Climate Change and Effect

on Marine Structure Design

Research and Innovation, Position Paper 1 - 2010
Contact details:
Elzbieta M. Bitner-Gregersen - Elzbieta.Bitner-Gregersen@dnv.com
Lars Ingolf Eide - Lars.Ingolf.Eide@dnv.com
Research and
Innovation in
DNV
The objective of strategic research
is through new knowledge and
services to enable long term
innovation and business growth in
support of the overall strategy of
DNV. Such research is carried out
in selected areas that are believed
to be particular signicant for
DNV in the future. A Position
Paper from DNV Research and
Innovation is intended to highlight
ndings from our research
programmes.
This is
DNV
DNV is a global provider of services
for managing risk. Established
in 1864, DNV is an independent
foundation with the purpose of
safeguarding life, property and the
environment. DNV comprises 300
ofces in 100 countries with 9,000
employees. Our vision is global
impact for a safe and sustainable
future.
3
Summary
The study reviews the ndings of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, AR4, (IPCC, 2007) and other
publications regarding projections of meteorological and oceanographic
(metocean) conditions in the 21st century, their uncertainties and the
potential implications on safe design and operations of marine structures.
Emphasis is on wind and wave climate expected to have the largest impact
on marine structure design. Increase of storm intensity and wave height
is projected in certain locations but uncertainties are related to these
predictions.
The study concludes that as it is likely that marine structures will experience
higher environmental loads, it is also likely that rules and standards must
be updated. A process preparing for the adoption of future climate change
needs to be initiated imminently by industry. Further investigations are
recommended to be carried out to better understand, quantify and
reduce uncertainties related to climate change projections of metocean
conditions, their potential implications on design and operations of marine
structures as well as related economical consequences. Methodology for
time-dependent statistics needs to be adopted by metocean community in
order to be able to design for climate change.
4
MARITIME SAFETY is one of the main concerns
of shipping and offshore industry in general and
Classication Societies as well as oil companies in
particular. The importance of including the state-of-the art
knowledge about meteorological (temperature, pressure,
wind) and oceanographic (waves, current, sea water level,
ice) conditions in ship and offshore standards have been
discussed increasingly by industry and academia in the
last decades in several international forums. There are
potential safety, economic, and environmental advantages
in utilizing the recent knowledge about meteorological
and oceanographic conditions (metocean conditions)
and investigating its implication for design and operation
of marine structures.
Global warming and extreme weather events reported in
the last years have attracted a lot of attention in academia,
industry and media.
Especially accidents with subsequent pollution of large
coastal areas (e.g. Erika, Prestige), ship damage (e.g.
Caledonia Star, Bremen, Schiehallion, Explorer, Voyager,
Norwegian Dawn) and human casualties (e.g. Norwegian
Dawn) have highlighted that improvements are needed
to reduce the risk of these types of accidents. Recent
hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico have conrmed that
extreme sea states can be dangerous for marine structures.
The ongoing debate around the observed climate change
has brought three important questions: will occurrence
of extreme weather events increase in the future, which
geographical locations will be most affected, and to what
degree will climate change has impact on future ship
trafc and design of marine structures?
DNV would like to remain in the forefront of the
development relating to rules and standards for design
and operations of marine structures. To this end, a DNV
study was initiated in 2008 to review the ndings of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth
Assessment Report, AR4, (IPCC, 2007) and other relevant
publications regarding projections of meteorological
and oceanographic conditions in the 21st century with
emphasis on wind and wave climate, their uncertainties and
the potential implications on safe design and operations
of marine structures. A brief summary is presented herein,
including results from research by DNV on these topics
e.g. Bitner-Gregersen et al (2003), Bitner-Gregersen and
Soares (2007), Bitner-Gregersen and de Valk (2008),
Bitner-Gregersen et al (2008), Eide (2008). The most
signicant ndings with focus on design needs are given
in conclusions. Recommendations for future research
activities allowing to conclude on effects of climate change
on marine structures design and operation are suggested.
Introduction
Will occurrence of extreme
weather events increase in the
future, which geographical
locations will be most affected,
and to what degree will climate
change has impact on future
ship trafc and design of
marine structures?
5
Potential impact
on design of
marine structures
STRUCTURAL FAILURE of marine structures may result
in loss of human life, severe environmental damage,
and large economical consequences. Therefore marine
structures must be designed with adequate safety and
reliability, and their designs must be acceptable from an
environmental and economical point of view. It should
be based on the state-of-the-art metocean description. To
ensure that the designs are sufciently safe and reliable,
rules are developed by authorities or other competent
organisations, such as Classication Societies. These rules
must then be adhered to by designers.
The traditional format of Classication Societies Rules
is mainly prescriptive, without any transparent link to an
overall safety objective. IMO (1997, 2001) has developed
Guidelines for use of the Formal Safety Assessment (FSA)
methodology in rule development which will provide
risk-based goaloriented regulations. FSA consists of ve
inter-linked steps given in Table 1. When performing FSA
for marine structures it is benecial to apply Structural
Reliability Analysis (SRA) in the risk assessment (step
2) and the cost-benet assessment (step 4). Using this
methodology, state-of-the-art metocean descriptions can
be explicitly included in the rulemaking process.
The reliability methods (see Madsen et al (1986)) permit
quantifying in a probabilistic way the uncertainties in the
different parameters that govern the structural integrity.
This allows reliability assessment of structural components
or a structure. Further reliability-based design of a
structural component (or a structure) provides a means
to satisfy target reliability with respect to specic modes
of failure.
Marine structure design will be affected by changes
of surface ocean temperature, wind, waves, sea
water level and ice.
Table 1
STEPS OF FORMAL SAFETY ASSESSMENT (FSA)
Steps In layman terminology Professional language
1 What might go wrong? Hazard Identication
2a How often or how likely? Frequencies or probabilities
2b How bad? Consequences
2c How to model? Risk =
Probability x Consequence
3 Can matters be improved? Identify risk
management options
4 What would it cost and how Cost Benet Evaluation
much better would it be?
5 What actions are worthwhile Recommendation
to take?
IMO What action to take? Decision
6
The probabilistic approach can be used for calibration of
partial safety factors in the development of LRFD (Load and
Resistance Factor Design) codes, and for development of
acceptance criteria for structural designs, confer DNV CN
30.6 (1992), ISO 2394 (1998), Skjong et al (1995), Bitner-
Gregersen et al (2002), Skjong and Bitner-Gregersen (2002)
and Hrte et al (2007). Standard software allowing for
carrying out structural reliability calculations is available within
industry. Also, complicated non-linear effects can be included
by embedding a time domain simulation code in a reliability
code, like the probabilistic analysis code PROBAN (DNV
(2002)).
Marine structure design will be affected by changes of surface
ocean temperature, wind, waves, sea water level and ice
reported by IPCC (2007) although sensitivity to the climate
changes may vary for different structure types. Attention also
has to be given to marine growth on marine structures which
is expected to increase signicantly due to global warming.
Climate changes of meteorological and oceanographical
conditions and relevant uncertainties will need to be an
integrated part of the risk-based approach as illustrated
schematically in Figure 1.
Three aspects in particular need to be considered when
discussing possible impact of climate change on design and
operations of marine structures:
Long-term variations of climate
Extreme weather events
Uncertainty modelling
Changes in the long-term variations (several decades
variations) of meteorological and oceanic conditions and their
statistical characteristics will affect the currently used metocean
data bases for marine structure design, return values derived
from them, and consequently load and response predictions.
It is also important to be aware that the immediate
identiable changes, like increase in storm intensity, may
lead to secondary effects such as increased frequency of
occurrence of extreme wave events (extraordinarily steep
and/or high waves, breaking waves), e.g. Toffoli and
Bitner-Gregersen (2009). More intense swell might also
be expected. The frequency of occurrence of combined
wave systems like wind sea and swell (one, or several swell
components) may increase in some ocean areas due to
increase of storm intensity and change of storm tracks.
Combination of wind sea and swell may consequently
lead to more frequent extreme events (Onorato et al
(2006), Shukla et al (2006)), something not investigated
sufciently. Vulnerability to hurricane storm-surge
ooding may increase if the projected rise in sea level due
to global warming occurs. These extreme weather events
will affect long-term metocean statistics and may have
impact on current methodology and procedures for loads
and response calculations.
Identication of uncertainties and their quantication
represents important information for risk assessment of
marine structures (see Figure 1).
How to handle uncertainties in a risk based rule format
is well established (Bitner-Gregersen and Skjong (2002),
Hrte et al (2007)). The signicance of uncertainty
modelling of metocean conditions will increase when
climate change is considered as none eld observations
will be available for validation of the projected future
climate.
Climate change trends have non-stationary character
which is not accounted for in current design practice of
marine structures. These trends will need to be included
7
in the risk based approach (see Figure 1). A distinction
will need to be made between existing structures and
new ones when evaluating impact of climate change on
marine structures design. SRA is recommended to be used
for checking whether the existing structures will maintain
the same safety level as current design (see Figure 1). It
is too early to conclude which revisions will need to be
introduced in the current design and what economical
consequences they will have.

Reduced ice cover in Arctic is likely to have the signicant
impact on ship and offshore activities for a larger part of
the year, even all year. These activities will then happen in
waters that will see more and/or higher waves than today
and the possibility of marine icing is likely to increase. The
reduction in Arctic ice coverage may make the two Arctic
sea routes, North-East (Northern Sea Route north of the
Russian mainland from the Novaya Zemlya islands in the
West to the Bering Strait in the East) and North-West
Passage (a series of channels in the Canadian Archipelago
from Bafn Bay in the East to the Beaufort Sea and the
Bering Strait in the West), more accessible and, in the case
of very dramatic climate change, it is conceivable that a
third route between Asia and North America and Europe
may be introduced the Transpolar Route (TR).
The importance of use of decision support systems in
marine operations may increase in the future because of
an expected increase of occurrence of extreme weather
events. These systems need to be based on the state-of-the-
art risk approaches and have to relate and adapt to safety
regulations as proposed by Bitner-Gregersen and Skjong
(2008).
Below observed and projected changes in meteorological
and oceanographic conditions are presented focusing on
needs of marine structure design and operation.
Figure 1.
Risk based approach,
overview of interfaces
and how climate
change is integrated.
8
Climate change
and variability
CLIMATE DIFFERS with geographic location and is
inuenced by amongst other factors latitude and distance
from the oceans. Climate has always changed in time.
The variations observed today are due to:
Natural variability, originating from the internal
dynamics of the Earths system and occurring usually
on time scales a few years via decadal to multi-decadal,
but much longer cycles due to movement of poles may
also occur, e.g. 23000 year cycles.
Climate change due to external forcing, such as
changes in solar radiation and volcanic activity, varying
on time scales from years to millenia.
Anthropogenic climate change, caused by human
activities, which takes place over a few decades to
centuries.
The IPCC (2007) has analysed the chain including
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and concentrations,
radiative forcing and resultant climate change, and has
evaluated to what extent observed changes in climate and
in physical and biological systems can be attributed to
natural or anthropogenic causes. It has been concluded
that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as it
is now evident from observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of
snow and ice and rising global average sea level. According
to the IPCC AR4 report there is very high condence
that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has
contributed signicantly to the global warming. Global
GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since
pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970
and 2004. The global GHGs emission needs to be reduced
signicantly within 2030, in order to stabilize the warming
on 2 degree Celsius, confer IPCC (2007).
Multi-decadal natural variability of climate due to the
Earths system dynamics, short term externally forced
climate changes like volcanic activity and short term
changes (10-12 years) in solar radiation have been taken
care of in design of marine structures by considering
sufciently long meteorological and oceanographic data
records (typically larger than 10 years). Climate change
due long term external forcing such as solar radiation
and caused by changes in the Earths orbit is neglected
in a design process because of the large time scale of its
occurrence. In the last decades increasing attention has
been given to climate change induced by human activities,
its interaction with natural climate variability, and possible
consequences for design. It is, however, important to be
aware that the natural climate variability can be of the
same order of magnitude as the anthropogenic climate
change and may mask it for several years to come.
Natural climate variability can be of the same order
of magnitude as the anthropogenic climate change
and may mask it for several years to come.
9
DESPITE A NOTICEABLE increase in global surface
temperature the last 50 60 years (IPCC 2007) it has not
been possible to identify any signicant globally trends
in average marine wind speeds but there appears to be
regional patterns of upward changes in the tropical North
Atlantic and extratropical North Pacic and downwards
trends in the equatorial Atlantic, tropical South Atlantic
and subtropical North Pacic (IPCC 2007).
For extreme wind speeds and strong storms, the conclusion
appears to be the same. Although there was an increase
in storminess in the northwest Europe between 1960 and
2000 it has later declined, and it was at the same level at the
end of the 19th century as at the end of the 20th century.
The conclusion seems to be that there may have been a
poleward shift of storm tracks over the last decades but
uctuations of similar magnitude have occurred earlier in
the 19th and 20th centuries.
Nor does there appear to have been signicant trends in
the activity of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons,
depending on location) over the last 40 50 years, at least
not as measured by the Accumulated Cyclone Energy
(ACE), which accounts for the combined strength and
duration of cyclones. This conclusion is supported by
the International Workshop on tropical Cyclones VI
(Knutson, 2007).
Gulev and Grigorienka (2004) point to increasing mean
signicant wave heights in the North Pacic and North
Atlantic by 0.05 0.1 m/decade and negative trends in
the tropical western Pacic, south Indian Ocean and the
Tasman Sea from around the middle of the 20th century
to early 21st century. Wang and Swail (2006) conrm the
upward trends in mean signicant wave heights given
above for the North Pacic between the 1950ies and
the end of the 20th century but nd a more complicated
picture for the North Atlantic. There the annual mean
signicant wave height was found to increase by 0.16 0.24
m/decade from west of the British Isles to the northern
North Sea and to decline by up to 0.2 m/decade between
the coasts of the United States and North Africa. Similar
trends have also been reported by others for the northeast
Atlantic (e.g. Caires and Swail, 2004; see also IPCC, 2007).
However, if the records are extended back to the late 19th
century the picture changes somewhat. For the northeast
Atlantic (44N -52N, 6E 20E) Gulev and Grigorienka
(2004) found no trend between 1885 and 2002; in fact the
highest annual mean signicant waves as observed from
ships were 0.1 0.15 m higher around 1925 and 1945 than
in the 1990ies. For the northeast Pacic (48N -52N,
132W 146W) the upward trend for 1885 2002, while
still statistically signicant, becomes considerably weaker
than for the period 1950 2002 and the highest annual
means for the rst half of the period are comparable to
those of the last ve decades.
20-year return period
signicant wave height
have been found to
increase by up to
0.08 m/decade in the
northeast North Atlantic
Changes in
wind, waves and ice
in the 20th century
10
Extreme signicant wave heights, as represented by e.g.
the 99% fractile of the long-term distribution or the 20-
year return period signicant wave height have been found
to increase by up to 0.08 m/decade in the northeast North
Atlantic, while the extremes declined in the sub-tropical
North Atlantic, consistent with a poleward shift of storm
tracks (Wang and Swail, 2006; Caires and Swail, 2004). In
the North Pacic Wang and Swail (2006) estimated the
increase in the 20 year signicant wave height to reach
0.10 m/decade.
Sea ice in the Arctic has shown dramatic changes over
the last 30 years (see Figure 2). The extent of summer ice
(September) has declined by 8.9% per decade between
1979 and 2009 and the winter ice (March) by 2.5% per
decade. September 2007 had the smallest ice extent
on record but although the extent and area increased
through 2008 and 2009 it is likely that the total Arctic sea
ice volume had its minimum in 2009.
Sea ice in the Arctic has
shown dramatic changes
over the last 30 years.
Figure 2. Upper: Summer and winter development of sea ice
extent in the Arctic 1979-2008 (2007). (http://www.arctic.noaa.
gov/reportcard/index.html ). Lower: Satellite pictures of ice extent
summer 2007 (left) and winter 2008 (right) From http://nsidc.org/
news/press/2007_seaiceminmum/20071001_pressrelease.html ,
and http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/, April 2008
11
THE EXTENT to which human activities will impact
future climate conditions depend to a high degree on
how the international society reacts to the prospect of
signicant global warming with its consequences for
changes in regional and local climate. The IPCC (2007)
considered four scenarios based on various socio-
economic developments and their impact on emissions
of greenhouse gases. These scenarios have been used
to project climate changes in the 21st century and
beyond. The A* scenarios are pessimistic ones (higher
increase of the Earth surface temperature) while the B*
scenarios are optimistic ones. The scenarios describe
projected impacts of future climate change on economic
development, industrial sectors and geographic regions.
Special attention has been given to issues of human well-
being and development. Technologies, policies, measures
and instruments as well as barriers to implementation are
addressed by IPCC along with synergies and trade-offs.
As pointed out by the IPCC Report (2007) even though
a great deal is known about variations in climate and
greenhouse gases, a comprehensive mechanistic expla-
nation of these variations remains to be articulated.
Similarly, the mechanisms of abrupt climate change (for
example, in ocean circulation and drought frequency)
are not sufciently understood, nor are the key climate
thresholds that, when crossed, could trigger irreversible
acceleration in sea level rise or regional climate change.
Furthermore, the ability of climate models to simulate
realistic changes in ocean circulation, drought frequency
and ood frequency, as well as natural variability modes
(e.g. El Nio-Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic
Oscillation) and monsoon strength is uncertain. Neither
the rates nor the processes by which ice sheets grew and
disintegrated in the past are known well enough to give
accurate prediction of climate changes. In particular, the
current atmospheric and global climate models are unable
to provide reliable regional quantitative estimates of the
impact of climate change on the metocean parameters.
To remedy these shortcomings predictions IPCC has
used about 20 different models applied to each scenario
and each model/scenario combination has been run
several times using slightly changed starting conditions.
The resulting spread in projections has to be taken into
consideration when discussing climate change and its
impact on design of marine structures.
According to the IPCC (2007) ndings and the results
presented in the literature the following changes can be
expected to be observed:
extreme temperatures will increase
high latitudes will get wetter
subtropics will get drier
ice will be melting
sea level will be rising
wind regimes will move
Predictions from global climate models indicate that
the average air and ocean temperatures will continue to
rise during the next 100 years, see Figure 3, page 14. As
shown by the probability density distributions of surface
temperature under the different scenarios, not only will
the mean temperature increase but the variations will also
increase. Thus, in a warmer future climate, there will be an
increased risk of more intense, more frequent and longer-
lasting heat waves for some regions and an increased
chance of intense precipitation and ooding for other
regions. This will affect ice coverage, sea water level, wind
and wave climate.
Expected changes in
wind, waves and ice
in the 21st century
12
The intensity of extratropical storms is linked to sea
temperatures, and an increase of 0.5C in tropical sea
surface temperatures can be correlated to an increase
in maximum wind speeds of around 2-3 ms
-1
. Although
the ndings in IPCC (2007) are not conclusive there are
clear indications of a poleward shift in storm tracks and
thus an increasing number of storms must be expected in
high latitudes. Some regional studies also indicate that the
intensity and duration of storms may increase, as indicated
by Grabemann and Weisse (2008) for the North Sea.
For tropical cyclones a synthesis of model studies referred
to by IPCC (2007) shows a tendency towards increase in
peak wind speeds. However, there may be a decrease in
the global number of tropical cyclones in a future climate.
The global climate models in the IPCC Fourth Assessment
Report do not calculate the wave conditions. Available
studies use statistical relations between wave heights and
sea level pressure (statistical downscaling) or the winds
from the global models to run wave models (dynamic
downscaling) in order to predict the future wave climate.
Again, one must be aware of several sources of uncertainty
of wave climate projections like: the emission scenario,
assumptions on which the global climate model is based,
starting conditions for the global model, model adopted
to generate the wave elds, choice of approach to extreme
value analysis.
It must be noted that the papers reviewed herein have been
academic/scientic papers not written with the needs
of the designer in mind. Therefore the extreme values
presented there are not necessarily those an engineer
would choose.
To proper assess the impact of climate change on wave
conditions, with estimates of changes in design values and
the associated uncertainties, one would need access to the
raw data in terms of time series.
Most studies of the wave conditions in climate scenarios
for the next decades are regional and focusing on the
northern hemisphere, and in particular the North
Atlantic. Two studies that took a global view are Wang and
Swail (2004) and Caires et al (2006). Figure 4, page 14,
shows the expected changes between the 1990ies and the
2080ies in the 20-year return values for signicant wave
in northern winter (January, February and March, JFM)
and northern summer (July, August and September, JAS)
as estimated by Wang and Swail (2004) for the A2 emission
scenario. The values are averages over three models, one
Canadian (CGCM2), one British (HadCM3) and one
German (ECHAM4). They indicate increase in the 20-year
extreme values in the northern hemisphere and decrease
in the southern hemisphere in January - March. The
increase over the 90 years reaches more than 0.5m in the
north Pacic and off the east coast of the United States.
In the Norwegian Sea and off the northeast coast of Brazil
the increase is 0.1 0. 3m, whereas changes off West Africa
are minor.
Note that the values in Figure 4, page 14, represent the
average of three models for one emission scenario, A2, and
have been run by the coarse resolution models. Caires et
al (2006) conrm the qualitative picture in Figure 4, page
14, but they used only the Canadian climate model and
their results gave larger changes. Indeed, Wang and Swail
(2004) found that the choice of climate model contributes
most to wave projection uncertainty.
13
Studies carried out seem to have focused on the North
Atlantic and the North and Norwegian Sea. The
projections shown in the studies vary signicantly and are
location dependent;
Swail and Wang (2002) found that the 20-year return
signicant wave height in the North Sea would
increase 0.7 m and 1.15 m between the 1970ies and
the 2080ies, depending on emission scenario.
Wang et al (2004) and Wang et al (2006) showed that
the seasonal 20-yr signicant wave height will increase
0.151.0 m between 1990 and 2080 in the Norwegian
Seas, again depending on emission scenario and
season (largest increase in fall (OctoberNovember
December)).
Grabemann and Weisse (2008) found increases in the
99% percentile of the long-term signicant wave
height as an average over four climate model/
emission scenario combinations to be 0.25 0.35 m
from present to the end of the 21st century. However,
the range for the northern North Sea varied from
0.10 m to 0.6 m and the authors assign an uncertainty
to the mean value of 0.6 0.7m.
Debernard and Red (2008) found that along the
North Sea east coast and in the Skagerrak the annual
99-percentiles of signicant wave height increase
68%, and 4% or less in the North and Norwegian
Seas and west of the British Isles by the end of the 21st
century (2071-2100).The results indicate also more
frequent strong wind events with higher extreme surge
and wave events in the future. The authors relate large
uncertainty to these estimates due to imperfections of
the analysis carried out.
Expected changes in sea level are shown in Figure 5, page
15. Note that all numbers presented refer to the average
values. Recent investigations seem to indicate that these
numbers can be higher.
It is expected that increase of the average Earth surface
temperature will be twice as high in the Arctic compared
to other parts of the Earth (see Figure 3, page 14).
Consequently, the sea ice cover is expected to be reduced
signicantly. Figure 6, page 15, shows how a range of
climate models project future September ice extent in
the Arctic Ocean, along with observed ice extent. Note
that the models do not reproduce the historic ice data
well. However, the gure indicates that the ice cover in
summer may practically disappear around 2050, before
2020 has even been suggested by some investigations (e.g.
Maslowski, 2008). Most models predict thinner ice along
with reduce ice cover. Note that an ice free Arctic winter
is not predicted by any model, but that the ice may be
limited to rst year ice and, therefore a likely maximum
thickness of 2.0 2.5 m.
The results indicate also
more frequent strong
wind events with higher
extreme surge and wave
events in the future.
14
Figure 4. Changes in the indicated seasonal
20-yr return values of SWH from 1990 to
2080 (2080s minus 1990s), as estimated
from combining the three climate models A2
scenario projections. The contour interval is
10 cm. Zero-contours are not drawn. Dashed
and solid lines indicate negative and positive
contours, respectively. Hatching indicates
areas of signicant (at 5% level) linear/
quadratic trends in the projected location
parameter of seasonal extreme SWH.(Wang
and Swail, 2004).
Figure 3. Projections of surface temperatures.
Left panel temperature distribution, right
panel geographical distribution of predicted
temperature changes (IPCC 2007).
15
Figure 5. Time series of global
mean sea level (deviation from the
1980-1999 mean) in the past and
as projected for the future. The grey
shading shows the uncertainty in the
estimated rate of sea level change.
The red line is a reconstruction of
global mean sea level from tide
gauges and the red shading denotes
the range of variations. The green
line shows global mean sea level
observed from satellite altimetry. The
blue shading represents the range
of model projections for the A1B
scenario for the 21st century, relative
to the 1980 to 1999 mean. The IPCC
(2007), FAQ 5.1
Figure 6. Arctic September sea ice
extent in observations (red), and
IPCC AR4 model ensemble (blue).
The gure is updated from Stroeve
(personal communication), with
additions for the ice cover in 2009.
Updated from Stroeve et al (2007).
16
THE CLIMATE SYSTEM is very complex and its mechanism is
still not fully understood, however, observed and projected
climate changes indicate that changes in metocean
conditions can be expected which have impact on marine
structure design. The results presented by IPCC are
strongly dependent on an adopted scenario for emissions
and concentration of CO2 and are affected by various types
of uncertainties which need further investigation. Large
regional, local and seasonal differences are reported. For
wind and waves these uncertainties are less known than for
surface temperature and precipitation and they can not
be ignored when impacts of climate change on design and
operation of marine structures are discussed.
Observed and projected changes in waves and wind
climate are expected to have the largest impact on marine
structure design in comparison to other environmental
phenomena.
Changes in sea level combined with storm surge have little
potential to affect ship design directly but may impact
offshore and coastal installations, depending on how
signicant they are. Secondary effects, such as changes
in sea level range, harbour depths and ofoading heights
may need to be taken into account. Expected increase of
marine growth may increase loads on marine structures.
Increase of temperature and ice melting will affect sea
transport in the Arctic regions and may also affect design
of marine structures operating in the Arctic areas.
The IPCC Reports focus on temperature and precipitation
and average global values. Extreme value estimates of wind
and waves needed for design work may be more affected
by climate changes than the average values but are not
covered in sufcient details by IPCC. Further, publications
on extreme wind and waves in a future climate are not
written with the view of the designer. However, they do
show that parameters like the 20-year return period or
annual 99% percentile of signicant wave height may
increase by 0.5 1.0 m in certain locations (e.g. the east
North Sea, the Norwegian Sea) but with uncertainties that
are of the same size. The intensity of storms is linked to
sea temperatures, and an increase of 0.5C in tropical sea
surface temperatures can be correlated to an increase in
maximum wind speeds of around 2-3 ms-
1
.
In sum, although considerable uncertainty remains and
there may be signicant regional differences, current
best estimates of observed and projected climate change
indicate that in the coming decades it is likely that marine
structures will experience higher environmental loads.
Conclusions
Current best estimates of observed and projected
climate change indicate that in the coming decades
it is likely that marine structures will experience
higher environmental loads.
17
AS IT IS LIKELY that marine structures will experience
higher environmental loads, it is also likely that rules and
standards must be updated. However, systematic changes
to DNV Rules and Offshore Standards can not be justied
at this stage as it is unclear what revisions are required.
The topic should be revisited in a 2 year period. In the
mean time a process preparing for the adoption of future
climate change needs to be initiated imminently.
Statistical extreme value analysis, as currently used in the
metocean community, has to be upgraded to take into
account the non-stationary character of current climate, in
terms of both climate change trends and natural variability
cycles, and to be able to design for climate change.
Further investigations are required to better understand,
quantify and reduce uncertainties related to future
climate change projections of metocean conditions. These
investigations must directly use metocean data for future
climate conditions, based on a range of factors including
climate models, emission scenarios, downscaling and
extreme value estimation and have needs of the designer
in focus.
Studies are needed to describe and quantify potential
implications of climate change on safe design and
operations of marine structures as well as related
economical consequences. Further, an approach
consistently combining new information about climate
change and extreme weather events and relevant
uncertainties in current design practice needs to be
proposed. A distinction will need to be made between
existing structures and new ones when evaluating impact
of climate change on design of marine structures.
Development of decision support systems should continue.
These systems need to be associated with proper warning
criteria to extreme weather events. However, for some
phenomena, e.g. rogue waves, there is still a need for a
better understanding of the actual processes.
The shipping and offshore industry should achieve the
above goals in collaboration with universities and research
institutions. Establishment of expert panel(s), including
external researchers and users, to discuss results and
exchange information about climate changes is highly
recommended.
Recommendations
Studies are needed to describe and quantify
potential implications of climate change on safe
design and operations of marine structures
18
Bitner-Gregersen, E. M., Hovem, L. and Skjong, R. (2002). Implicit Reliability
of Ship Structures. Proceed.OMAE. Oslo, 23-28 June 2002.
Bitner-Gregersen, E. M., Hovem, L. and Hrte, H. (2003). Impact of Freak
Waves on Ship Design Practice, Proceed. MaxWave Final Meeting, Geneva,
Switzerland, Oct.8-10, 2003.
Bitner-Gregersen, E. M. and Guedes Soares, C. (2007). Uncertainty of Wave
Steepness Prediction from Global Wave Databases. Proceed. MARSTRUCT
Conference, Glasgow, March 2007.
Bitner-Gregersen, E. M. and de Valk, C. (2008). Quality Control Issues in
Estimationg Wave Climate from Hindcast and Satellite Data. Proceedings
of OMAE 2008. 15-20 June, 2008, Estoril, Protugal.
Bitner-Gregersen, E. M., Toffoli, A., Onorato, M. and Monbaliu, J. (2008).
Implications of Nonlinear Waves for Marine Safety. Proceed. of Rogue
Waves 2008 Workshop, Brest, France, Oct. 13-15 2008, http://www.
ifremer.fr/web-com/stw2008/rw/.
Bitner-Gregersen, E. M. and Skjong, R. (2008). Concept for a Risk Based
Navigation Decision Assistant. Marine Structures, 22 (2009), 275-286.
Caires, S. and Swail, V. R. (2004). Global Wave Climate Trend and variability
Analysis. 8th Wave Workshop, November 14-19, 2004 North Shore, Oahu,
Hawaii, USA.
Caires, S., Swail, V. R. and Wang, X. L. (2006). Projection and Analysis of
Extreme Wave Climate. J. Climate, 19.
Debernard, J. B. and Red, L. P. (2008). Future Wind, Wave and Storm
Surge Climate in the Northern Seas: a revisit. Tellus (2008), 60A, 427438.
DNV (1992), Classication Note 30.6: Structural Reliability Analysis of
Marine Structures, July 1992.
DNV (2002). PROBAN Theory, General Purpose Probabilistic Analysis
Program, the author L. Tvedt, Version 4.4, Hvik, Norway, 2002.
DNV (2007). RP-C205: Environmental Conditions and Environmental
Loads, Hvik, Norway, April (2007).
Eide, L. I. (2008). Barents2020 Phase 1 Establish Norwegian Baseline on
HSE Standards. Ice and Metocean (Maritime & Offshore), DNVR&I Report.
No., 2008-0664.
Grabemann, I. and Weisse, R. (2008). Climate Change Impact on Extreme
Wave Conditions in the North Sea: An Ensemble Study. Ocean Dynamics,
58, 199-212.
Gulev, S. K. and Grigorieva, V. (2004). Last Century Changes in Ocean
Wind Wave Height from Global Visual Wave Data. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31,
L24302, doi:10.1029/2004GL021040.
Hrte, T., Skjong, R., Friis-Hansen, P., Teixeira, A.P. and Viejo de Francisco,
F. (2007). Probabilistic Methods Applied to Structural Design and Rule
Development. Proceed. RINA Conference Development of Classication
& International Regulations. 24-25 Jan. 2007, London.
IMO (1997). Interim Guidelines for the Application of Formal Safety
Assessment (FSA) to the IMO Rule Making Process. Maritime Safety
Committee, 68th session, June 1997; and Marine Environment Protection
Committee, 40th session, September 1997.
IMO (2001). Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment for the IMO Rule
Making Process. IMO/Marine Safety Committee 74/WP.19.
IPCC (2007). The Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change (AR4): The
AR4 Synthesis Report, the Working Group I Report The Physical Science
Basis (ISBN 978 0521 88009-1 Hardback; 978 0521 70596-7 Paperback),
the Working Group II Report Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, the
Working Group III Report Mitigation of Climate Change.
ISO 2394 (1998). General Principles on Reliability for Structures.
ISSC (2009). ISSC2009 Report Committee I.1 Environment. Proceed.
ISSC2009 Congress, Vol.1, 17-21 August 2009.
Knutson, T. (2007). Hurricanes and Climate. Presenattion at the OGP
meeting in London. March, 2007.
Madsen, H. O., Krenk, S. and Lind, N. C. (1986). Methods of Structural
Safety. Prentice-Hall, Enlewood Cliffs, NJ 07632.
References
19
Maslowski, W (2008). When will summer Arctic sea ice disappear.
Symposium on drastic change in the earth system during global warming.
Sapporo, Japan 24. June 2008
Onorato, M., Osborne, A. R. and Serio, M. (2006). Modulation Instability
in Crossing Sea States: A Possible Mechanism for the Formation of Freak
Waves. J. Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 014503.
Shukla, P. K., Kaurakis, I., Eliasson, B., Marklund, M., and Steno, L. (2006).
Instability and Evolution of Nonlinearly Interacting Water Waves. J. Phys.
Rev. Lett., 97, 094501.
Skjong, R., Bitner-Gregersen, E. M., Cramer, E., Croker, A., Hagen, .,
Korneliussen, G., Lacasse, S., Lotsberg, I., Nadim F. and Ronold, K.O.
(1995). Guidelines for Offshore Structural Reliability Analysis General.
DNV Report No 95 2018.
Skjong, R. and Bitner-Gregersen, E. M. (2002). Cost Effectiveness of Hull
Girder Safety. Proceed. OMAE-2002-28494, Oslo, Norway, June 2002.
Stroeve, J., Holland, M. M., Meier, W., Scambos, T. and Serreze, M.
(2007), Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34,
L09501, doi:10.1029/2007GL029703, 2007.
Swail, V. R. and Wang, X. L., (2002). The Wave Climate of the North
Atlantic Past, Present and Future. 7th Wave Workshop, October 21-25,
2002 Banff, Alberta, Canada.
Toffoli, A. and Bitner-Gregersen, E. M. (2009). Extreme Waves in Directional
Wave Fields. Special Issue of the Open Ocean Engineering Journal of
Bentham Science Publishers. Submitted October 2009.
Wang, X. L. and Swail, V. R. (2004). Projections of Ocean Wave Heights
Climate Change Signal and Uncertianty. 8th Wave Workshop, November
14-19, 2004 North Shore, Oahu, Hawaii, USA.
Wang, X. L., Zwiers, F.W. and Swail, V. R. (2004). North Atlantic Ocean
Wave Climate Change Scenarios for the Twenty-rst Century. J. Clim., 17,
23682383.
Wang, X .L. and Swail, V. R. (2006). Historical and Possible Future Changes
of Wave Heights in Northern Hemisphere Ocean. In: Atmosphere-Ocean
Interactions [Perrie, W. (ed.)]. Vol. 2, Wessex Institute of Technology Press,
Southampton, pp. 240.
Wang, X. L., Swail, V. R. and Zwiers, F. W. (2006). Climatology and Changes
of Extratropical Storm Tracks and Cyclone Sctivity: Comparison of ERA-40
with NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis for 19582001. J. Clim., 19,31453166.
Disclaimer: Copyright permission for presented graphics in this document was sought whenever possible.
Det Norske Veritas
NO-1322 Hvik, Norway
Tel: +47 67 57 99 00
www.dnv.com
D
e
s
i
g
n
,

l
a
y
o
u
t

a
n
d

p
r
i
n
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
:

E
r
i
k

T
a
n
c
h
e

N
i
l
s
s
e
n

A
S
,

0
4
/
2
0
1
0
P
r
i
n
t
e
d

o
n

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y

f
r
i
e
n
d
l
y

p
a
p
e
r
.