0.1216 0.3468 -0.676 2.702 0 0 0.6757 2.7028
All 0.1163 0.2358 2.14 6.666 -1.914 4.382 -0.2252 2.7834
Page 156
North_Africa
CCh -0.20315 0.20934 -2.206 3.798 -7.353 2.402 9.559 5.632
CO2 0.04485 0.0499 2.573 1.47 2.941 2.402 -5.515 2.816
LUC 0.00195 0.01216 0 0 0 0 0 0
All -0.05212 0.25254 0.123 4.6 -1.471 9.216 1.348 13.418
North_America
CCh 0.0628 0.0564 0.5319 0.4256 -0.7447 2.5414 0.2128 2.4568
CO2 0.5059 0.5142 2.3404 1.0988 -0.2128 0.8512 -2.1277 1.5538
LUC 0.183 0.589 -0.4255 1.7022 0 0 0.4256 1.7022
All 0.2505 0.566 0.8156 2.6284 -0.3192 1.545 -0.4964 2.9888
South_America
CCh -2.6279 3.1874 -0.61 0.996 -1.372 1.5346 1.9817 1.5346
CO2 1.032 0.8848 6.25 4.916 -3.811 2.0826 -2.4391 4.9786
LUC 0.1159 0.4444 0 0 -0.152 0.6098 0.1525 0.6098
All -0.4933 3.6864 1.88 6.986 -1.778 3.4672 -0.1016 4.6752
South_Asia
CCh -0.0843 0.112 1.163 1.8988 1.744 4.028 -2.907 4.842
CO2 0.5555 0.7054 8.14 6.0046 4.942 4.402 -13.081 7.684
LUC 0.3671 0.6392 -0.581 1.3426 0.291 8.358 0.291 8.982
All 0.2794 0.7518 2.907 8.559 2.326 6.726 -5.233 13.65
Southern_Africa
CCh -0.5379 0.243 -1.754 1.4324 -0.2193 2.996 1.974 2.632
CO2 1.2462 1.3892 5.482 3.89 -1.9737 3.616 -3.509 2.482
LUC 0.1445 0.548 -0.219 0.8772 0.2193 0.878 0 0
All 0.2843 1.7268 1.17 6.8698 -0.6579 3.184 -0.512 5.098
West_Africa
CCh -0.73428 0.761 -2.7473 4.208 -1.9231 4.874 4.670325 1.099
CO2 0.6409 0.6038 3.022 3.754 1.9231 4.16 -4.94505 7.2892
LUC 0.0421 0.1478 -0.5495 2.198 0.2747 2.766 0.274725 1.099
All -0.01709 1.283 -0.0916 5.886 0.0916 4.91 0 9.086
West_Asia
CCh -0.0171 0.02016 0.758 3.03 -5.303 3.03 4.545 3.5
CO2 0.026075 0.04154 2.273 3.03 1.515 3.5 -3.788 5.802
LUC -0.00048 0.00408 0 0 0 0 0 0
All 0.002833 0.04434 1.01 2.984 -1.263 6.568 0.253 7.948
Note:
1. "Model sensitivity" is given by the mean difference in output X between default and noCC runs. [and analagously for other factors]
2. "Input variability" is given by the range* in differences between default and noCC runs. [and analagously for other factors]
* actually 2 x the standard deviation is used, as this is less sensitive to extreme values.
Page 157
Table A12. Net Equilibrium Biome Changes and Carbon Sequestration for different global
mean temperature rises.
Global
C sequestration Change in grassland Change in desert
dT (Pg C y-1) Change in forest % % %
Baseline
(1990) 0.66 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 3.09 0.19 0.70 0.57 0.00 -0.44 -1.14 -0.38
4.35 1.19 0.89 0.76 0.32 -0.25 -0.70 -0.19
1-2 2.60 -1.60 1.84 0.89 -0.89 -1.21 -1.97 -0.57
6.56 0.00 2.41 1.27 -0.19 -0.38 -0.95 0.32
2-3 0.89 -3.28 3.11 1.21 -1.78 -1.46 -3.87 -0.83
7.80 -0.38 4.64 1.97 -0.76 -0.89 -1.97 -0.13
3-4 -0.61 -4.44 3.43 0.89 -1.27 -1.02 -3.87 -0.38
6.83 -1.51 4.95 1.33 -1.08 -0.95 -2.16 0.13
4-5 3.06 -5.85 5.84 1.14 -0.70 -1.65 -5.14 0.51
3.06 -5.85 5.84 1.14 -0.70 -1.65 -5.14 0.51
Arctic
dT C sequestration Change in forest % % %
Baseline
(1990) -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
-0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-2 -0.01 -0.02 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.57 0.00
-0.01 -0.01 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.57 0.00
2-3 0.00 -0.01 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.00 -0.57 -0.57
0.00 -0.01 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.00 -0.57 -0.57
3-4 0.01 -0.01 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.00 -0.57 -0.57
0.01 -0.01 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.00 -0.57 -0.57
4-5 0.04 0.00 0.57 0.57 3.41 0.00 -3.98 -0.57
0.04 0.00 0.57 0.57 3.41 0.00 -3.98 -0.57
Australasia
Baseline
(1990) 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.59 0.07 3.85 3.85 -5.13 -5.13 0.00 0.00
0.90 0.38 5.13 5.13 -3.85 -3.85 0.00 0.00
1-2 -0.09 -0.70 5.13 3.85 -8.97 -5.13 0.00 0.00
0.88 0.07 8.97 5.13 -5.13 -3.85 0.00 0.00
2-3 -0.52 -1.24 6.41 0.00 -10.26 -5.13 0.00 0.00
0.50 -0.33 10.26 5.13 -6.41 0.00 0.00 0.00
3-4 -0.40 -0.88 10.26 0.00 -10.26 -2.56 0.00 0.00
0.47 -0.47 10.26 2.56 -10.26 -1.28 0.00 1.28
4-5 -0.80 -1.67 14.10 2.56 -14.10 -8.97 0.00 6.41
-0.80 -1.67 14.10 2.56 -14.10 -8.97 0.00 6.41
Central_America
dT C sequestration Change in forest % Change in grassland Change in desert
Page 158
% %
Baseline
(1990) 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 -0.05 -0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.22 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-2 0.05 -0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.57 0.00
0.24 -0.01 0.00 0.00 3.57 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-3 -0.14 -0.26 0.00 0.00 3.57 0.00 -3.57 0.00
0.26 -0.03 0.00 0.00 3.57 0.00 -3.57 0.00
3- 4 -0.11 -0.20 0.00 -7.14 3.57 7.14 -3.57 0.00
0.15 -0.19 0.00 -7.14 3.57 7.14 -3.57 0.00
4-5 -0.05 -0.38 0.00 -10.71 7.14 3.57 -7.14 7.14
-0.05 -0.38 0.00 -10.71 7.14 3.57 -7.14 7.14
Central_Asia_&EE
Baseline
(1990) 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.03 -0.05 -0.35 -0.35 0.35 0.00 -0.70 -0.35
0.15 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 -0.35 0.00
1-2 0.22 0.05 -0.70 -1.06 0.70 -0.70 -1.41 -1.06
0.37 0.12 0.70 0.35 0.70 0.70 0.00 1.76
2-3 0.35 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.35 -3.87 -2.82
0.83 0.31 1.76 1.76 2.11 1.06 -1.06 -0.70
3-4 0.40 0.16 -0.70 -0.70 2.11 1.06 -4.23 -2.82
1.03 0.49 1.76 1.76 2.47 1.06 -1.41 -0.35
4-5 1.22 0.58 1.76 1.76 5.63 1.06 -7.39 -2.82
1.22 0.58 1.76 1.76 5.63 1.06 -7.39 -2.82
East_Asia
Baseline
(1990) -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.12 -0.05 0.00 0.00 0.69 -0.69 -1.39 0.00
0.19 0.03 0.69 0.69 1.39 -0.69 -0.69 0.69
1-2 0.21 -0.04 2.08 0.69 -0.69 -1.39 -2.78 -1.39
0.52 0.15 2.08 2.08 0.69 0.69 -1.39 -0.69
2-3 0.26 -0.02 4.86 3.47 -2.08 -2.78 -7.64 -2.78
1.11 0.47 6.94 4.86 0.69 -0.69 -3.47 -1.39
3-4 0.23 -0.04 6.25 3.47 0.69 -2.08 -9.03 -2.78
1.21 0.55 8.33 4.86 0.69 -1.39 -6.94 -2.08
4-5 1.40 0.50 9.72 5.56 2.08 -2.08 -11.81 -3.47
1.40 0.50 9.72 5.56 2.08 -2.08 -11.81 -3.47
Europe
Baseline
(1990) 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.02 -0.02 1.35 0.00 -1.35 -1.35 -1.35 0.00
0.08 0.04 1.35 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 159
1-2 0.02 -0.03 0.00 0.00 -1.35 -1.35 -2.70 -1.35
0.14 0.06 1.35 1.35 1.35 0.00 1.35 1.35
2-3 0.04 -0.02 1.35 0.00 -2.70 -1.35 -2.70 -1.35
0.37 0.17 5.41 1.35 0.00 0.00 -1.35 1.35
3-4 0.06 0.00 2.70 -1.35 -5.41 0.00 -2.70 -1.35
0.43 0.21 8.11 1.35 -2.70 0.00 0.00 1.35
4-5 0.48 0.19 10.81 1.35 -8.11 -1.35 -2.70 0.00
0.48 0.19 10.81 1.35 -8.11 -1.35 -2.70 0.00
North_Africa
Baseline
(1990) 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.08 0.04 2.94 2.94 -1.47 -2.94 -1.47 -1.47
0.09 0.05 2.94 2.94 -1.47 -1.47 -1.47 0.00
1-2 0.06 0.00 5.88 2.94 -4.41 -4.41 -2.94 0.00
0.11 0.01 7.35 4.41 -2.94 -2.94 -1.47 0.00
2-3 -0.01 -0.05 7.35 4.41 -7.35 -8.82 -2.94 0.00
0.09 -0.02 8.82 5.88 -5.88 -4.41 0.00 4.41
3-4 -0.04 -0.08 7.35 4.41 -7.35 -11.77 -1.47 5.88
0.00 -0.08 8.82 5.88 -7.35 -10.29 0.00 5.88
4-5 -0.07 -0.09 7.35 5.88 -8.82 -11.77 1.47 5.88
-0.07 -0.09 7.35 5.88 -8.82 -11.77 1.47 5.88
North_America
Baseline
(1990) 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.26 0.09 -0.43 -0.43 0.85 0.43 -2.13 -1.28
0.43 0.25 0.43 0.43 1.70 0.85 -0.85 -0.43
1-2 0.26 -0.01 0.43 0.00 1.70 0.43 -2.98 -2.98
0.63 0.22 1.28 0.85 1.70 2.13 -2.13 -0.85
2-3 0.32 0.03 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.68 -3.40
0.84 0.33 2.98 0.85 2.13 2.55 -2.98 -0.85
3-4 0.29 -0.04 1.28 -0.43 0.85 0.85 -4.26 -1.70
0.92 0.23 3.40 0.85 1.70 1.70 -2.98 -1.28
4-5 0.97 0.22 3.83 0.85 2.13 2.13 -5.96 -2.98
0.97 0.22 3.83 0.85 2.13 2.13 -5.96 -2.98
South_America
Baseline
(1990) 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.64 -0.12 1.22 1.22 -1.22 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61
1.17 0.34 1.83 1.22 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61
1-2 0.68 -0.42 3.66 1.22 -4.27 -1.22 -0.61 -0.61
1.48 -0.27 4.88 1.83 -3.05 -1.22 -0.61 0.00
2-3 -0.48 -1.56 5.49 0.61 -6.71 -2.44 -0.61 0.61
0.81 -0.50 6.71 1.22 -4.88 -1.22 1.22 1.83
3-4 -1.29 -2.10 6.10 0.00 -6.71 -3.66 0.00 1.83
0.04 -1.60 6.10 1.83 -6.10 -1.83 0.61 1.83
Page 160
4-5 -2.48 -3.53 5.49 -4.27 -6.71 -3.05 1.22 7.32
-2.48 -3.53 5.49 -4.27 -6.71 -3.05 1.22 7.32
South_Asia
Baseline
(1990) -0.23 -0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.01 -0.14 2.33 2.33 -1.16 -1.16 -4.65 -1.16
0.08 -0.08 3.49 2.33 2.33 -1.16 -2.33 -1.16
1-2 0.14 -0.08 6.98 2.33 -6.98 -5.81 -5.81 -1.16
0.38 0.01 8.14 3.49 -1.16 -2.33 -1.16 2.33
2-3 -0.04 -0.22 8.14 4.65 -3.49 -5.81 -18.61 -3.49
0.93 0.20 13.95 5.81 4.65 -2.33 -4.65 1.16
3-4 0.15 -0.08 11.63 4.65 0.00 -3.49 -22.09 -4.65
1.02 0.22 15.12 5.81 6.98 -1.16 -11.63 -1.16
4-5 0.99 0.07 17.44 5.81 4.65 1.16 -22.09 -6.98
0.99 0.07 17.44 5.81 4.65 1.16 -22.09 -6.98
Southern_Africa
Baseline
(1990) 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.30 -0.15 0.00 0.00 1.75 0.00 -1.75 0.00
0.78 0.26 0.00 0.00 1.75 0.00 -1.75 0.00
1-2 0.53 -0.18 1.75 0.00 0.00 -1.75 -2.63 0.88
1.01 -0.07 1.75 0.88 0.88 -0.88 -1.75 1.75
2-3 0.20 -0.37 2.63 0.00 -3.51 -3.51 -2.63 0.00
1.34 -0.14 5.26 0.88 -1.75 0.00 -0.88 3.51
3-4 0.09 -0.69 3.51 0.00 -3.51 -1.75 -2.63 0.88
1.30 -0.31 6.14 0.00 -2.63 -0.88 -0.88 1.75
4-5 1.24 -0.79 8.77 0.88 -7.90 -3.51 -0.88 2.63
1.24 -0.79 8.77 0.88 -7.90 -3.51 -0.88 2.63
West_Africa
Baseline
(1990) 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.40 -0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.10 0.00
0.53 0.06 0.00 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-2 0.50 -0.10 1.10 0.00 0.00 -1.10 -2.20 0.00
0.95 -0.01 1.10 1.10 1.10 -1.10 -1.10 1.10
2-3 0.08 -0.31 2.20 0.00 -3.30 -6.59 -3.30 0.00
0.78 -0.16 4.40 1.10 0.00 -1.10 1.10 6.59
3-4 0.00 -0.56 2.20 -1.10 -4.40 -5.50 1.10 2.20
0.21 -0.49 2.20 1.10 -3.30 -3.30 2.20 6.59
4-5 0.07 -0.93 4.40 -1.10 -5.50 -8.79 1.10 9.89
0.07 -0.93 4.40 -1.10 -5.50 -8.79 1.10 9.89
West_Asia
Page 161
Baseline
(1990) 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0-1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1-2 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6.06 0.00
0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.06 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-3 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6.06 0.00
0.04 0.00 3.03 0.00 6.06 0.00 0.00 0.00
3-4 0.01 0.00 3.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6.06 0.00
0.05 0.00 3.03 0.00 3.03 0.00 -3.03 0.00
4-5 0.04 0.00 3.03 0.00 3.03 0.00 -6.06 0.00
0.04 0.00 3.03 0.00 3.03 0.00 -6.06 0.00
Page 162
TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX
INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR AUSTRALASIA
Global Energy
Temperature Change in agricultural
Water supply (heating and cooling
Rise (relative productivity
to 1990) requirements)
Heating energy demands

Baseline (for 3 846 to 880
1756 km /year
comparison) Cooling energy demands
920 to 974
• Yield for maize: % change
0 - 1°C relative to baseline -3.1% Heating energy demands
to -1.3% with CO2 min / med / max
absolute HDD 727 to 818
fertilisation, -4.6% to -2.0%
without absolute change 1713 1781 1815 % change (-14 to -7%)
• Yield for rice: % change
% change (-2 1 3) Cooling energy demands
relative to baseline -1.0%
to +0.5% with CO2 absolute CDD 999 to 1139
fertilisation, - 5.5% to % change (9 to 18%)
-3.1% without
• Yield for wheat: % change
relative to baseline +2.4%
to +5.1% with CO2
fertilisation, -1.0 to +1.1%
without
1674 1819 1885

1 - 2°C • Yield for maize: % change Heating energy demands
(-5 4 7)
relative to baseline -6.7% 623 to 703
to -2.4% with CO2 (-26 to -20%)
fertilisation, -8.1% to
- 5.2% without
Cooling energy demands
relative to baseline +1.0% 1165 to 1313
to +10.1% with CO2 (27 to 36%)
fertilisation, - 5.2% to
-3.1% without
to +9.1% with CO2
fertilisation, -3.5 % to
-1.0% without
2 - 3°C • Yield for maize: % change 1636 1868 1962 Heating energy demands
relative to baseline -5.2% (-7 -6 12) 531 to 600
to -4.2% with CO2 (-37 to -32%)
-8.1% without
to +10.3% with CO2 (46 to 57%)
-5.3% without
relative to baseline +8.1 to
+13.7% with CO2
fertilisation, - 6.0% to
-3.0% without
relative to baseline -7.1% (-8 9 17) 449 to 508
to – 5.2% with CO2 (-47 to -43%)
-12.0% without
relative to baseline +7.0 to 1541 to 1701
+9.1% with CO2 (68 to 78%)
-8.4% without
relative to baseline
Page 163
+11.1% to +13.5% with

CO2 fertilisation, -7.0% to
- 5.1% without
4 - 5°C 1589 1957 2149 Heating energy demands

(-10 11 22) 378 to 429
(-55 to -52%)

1742 to 1906
(89 to 100%)
Page 164
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR AUSTRALASIA
Global Thousands of people Thousands of people Thousands of people

Millions of people suffering an Millions of people suffering
Temperature experiencing coastal experiencing coastal experiencing coastal Additional millions of
increase in water stress in a decrease in water stress Health impacts
Rise (relative flooding – constant flooding – evolving flooding – enhanced people at risk of hunger
2080s in 2080s
Population (thousands) Population (thousands) Population (thousands)

Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds
experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in Baseline 2080:
in 2080s in the absence of climate change absence of climate change and absence of climate change and absence of climate change and A1 0
even rural/urban growth even rural/urban growth even rural/urban growth B1 0
Baseline (for Current disease burden in terms
comparison) Low population (A1/B1) 39 B2 0 of deaths (1000s) in 2000
Medium population (B2) 32 Low population (A1/B1) 9 Low population (A1/B1) 1 Low population (A1/B1) 1 A2 0
Diarrhoea 3
Medium population (B2) 12 Medium population (B2) 1 Medium population (B2) 1 Malaria 1
High population (A2) 19 High population (A2) 2 High population (A2) 2 Dengue 0
Cardiovascular 73
min max min max
0 - 1°C A1/B1 0 0 3 A1/B1 0 0 0 min max A1 1 6 A1 1 1
( 0 0 7%) ( 0 0 0%) A1/B1 9 66 (0 474%) (0 7%)
B2 0 0 2 B2 0 0 0 (0 613%) A2 2 12 A2 2 2
( 0 0 7%) ( 0 0 0%)
A2 0 0 4 A2 0 0 0 A2 19 137 (0 551%) (0 8%)
( 0 0 7%) ( 0 0 0%) (0 630%) B1 5 42 B1 1 5
B2 12 90 (0 714%) (0 393%)
(0 620%) B2 1 7 B2 1 1
(0 578%) (0 8%)
1 - 2°C A1/B1 0 0 3 A1/B1 0 0 0 A1 5 50 A1 1 6 Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080:

( 0 0 7%) ( 0 0 0%) A1/B1 40 412 (332 4572%) (5 455%)
B2 0 0 2 B2 0 0 0 B1 0
( 0 0 7%) ( 0 0 0%) (332 4337%) A2 9 104 A2 2 12
(0%)
A2 0 0 4 A2 0 0 0 A2 85 877 (410 5516%) (5 553%)
( 0 0 7%) ( 0 0 0%) (354 4569%) B1 36 403 B1 5 46
With CO2 Fertilisation 2080:
B2 53 551 (585 7634%) (332 4249%)
(326 4316%) B2 6 65 B2 1 8 B1 0
(422 5827%) (5 584%) (0%)
• 2.3C 4.1 billion people

2 - 3°C A1/B1 0 0 3 A1/B1 0 0 2 Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: (44%) at risk of dengue
( 0 0 7%) ( 0 0 4%) B2 0 (HadCM2) (Hales et al.
A1 8 564 A1 1 63
B2 0 0 2 B2 0 0 1 (0%) 2002)
( 0 0 7%) ( 0 0 4%) A1/B1 92 566 (615 53100%) (10 5842%)
A2 0
A2 0 0 4 A2 0 0 2 (895 5994%) A2 15 1175 A2 2 131
( 0%)
( 0 0 7%) ( 0 0 4%) A2 189 1178 (692 63349%) (10 6992%)
(906 6172%) B1 49 566 B1 6 63
B2 126 757 (842 10756%) (453 5857%)
(915 5971%) B2 9 755 B2 1 84
B2 0
(735 685582%) (11 7571%) (0%)
A2 0
( 0%)
3 - 4°C A1/B1 0 0 5 A1/B1 0 0 0 A1 94 777 A1 11 86

( 0 0 12%) ( 0 0 0%) A1/B1 466 777 (8795 73136%) (915 7959%) Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: • 3.3C 5.2 billion people
B2 0 0 4 B2 0 0 0 (4924 8269%) A2 189 1525 A2 21 168 A1 0 (52%) exposed to dengue in
( 0 0 12%) ( 0 0 0%) (10103 82227%) (1052 8974%) 2085 (HadCM2) (Hales et al.
A2 983 1525 (0%)
A2 0 0 6 A2 0 0 0 2002)
( 0 0 11%) ( 0 0 0%) (5132 8018%) B1 456 777 B1 52 86
B2 625 963 (8645 14808%) (4787 7959%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: • 3.3C 5-7 billion people
exposed by 2085 (4 GCMs)
(4911 7622%) B2 124 963 B2 14 106 A1 0
(Hales et al. 2002)
(11198 87495%) (1167 9550%) ( 0%)
Page 165
4 - 5°C A1/B1 0 0 5 A1/B1 0 0 0

( 0 0 12%) ( 0 0 0%)
B2 0 0 4 B2 0 0 0
( 0 0 12%) ( 0 0 0%)
A2 0 0 6 A2 0 0 0
( 0 0 11%) ( 0 0 0%)
Page 166
ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR GLOBAL AND EACH UNEP REGION
Global Proportion of biomes

Proportion of species extinct
Temperature transformed and examples
and examples of key iconic Carbon sequestration Change in forest cover Change in grassland cover Change in desert cover
Rise (relative of key global/regional
species lost
to 1990) ecosystem losses
Baseline (for
0.2 Pg C
comparison)
• Risk extinctions in Dryandra • Range loss begins for Golden • 0.6-0.9 Pg C(with CO2) • PL, net 3.85-5.13% increase • PL. net 3.85-5.13% decrease • PL net 0% change with CO2
forest (Gitay 2001) Bowerbird (Hilbert 2004) with CO2 with CO2
0 - 1°C • 0.1 – 0.4 Pg C(without CO2) • PL net 0% change without
• PL, net 3.85-5.13% increase • PL net 3.85-5.13% decrease CO2
without CO2 without CO2
• Extensive loss/conversion of • Extinction reptiles (7 – 14%) • -0.1 to 0.9 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 5.13-8.97% increase • PL. net 5.13-8.97% decrease
habitat in Kakadu wetland frogs (8 – 18%) birds (7 – with CO2 with CO2 • PL net 0% change with CO2
1 - 2°C • -0.7 to 0.1 PgC (without
due to sea level rise and 10%), mammals (10 – 15%) in CO2) • PL net 3.85-5.13% increase • PL net 3.85-5.13% decrease • PL net 0% change without
saltwater intrusion (Eliot Queensland as 47% of habitat without CO2 without CO2 CO2
1999) lost (Thomas 2004; Williams
• Complete loss alpine zone 2003)
(ECF 2004)
• Risk functional extinction of
Golden Bowerbird: habitat
reduced by 50% (Rutherford
2000)
• Extinction butterflies (13 – 23%)
(Thomas 2004)
• Extinctions of 200-300 species • -0.5 to 0.5 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 6.41-10.26% decrease • PL net 0% change (with CO2)
2 - 3°C (32-63%) of alpine flora in New • -1.24 to -0.33 PgC (without • PL net 6.41-10.26% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (without
Zealand (Halloy 2003) CO2) (with CO2) • PL net 0-5.13% decrease CO2)
• Extinction butterflies (21 – 36%) • PL net 0-5.13% increase (without CO2)
(Thomas 2004) (without CO2)
• >50% range loss for 83% of 24
latitudinally restricted endemic
butterflies (Beaumont 2002)
• High risk extinction of Golden
Bowerbird: at 2C local
temperature rise habitat
reduced by 90% and at 3C by
96% (Hilbert 2004)
• 50 - 73% eucalypts out of • 30 endemic frogs/mammals • -0.4 to -0.9 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 10.26% increase (with • PL net 10.26% decrease (with • PL net 0% change(with CO2)
3 - 4°C range: extinction risks extinct, 35 threatened, 90– • 0.5 to -0.5 PgC (without CO2) CO2) • PL net 0-1.28% increase
(Hughes 1996) 100% loss Heritage Rainforest CO2) • PL net 0-2.56% increase • PL net 1.28 – 2.56% decrease (without CO2)
(Williams 2003) (without CO2) (without CO2)
• 57 endemic frogs/mammals • -0.8 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 14.1% increase (with • PL net 14.1% decrease (with • PL net 0% change (with CO2,
4 - 5°C extinct, 8 endangered (Williams • -1.7 PgC (without CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C) 4C)
2003) • PL net 2.56% increase • PL net 8.97% decrease • PL net 6.41% increase
(without CO2, 4C) (without CO2, 4C) (without CO2, 4C)
Note: The global table reports calculations from the IMAGE model of the losses of biome areas, and the areas that could eventually be re-couped for that biome, given an infinitely slow rate of climate change, shown in brackets.
The net changes in forest, grassland and desert are also reported in both global and regional tables, taken from Chapter 8 of this study, contributed by Peter Levy (PL) using a dynamic vegetation model, Hyland. Note that the
mature ecosystems lost will be richer than the early-successional ecosystems gained, in terms of biodiversity. Therefore, the net balance of areal losses and gains may not correspond closely with the loss of biodiversity.
Page 167
INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR CENTRAL AMERICA
Global Energy

1092 km /year
1304 to 1305
relative to baseline -8.6 to % change (-23 -4 1) Cooling energy demands
-4.1% with CO2 absolute CDD 1449 to 1612
fertilisation, -9.6% to % change (11 to 24%)
-6.1% without
to -1.3% with CO2
-5.3% without
612 996 1123

(-44 -9 3)
relative to baseline -5.1 to 201 to 247
-2.3% with CO2 (-53 to -42%)
fertilisation, -7.1 to -4.6%
without
relative to baseline -8.3 to 1771 to 1946
+1.9% with CO2 (36 to 49%)
-10.6% without
to -1.3% with CO2
-10% without
to -2% with CO2 (-68 to -61%)
-6.3% without
to +1.4% with CO2 63 to 77%
fertilisation, -15.% to
+13.8% without
to 0.1% with CO2
-13.8% without
to -2.0% with CO2 (-79 to -74%)
-9.0% without
relative to baseline +0.1 to 2497 to 2699
+1.9% with CO2 92 to 107%
-15.1% without
to -3.7% with CO2
Page 168
-21.7% without

(-77 -20 10) 55 to 71
(-87 to -83%)

2892 to 3099
(122 to 137%)
Page 169
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR CENTRAL AMERICA

Rise (relative flooding – constant flooding – evolving flooding – enhanced people at risk of hunger**
2080s in 2080s

Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in Baseline 2080: Current disease burden in terms
in 2080s in the absence of climate change absence of climate change and absence of climate change and absence of climate change and A1 9 of deaths (1000s) in 2000
even rural/urban growth even rural/urban growth even rural/urban growth B1 7 Diarrhoea 20.5
Baseline (for Low population (A1/B1) 188
comparison) Medium population (B2) 247 B2 16 Malaria 0.4
High population (A2) 412 Low population (A1/B1) 55 Low population (A1/B1) 6 Low population (A1/B1) 6 A2 90
Dengue 1.6
Medium population (B2) 71 Medium population (B2) 11 Medium population (B2) 7 Cardiovascular 230.6
0 - 1°C A1/B1 0 2 65 A1/B1 0 0 28 • 0.2C Risks of death due to

( 0 1 35%) ( 0 0 15%) flooding increased by 258%
B2 0 5 84 B2 0 0 40 min max min max min max in C/S America (McMichael
( 0 2 34%) ( 0 0 16%) A1/B1 55 129 A1/B1 6 15 A1/B1 6 6 et al 2004)
A2 0 10 173 A2 0 0 66 • 0.7C Risks of death due to
( 0 3 42%) ( 0 0 16%) (0 133%) (0 158%) (0 9%)
flooding increased by 276%
A2 127 278 A2 20 41 A2 12 13
in C/S America (McMichael
(0 119%) (0 107%) (0 14%) et al 2004)
B2 71 169 B2 11 22 B2 18 19 • 1.0C Risks of death due to
(0 139%) (0 100%) (0 9%) flooding increased by 364%
et al 2004)
1 - 2°C A1/B1 5 23 66 A1/B1 0 0 30 Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080:

( 3 12 35%) ( 0 0 16%) A1/B1 59 432 A1/B1 6 112 A1/B1 6 14
B2 5 35 104 B2 0 0 43 B1 5
( 2 14 42%) ( 0 0 17%) (7 681%) (7 1884%) (6 143%)
( 72%)
A2 9 88 174 A2 0 1 105 A2 135 912 A2 21 314 A2 12 38
( 2 21 42%) ( 0 0 26%) (7 621%) (6 1474%) (5 218%)
B2 76 579 B2 11 143 B2 19 21
(7 719%) (6 1228%) (6 19%) B1 2
(26%)

( 3 21 35%) ( 0 0 28%) B2 15
B2 6 48 104 B2 0 0 70 (99%)
( 2 20 42%) ( 0 0 29%) A1/B1 199 2492 A1/B1 23 1903 A1/B1 6 215
A2 85
A2 11 116 247 A2 0 1 151 (260 4409%) (309 33639%) (13 3716%)
( 95%)
( 3 28 60%) ( 0 0 37%) A2 420 4875 A2 61 3533 A2 14 399
(232 3751%) (209 17632%) (22 3283%)
B2 263 3036 B2 32 2277 B2 20 405
(271 4194%) (194 21037%) (12 2188%)
B2 -1
(-6%)
A2 -4
( -5%)
3 - 4°C A1/B1 5 38 81 A1/B1 0 3 52

( 3 20 43%) ( 0 2 28%) A1/B1 1028 3785 A1/B1 376 2558 A1/B1 43 285 Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080:
B2 6 47 143 B2 0 3 70 (1761 6748%) (6570 45248%) (671 4954%) A1 27
( 2 19 58%) ( 0 1 29%)
A2 1960 7661 A2 771 4825 A2 89 538 (294 %)
A2 11 113 257 A2 0 16 151
( 3 28 63%) ( 0 4 37%) (1448 5951%) (3771 24118%) (652 4459%)
B2 1250 4762 B2 449 3094 B2 90 1980 With CO2 Fertilisation 2080:
(1668 6636%) (4071 28624%) (407 11078%) A1 1
( 13%)
Page 170
4 - 5°C A1/B1 5 38 87 A1/B1 0 3 52

( 3 20 46%) ( 0 2 28%)
B2 7 47 140 B2 0 3 70
( 3 19 57%) ( 0 1 29%)
A2 11 116 266 A2 0 27 151
( 3 28 65%) ( 0 6 37%)
** These numbers are for all of Latin America
Page 171

Proportion of species
extinct and examples of key Carbon sequestration Change in forest cover Change in grassland cover Change in desert cover
iconic species lost
Baseline (for
0.03 Pg C
comparison)
• -0.5 -0.22 Pg C (with CO2) • PL, net 0% change with CO2 • PL net 0% change with CO2 • PL net 0% change with CO2
0 - 1°C • -0.16 – 0.1 Pg C (without • PL, net 0% change without • PL net 0% change without • PL net 0% change without
CO2) CO2 CO2 CO2
• Extinction mammals (2 – • 0.05-0.24 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 0% change with CO2
1 - 2°C 18%), birds (2 – 8%) and • -0.12 to -0.01 PgC (without • PL net 0% change without • PL net 0-3.57% increase with • PL net 0 – 3.57% decrease
butterflies (1 – 11%) CO2) CO2 CO2 with CO2
(Thomas 2004)
• PL net 0% change without • PL net 0% change without
• Large range loss animals & CO2 CO2
risk extinctions of 11%
species (Peterson 2002)
• Cloud forest regions lose • -0.14 to 0.26 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 3.57% increase (with • PL net 3.57% decrease (with
2 - 3°C hundreds of metres of • -0.26 to -0.03 PgC (without • PL net 0% change (with CO2) CO2) CO2)
elevational extent, potential • PL net 0% change (without • PL net 0% change (without
CO2) • PL net 0% change (without
extinctions (Still 1999) CO2) CO2)
CO2)
• Loss of forest wintering • -0.11 to 0.15 PgC (with CO2) • PL 0% change (with CO2) • PL net 3.57% increase (with • PL net 3.57% decrease (with
3 - 4°C habitat of Monarch butterfly • -0.2 to -0.19 PgC (without • PL net 7.14% decrease CO2) CO2)
(Villers-Ruiz 1998) CO2) (without CO2) • PL net 7.14% increase • PL net 0% change (without
(without CO2) CO2)
• -0.5 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 0% change (with CO2, • PL net 7.14% increase (with • PL net 7.14% decrease (with
4 - 5°C • -0.38 PgC (without CO2, 4C) 4C) CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C)
• PL net 10.71% decrease • PL net 3.57% increase • PL net 7.14% increase
Page 172
INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR EAST ASIA
Global Energy

3139 km /year
1056 to 1075
0 - 1°C relative to baseline -1.9% to Heating energy demands
+0.6% with CO2 fertilisation, min / med / max
-2.3% to -0.4% without
absolute change 3022 3184 3250 % change (-10 to -5%)
• Yield for rice: % change relative
to baseline -1.0% to +0.4%
with CO2 fertilisation, -2.3%
to -1.4% without absolute CDD 1155 to 1282
• Yield for wheat: % change % change (9 to 19%)
relative to baseline -0.1% to
+2.3% with CO2 fertilisation,
2903 3273 3371

(-8 4 7)
relative to baseline -4.2% to 1698 to 1808
-2.5% with CO2 fertilisation, (-19 to -14%)
to baseline -1.7% to +3.9%
with CO2 fertilisation, -8.5% 1367 to 1500
to - 4.0% without (29 to 40%)
relative to baseline +2.1% to
2 - 3°C relative to baseline -4.4 to 2777 3359 3371 Heating energy demands
-3.8% with CO2 fertilisation, (-12 7 11) 1525 to 1629
-11.4% to -6.5% without
(-27 to -23%)
to baseline +1.5% to +2.1%
with CO2 fertilisation, -15.1% Cooling energy demands
to -7.9% without 1592 to 1735
• Yield for wheat: % change (50 to 62%)
relative to baseline +3.1% to
-14.9% to -7.8%% without
relative to baseline -7.5% to (-15 10 15) 1366 to 1462
-6.7% with CO2 fertilisation, (-35 to -31%)
-15.5% to -13.7% without
to baseline -1.8% to 3.0%
with CO2 fertilisation, -18.8% 1831 to 1981
to -14.0% without (73 to 85%)
relative to baseline -4.0% to
-22.0% to -16.0% without

(-19 12 17) 1217 to 1305
(-42 to -38%)

Page 173 2082 to 2239
(97 to 109%)
Page 174
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR EAST ASIA

2080s in 2080s
Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds Population (thousands) Population (thousands) Population (thousands)
in 2080s in the absence of climate change experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in Baseline 2080: Current disease burden in terms
absence of climate change and absence of climate change and absence of climate change and A1 4 of death (1000s) in 2000
Low population (A1/B1) 1264 even rural/urban growth even rural/urban growth even rural/urban growth B1 0
Baseline (for Diarrhoea 171.6
comparison) Medium population (B2) 1940 B2 20
Malaria 20.5
High population (A2) 3310 Low population (A1/B1) 4157 Low population (A1/B1) 60 Low population (A1/B1) 60 A2 110
Dengue 3.8
Cardiovascular 3862.5
0 - 1°C A1/B1 0 0 18 A1/B1 1 43 307 A1/B1 4157 4292 A1/B1 60 63 A1/B1 60 62
( 0 0 1%) ( 0 3 24%) (0 3%) (0 4%) (0 3%)
B2 0 1 155 B2 1 154 547
A2 11607 11985 A2 3723 3867 A2 532 549
( 0 0 8%) ( 0 8 28%)
A2 0 183 1147 A2 1 379 1860 (0 3%) (0 4%) (0 3%)
( 0 6 35%) ( 0 11 56%) B2 6543 6756 B2 285 294 B2 90 92
(0 3%) (0 3%) (0 3%)
( 0 4 11%) ( 1 10 29%) A1/B1 4243 4460 A1/B1 61 97 A1/B1 61 64
B2 4 75 251 B2 113 300 771 B1 0
( 0 4 13%) ( 6 15 40%) (2 7%) (2 60%) (2 5%)
(0%)
A2 10 863 1572 A2 197 983 2311 A2 11847 12409 A2 3817 4055 A2 543 565
( 0 26 47%) ( 6 30 70%) (2 7%) (3 9%) (2 6%)
B2 6678 6994 B2 290 329 B2 91 94
(2 7%) (2 16%) (2 5%) B1 0
(0%)
( 0 4 11%) ( 4 18 30%) B2 18
B2 4 199 300 B2 182 430 778 (89%)
( 0 10 15%) ( 9 22 40%) A1/B1 4341 20073 A1/B1 64 360 A1/B1 62 71
A2 88
A2 41 880 1578 A2 627 1179 2323 (4 383%) (5 497%) (4 18%)
( 80%)
( 1 27 48%) ( 19 36 70%) A2 12123 54788 A2 3916 35662 A2 554 4213
(4 372%) (5 858%) (4 692%)
B2 6834 30335 B2 299 2416 B2 93 324
(4 364%) (5 749%) (3 262%)
B2 0
(-2%)
A2 -14
( -13%)
3 - 4°C A1/B1 2 96 141 A1/B1 48 234 375

B2 4 237 728 B2 182 432 778 (10 425%) (71 1912%) (7 172%) A1 26
( 0 12 37%) ( 9 22 40%) A2 12707 59118 A2 4122 39501 A2 573 4612 (728%)
A2 42 898 1584 A2 748 1180 2323
( 1 27 48%) ( 23 36 70%) (9 409%) (11 961%) (8 767%)
(10 400%) (21 1182%) (7 408%) A1 1
( 32%)
4 - 5°C A1/B1 2 109 160 A1/B1 81 245 376

( 0 9 13%) ( 6 19 30%)
B2 4 260 782 B2 239 447 757
( 0 13 40%) ( 12 23 39%)
A2 13 898 1584 A2 748 1178 2326
( 0 27 48%) ( 23 36 70%)
Page 175

iconic species lost
Baseline (for
-0.01 Pg C
comparison)
• Coral reefs regionally • 0.12-0.19 Pg C(with CO2) • PL net 0 – 0.69% increase • PL net 0.69-1.39% increase • PL net 0.69-1.39% decrease
functionally extinct (Hoegh- with CO2 with CO2 with CO2
0 - 1°C • -0.05 to 0.03 Pg C(without
Guldberg 1999)
CO2) • PL net 0 - 0.69% increase • PL net 0.69% decrease • PL net 0-0.69% increase
without CO2 without CO2 without CO2
• • 0.21-0.52 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 2.08% increase with

1 - 2°C • -0.04-0.15 PgC (without CO2) CO2 • PL net 0.69% increase or • PL net 1.39 to 2.78%
• PL net 0.69-2.08% increase decrease with CO2 decrease with CO2
without CO2 • PL net 1.39% decrease to • PL net 0.69 to 1.39%
0.69% increase without CO2 decrease without CO2
• Complete loss boreal forest • 0.26 to 1.11 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 2.08% decrease to • PL net 3.47 to 7.64%
2 - 3°C (Ni 2001) • -0.02 to 0.47 PgC (without • PL net 4.86 to 6.94% increase 0.69% increase (with CO2) decrease (with CO2)
CO2) (with CO2) • PL net 0.69 to 2.78% • PL net 1.3902.78% decrease
• PL net 3.47 to 4.86% increase decrease (without CO2) (without CO2)
(without CO2)
• 0.23 to 1.21 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 6.25-8.33% increase • PL net 0.69% increase (with • PL net 6.94-9.03% decrease
3 - 4°C • -0.04 to 0.55 PgC (without (with CO2) CO2) (with CO2)
CO2) • PL net 3.47-4.86% increase • PL net 1.39-2.08% decrease • PL net 2.08-2.78% decrease
(without CO2) (without CO2) (without CO2)
• 1.4 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 9.72% increase (with • PL net 2.08% increase (with • PL net 11.81% decrease (with
4 - 5°C • 0.5 PgC (without CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C)
• PL net 5.56% increase • PL net 2.08% decrease • PL net 3.47% decrease
Page 176
INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR EUROPE
Global Energy

1765 km /year
186 to 191
% change (-8 -3 -1) Cooling energy demands
relative to baseline -1.7 to
+2.3% with CO2 absolute CDD 237 to 298
fertilisation, -2.7 to +0.3% % change (26 to 56%)
without
to +1.9% with CO2
fertilisation, -4.5 % to
-2.2% without
1479 1644 1712

(-16 -7 -3)
to -4.0% with CO2 (-19 to -14%)
-5.6% without
to +10.2% with CO2 (89 to 126%)
-2.1% without
+3.9% with CO2
-4.5% without
relative to baseline -5.4% (-23 -11 -6) 2159 to 2291
to -3.2% with CO2 (-27 to -23%)
-8.3% without
to +10.2% with CO2 (166 to 208%)
-4.0% without
to +7.4% with CO2
-8.1% without
relative to baseline -3.8% (-30 -14 -8) 1939 to 2059
to -3.7% with CO2 (-34 to -30%)
-10.7% without
to +10.7% with CO2 (252 to 299%)
Page 177 fertilisation, -11.9% to
-6.3% without
to +7.3% with CO2
-10.7% without

(-35 -18 -10) 1734 to 1847
(-41 to -38%)

833 to 940
(348 to 398%)
Page 178
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR EUROPE

2080s in 2080s

experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in Baseline 2080:
in 2080s in the absence of climate change absence of climate change and absence of climate change and absence of climate change and A1 0
even rural/urban growth even rural/urban growth even rural/urban growth B1 0 Current disease burden in terms
Baseline (for of death (1000s)
comparison) Low Population (A1/B1) 589 B2 0
Medium Population (B2) 575 Low population (A1/B1) 41 Low population (A1/B1) 27 Low population (A1/B1) 27 A2 0 Diarrhoea 9.7
High Population (A2) 743 Malaria 0.1
High population (A2) 49 High population (A2) 32 High population (A2) 32 Dengue 0
Cardiovascular 2518
0 - 1°C A1/B1 35 82 233 A1/B1 0 0 0 A1/B1 41 220 A1/B1 27 152 A1/B1 27 37
( 6 14 40%) ( 0 0 0%) (0 443%) (0 455%) (0 33%)
B2 31 72 238 B2 0 0 15
A2 49 260 A2 32 173 A2 32 42
( 5 13 41%) ( 0 0 3%)
A2 59 180 433 A2 0 0 0 (0 429%) (0 434%) (0 31%)
( 8 24 58%) ( 0 0 0%) B2 41 220 B2 25 139 B2 25 33
(0 441%) (0 455%) (0 33%)
( 17 19 54%) ( 0 0 7%) A1/B1 89 565 A1/B1 75 442 A1/B1 28 68
B2 89 126 328 B2 0 0 53 B1 0
( 16 22 57%) ( 0 0 9%) (120 1295%) (173 1514%) (3 147%)
(0%)
A2 198 263 489 A2 0 0 48 A2 107 690 A2 88 533 A2 33 81
( 27 35 66%) ( 0 0 6%) (117 1305%) (173 1551%) (3 151%)
B2 86 561 B2 69 415 B2 26 63
(112 1282%) (176 1556%) (3 151%) B1 0
(0%)
( 20 28 62%) ( 0 0 10%) B2 0
B2 103 195 342 B2 0 0 69 (0%)
( 18 34 59%) ( 0 0 12%) A1/B1 351 4319 A1/B1 229 4164 A1/B1 45 479
A2 0
A2 238 332 551 A2 0 0 68 (766 10554%) (737 15098%) (64 1649%)
( 0%)
( 32 45 74%) ( 0 0 9%) A2 413 5206 A2 257 5009 A2 51 576
(741 10503%) (696 15411%) (59 1685%)
B2 353 4072 B2 209 3885 B2 41 447
(770 9928%) (733 15404%) (63 1683%)
B2 0
(0%)
A2 0
( 0%)
3 - 4°C A1/B1 179 267 441 A1/B1 0 0 58

B2 194 267 429 B2 0 0 69 (5488 16386%) (7706 23785%) (836 2568%) A1 0
( 34 47 75%) ( 0 0 12%)
A2 2735 7949 A2 2574 7773 A2 308 868 (0%)
A2 288 424 567 A2 0 0 68
( 39 57 76%) ( 0 0 9%) (5469 16087%) (7871 23968%) (855 2588%)
(5181 15464%) (7859 24471%) (852 2645%) A1 0
( 0%)
4 - 5°C A1/B1 206 320 451 A1/B1 0 0 58

( 35 54 77%) ( 0 0 10%)
B2 214 320 440 B2 0 0 69
( 37 56 77%) ( 0 0 12%)
A2 297 446 591 A2 0 0 68
( 40 60 79%) ( 0 0 9%)
Page 179

iconic species lost
Baseline (for
0.03 Pg C
comparison)
• 0.02-0.08 Pg C (with CO2) • PL net 1.35% increase with • PL net 0-1.35% decrease with • PL net 0 -1.35% decrease
0 - 1°C • -0.02 to 0.04 Pg C(without CO2 CO2 with CO2
CO2) • PL net 0-1.35% increase • PL net 0-1.35% decrease • PL net 0% change without
without CO2 without CO2 CO2
• Alpine systems in Alps can • Extinction of plants (3-14%) • 0.02-0.14 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 0-1.35% increase with
tolerate local temperature (Thomas 2004) CO2 • PL net 1.35% increase or • PL net 1.35% increase to
1 - 2°C • -0.03 to 0.06 PgC (without
rise of 1-2C, but tolerance
CO2) • PL net 0-1.35% increase decrease with CO2 2.7% decrease with CO2
likely to be negated by land
use change (Theurillat 2001)
without CO2 • PL net 0-1.35% decrease • PL net 1.35% increase or
• Transformation of without CO2 decrease without CO2
ecosystems e.g. 32% of
plants move from 44%
European area with potential
extinction of endemics
(Bakkenes 2002)
• Increased fire frequency • Extinction of plants (4 – • 0.04 to 0.37 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 0-2.7% decrease (with • PL net 1.35-2.7% decrease
2 - 3°C converts forest & macquis to 21%) (Thomas 2004) • -0.02 to 0.17PgC (without • PL net 1.35-5.41% increase CO2) (with CO2)
scrub, increased pest • 2 – 10% European plants CO2) (with CO2) • PL net 0 -1.35% decrease% • PL net 1.35% increase or
outbreaks (Mouillot 2002) critically endangered or • PL net 0-1.35% increase (without CO2) decrease without CO2
extinct; mean species turnover (without CO2)
of 48% (spatial range 17 –
75%); mean species loss of
27% (spatial range 1- 68%)
(Thuiller 2005)
• Extinction birds (4 – 38%)
(Thomas 2004)
• 4 – 24% European plants • -0.06 to 0.43 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 2.7-8.11% increase • PL net 2.7-5.41% decrease • PL net 0-2.7% decrease (with
3 - 4°C critically • 0-0.21 PgC (without CO2) (with CO2) (with CO2) CO2)
endangered/extinct; mean • PL net 1.35% increase or • PL 0% change (without CO2) • PL net 1.35% increase or
species turnover of 63% decrease (without CO2) decrease without CO2
(spatial range 22 – 90%);
mean species loss of 42%
(spatial range 2.5 – 86%)
(Thuiller 2005)
• Risk of extinction of Alpine
species (Theurillat 1998)
• 0.48 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 10.81% increase (with • PL net 8.11% decrease (with • PL net 2.7% decrease (with
4 - 5°C • 0.19PgC (without CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C)
• PL net 1.35% increase • PL net -1.35% decrease • PL net 0% change (without
(without CO2, 4C) (without CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C)
Page 180
INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR GLOBE
Global Energy
Cereal prices (heating and cooling

1.26 $/ha in 1990
Baseline (for 1171 to 1173
comparison) In 2080 for A1: 2.18 A2: 2.64
B1: 1.67 B2: 1.86
1681 to 1689
• Yield for maize: % change THESE NUMBERS TO BE
0 - 1°C relative to baseline -4.2% REPLACED Heating energy demands
to -2.6% with CO2 • Overall increase in cereal absolute HDD 1038 to 1105
fertilisation, -4.2 to -3.6% prices in each region ($/ha
without % change (-11 to -6%)
and % change relative to
• Yield for rice: % change baseline (note baseline
relative to baseline increases between 1990 Cooling energy demands
-3.4% to -1.0% with CO2 and 2080) with and without absolute CDD 1806 to 1949
fertilisation, -4.4% to -3.0% CO2 fertilisation % change (7 to 15%)
without assumptions
• Yield for wheat: % change A1 without 2020: rise of 0.24
relative to baseline -1.1% (19%)
to +1.2% with CO2 A1 with 2020: rise of 0.07 (5%)
fertilisation, -4.1% to -2.8% A2 without 2020: rise of 0.24
without (19%)
A2 with 2020: rise of 0.07 (5%)
B1 without 2020: rise of 0.22
(17%)
B1 with 2020: rise of 0.12 (9%)
B2 without 2020: rise of 0.27
(21%)
B2 with 2020: rise of 0.16 (13%)
Overall range with

0.07 to 0.16 (5-13%)
Overall range without
0.22 to 0.27 (17-21%)
1 - 2°C • Yield for maize: % change • Overall changes in cereal Heating energy demands
relative to baseline -6.9% prices in each region ($/ha 922 to 980
to -4.9% with CO2 and % change relative to (-21 to -16%)
fertilisation, -8.9% to -6.3% baseline) with and without
without CO2 fertilisation
assumptions Cooling energy demands
relative to baseline -3.9% • A1 without 2050 rise of 2071 to 2218
to +0.1% with CO2 0.83 (64%) (23 to 31%)
fertilisation, -10.0% to • A1 with 2050 rise of 0.08
-6.7% without (6%)
• Yield for wheat: % change • A2 without 2050: rise of
relative to baseline -0.3% 0.74 (57%)
to +2.6% with CO2
• A2 with 2050 rise of 0.06
(5%)
-5.7% without
• B1 without 2050 rise of
0.43 (33%), 2080 rise of
0.58 (45%)
• B1 with 2050 rise of 0.12 (
10%) 2080 rise of 0.2
(15% )
• B2 without 2050: rise of
0.57 (44%)
• B2 with 2050: rise of 0.17
(13%)
Overall range with 0.06-0.2 (5
-15%)
Overall range without 0.43 –
0.83 (33 – 64%)
Page 181
fertilisation, -13.9% to baseline) with and without
-9.9% without CO2 fertilisation
relative to baseline • A2 without 2080 rise of 2357 to 2504
-1.8% to +1.6% with CO2 1.67 (129%) (40 to 48%)
fertilisation, -11.2% to • A2 with 2080 rise of 0.04
-15.4% without (3%)
• Yield for wheat: % change • B2 without 2080: rise of
relative to baseline -0.6% 0.95 (73%)
to +2.7% with CO2
• B2 with 2080: rise of 0.08
(6%)
-10.9% without
• A1 without 2070 rise of
(86%)
• A1 with 2070 rise of (8 %)
Overall range:
fertilisation, -16.9% to baseline) with and without
-14.3% without CO2 fertilisation
relative to baseline • A1 with 2080 rise of 1.77 2650 to 2800
-3.5% to +1.5% with CO2 (136%) (57 to 66%)
fertilisation, -20.2% to • A1 without 2080 rise of
-15.5% without 0.18 (14%)
to +2.3% with CO2
-15.7% without
4 - 5°C • Overall changes in cereal Heating energy demands

prices in each region ($/ha 642 to 684
and % change relative to (-45 to -42%)
baseline) with and without
CO2 fertilisation
2941 to 3106
(75 to 84%)
Page 182
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR GLOBE

2080s in 2080s
experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and absence of climate change and Baseline 2080:
in 2080s in the absence of climate change absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth even rural/urban growth A1 108
even rural/urban growth B1 91
Baseline (for
comparison) Low population (A1/B1) 7840 B2 233
Medium population (B2) 10125 Low population (A1) 286 Low population (A1) 0 A2 768
High population (A2) 14090 Low population (B1) 0 Low population (A1) 0
(4 7 12%) (3 14 32%) flooding increased by 44% in
B2 392 748 1409 B2 460 1564 3866 min max min max W Africa and 258% in C/S
(4 7 14%) (5 15 38%) America (McMichael et al
A2 770 1633 3047 A2 950 2280 5082 min max A1 0 1 A1 0 0 2004)
(5 12 22%) (7 16 36%) A1/B1 15 34 (0 230%) (0 12%)
• 0.7C Risks of death due to
(0 118%) A2 11 15 A2 2 2 flooding increased by 48% in
A2 30 61 (0 29%) (0 21%) W Africa and 276% in C/S
(0 104%) B1 0 1 B1 0 0 America (McMichael et al
B2 22 47 (0 217%) (0 15%) 2004)
(0 109%) B2 1 2 B2 0 0 • 1.0C Risks of death due to
flooding increased by 64% in
(0 174%) (0 30%)
W Africa and 364% in C/S
America (McMichael et al
2004)
(9 12 19%) (14 20 35%) A1/B1 22 61 (63 615%) (3 43%)
B2 1003 1236 2178 B2 1534 2652 4114 B1 34
(10 12 22%) (15 26 41%) (46 296%) A2 12 21 A2 2 2
(38%)
A2 2074 2874 4440 A2 1841 3989 5580 A2 43 103 (6 82%) (3 61%)
(15 20 32%) (13 28 40%) (43 245%) B1 1 2 B1 0 0
B2 30 93 (70 732%) (4 60%)
(35 316%) B2 1 4 B2 0 1 B1 12
(29 466%) (3 78%) (13%)

A1 1 30 A1 0 3
B2 1168 1348 2615 B2 1977 3001 4217 (65%) 2002)
( 12 13 26%) ( 20 30 42%) A1/B1 45 159 (344 10309%) (21 1073%)
A2 551
A2 2311 3227 5182 A2 2537 4301 5882 (191 935%) A2 17 178 A2 2 2
( 72%)
( 16 23 37%) ( 18 31 42%) A2 79 285 (53 1462%) (39 1201%)
(164 848%) B1 1 30 B1 0 3
B2 64 222 (365 10173%) (26 1102%)
(184 888%) B2 3 52 B2 1 6
B2 -12
(320 6991%) (56 1468%) (-5%)
A2 -28
( - 4%)
3 - 4°C A1/B1 965 1274 2028 A1/B1 1385 1747 2803 A1 7 57 A1 1 6

( 12 16 26%) ( 18 22 36%) A1/B1 80 179 (2314 19698%) (225 2101%) Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: • 3.3C 5.2 billion people
B2 1265 1618 3293 B2 2018 3336 4269 (423 1066%) A2 30 245 A2 4 28 A1 263 (52%) exposed to dengue in
( 12 16 33%) ( 20 33 42%) (166 2052%) (129 1669%) (243%) 2085 (HadCM2) (Hales et al.
A2 134 319
A2 2647 3563 5391 A2 2650 4619 5928 2002)
( 19 25 38%) ( 19 33 42%) (348 964%) B1 8 57 B1 1 6
B2 119 247 (2477 18964%) (254 2101%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: • 3.3C 5-7 billion people
(429 1001%) B2 10 83 B2 1 9 A1 28
(Hales et al. 2002)
(1264 11179%) (245 2364%) (26%)
Page 183
4 - 5°C A1/B1 979 1492 2145 A1/B1 1593 1837 2807

( 12 19 27%) ( 20 23 36%)
B2 1211 1806 3376 B2 2253 3517 4279
( 12 18 33%) ( 22 35 42%)
A2 2978 3568 5823 A2 3040 4856 5959
( 21 25 41%) ( 22 34 42%)
Page 184

iconic species lost
• In 2004 IUCN assessed that
there were 9917 bird species
of which 1213 (12%) are
threatened, 5743 amphibians
of which 1856 (32%) are
threatened, 5416 mammals
of which at least 1101 (20-
23%) are threatened, 287,655
plants of which at least 8321 • MEA predicts losses due to
are threatened (3-70%), 8163 land use change only for 1970 • Currently there are 33.3
reptiles of which at least 304 to 2050 of 35-40% (warm • MEA predicts losses due to million square km of deserts
(4-61%) are threatened, mixed forests), 10-17% land use change only for (including tundra)
• Of these a further 15-18% 28500 fish of which at least (tropical forests), 2 to 1970-2050 of 8-10% • Potential area (baseline for PL
may be lost to a combination 800 (3-46%) are threatened, 4%(boreal forests), 11-20% (grasslands) and 10-20% results) 33.6
Baseline (for and 1,190200 invertebrates of (cool conifer forests), and 25- (savannas).
of agricultural expansion AND 0.7 Pg C • I sq km = 1,000,000 sq m
comparison) which at least 1992 (0.2 to 30% (temperate decidous
climate change (Millennium • Currently there are 65.4
57%) are threatened. In forests) million square km of grassland • 1 ha = 10,000 sq m
Ecosystem Assessment,
Figure 10.17) by 2050. almost all cases these threats • Currently there are 41.6 • Potential area (baseline for PL • 1 sq km = 100 ha
are not due to climate change million square km of forests results) is 12.31 • 33.6 million sq km = 33.6
and the ranges arise where
• Potential area (baseline for PL times 10 to the 8 ha
some species’ conservation
results) is 87.06
status is not known.
• However, in the last 20 years
only 1 amphibian, 3 birds, 1
mammal, and 7 plants have
gone extinct in the wild.
• These are much lower
extinction rates than those
predicted below.
• At 1C: 10% Global • 1C 9-31% (mean 18%) • 3.1-4.4 Pg C(with CO2) • PL, net 0.7-0.89% increase • PL. net 0-0.32% with CO2 • PL net 0 to -1.14% with CO2
0 - 1°C Ecosystems transformed (5 species extinct (range for • 0.2-1.2 Pg C(without CO2) with CO2 • PL net -0.44 to -0.25% • PL net -0.38 to -0.19 without
GCMS), includes CO2 dispersal or not; species area • PL, net 0.57-0.76% increase without CO2 CO2
fertilisation and no land use curve) without CO2
change. At 0.9C coral reefs in Indian • At 0.9C the IMAGE/LPJ
• Loss 47% wooded tundra Ocean, Great Barrier Reef and modellling system predicts the
and 23% cool conifer forest Carribean, SE Asia, following losses of stable
functionally extinct biome areas (potential
At 0.9C risk functional extinction increases shown in brackets)*:
Golden Bower Bird in Australia
• ice -1.1 (1.0)
• tundra -13.0 (18.4)
• wooded tundra -46.6 ( 33.2)
• boreal forest -4.3 (4.2)
• cool conifer -22.9 (14.2)
• temp. mixed forest 5.2 (21.7)
• temp.deciduous forest
11.7 (12.6)
• warm mixed forest -4.3 (7.3)
• grassland/steppe -14.5 (9.3)
• hot desert -3.9 (3.3)
• scrubland -20.9 (19.4)
• savanna -13.5 (10.1)
• tropical woodland -8.4 (23.0)
• tropical forest -4.9 (4.0)
• Total -10.4 (10.4)
At 2C, 16% global ecosystems • 1.4C 15-37% (mean 24%) • 2.6-6.6 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 1.84 to 2.41% with
transformed: ecosystems
1 - 2°C species extinct (dispersal or • -1.6 to 0 PgC (without CO2) CO2 • PL net -0.89 to -0.19% with • PL net -1.97 to -0.95% with
variously lose between 5 and 66% not, species area curve) • PL net 0.89 to 1.27% without CO2 CO2
of their extent (5 GCMs)
• 1.4C Total loss Arctic summer CO2 • PL net -1.21 to -0.38% without • PL net -0.57 to 0.32% without
ice, high risk of extinction of At 1.9C the IMAGE/LPJ CO2 CO2
Loss 21% tundra, 58% wooded
polar bears, walrus, seals, modellling system predicts the
tundra , 31 % cool conifer forest
whole ecosystems stressed following losses of stable biome
and 21% temperate deciduous
forest • 8-12% of 277 medium/large areas (potential increases shown
mammals from 28 families in in brackets)*:
141 African national parks
Page 185
critically endangered or extinct • ice -3.0 (0.8)

• Extinctions 10% endemics in • tundra -20.5 (12.0)
hotspot for plant biodiversity • wooded tundra -57.8 ( 52.7)
due to 51-65% loss of Fynbos
ecosystem in S Africa • boreal forest -10.1 (10.0)
• Succulent Karoo, S Africa • cool conifer -31.1 (40.7)
reduced to 20% of area, • temp. mixed forest -9.1 (34.3)
threatening 2800 plants with • temp.deciduous forest
extinction -21.4 (23.8)
• warm mixed forest
-10.7 (13.4)
• hot desert -6.8 (4.2)
• scrubland -24.8 (18.3)
• savanna -19.4 (11.0)
Total -15.5 (15.5)
• 2.4C 21-52% (mean 35%) • 0.9 to 7.8 PgC (with CO2) ] • PL net -0.76 to -1.78% (with • PL net -3.87 to -1.97% (with
2 - 3°C • Few ecosystems adapt to 3C species extinct (dispersal or • -3.3 to -0.4 PgC (without CO2) • PL net 3.11 to 4.64% (with CO2) CO2)
rise; 22% are transformed: not, species area curve) CO2) • PL net -0.89 to -1.46% • PL net -0.83 to -0.13%
ecosystems variously lose • Amazon rainforest may • PL net 1.21 to 1.97% (without (without CO2) (without CO2)
between 7 and 74% of their collapse driving millions of CO2)
extent; 50% all nature species to extinction
• At 2.9C the IMAGE/LPJ
reserves cannot fulfil • 50% loss world’s most modellilng system predicts the
conservation objectives (5
productive duck habitat in following losses of stable biome
GCMs)
prairie pothole region USA areas (potential increases shown
• At 3C warming there is an
• 30-40% of 277 mammals in in brackets):
estimated 44% risk of a
terrestrial carbon source 141 African parks critically • ice -5.0 (0.3)
developing from carbon cycle endangered/extinct; 15-20% • tundra -38.4 (5.4)
feedbacks (Scholze et al. endangered
• wooded tundra -67.9 ( 71.2)
2006) • 66 of 165 rivers studied
• boreal forest -12.0 (15.4)
globally lose >10% of their fish
species • cool conifer -44.3 (61.6)
• Extinctions of 200-300 • temp. mixed forest -13.5
species (32-63%) of alpine (47.2)
flora in New Zealand • temp.deciduous forest
-25.6 (30.6)
• warm mixed forest
-17.2 (18.9)
• hot desert -10.9 (5.4)
• scrubland -33.9 (25.4)
• savanna -26.6 (15.3)
Total -21.1 (21.1)
• Further ecosystem • Extinction rates continue to • -0.6 to 6.8 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 3.43 to 4.95% (with • PL net -1.27 to -1.08% (with • PL net -3.87 to -2.16% (with
3 - 4°C transformation escalate • -4.4 to -1.5 PgC (without CO2) CO2) CO2) CO2)
• 60% loss tundra and 44% • 4-24% European plants • PL net 0.89 to 1.33% (without • PL net -1.02 to 0.95% (without • PL net -0.38 to 0.13% (without
loss taiga critically endangered/extinct CO2) CO2) CO2)
• Further ecosystem • Extinction rates are extremely • 3.1 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 5.84% (with CO2, 4C) • PL net -0.7% (with CO2, 4C) • PL net -5.14% (with CO2, 4C)
4 - 5°C transformation high • -5.9 PgC (without CO2, 4C) • PL net 1.14% (without CO2, • PL net -1.65% (without CO2, • PL net 0.51% (without CO2,
4C) 4C) 4C)
Page 186
INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR NORTH AFRICA
Global Energy

60 km /year
1253 to 1260
-5.0%% without absolute change 46 53 57 % change ( -19 to -9%)
relative to baseline % change (-24 -11 -5) Cooling energy demands
-3.1% to -0.7% with CO2 absolute CDD 1368 to 1499
fertilisation, -4.1% to -2.7% % change ( 9 to 19%)
without
to +1.2% with CO2
without

1 - 2°C relative to baseline -10.9% 35 45 52 Heating energy demands
to -7.6% with CO2 (-43 -25 -14) 505 to 575
-8.6% without (-35 to -27%)
relative to baseline Cooling energy demands
-8.4% to +0.3% with CO2 1613 to 1749
fertilisation, -12.8% to (29 to 39%)
-6.0% without
to +2.1% with CO2
-6.1% without

to -13.2% with CO2 (-57 -36 -22) 395 to 449
-14.9% without (-49 to -42%)
-9.2% to -2.8% with CO2 1871 to 2018
-15.6% without
to -4.7% with CO2
-15.7% without

to -16.2% with CO2 (-67 -42 -23) 300 to 351
-23.2% without (-61 to -56%)
relative to baseline -18.2% Cooling energy demands
to -6.7% with CO2 2147 to 2305
-23.7% without
Page 187 relative to baseline -17.3%
to –5.8% with CO2
fertilisation, -35.28 to
-23.8% without

(-74 -45 -21) 225 to 266
(-71 to -66%)

2440 to 2609
(95 to 107%)
Page 188
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR NORTH AFRICA

2080s in 2080s

Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in Current disease burden in terms
Baseline 2080:
Baseline (for
comparison) Low population (A1/B1) 312 B2 113 Diarrhoea 32.6
High population (A2) 610 Malaria 7.6
Medium population (B2) 675 Medium population (B2) 18 Medium population (B2) 18 Dengue 0
High population (A2) 1361 High population (A2) 32 High population (A2) 32 Cardiovascular 358
A1/B1 1 76 169 A1/B1 0 0 144 A1/B1 681 5962 A1/B1 16 113 A1/B1 16 18
0 - 1°C
( 0 24 54%) ( 0 0 46%)
B2 4 85 184 B2 0 0 143 (0 776%) (0 509%) (0 9%)
( 1 26 57%) ( 0 0 44%) A2 1361 12007 A2 32 225 A2 32 35
A2 1 144 331 A2 0 0 290 (0 782%) (0 598%) (0 9%)
( 0 24 54%) ( 0 0 48%) B2 675 5926 B2 18 128 B2 18 19
(0 778%) (0 622%) (0 9%)
A1/B1 89 169 302 A1/B1 0 2 148 Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080:

1 - 2°C
( 28 54 97%) ( 0 1 47%)
B2 101 176 313 B2 0 2 149 A1/B1 5709 7074 A1/B1 102 166 A1/B1 17 19
( 31 55 97%) ( 0 1 46%) (739 939%) (520 909%) (6 18%) B1 23
A2 170 330 595 A2 0 4 300 ( 67%)
A2 11499 14166 A2 203 326 A2 34 38
( 28 54 98%) ( 0 1 49%)
(745 941%) (530 914%) (6 18%)
B2 5675 7014 B2 115 180 B2 19 21
(741 939%) (550 914%) (6 19%) B1 8
( 23%)
Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080:

A1/B1 155 208 305 A1/B1 0 2 150
2 - 3°C B2 89
( 50 67 98%) ( 0 1 48%)
(78%)
B2 164 216 315 B2 0 2 151 A1/B1 6214 12981 A1/B1 125 3251 A1/B1 18 373 A2 200
( 51 67 98%) ( 0 1 47%)
A2 296 406 599 A2 0 4 303 (813 1807%) (660 19666%) (12 2167%) ( 70%)
( 49 67 98%) ( 0 1 50%) A2 12515 25641 A2 247 6275 A2 36 719
(820 1784%) (667 19405%) (12 2136%)
(815 1820%) (693 19840%) (12 2188%) B2 -8
(-7%)
A2 -2
( -1%)
A1/B1 154 218 306 A1/B1 0 3 148

3 - 4°C
( 49 70 98%) ( 0 1 47%)
A1/B1 7554 16361 A1/B1 704 16226 A1/B1 80 1826 Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080:
B2 162 227 315 B2 0 3 150
( 50 71 98%) ( 0 1 46%) (1010 2304%) (4180 98561%) (388 11003%) A1 157
A2 294 426 599 A2 0 5 301 A2 15101 32166 A2 1389 31918 A2 158 3592 ( 369%)
( 48 70 98%) ( 0 1 49%) (1010 2264%) (4217 99114%) (392 11065%)
(1021 2524%) (4347 99127%) (407 11078%) A1 21
( 49%)
A1/B1 154 222 306 A1/B1 0 5 149

4 - 5°C
( 49 71 98%) ( 0 2 48%)
B2 162 230 319 B2 1 5 150
( 50 71 99%) ( 0 2 47%)
A2 294 426 603 A2 1 8 301
( 48 70 99%) ( 0 1 49%)
** These numbers are for all of Africa.
Page 189

iconic species lost
Baseline (for
0.03 Pg C
comparison)
• • 0.08-0.09 Pg C (with CO2) • PL, net 2.94% increase with • PL. net 1.47% decrease with • PL net 1.47% decrease with
0 - 1°C • 0.04-0.05 Pg C(without CO2) CO2 CO2 CO2
• PL, net 2.94% increase • PL net 1.47-2.94% decrease • PL net 0- 1.47% decrease
without CO2 without CO2 without CO2
• 8 – 12% of 277 medium/large • 0.06-0.11 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 5.88-7.35% increase
1 - 2°C mammals from 28 families in • 0-0.01 PgC (without CO2) with CO2 • PL net 2.94-4.41% decrease • PL net 1.47-2.94% decrease
141 African national parks • PL net 2.94-4.41% increase with CO2 with CO2
critically endangered or without CO2 • PL net 2.94-4.41% decrease • PL net 0% change without
extinct; further 22 – 25%
without CO2 CO2
endangered (Thuiller 2006a)
• Cloud forest regions lose • -0.01 to 0.09 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 5.88-7.35% decrease • PL net 0-2.94% decrease
2 - 3°C hundreds of metres of • -0.02 to -0.05 PgC (without • PL net 7.35-8.82% increase (with CO2) (with CO2)
elevational extent, potential CO2) (with CO2) • PL net 4.41-8.82% decrease • PL net 0-4.41% increase
extinctions (Still 1999)
• PL net 4.41-5.58% increase (without CO2) (without CO2)
(without CO2)
• 30 – 40% of 277 mammals in • -0.4 to 0 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 7.35-8.82% increase • PL net 7.35% decrease (with • PL net 0-1.47% decrease
3 - 4°C 141 African parks critically • -0.08 PgC (without CO2) (with CO2) CO2) (with CO2)
endangered/extinct; 15 – 20% • PL net 4.41-5.88% increase • PL net 10.29-11.77% • PL net 5.88% increase
endangered (Thuiller 2006a) (without CO2) decrease (without CO2) (without CO2)
• -0.07 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 7.35% increase (with • PL net 8.82% decrease (with • PL net 1.47% increase (with
4 - 5°C • -0.09 PgC (without CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C)
• PL net 5.88% increase • PL net 11.77% decrease • PL net 5.88% increase
Page 190
INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR NORTH AMERICA
Global Energy

4327 km /year
600 to 602
to +0.8% with CO2 min / med / max
-0.2% without absolute change 4239 4345 4423 % change -10 to -5%
relative to baseline -
1.0% to +2.6% with CO2 absolute CDD 694 to 799
fertilisation, -2.0% to +0.6% % change 16 to 33%
without
+5.2% with CO2
fertilisation, -1.6% to +1.2%
without

relative to baseline -3.4% 4100 4362 4490
1 - 2°C Heating energy demands
to +0.1% with CO2 (-5 1 4)
2103 to 2230
-2.6% without -19 to -15%
-3.1% to +2.6% with CO2 901 to 1016
fertilisation, -11.4% to 50 to 69%
-5.0% without
+6.4% with CO2
-3.4% without

to 0% with CO2 fertilisation, (-9 0 5) 1881 to 2000
-28 to -24%
-2.2% to +1.7% with CO2 Cooling energy demands
fertilisation, -16.0% to 1129 to 1253
-8.3% without 88 to 108%
+0.4% to +5.2% with CO2
-7.1% without

to -2.2% with CO2 (-13 -2 5) 1676 to 1787
-10.2% without -36 to -32%
relative to baseline 1374 to 1506
+1.0% to +1.8% with CO2 129 to 150%
fertilisation, -16.0 to
-15.2% without
Page 191 to +6.4% with CO2
-11.7% without

(-17 -5 4) 1485 to 1588
-43 to -39%

1634 to 1774
172 to 195%
Page 192
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR NORTH AMERICA

2080s in 2080s
Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in Baseline 2080: Current disease burdens in
absence of climate change and absence of climate change and absence of climate change and A1 0 terms of deaths (1000s) in 2000
in 2080s in the absence of climate change
comparison) B2 0
Low population (A1/B1) 486 Malaria 0
Low population (A1/B1) 21 Low population (A1/B1) 21 Low population (A1/B1) 21 A2 0
Medium population (B2) 395 Dengue 0
High population (A2) 608 Medium population (B2) 17 Medium population (B2) 17 Medium population (B2) 17
0 - 1°C A1/B1 0 16 93 A1/B1 0 1 26 A1/B1 21 30 A1/B1 21 30 A1/B1 21 22
( 0 3 19%) ( 0 0 5%) (0 45%) (0 45%) (0 4%)
B2 0 6 57 B2 0 1 20
A2 26 38 A2 26 38 A2 26 27
( 0 1 14%) ( 0 0 5%)
A2 0 23 131 A2 0 6 33 (0 45%) (0 45%) (0 4%)
( 0 4 22%) ( 0 1 5%) B2 17 25 B2 17 25 B2 17 18
(0 45%) (0 45%) (0 4%)

( 5 17 22%) ( 0 1 6%) A1/B1 21 48 A1/B1 21 48 A1/B1 21 23
B2 17 60 84 B2 0 5 20 B1 0
( 4 15 21%) ( 0 1 5%) (3 130%) (3 130%) (3 11%)
(0%)
A2 33 120 173 A2 3 26 34 A2 27 60 A2 27 60 A2 27 29
( 5 20 28%) ( 0 4 6%) (3 130%) (3 130%) (3 12%)
B2 18 39 B2 18 39 B2 18 19
(3 130%) (3 130%) (3 11%) B1 0
(0%)

( 9 20 28%) ( 0 1 6%) B2 0
B2 26 71 86 B2 0 6 20 (0%)
( 7 18 22%) ( 0 1 5%) A1/B1 39 476 A1/B1 39 476 A1/B1 22 52
A2 0
A2 93 141 173 A2 8 26 34 (88 2192%) (88 2192%) (5 152%)
( 0%)
( 15 23 28%) ( 1 4 6%) A2 49 598 A2 49 598 A2 27 66
(88 2194%) (88 2194%) (5 152%)
B2 32 391 B2 32 291 B2 18 43
(87 2188%) (87 2188%) (5 151%)
B2 0
(0%)
A2 0
( 0%)
3 - 4°C A1/B1 67 112 139 A1/B1 0 26 27

B2 49 73 110 B2 0 20 22 (709 11080%) (709 11080%) (76 1115%) A1 0
( 12 19 28%) ( 0 5 6%) A2 211 2915 A2 211 2915 A2 46 317 (0%)
A2 109 160 207 A2 11 33 34
( 18 26 34%) ( 2 5 6%) (710 11080%) (710 11080%) (76 1115%)
(707 11052%) (707 11052%) (76 1112%) A1 0
( 0%)
4 - 5°C A1/B1 85 128 184 A1/B1 0 26 27

( 17 26 38%) ( 0 5 6%)
B2 49 84 113 B2 0 20 22
( 12 21 29%) ( 0 5 6%)
A2 109 168 247 A2 18 33 60
( 18 28 41%) ( 3 5 10%)
Page 193

iconic species lost
Baseline (for
0.16 Pg C
comparison)
• 8% loss freshwater fish • 0.26-0.43 Pg C(with CO2) • PL net 0.43% increase or • PL. net 0.85-1.7% increase • PL net 0.85 to 2.13%
0 - 1°C habitat, 15% loss in Rocky • 0.09-0.25 Pg C(without CO2) decrease with CO2 with CO2 decrease with CO2
Mountains, 9% loss of salmon • PL net 0.43% increase • PL net 0.43-0.85% increase • PL net 0.43 to 1.28%
(Preston 2006) decrease without CO2 without CO2 decrease without CO2
• 16% freshwater fish habitat • 0.26-0.63 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 0.43 to 1.28% increase
loss, 28% loss in Rocky with CO2 • PL net 1.7% increase with • PL net 2.13 – 2.98% decrease
1 - 2°C • -0.01-0.22 PgC (without CO2)
Mtns, 18% loss salmon
• PL net 0 to 0.85% increase CO2 with CO2
(Preston 2006)
• 60% N American wood
without CO2 • PL net 0.43 to 2.13% increase • PL net -0.85 to 2.98%
warblers ranges contract, without CO2 decrease without CO2
whilst only 8% expand, 4 to
13 (34%) reach “vulnerable”
status (Price 2005)
• New England maples at risk
impacting tourism (ECF
2004)
• 20 – 70% loss (average
44%) bird habitat at 4 major
coastal sites (Galbraith 2002)
• Large loss migratory bird • Loss of 9 – 62% mammal • 0.32 to 0.84 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 0-2.13% increase • PL net 2.98-4.68% decrease
2 - 3°C habitat (Nicholls 1999; Najjar species from mountainous • 0.3 to 0.33 PgC (without CO2) • PL net 1.7-2.98% increase (with CO2) (with CO2)
2000) areas of Great Basin (with CO2) • PL net 0-2.55% increase • PL net 0.85-3.4% decrease
• 50% loss world’s most (McDonald 1992)
• PL net 0 – 0.85% increase (without CO2) (without CO2)
productive duck habitat in (without CO2)
prairie pothole region
(Soreson 1998; Johnson
2005)
• Extinctions of endemics such • 0.29 to 0.92 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 1.28-3.4% increase • PL net 0.85-1.7% increase • PL net 2.98-4.26% decrease
as Hawaiian honeycreepers (with CO2) (with CO2) (with CO2)
3 - 4°C • -0.4 to 0.23 PgC (without
(bird) (Benning 2002)
CO2) • PL net 0.43% decrease to • PL net 0.85-1.7% increase • PL net 1.28-1.7% decrease
• Parts of the USA lose 30 –
0.85% increase (without CO2) (without CO2) (without CO2)
57% neotropical migratory
bird species richness (Price
2005)
• 79% loss at 4 key bird sites • 0.97 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 3.83% increase (with • PL net 2.13% increase (with • PL net 5.96% decrease (with
4 - 5°C (Galbraith 2002) • 0.22 PgC (without CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C)
• PL net 0.85% decrease • PL net 2.13% increase • PL net 2.98% decrease
Page 194
INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR RUSSIA AND CENTRAL ASIA
Global Energy

4626 to 4664
Baseline (for 3
3166 km /year Cooling energy demands
comparison)
160 to 163

% change (1 3 11) Cooling energy demands
fertilisation, -8.9% to % change 34 to 75%
-5.9% without
to -1.9% with CO2
-5.9% without

to -8.3% with CO2 (1 9 19)
3866 to 4079
-9.3% without -16 to -13%
-8.8% to -1.4% with CO2 352 to 438
-9.3% without
to -3.3% with CO2
-9.3% without

to -10.0% with CO2 (0 11 23) 3525 to 3727
-14.0% without -24 to -20%
-5.7% to -3.7% with CO2 517 to 615
-14.0% without
to -0.4% with CO2
-14.0% without

to -12.0% with CO2 (-3 13 22) 3203 to 3393
-19.0% without -31 to -27%
-6.1% to -2.0% with CO2 702 to 810
-19.0% without
Page 195 • Yield for wheat: % change
to -1.0% with CO2

-19.0% without

(-7 13 18) 2895 to 3077
-37 to -34%

903 to 1020
464 to 530%
Page 196
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR RUSSIA AND CENTRAL ASIA

2080s in 2080s
absence of climate change and absence of climate change and absence of climate change and A1 0 of deaths (1000s) in 2000
comparison) B2 0
Low population (A1/B1) 265 Malaria 1
Medium population (B2) 269 Dengue 0
High population (A2) 509 Medium population (B2) 7 Medium population (B2) 7 Medium population (B2) 7
0 - 1°C A1/B1 0 4 11 A1/B1 0 0 35 A1/B1 7 8 A1/B1 7 8 A1/B1 7 8
( 0 1 4%) ( 0 0 13%) (0 5%) (0 5%) (0 5%)
B2 1 10 24 B2 0 0 35
A2 14 15 A2 14 15 A2 14 15
( 0 4 9%) ( 0 0 13%)
A2 8 40 94 A2 0 0 101 (0 5%) (0 5%) (0 5%)
( 1 8 19%) ( 0 0 20%) B2 7 8 B2 7 7 B2 7 8
(0 5%) (0 5%) (0 5%)

( 2 6 18%) ( 0 0 14%) A1/B1 7 8 A1/B1 7 8 A1/B1 7 8
B2 10 25 53 B2 0 0 38 B1 0
( 4 9 20%) ( 0 0 14%) (3 9%) (3 9%) (3 9%)
(0%)
A2 47 131 191 A2 0 5 112 A2 14 15 A2 14 15 A2 14 15
( 9 26 37%) ( 0 1 22%) (3 9%) (3 9%) (3 9%)
B2 8 8 B2 8 8 B2 8 8
(3 9%) (3 9%) (3 9%) B1 0
(0%)

( 5 9 20%) ( 0 0 2%) B2 0
B2 17 30 60 B2 0 1 6 (0%)
( 6 11 22%) ( 0 0 2%) A1/B1 8 77 A1/B1 8 77 A1/B1 8 8
A2 0
A2 98 163 228 A2 0 5 113 (6 961%) (6 961%) (6 16%)
( 0%)
( 19 32 45%) ( 0 1 22%) A2 15 147 A2 15 147 A2 15 16
(6 961%) (6 961%) (6 16%)
B2 8 77 B2 8 77 B2 8 8
(6 961%) (6 961%) (6 16%)
B2 0
(0%)
A2 0
( 0%)
3 - 4°C A1/B1 14 32 60 A1/B1 0 0 6

B2 25 36 65 B2 0 1 6 (11 1025%) (11 1025%) (11 22%) A1 0
( 9 13 24%) ( 0 0 2%) A2 15 156 A2 15 156 A2 15 17 (0%)
A2 99 194 248 A2 0 3 113
( 19 38 49%) ( 0 1 22%) (11 1025%) (11 1025%) (11 22%)
(11 1025%) (11 1025%) (11 22%) A1 0
( 0%)
4 - 5°C A1/B1 25 43 76 A1/B1 0 0 7

( 9 16 29%) ( 0 0 2%)
B2 34 59 83 B2 0 1 7
( 12 22 31%) ( 0 0 3%)
A2 97 224 316 A2 0 1 113
( 19 44 62%) ( 0 0 22%)
Page 197

iconic species lost
Baseline (for
0.03 Pg C
comparison)
• 0.03-0.15 Pg C(with CO2) • PL net 0-0.35% decrease • PL net 0.35-0.7% increase • PL net 0.35 to 0.7% decrease
0 - 1°C • -0.05 to 0.06 Pg C(without (with CO2) (with CO2) with CO2
CO2) • PL net 0-0.35% decrease • PL net 0-0.7% increase • PL net 0 to 0.35% decrease
(without CO2) (without CO2) without CO2
• 0.22-0.37 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 0.7% increase or

1 - 2°C • 0.05-0.12 PgC (without CO2) decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0.7% increase (with • PL net 0 to 1.41% decrease
• PL net 0.35% increase to CO2) with CO2
1.06% decrease (without • PL net 0.7% increase or • PL net 1.06% decrease to
CO2) decrease (without CO2) 1.76% increase without CO2
• 0.35-0.83 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 0.7-2.11% increase • PL net 1.06 to 3.87%
2 - 3°C • 0.14 – 0.31 PgC (without • PL net 0-1.76% increase (with CO2) decrease (with CO2)
CO2) (with CO2) • PL net 0.35- 1.06% increase • PL net 0.7 to 2.82% decrease
• PL net 0 -1.76% increase (without CO2) (without CO2)
(without CO2)
• 0.4 -1.03 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 0.7% decrease to • PL net 2.11-2.47% increase • PL net 1.41 to 4.23%
3 - 4°C • 0.16-0.49 PgC (without CO2) 1.76% increase (with CO2) (with CO2) decrease (with CO2)
• PL net 0.7% decrease to • PL net 1.06% increase • PL net 0.35 to 2.82%
1.76% increase (without CO2) (without CO2) decrease (without CO2)
Page 198
INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR SOUTH AMERICA
Global Energy

12463 km /year
1464 to 1468
without absolute change 10639 12269 12457 % change -20 to -10%
% change (-15 -2 0) Cooling energy demands
-3.2% without
to +2.6% with CO2
-1.4% without

to -3.7% with CO2 (-27 -3 0)
317 to 360
without -36 to -28%
to -1.0% with CO2 1901 to 2060
-7.8% without
to 3.9% with CO2
-5.3% without

to -4.9% with CO2 (-38 -4 1) 252 to 287
-7.7% without -49 to -43%
-2.9% to 1.2% with CO2 2212 to 2380
-12.8% without
to +5.0% with CO2
-9.9% without

to -6.1% with CO2 (-47 -5 1) 199 to 228
-13.1% without -60 to -55%
-3.6% to -0.5% with CO2 2538 to 2713
-17.5% without
to +1.3% with CO2
Page 199
-16.7% without

(-53 -7 2) 158 to 181
-68 to -64%

2876 to 3057
96 to 108%
Page 200
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR SOUTH AMERICA

2080s in 2080s

Baseline (for
comparison) B2 16 Diarrhoea 34.1
Medium population (B2 578 Malaria 1.1
High population (A2) 1016 Medium population (B2) 90 Medium population (B2) 11 Medium population (B2) 11 Dengue 0.5
High population (A2) 109 High population (A2) 19 High population (A2) 19 Cardiovascular 698.4

( 0 0 0%) ( 0 0 0%) flooding increased by 258%
B2 1 1 35 B2 0 0 2 min max min max min max in C/S America (McMichael
( 0 0 6%) ( 0 0 0%) A1/B1 51 155 A1/B1 9 21 A1/B1 9 9 et al 2004)
( 0 3 14%) ( 0 0 11%) (0 205%) (0 129%) (0 5%)
flooding increased by 276%
A2 109 333 A2 19 44 A2 19 20
(0 206%) (0 129%) (0 5%) et al 2004)
(0 144%) (0 126%) (0 5%) flooding increased by 364%
et al 2004)

( 0 0 10%) ( 0 0 0%) A1/B1 53 1208 A1/B1 9 143 A1/B1 9 22
B2 1 16 53 B2 0 0 2 B1 5
( 0 3 9%) ( 0 0 0%) (5 2285%) (3 1489%) (3 150%)
( 72%)
A2 40 144 171 A2 0 4 107 A2 115 2619 A2 20 309 A2 20 49
( 4 14 17%) ( 0 0 11%) (5 2304%) (4 1500%) (4 151%)
B2 94 1505 B2 12 174 B2 12 28
(5 1577%) (3 1444%) (3 145%) B1 2
(26%)

( 0 3 10%) ( 0 0 0%) B2 15
B2 16 50 70 B2 0 0 2 (99%)
( 3 9 12%) ( 0 0 0%) A1/B1 256 2817 A1/B1 32 2066 A1/B1 10 229
A2 85
A2 72 152 272 A2 0 15 109 (405 5464%) (255 22912%) (7 2446%)
( 95%)
( 7 15 27%) ( 0 1 11%) A2 552 6080 A2 69 4489 A2 21 497
(406 5480%) (255 23103%) (7 2467%)
B2 343 3739 B2 39 2551 B2 12 282
(283 4068%) (249 22483%) (7 2396%)
B2 -1
(-6%)
A2 -4
( -5%)
3 - 4°C A1/B1 16 34 48 A1/B1 0 0 2

B2 20 46 107 B2 0 0 2 (3649 6877%) (2310 33032%) (223 3502%) A1 27
( 3 8 19%) ( 0 0 0%)
A2 4104 7630 A2 68 6424 A2 63 698 (294 %)
A2 125 205 227 A2 0 25 135
( 12 20 22%) ( 0 2 13%) (3666 6903%) (2321 33106%) (224 3510%)
(2657 5012%) (2261 32193%) (217 3408%) A1 1
( 13%)
Page 201
4 - 5°C A1/B1 16 35 59 A1/B1 0 0 4

( 3 8 13%) ( 0 0 1%)
B2 21 38 107 B2 0 1 5
( 4 7 19%) ( 0 0 1%)
A2 181 232 299 A2 0 50 143
( 18 23 29%) ( 0 5 14%)
** These numbers are for all of Latin America
Page 202

iconic species lost
Baseline (for
0.14 Pg C
comparison)
• 0.64-1.17 Pg C(with CO2) • PL net 1.22-1.83% increase • PL. net 0.61-1.22% decrease • PL net 0.61% decrease (with
0 - 1°C • -0.12 to 0.34 Pg C(without (with CO2) (with CO2) CO2)
CO2) • PL net 1.22% increase • PL net 0.61% decrease • PL net 0.61% decrease
• Amazon collapse – huge loss • Extinction 48 – 57% Cerrado • 0.68-1.48 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 3.66-4.88% increase
of biodiversity (Cox 2004) plants (Thomas 2004) (with CO2) • PL net 3.05-4.27% decrease • PL net 0.61% decrease (with
1 - 2°C • -0.42 to -0.27 PgC (without
CO2) • PL net 1.22-1.83% increase (with CO2) CO2)
(without CO2) • PL net 1.22% decrease • PL net 0-0.61% decrease
(without CO2) (without CO2)
• Extinction of plants (4 – • -0.48 to 0.81 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 4.88 to 6.71% • PL net 0.61% decrease to
2 - 3°C 100%) as Amazon dries • -1.56 to -0.5 PgC (without • PL net 5.46-6.71% increase decrease (with CO2) 1.22% increase (with CO2)
(Thomas 2004) CO2) (with CO2) • PL net 1.22-2.44% decrease • PL net 0.61-1.83% increase
• PL net 0.61-1.22% increase (without CO2) (without CO2)
(without CO2)
• -1.29 to 0.04 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 6.1% increase (with • PL net 6.1-6.71% decrease • PL net 0-0.61% increase
3 - 4°C • -2.1 to -1.6 PgC (without CO2) CO2) (with CO2) (with CO2)
• PL net 0 - 1.83% increase • PL net 1.83 to 3.66% • PL net 1.83% increase
(without CO2) decrease (without CO2) (without CO2)
• -2.48 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 5.49% increase (with • PL net -6.71% decrease (with • PL net 1.22% increase (with
• PL net 4.27% decrease • PL net 3.05% decrease • PL net 7.32% increase
Page 203
INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR SOUTH AND EAST AFRICA
Global Energy

2601 km /year
1403 to 1512
% change (-8 -1 5) Cooling energy demands
relative to baseline -
2.8% to -0.8% with CO2 absolute CDD 1551 to 1831
-2.8% without
to +1.4% with CO2
-2.6% without

to -6.2% with CO2 (-15 -4 11)
72 to 113
-7.6% without -61 to -50%
relative to baseline - Cooling energy demands
7.0% to -0.4% with CO2 1873 to 2163
-6.8% without
to +1.6% with CO2
-6.8%% without

to -11.7% with CO2 (-21 -4 16) 43 to 71
-13.7% without -76 to -69%
to -3.6% with CO2 2212 to 2520
-16.0% without
to -5.4% with CO2
-16.3% without

to -14.3% with CO2 (-26 -7 20) 26 to 43
-21.3% without -86 to -82%
-15.7% to -5.6% with CO2 2567 to 2884
-22.6% without
Page 204 relative to baseline -15.3%
to -4.9% with CO2
-22.9% without

(-30 -8 22) 15 to 26
-92 to -89%

2934 to 3257
104 to 117%
Page 205
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR SOUTH AND EAST AFRICA

2080s in 2080s

Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in Current disease burden in terms
Baseline 2080:
Baseline (for
Medium population (B2) 2811 Medium population (B2) 38 Medium population (B2) 36 Dengue 0.1
0 - 1°C A1/B1 4 52 192 A1/B1 0 48 229 A1/B1 1404 3041 A1/B1 19 158 A1/B1 19 32
( 1 8 28%) ( 0 7 33%) (0 117%) (0 744%) (0 69%)
B2 9 220 444 B2 0 89 473
A2 1884 4112 A2 201 693 A2 25 75
( 1 20 41%) ( 0 8 44%)
A2 5 160 325 A2 2 93 416 (0 118%) (0 245%) (0 199%)
( 1 17 34%) ( 0 10 43%) B2 2811 5095 B2 38 228 B2 36 54
(0 81%) (0 493%) (0 49%)

( 3 10 33%) ( 3 13 38%) A1/B1 2016 15608 A1/B1 42 420 A1/B1 19 46
B2 45 277 496 B2 39 178 522 B1 23
( 4 26 46%) ( 4 17 49%) (44 1011%) (127 2148%) (2 145%)
( 67%)
A2 13 194 403 A2 30 154 456 A2 2681 21094 A2 286 2799 A2 32 301
( 1 20 42%) ( 3 16 47%) (42 1020%) (43 1295%) (26 1102%)
B2 3695 30009 B2 71 693 B2 37 76
(31 968%) (84 1704%) (2 109%) B1 8
( 23%)

A1/B1 34 73 308
2 - 3°C A1/B1 33 95 260 B2 89
( 5 10 44%)
( 5 14 38%) (78%)
B2 52 254 529 B2 50 227 522 A1/B1 4066 16466 A1/B1 273 3234 A1/B1 44 349 A2 200
( 5 24 49%)
( 5 21 49%) (190 1073%) (1361 17193%) (136 1769%) ( 70%)
A2 15 172 432
A2 44 214 456 A2 5543 22264 A2 1100 6438 A2 118 695
( 2 18 45%) ( 5 22 47%)
(194 1082%) (448 109%) (372 2672%)
(131 1022%) (901 12244%) (96 1310%) B2 -8
(-7%)
A2 -2
( -1%)
3 - 4°C A1/B1 36 74 320 A1/B1 43 95 260

B2 57 281 574 B2 59 290 535 (1027 1134%) (8455 27383%) (830 2848%) A1 157
( 5 26 53%) ( 6 27 50%) A2 21386 23441 A2 4234 23437 A2 458 2518 ( 369%)
A2 21 191 429 A2 62 265 456
( 2 20 44%) ( 6 27 47%) (1035 1144%) (2011 11584%) (1725 9937%)
(981 1077%) (5879 20936%) (587 2279%) A1 21
( 49%)
4 - 5°C A1/B1 36 64 321 A1/B1 51 95 260

( 5 9 46%) ( 7 14 38%)
B2 58 204 570 B2 72 327 535
( 5 19 53%) ( 7 30 50%)
A2 21 148 526 A2 75 269 456
( 2 15 54%) ( 8 28 47%)
** These numbers are for all of Africa
Page 206

iconic species lost
Baseline (for
• 0.1 Pg C
comparison)
• Range losses begin for animal • 0.3-0.78 Pg C(with CO2) • PL, net 0% change with CO2 • PL. net 1.75% increase • PL net 1.75% decrease
0 - 1°C species in S Africa • -0.15 to 0.26 Pg C(without • PL, net 0% change without (with CO2) (with CO2)
(Rutherford 2000) CO2) CO2 • PL net 0% change • PL net 0% change
• Succulent Karoo reduced to • 8 – 12% of 277 medium/large • 0.53-1.01 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 1.75% increase
20% of area, threatening mammals from 28 families in • PL net 0-0.88% increase • PL net 1.75-2.63% decrease
1 - 2°C • -0.18 to -0.07 PgC (without (with CO2)
2800 plants with extinction; 5 141 African national parks CO2) • PL net 0-0.88% increase (with CO2) (with CO2)
S African parks lose > 40% critically endangered or
plant species (Rutherford (without CO2) • PL net 0.88-1.75% decrease • PL net 0 - 0.88% increase
2000; Hannah 2002) (without CO2) (without CO2)
• Extinctions (100% potential
range loss) 10% endemics in
hotspot for plant biodiversity;
51 – 65% loss of Fynbos
(Midgely 2002)
• Fish populations decline,
wetland ecosystems dry and
disappear (ECF 2004)
• Extinction of 21 – 40% of
Proteaceae (based on range
loss and species area
assumptions) (Thomas 2004)
• Cloud forest regions lose • 66% animals lost from Kruger; • 0.2 to 1.34 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 1.75-3.51% decrease • PL net 1.75-2.63% decrease
2 - 3°C hundreds of metres of 29 endangered species lose • -0.37 to -0.14 PgC (without • PL net 2.63-5.26% increase (with CO2) (with CO2)
elevational extent, potential >50% range; 4 species locally (with CO2) • PL net 0 -1.75% increase
CO2) • PL net 0-3.51% decrease
extinctions (Still 1999) extinct (Erasmus 2002)
• PL net 0-0.88% increase (without CO2) (without CO2)
• Extinction mammals (24 – (without CO2)
59%), birds (28 – 40%),
butterflies (13 – 70%), other
invertebrates (18 – 80%),
reptiles (21 – 45%) (Thomas
2004)
• 3 – 9 species endemic plants • 0.09 to 1.3 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 3.51 to 6.14% increase • PL net 2.63-3.51% decrease • PL net 0.88-2.63% decrease
3 - 4°C extinct/critically endangered; • -0.31 to -0.69 PgC (without (with CO2) (with CO2) (with CO2)
further 15 – 20 endangered CO2) • PL net 0% change (without • PL net 0.88-1.75% decrease • PL net 0.88-1.75% increase
(Thuiller 2006b) CO2) (without CO2) (without CO2)
• 1.24 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 8.77% increase (with • PL net 7.9% decrease (with • PL net 0.88% decrease (with
• PL net 0.88% increase • PL net 3.5% decrease • PL net 2.63% increase
Page 207
INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR SOUTH ASIA
Global Energy

6375 km /year
2684 to 2691
-3.2% without
to 0.4% with CO2
-3.3% without

to -8.3% with CO2 (-3 9 13)
201 to 229
-9.4% without -32 to -25%
to +3.0% with CO2 3143 to 3311
-6.3% without
-1.3% to +2.9% with CO2
-6.3% without

to -10.1% with CO2 (-13 12 18) 168 to 192
-14.3% without -43 to -38%
-1.9% to +2.6% with CO2 3461 to 3635
-10.2% without
to +4.2% with CO2
-10.1% without

to -11.9% with CO2 (-8 15 22) 143 to 162
-18.9% without -52 to -48%
-1.0% to +1.3% with CO2 3790 to 3966
-15.8% without
to -0.5% with CO2
Page 208
-18.5% without

(-12 18 27) 122 to 138
-59 to -55%

4124 to 4302
54 to 60%
Page 209
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR SOUTH ASIA

2080s in 2080s

experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in Baseline 2080: Current disease burden in terms
in 2080s in the absence of climate change absence of climate change and absence of climate change and absence of climate change and of deaths (1000s) in 2000
A1 21
Baseline (for
Malaria 22.9
0 - 1°C A1/B1 26 65 123 A1/B1 0 1004 1594

( 1 3 5%) ( 0 42 66%) min max min max min max
B2 34 87 175 B2 0 1330 2285
A1/B1 7834 13853 A1/B1 100 189 A1/B1 100 104
( 1 3 5%) ( 0 41 71%)
A2 60 201 376 A2 40 1601 2756 (0 77%) (0 88%) (0 4%)
( 1 5 9%) ( 1 39 68%) A2 13339 24235 A2 7015 7957 A2 817 911
(0 82%) (0 13%) (0 12%)
B2 10456 19556 B2 166 299 B2 133 139
(0 87%) (0 80%) (0 4%)
( 1 5 7%) ( 40 58 66%) A1/B1 8076 20835 A1/B1 103 320 A1/B1 103 112
B2 48 185 222 B2 1361 1981 2301 B1 2
( 1 6 7%) ( 42 62 72%) (3 166%) (3 219%) (3 12%)
(7%)
A2 276 316 387 A2 1579 2350 2781 A2 13759 36881 A2 7186 9010 A2 835 1016
( 7 8 10%) ( 39 58 69%) (3 176%) (2 28%) (2 24%)
B2 10783 30086 B2 170 493 B2 137 150
(3 188%) (3 197%) (3 12%) B1 1
(2%)

B2 48 188 356 B2 1473 2037 2300 (27%) 2002)
( 1 6 11%) ( 46 63 72%) A1/B1 19631 83275 A1/B1 274 11239 A1/B1 106 1244
A2 44
A2 169 327 812 A2 1723 2415 2790 (151 963%) (174 11105%) (5 1140%)
( 52%)
( 4 8 20%) ( 42 60 69%) A2 34711 142848 A2 8728 99946 A2 987 11282
(160 971%) (24 1325%) (21 1282%)
B2 28329 111542 B2 428 15764 B2 141 1745
(171 967%) (157 9386%) (5 1208%)
B2 -2
(-6%)
A2 -2
( -3%)
3 - 4°C A1/B1 39 152 282 A1/B1 1051 1432 1603

( 2 6 12%) ( 44 60 67%) A1/B1 35787 88846 A1/B1 967 13156 A1/B1 167 1441 Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: • 3.3C 5.2 billion people
B2 48 199 409 B2 1482 2037 2307 (357 1034%) (864 13016%) (66 1337%) A1 8 (52%) exposed to dengue in
( 1 6 13%) ( 46 63 72%) 2085 (HadCM2) (Hales et al.
A2 60575 152672 A2 12308 107550 A2 1380 12050 (41%)
A2 289 355 880 A2 1735 2415 2790 2002)
( 7 9 22%) ( 43 60 69%) (354 1045%) (75 1433%) (69 1376%)
B2 50127 119088 B2 1350 18397 B2 221 2016 With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: • 3.3C 5-7 billion people
(379 1039%) (712 10970%) (66 1411%) A1 0
(Hales et al. 2002)
(2%)
Page 210
4 - 5°C A1/B1 37 156 327 A1/B1 1171 1432 1603

( 2 6 14%) ( 49 60 67%)
B2 48 205 426 B2 1633 2077 2307
( 1 6 13%) ( 51 65 72%)
A2 238 345 1011 A2 1917 2483 2790
( 6 9 25%) ( 47 61 69%)
Page 211

iconic species lost
Baseline (for
-0.23 Pg C
comparison)
• Coral reefs regionally • 0.01-0.08 Pg C(with CO2) • PL net 2.33-3.49% increase • PL net 1.16% decrease to • PL net 2.33 to 4.65%
functionally extinct (Hoegh- (with CO2) 2.33% increase (with CO2) decrease (with CO2)
0 - 1°C • -0.08 to -0.14 Pg C(without
Guldberg 1999)
CO2) • PL net 2.33% increase • PL net 1.16% decrease • PL net 1.16% decrease
• 0.14-0.38 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 6.98-8.14% increase

1 - 2°C • -0.08 to 0.01 PgC (without (with CO2) • PL net 1.16-6.98% decrease • PL net 1.16-5.81% decrease
CO2) • PL net 2.33 to 3.49% increase (with CO2) (with CO2)
(without CO2) • PL net 2.33-5.81% decrease • PL net 1.16% decrease to
(without CO2) 2.33% increase (without CO2)
• Cloud forest regions lose • • -0.04 to -0.22 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 3.49% decrease to • PL net 4.65-18.61% decrease
2 - 3°C hundreds of metres of • 0.2 to 0.93 PgC (without CO2) • PL net 8.14-13.95% increase 4.65% increase (with CO2) (with CO2)
elevational extent, potential (with CO2) • PL net 2.33-5.81% decrease • PL net 3.49% decrease to
• PL net 4.65-5.81% increase (without CO2) 1.16% increase (without CO2)
(without CO2)
• • • 0.15-1.02 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 11.63-15.12% increase • PL net 0 to 6.98% increase • PL net 11.63-22.09%
3 - 4°C • -0.08 to 0.22 PgC (without (with CO2) (with CO2) decrease (with CO2)
CO2) • PL net 4.65-5.81% increase • PL net 1.16-3.49% decrease • PL net 1.16-4.65% decrease
• • • 0.99 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 17.44% increase (with • PL net 4.65% increase (with • PL net 22.09% decrease (with
4 - 5°C • 0.07PgC (without CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C)
• PL net 5.81% increase • PL net 1.16% increase • PL net 6.98% decrease
Page 212
INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR WEST AFRICA
Global Energy

Baseline (for 3 9
3727 km /year
2835 to 2844
to -2.6% with CO2 absolute HDD 3 to 6
fertilisation, -5.0% to -3.6% min / med / max
without % change -67 to -40%
absolute change 3488 3662 3866
% change (-6 -2 4)
to -1.3% with CO2 absolute CDD 3017 to 3214
-3.3% without
-1.1% to +0.9% with CO2
-3.1% without

to -5.4% with CO2 (-12 -4 9)
1 to 2
-7.3% without -90 to -82%
to +0.5% with CO2 3389 to 3580
-6.4% without
-2.1% to 2.3% with CO2
-6.6% without

to -10.2% with CO2 (-17 -5 13) 0 to 1
-12.3% without -98 to -95%
to -1.3% with CO2 3760 to 3952
-13.2% without
-4.3% to -2.7% with CO2
-14.3% without

to -12.3% with CO2 (-22 -7 18) 0
-19.3% without -100 to -99%
to -1.4% with CO2 4134 to 4325
-18.4% without
Page 213 relative to baseline
-11.6% to -2.4% with CO2
-20.4% without

(-26 -8 22) 0
-100 to -100%

4508 to 4697
59 to 66%
Page 214
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR WEST AFRICA

2080s in 2080s

Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in experiencing coastal flooding in Current disease burdens in
Baseline 2080:
in 2080s in the absence of climate change absence of climate change and absence of climate change and absence of climate change and A1 42 terms of deaths (1000s) in 2000
Baseline (for
comparison) Low population (A1/B1) 782 B2 113 Diarrhoea 446
High population (A2) 1294 High population (A2) 127 High population (A2) 20 Cardiovascular 527

( 2 4 33%) ( 0 4 17%) flooding increased by 44% in
B2 24 51 408 B2 0 144 288 min max min max min max W Africa (McMichael et al
( 2 5 37%) ( 0 13 26%) A1/B1 1030 5375 A1/B1 16 106 A1/B1 16 19 2004)
( 2 4 35%) ( 0 5 27%) (0 422%) (0 568%) (0 19%)
flooding increased by 48% in
A2 1294 6791 A2 127 704 A2 20 82
W Africa (McMichael et al
(0 425%) (0 452%) (0 313%) 2004)
(0 423%) (0 449%) (0 280%) flooding increased by 64% in
W Africa (McMichael et al
2004)

( 3 6 35%) ( 0 8 17%) A1/B1 1974 9365 A1/B1 30 212 A1/B1 16 25
B2 32 84 472 B2 0 185 292 B1 23
( 3 8 43%) ( 0 17 26%) (92 809%) (87 1240%) (4 55%)
( 67%)
A2 35 72 376 A2 1 78 276 A2 2574 11743 A2 226 1258 A2 30 141
( 3 7 37%) ( 0 8 27%) (99 807%) (77 887%) (53 612%)
B2 2933 15228 B2 170 1528 B2 26 172
(79 828%) (17 948%) (4 598%) B1 8
( 23%)

2 - 3°C A1/B1 28 91 294 A1/B1 1 73 136 B2 89
( 4 12 38%) ( 0 9 17%) (78%)
B2 60 156 518 B2 1 240 309 A1/B1 8776 14045 A1/B1 182 2169 A1/B1 21 240 A2 200
( 5 14 47%) ( 0 22 28%) (752 1263%) (1049 13576%) (34 1412%) ( 70%)
A2 51 135 403 A2 1 121 279 A2 11008 17568 A2 1181 12234 A2 133 1370
( 5 13 40%) ( 0 12 28%)
(751 1257%) (827 9503%) (572 6812%)
(768 1235%) (882 10060%) (557 6610%) B2 -8
(-7%)
A2 -2
( -1%)
3 - 4°C A1/B1 41 58 302 A1/B1 1 79 136

B2 60 119 518 B2 1 271 351 (873 1378%) (2791 20183%) (222 2132%) A1 157
( 5 11 47%) ( 0 24 32%)
A2 12573 19048 A2 2025 13933 A2 226 1547 ( 369%)
A2 51 114 413 A2 1 172 279
( 5 11 41%) ( 0 17 28%) (871 1372%) (1489 10837%) (1041 7707%)
(884 1346%) (1190 11684%) (751 7619%) A1 21
( 49%)
Page 215
4 - 5°C A1/B1 41 58 323 A1/B1 1 79 186

( 5 7 41%) ( 0 10 24%)
B2 60 148 565 B2 3 293 376
( 5 13 51%) ( 0 26 34%)
A2 51 127 461 A2 2 215 344
( 5 13 46%) ( 0 21 34%)
** These numbers all for all of Africa
Page 216

iconic species lost
Baseline (for
0.18 Pg C
comparison)
• 0.4 to 0.53 Pg C(with CO2) • PL, net 0% change (with CO2) • PL, net 0-1.1% increase (with • PL net 0 to 1.1% decrease
0 - 1°C • -0.03 to 0.06 Pg C(without • PL, net 0% change (without CO2) (with CO2)
CO2) CO2) • PL, net 0% change (without • PL net 0% change (without
CO2) CO2)
• 8 – 12% of 277 medium/large • 0.5 to 0.95 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 1.1% increase (with
1 - 2°C mammals from 28 families in • -0.1 to -0.01 PgC (without CO2) • PL net 0-1.1% increase (with • PL net 1.1-2.2% decrease
141 African national parks CO2) • PL net 0-1.1% increase CO2) (with CO2)
critically endangered or (without CO2) • PL net 1.1% decrease • PL net 0-1.1% increase
• Cloud forest regions lose • 0.08 to 0.78 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 0-3.3% decrease (with • PL net 1.1% increase to 3.3%
2 - 3°C hundreds of metres of • -0.31 to -0.16 PgC (without • PL net 2.2-4.4% increase CO2) decrease (with CO2)
elevational extent, potential CO2) (with CO2) • PL net 1.1-6.59% decrease • PL net 0-6.6% increase
• PL net 0-1.1% increase (without CO2) (without CO2)
(without CO2)
• 30 – 40% of 277 mammals in • 0 to 0.21 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 2.2% increase (with • PL net 3.3-4.4% decrease • PL net 1.1-2.2% increase
3 - 4°C 141 African parks critically • -0.56 to -0.49 PgC (without CO2) (with CO2) (with CO2)
endangered/extinct; 15 – 20% CO2) • PL net 1.1% increase or • PL net 3.3-5.3% decrease • PL net 2.2-6.59% increase
endangered (Thuiller 2006a) decresase (without CO2) (without CO2) (without CO2)
• 0.07 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 4.4% decrease (with • PL net 5.5% decrease (with • 1.1% increase (with CO2, 4C)
4 - 5°C • -0.93 PgC (without CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C) • PL net 9.9% increase (without
• PL net 1.1% decrease • PL net 8.79% decrease CO2, 4C)
(without CO2, 4C) (without CO2, 4C)
Page 217
INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR WEST ASIA
Global Energy

51 km /year
1887 to 1912
Absolute HDD 517 to 590
without absolute change 44 49 53 % change -18 to -9%
relative to baseline -2.2% % change (-15 -5 2) Cooling energy demands
to -0.6% with CO2 Absolute CDD 2039 to 2226
fertilisation, -5.2% to -3.9% % change 8 to 17%
without
38 46 52
relative to baseline (-26 -10 0)
420 to 483
-12.8% to -8.3% with CO2 -34 to -26%
-9.3% without
to -0.2% with CO2 25 to 34%
-7.7% without

relative to baseline (-33 -10 9) 337 to 392
-17.8% to -12.7% with -47 to -40%
CO2 fertilisation, -22.5% to
-16.7% without
to -4.3% with CO2 43 to 52%
-15.7% without

relative to baseline (-36 -11 9) 267 to 314
-19.8% to -15.4% with -58 to -52%
CO2 fertilisation, -27.8%
to -22.4% without
to -13.6% with CO2 61 to 71%
-23.0% without

(-36 -8 12) 209 to 249
-67 to -63%

3405 to 3613
80 to 90%
Page 218
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR WEST ASIA

2080s in 2080s

Baseline (for
comparison) B2 51 Diarrhoea 38
Medium population (B2) 320 Malaria 1.5
High population (A2) 709 Medium population (B2) 63 Medium population (B2) 8 Medium population (B2) 3 Dengue 0.3
min max min max
0 - 1°C A1/B1 39 89 158 A1/B1 0 0 123 min max A1 3 7 A1 3 3
( 12 28 50%) ( 0 0 39%) A1/B1 76 390 (0 137%) (0 8%)
B2 39 92 166 B2 0 0 114 (0 410%) A2 176 963 A2 24 113
( 12 29 52%) ( 0 0 36%)
A2 79 180 356 A2 0 0 286 A2 188 977 (0 448%) (0 378%)
( 11 25 50%) ( 0 0 40%) (0 420%) B1 10 45 B1 3 7
B2 63 318 (0 359%) (0 136%)
(0 402%) B2 8 37 B2 3 6
(0 349%) (0 125%)
( 37 49 68%) ( 0 0 53%) A1/B1 82 806 (5 723%) (5 17%)
B2 120 171 206 B2 0 0 170 B1 5
( 38 53 64%) ( 0 0 53%) (7 953%) A2 188 1885 A2 25 213
(18 %)
A2 240 329 489 A2 0 0 388 A2 201 1991 (7 974%) (6 802%)
( 34 46 69%) ( 0 0 55%) (7 959%) B1 10 98 B1 3 12
B2 68 662 (6 895%) (5 287%)
(7 945%) B2 9 81 B2 3 10 B1 1
(6 877%) (5 262%) (4%)
( 30 46 68%) ( 0 0 60%) A1 11 243 A1 3 28 B2 20
B2 99 161 208 B2 0 0 189 (39%)
( 31 50 65%) ( 0 0 59%) A1/B1 689 1505 (269 7951%) (11 817%)
A2 134
A2 192 308 492 A2 0 0 447 (813 1868%) A2 1738 2392 A2 200 266
( 68%)
( 27 43 69%) ( 0 0 63%) A2 1753 3434 (890 1262%) (749 1029%)
(832 1721%) B1 80 984 B1 11 110
B2 568 1311 (712 9867%) (267 3541%)
(796 1969%) B2 65 807 B2 9 90
B2 -1
(692 9685%) (244 3249%) (-2%)
A2 -5
( -2%)
3 - 4°C A1/B1 95 142 226 A1/B1 0 62 202 A1 65 2369 A1 8 266

( 30 45 71%) ( 0 20 63%) A1/B1 841 2383 (2070 78459%) (163 8728%) Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080:
B2 99 156 216 B2 0 52 199 (1000 3016%) A2 1949 5135 A2 219 576 A1 44
( 31 49 68%) ( 0 16 62%) A2 2074 5163 (1010 2824%) (829 2339%) (138%)
A2 192 298 510 A2 0 155 468
( 27 42 72%) ( 0 22 66%) (1003 2646%) B1 451 2369 B1 51 266
B2 695 2013 (4468 23893%) (1588 8728%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080:
(997 3077%) B2 367 1998 B2 42 225 A1 5
(4349 24120%) (1446 8251%) ( 15%)
4 - 5°C A1/B1 95 128 217 A1/B1 0 116 202

( 30 40 68%) ( 0 36 63%)
B2 99 140 206 B2 0 99 199
( 31 44 64%) ( 0 31 62%)
A2 192 271 490 A2 0 283 469
( 27 38 69%) ( 0 40 66%)
Page 219

iconic species lost
Baseline (for
• 0.01 Pg C
comparison)
• 0-0.01 Pg C(with CO2) • PL net 0% change (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (with CO2)
0 - 1°C • 0-0.01 Pg C(without CO2) PL net 0% change (without CO2) • PL net 0% change (without • PL net 0% change (without
CO2) CO2)
• 0-0.01 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (with CO2)

1 - 2°C • 0 to -0.01 PgC (without CO2) • PL net 0% change (without • PL net 0-6% increase (with • PL net 0-6% decrease (with
CO2) CO2) CO2, 4C)
• PL net 0% change (without • PL net 0% change (without
CO2) CO2)
• -0.01 to 0.4 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 0-3% increase (with • PL net 0-6% increase (with • PL net 0-6% decrease (with
2 - 3°C • -0.01 to 0 PgC (without CO2) CO2) CO2) CO2)
• PL net 0% change (without • PL net 0% change (without • PL net 0% change (without
CO2) CO2) CO2)
• 0.01 to 0.05 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 3% increase (with • PL net 0-3% increase (with • PL net 3-6% decrease (with
3 - 4°C • 0.00 to 0.00 PgC (without CO2) CO2) CO2)
CO2) • PL net 0% change (without • PL net 0% change (without • PL net 0% change (without
CO2) CO2) CO2)
• 0.04 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 3% increase (with • PL net 3% increase (with • PL net 6% decrease (with
4 - 5°C • 0.0 PgC (without CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C)
• PL net 0% change (without • PL net 0% change (without • PL net 0% change (without
CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C) CO2, 4C)
Page 220
The inter-disciplinary Tyndall Centre for Climate Recent Tyndall Centre Technical Reports
Change Research undertakes integrated research into
the long-term consequences of climate change for Tyndall Centre Technical Reports are available online at
society and into the development of sustainable http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/tech_r
responses that governments, business-leaders and eports/tech_reports.shtml
decision-makers can evaluate and implement.
Achieving these objectives brings together UK climate
scientists, social scientists, engineers and economists Lowe, T. (2006) Vicarious experience vs.
in a unique collaborative research effort. scientific information in climate change
The Tyndall Centre is named after the 19th century UK risk perception and behaviour: a case
scientist John Tyndall, who was the first to prove the study of undergraduate students in
Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that Norwich, UK, Tyndall Centre Technical Report
slight changes in atmospheric composition could bring 43
about climate variations. In addition, he was Atkinson, P, (2006) Towards an integrated
committed to improving the quality of science coastal simulator of the impact of sea level rise
education and knowledge. in East Anglia: Part B3- Coastal simulator and
biodiversity - Modelling the change in
The Tyndall Centre is a partnership of the following
wintering Twite Carduelis flavirostris
institutions:
populations in relation to changing saltmarsh
University of East Anglia area, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 42B3
University of Manchester
University of Southampton Gill, J, Watkinson, A. and Sutherland, W.,
University of Sussex (2006) Towards an integrated coastal simulator
of the impact of sea level rise in East Anglia:
University of Oxford
Part B2- Coastal simulator and biodiversity -
University of Newcastle
models of biodiversity responses to
The Centre is core funded by the following environmental change Tyndall Centre Technical
organisations: Report 42B2
Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC)
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Ridley, J., Gill, J, Watkinson, A. and
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Sutherland, W., (2006) Towards an integrated
coastal simulator of the impact of sea level rise
Council (EPSRC)
in East Anglia: Part B1- Coastal simulator and
biodiversity - Design and structure of the
For more information, visit the Tyndall Centre Web site coastal simulator Tyndall Centre Technical Report
(www.tyndall.ac.uk) or contact: 42B1
Communications Manager
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Stansby, P., Launder B., Laurence, D., Kuang,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK C., and Zhou, J., (2006) Towards an integrated
coastal simulator of the impact of sea level rise
Phone: +44 (0) 1603 59 3906; Fax: +44 (0)
in East Anglia: Part A- Coastal wave climate
1603 59 3901 prediction and sandbanks for coastal
Email: tyndall@uea.ac.uk protection Tyndall Centre Technical Report 42A
Lenton, T. M., Loutre, M. F, Williamson, M. S.,
Warren, R., Goodess, C., Swann, M., Cameron,
D. R., Hankin, R., Marsh, R. and Shepherd, J.
G., (2006) Climate change on the millennial
timescale, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 41
Bows, A., Anderson, K. and Upham, P. (2006)
Contraction & Convergence: UK carbon
emissions and the implications for UK air
traffic, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 40
Page 221
Starkey R., Anderson K., (2005) Domestic Lorenzoni, I., Lowe, T. and Pidgeon, N. (2005) A
Tradeable Quotas: A policy instrument for strategic assessment of scientific and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions from behavioural perspectives on ‘dangerous’
energy use:, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 39 climate change, Tyndall Centre Technical Report
28
Pearson, S., Rees, J., Poulton, C., Dickson, M.,
Walkden, M., Hall, J., Nicholls, R., Mokrech, M., Boardman, B., Killip, G., Darby S. and Sinden, G,
Koukoulas, S. and Spencer, T. (2005) Towards an (2005) Lower Carbon Futures: the 40% House
integrated coastal sediment dynamics and Project, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 27
shoreline response simulator, Tyndall Centre
Dearing, J.A., Plater, A.J., Richmond, N., Prandle,
Technical Report 38
D. and Wolf , J. (2005) Towards a high resolution
Sorrell, S. (2005) The contribution of energy cellular model for coastal simulation
service contracting to a low carbon economy, (CEMCOS), Tyndall Centre Technical Report 26
Tyndall Centre Technical Report 37
Timms, P., Kelly, C., and Hodgson, F., (2005)
Tratalos, J. A., Gill, J. A., Jones, A., Showler, D., World transport scenarios project, Tyndall
Bateman, A., Watkinson, A., Sugden, R., and Centre Technical Report 25
Sutherland, W. (2005) Interactions between
Brown, K., Few, R., Tompkins, E. L., Tsimplis, M.
tourism, breeding birds and climate change
and Sortti, (2005) Responding to climate
across a regional scale, Tyndall Centre Technical
change: inclusive and integrated coastal
Report 36
analysis, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 24
Thomas, D., Osbahr, H., Twyman, C., Adger, W. N.
Anderson, D., Barker, T., Ekins, P., Green, K.,
and Hewitson, B., (2005) ADAPTIVE: Adaptations
Köhler, J., Warren, R., Agnolucci, P., Dewick, P.,
to climate change amongst natural resource-
Foxon, T., Pan, H. and Winne, S. (2005) ETech+:
dependant societies in the developing world:
Technology policy and technical change, a
across the Southern African climate gradient,
dynamic global and UK approach, Tyndall Centre
Technical Report 23
Arnell, N. W., Tompkins, E. L., Adger, W. N. and
Abu-Sharkh, S., Li, R., Markvart, T., Ross, N.,
Delany, K. (2005) Vulnerability to abrupt climate
Wilson, P., Yao, R., Steemers, K., Kohler, J. and
change in Europe, Tyndall Centre Technical Report
Arnold, R. (2005) Microgrids: distributed on-site
34
generation, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 22
Shackley, S. and Anderson, K. et al. (2005)
Shepherd, D., Jickells, T., Andrews, J., Cave, R.,
Decarbonising the UK: Energy for a climate
Ledoux, L, Turner, R., Watkinson, A., Aldridge, J.
conscious future, Tyndall Technical Report 33
Malcolm, S, Parker, R., Young, E., Nedwell, D.
Halliday, J., Ruddell, A., Powell, J. and Peters, M. (2005) Integrated modelling of an estuarine
(2005) Fuel cells: Providing heat and power in environment: an assessment of managed
the urban environment, Tyndall Centre Technical realignment options, Tyndall Centre Technical
Report 32 Report 21
Haxeltine, A., Turnpenny, J., O’Riordan, T., and Dlugolecki, A. and Mansley, M. (2005) Asset
Warren, R (2005) The creation of a pilot phase management and climate change, Tyndall Centre
Interactive Integrated Assessment Process for Technical Report 20
managing climate futures, Tyndall Centre
Shackley, S., Bray, D. and Bleda, M., (2005)
Technical Report 31
Developing discourse coalitions to incorporate
Nedic, D. P., Shakoor, A. A., Strbac, G., Black, M., stakeholder perceptions and responses within
Watson, J., and Mitchell, C. (2005) Security the Tyndall Integrated Assessment, Tyndall
assessment of futures electricity scenarios, Centre Technical Report 19
Dutton, A. G., Bristow, A. L., Page, M. W., Kelly, C.
Shepherd, J., Challenor, P., Marsh, B., Williamson, E., Watson, J. and Tetteh, A. (2005) The
M., Yool, W., Lenton, T., Huntingford, C., Ridgwell, A Hydrogen energy economy: its long term role
and Raper, S. (2005) Planning and Prototyping a in greenhouse gas reduction, Tyndall Centre
Climate Module for the Tyndall Integrated Technical Report 18
Assessment Model, Tyndall Centre Technical
Few, R. (2005) Health and flood risk: A strategic
Report 29
assessment of adaptation processes and
policies, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 17
Page 222
Brown, K., Boyd, E., Corbera-Elizalde, E., Adger, W. Skinner, I., Fergusson, M., Kröger, K., Kelly, C. and
N. and Shackley, S (2004) How do CDM projects Bristow, A. (2004) Critical Issues in
contribute to sustainable development? Tyndall Decarbonising Transport, Tyndall Centre
Centre Technical Report 16 Technical Report 8
Levermore, G, Chow, D., Jones, P. and Lister, D. Adger W. N., Brooks, N., Kelly, M., Bentham, S. and
(2004) Accuracy of modelled extremes of Eriksen, S. (2004) New indicators of
temperature and climate change and its vulnerability and adaptive capacity, Tyndall
implications for the built environment in the Centre Technical Report 7
UK, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 14
Macmillan, S. and Köhler, J.H., (2004)
Jenkins, N., Strbac G. and Watson J. (2004) Modelling energy use in the global building
Connecting new and renewable energy sources stock: a pilot survey to identify available data,
to the UK electricity system, Tyndall Centre Tyndall Centre Technical Report 6
Technical Report 13
Steemers, K. (2003) Establishing research
Palutikof, J. and Hanson, C. (2004) Integrated directions in sustainable building design,
assessment of the potential for change in Tyndall Centre Technical Report 5
storm activity over Europe: Implications for
Goodess, C.M. Osborn, T. J. and Hulme, M. (2003)
insurance and forestry, Tyndall Centre Technical
The identification and evaluation of suitable
Report 12
scenario development methods for the
Berkhout, F., Hertin, J., and Arnell, N. (2004) estimation of future probabilities of extreme
Business and Climate Change: Measuring and weather events, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 4
Enhancing Adaptive Capacity, Tyndall Centre
Köhler, J.H. (2002). Modelling technological
Technical Report 11
change, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 3
Tsimplis, S. et al (2004) Towards a vulnerability
Gough, C., Shackley, S., Cannell, M.G.R. (2002).
assessment for the UK coastline, Tyndall Centre
Evaluating the options for carbon
Technical Report 10
sequestration, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 2
Gill, J., Watkinson, A. and Côté, I (2004). Linking
Warren, R. (2002). A blueprint for integrated
sea level rise, coastal biodiversity and
assessment of climate change, Tyndall Centre
economic activity in Caribbean island states:
Technical Report 1
towards the development of a coastal island
simulator, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 9
Page 223

TWP 90

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TWP 90

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding the regional impacts

Research Report Prepared for the Stern Review

Rachel Warren, Nigel Arnell, Robert Nicholls,

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 90

Research Report Prepared for the Stern Review

1 Tyndall Centre, University of East Anglia, UK

Aims and Outputs

• The regional assessment is based upon 13 world regions, henceforth referred to

Assumptions of the “Fast Track” approach

• Extreme weather events such as more intense or extreme floods, droughts

The Sectoral and Regional Assessment of Climate Change Impacts follows.

Contribution by Nigel Arnell

Introduction and methods

Average annual runoff by watershed is estimated using a hydrological model driven by

Watershed population totals are estimated under different population scenarios by

2 West Africa A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

South and East

4 South Asia A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

5 East Asia A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

6 Australasia A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

7 Europe A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

8 Central Asia A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

9 North America A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

10 Caribbean A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

11 Central America A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

12 South America A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

13 West Asia A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

14 Globe A1/B1 A2 B2 A1/B1 A2 B2

North Africa West Africa

South and East Africa South Asia

East Asia Australasia

North Am erica Caribbean

Central Am erica South Am erica

North Africa West Africa

South and East Africa South Asia

East Asia Australasia

Europe Former Soviet Union

Central America South America

Contribution by Rachel Warren

3.1 Fast Track Analysis

(i) Simulation of percentage changes in crop yields

Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation

Percentage change in rice yield, with CO2 fertilisation

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation

Percentage change in rice yield, with CO2 fertilisation

Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation

Percentage change in rice yield, with CO2 fertilisation

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

Sensitivity to omission of extreme weather events on a daily timescale

Carbon Dioxide Fertilisation Effect

(ii) Simulation of millions at risk from hunger

Dev 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Table 3.2 Percentage increases in international BLS Cereal Prices

With CO2 fertilisation

Table 3.3 Percentage increases in international BLS Cereal Prices

A2 2020 2020 2050 2050 2080 2080

B1 2020 2020 2050 2050 2080 2080

B2 2020 2020 2050 2050 2080 2080

A2 2020 2020 2050 2050 2080 2080

B1 2020 2020 2050 2050 2080 2080

B2 2020 2020 2050 2050 2080 2080