behavior towards
a public good based on individual preferences, and provides insights into the type of indi-
viduals who best serve the social interest and those to avoid in institutional settings. This
distinction helps us to understand why, with the same incentives, the provision of public
goods works better in some populations than in others. In addition, our use of a sequential
public good
/media/loftslag/Public-Choice-2012---Teyssier---Inequity-and-risk-aversion-in-sequential-public-good-games.pdf
¨kull to
monitor inflation and deflation of the volcano (e.g., Pinel
et al. 2007; Gudmundsson et al. 2010) both before and
after the 2010 eruption.
Data and methods
The multi-temporal DEMs are constructed from the
best available Defense Mapping Agency (DMA) aerial
photographs taken between 1979 and 1984 in south
Iceland, airborne Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) images
obtained on 12 August 1998
/media/ces/Gudmundsson-etal-2011-PR-7282-26519-1-PB.pdf
impacts on hydrology
The chain of uncertainties
Models
• Emission scenarios
• Climate models (GCM + RCM)
• Downscaling / bias correction
Statistical downscaling/bias
correction
• Many different methods for making statistical
downscaling different results
• We cannot know beforehand which downscaling
method will turn out to be the best one
• Example – comparison of two methods for future
/media/loftslag/Refsgaard_2-uncertainty.pdf
The representation of
these factors is still lacking or at best rudimentary in most RCMs. While adding more detail to re-
gional climate studies, numerical downscaling is sensitive to various errors and biases in the GCM
dynamics that may average out globally, but are present on the regional scale. In an attempt to
minimise GCM errors, statistical downscaling methods correct GCM projections based
/media/ces/2010_005_.pdf
from this run are shown in Fig. 12.
that best simulated the measured glacier geometry. The
rate factor (A) calibrated in this manner is on the order of
6× 10−15 s−1 kPa−3; a value that has been recommended for
temperate ice (Paterson, 1994), but characterizes softer ice
than the average of a series of model calibrations that is now
recommended (Cuffey and Paterson, 2010). Here, two ap-
proaches
/media/ces/Adalgeirsdottir-etal-tc-5-961-2011.pdf
for
example the Sustainability First scenario as developed as part of the
Global Environment Outlook (UNEP, 2007). The backbone of this
scenario is best described as a ‘‘new sustainability paradigm’’. The
scenario projects a strong and total change in human behaviour
cutting across all sectors and all scales. To typify the new situation,
the story uses phrases such as ‘‘new environment and develop-
ment
/media/loftslag/Kok_JGEC658_2009.pdf
proposed 2025
horizon, mostly to include the impact of climate change. Furthermore, the use of fast-track scenarios and the selection of the best
set of scenarios was discussed in detail. It was decided to use the GEO-4 scenarios [20] developed for Europe (unpublished), where
both qualitative storylines and model output had been used, as the starting point of the SCENES scenario development process
/media/loftslag/Kok_et_al._TFSC_published_2011.pdf
60%
felt that climate change would be best addressed at a global level, 13% suggested
national government, while only 9% felt climate change could be best tackled at
an individual household level (Kirby, 2004). Only 5% favoured the European level,
which is surprising given the united front the EU tries to portray at international
negotiations on climate change and the initiatives being undertaken
/media/loftslag/Lorenzoni_Pidgeon_2006.pdf
the best performing RCMs in Scandinavia.
Christensen and Christensen (2007) noted that RCMs with quite
different biases are much closer to each other when simulating cli-
mate change impact since part of the biases is cancelled out by the
relative change. Jylhä et al. (2004) made similar findings about
changes in GCMs in Finland. However, even when the relative
changes are used in the delta change
/media/ces/Journal_of_Hydrology_Veijalainen_etal.pdf