Larger Drought and Flood Hazards and Adverse Impacts on Population and Economic Productivity Under 2.0 than 1.5°C Warming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Climate change may have major influences on surface runoff, which would consequently result in important implications for terrestrial ecosystems and human well‐being. At global scale there is limited understanding of these issues with respect to the warming targets stipulated in the Paris Agreement. Here we use a well‐established hydrological model (Variable Infiltration Capacity [VIC]) forced with a representative ensemble of latest climate projections from four global circulation models (GCMs) to estimate potential future changes in runoff and Terrestrial Ecosystem Water Retention (TEWR), as well as changes in extreme runoff and their impacts on population, and overall gross domestic product (GDP) worldwide. Results suggest that annual runoff generally would have larger increases, while annual TEWR generally would have larger decreases under the 2.0°C warming scenario as opposed to 1.5°C warming scenario. Global mean warming of 2°C versus 1.5°C would lead to more distinct spatial patterns in runoff change, with a general shift of the runoff distribution towards more extreme low runoff in Mexico, western United States, Western Europe, southeastern China, West Siberian Plain and more extreme high runoff in Alaska, northern Canada, and large parts of Asia. More people and GDP would be exposed to extreme low runoff decrease, extreme high runoff increase, extreme low runoff decrease as well as extreme high runoff increase under a higher warming scenario. This study differentiates hydrological impacts between the two warming scenarios and illustrates higher runoff, lower TEWR, larger potential drought and flood hazards and adverse impacts on population and GDP under 2°C than 1.5°C.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".