ECHAM4/OPYC3 NorClim/HIRHAM 25x25 km
'Empirical Adjustment' to 1 x 1 km
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
1 10 100 1000
Return period (years)
P
e
a
k
d
a
i
l
y
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
(
m
3
/
s
)
1981-2010 GEV from annual max series
2021-2050 GEV from annual max series
2021 - 2050 Annual maximum series
1981 - 2010 Annual maximum series
1981-2010
200-year flood
2021
/media/ces/Lawrence_Deborah_CES_2010.pdf
-00046).
References
Björnsson, H. (2002), Subglacial lakes and jökul-
hlaups in Iceland, Global Planet. Change, 35, 255-
271.
Bödvarsson, R., S. T. Rögnvaldsson, R. Slunga, and
E. Kjartansson (1999), The SIL data acquisition sys-
tem at present and beyond year 2000, Phys. Earth
Planet Inter., 113, 89-101.
Lacasse, C., S. Karlsdóttir, G. Larsen, H. Soosalu, W. I.
Rose, and G. J. Ernst (2004
/media/jar/myndsafn/2005EO260001.pdf
Franz Josef Land. The western boundary
at 71 W excludes Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin, both associated with their own storm climate.
Baffin Bay is included in its entirety, since storm activity in that region is closely linked to that
over the western North Atlantic (Dacre & Gray, 2009). The eastern boundary at 55 E is chosen
to completely include the Barents Sea. This results in an area of 21,625,566
/media/vedurstofan/utgafa/skyrslur/2015/VI_2015_005.pdf
...................................................................................... 30
7 References .................................................................................................. 31
Appendix I - Identification of homogeneous groups of catchments obtained with
the ROI technique and associated growth curves .............................................. 33
Appendix II - WaSiM daily flow simulations: Best run verification for the cali-
bration
/media/vedurstofan/utgafa/skyrslur/2015/VI_2015_007.pdf
from
various datasets and research studies across nations, supplemented with in-depth
data collected in the UK. These findings are not always directly comparable, as this
depends on (i) the nature of the issue being investigated and (ii) practical/technical
characteristics of data collection. Firstly, climate change is a very complex, per-
vasive and uncertain phenomenon, generally difficult
/media/loftslag/Lorenzoni_Pidgeon_2006.pdf
the results for all catchments, with
that method. The deterministic predictions were also compared to two benchmark determinis-
tic predictions, i) monthly climate in the period 1961–2000, i.e. F(t0 +D) = E[A(M)], and ii)
persistence, i.e. F(t0 +D) = A(t0), where F is the forecast and A the observation or analysis.
Figures 5 to 8 present the scatter plots of observed temperature and precipitation versus
/media/vedurstofan/utgafa/skyrslur/2014/VI_2014_006.pdf
glacier inventories, aerial
photographs and expert judgement must be used to complete the curve down to the origin of the
figure. The volume distribution may then be computed by transforming the glacier area on the
y-axis of the area distribution curve in Figure 3 to volume using Equation (5) resulting in
V (vn) =
n
i=1
csgi ; (6)
in case the cumulative area distribution function V (v
/media/ces/ces-glacier-scaling-memo2009-01.pdf
twice per day
on the chosen synoptic stations, at 09 and 18 UTC. The MM5 output was saved
every 6 hours, at 00, 06, 12 and 18. The shortest comparison period is therefore
24 hours (from 18 to 18). That period will from now on be referred to as an
"event" in this paper.
The model output from a grid point can be considered as an area averaged
precipitation over an area of 64 km2. Therefore we do
/media/ces/Paper-Olafur-Rognvaldsson_92.pdf
European Plate Observing System Implementation Phase (EPOS-IP):
Services for Solid Earth Science
Kuvvet Atakan1 and the EPOS-Consortium2
1 Department of Earth Science, University of Bergen, Norway, E-mail: Kuvvet.Atakan@uib.no
2 EPOS www.epos-eu.org
The European Plate Observing System (EPOS) aims to create a pan-European infrastructure for solid
Earth science to support a safe
/media/norsem/norsem_atakan_ip.pdf
...................................................................................... 31
7 References .................................................................................................. 32
Appendix I - Daily Index flood models for Region 1. .......................................... 35
Appendix II - Daily Index flood models for Region 2. ........................................ 36
Appendix III - Comparison between
/media/vedurstofan/utgafa/skyrslur/2014/VI_2014_001.pdf