Figure 1; Panel A: Flow Into Lake Nassar (Current Flow = 1)

Figure 1; Panel A: Flow into Lake Nassar (current flow = 1).

Figure 1; Panel B: Area of Upstream Swampland (current area = 1).

Figure 2: Distribution of not-implausible futures displayed in terms of an index of consumption goods and food in 2067 (2000 level = 1) and a self sufficiency coefficient (the proportion of food consumption grown domestically).

Figure 3: Distribution of not-implausible futures for representative scenarios displayed in terms of an index of consumption goods and food in 2067 (2000 level = 1) and a food self sufficiency coefficient (the proportion of food consumption grown domestically).

Figure 4: GDP trajectories for Egypt along representative climate and socioeconomic scenarios with the higher population growth.

Figure 5; Panel A: Outcomes in 2067 along representative socioeconomic scenarios with the higher population trajectory displayed in terms of an index of consumption goods and food in 2067 (2000 level = 1) and a food self sufficiency coefficient (the proportion of food consumption grown domestically).

Figure 5; Panel B: Outcomes in 2067 along representative socioeconomic scenarios and climate scenario 3 with the higher population trajectory displayed in terms of an index of consumption goods and food in 2067 (2000 level = 1) and a food self sufficiency coefficient (the proportion of food consumption grown domestically). Smaller points indicate outcomes without adaptation; larger points connected by dotted lines indicate outcomes with adaptation.

Figure 5; Panel C: Outcomes in 2067 along representative socioeconomic scenarios and climate scenario 6 with the higher population trajectory displayed in terms of an index of consumption goods and food in 2067 (2000 level = 1) and a food self sufficiency coefficient (the proportion of food consumption grown domestically). Smaller points indicate outcomes without adaptation; larger points connected by dotted lines indicate outcomes with adaptation.

Figure 5; Panel D: Outcomes in 2067 along representative socioeconomic scenarios and climate scenario 9 with the higher population trajectory displayed in terms of an index of consumption goods and food in 2067 (2000 level = 1) and a food sustainability coefficient (the proportion of food consumption grown domestically). Smaller points indicate outcomes without adaptation; larger points connected by dotted lines indicate outcomes with adaptation.

Figure 6: Distributions of Five-Year Moving Averages of Flow and a Critical Decision Threshold

The upper distribution represents the relative frequency of the five year moving average of river flow, for example, at a particular year (time T) along a given climate scenario. The lower distribution represents the comparable frequencies at time T along a more severe climate scenario. The vertical decision threshold defines two types of errors involved at time T. The likelihood of a Type I error, incorrectly concluding that observed flows below the decision threshold indicate that the more severe climate scenario is emerging, is the area under the upper distribution to the left of the threshold. The likelihood of a Type II error, incorrectly concluding that observed flows above the decision threshold indicate that the less severe climate scenario is still in effect, is the area under the lower distribution to the right of the threshold.

Figure 7; Panel A: Contours indicate the expected discounted loss (measured as a percent of current GDP along socio-economic scenario C) of applying the indicated thresholds in reduced Nile flow to decide whether or not to adjust adaptation from investments that would be most appropriate for climate scenario 3 to those that would be most appropriate for climate scenario 6 for various years in the future.

Figure 7; Panel B: Contours indicate the expected discounted loss (measured as a percent of current GDP along socio-economic scenario C) of applying the indicated thresholds in reduced Nile flow to decide whether or not to adjust adaptation from investments that would be most appropriate for climate scenario 6 to those that would be most appropriate for climate scenario 3 for various years in the future.