and Magnús Tumi Guðmundsson.
(2020). Non-surface mass balance of glaciers in Iceland. J. Glaciol.
66, 685–697. doi:10.1017/jog.2020.37Schmidt, L. S., Guðfinna Aðalgeirsdóttir, Finnur Pálsson,
Langen, P. L., Sverrir Guðmundsson and Helgi Björnsson. (2019). Dynamic
simulations of Vatnajökull ice cap from 1980 to 2300. J. Glaciol.
66, 97–112. doi:10.1017/jog.2019.90
/about-imo/news/new-article-on-glacier-changes-in-iceland-over-the-past-130-years
) Measured 1997 and 1999 ice surfaces of Lang‐
jökull and Hofsjökull, respectively. c) Steady‐state glacier
geometries after a few hundred year spin‐up with constant
mass balance forcing.
Figure 3: Simulated response of Langjökull (L), Hofsjökull (H)
and southern Vatnajökull (V) to climate change. The inset
numbers are projected volumes relative to the initial stable
ice geometries
/media/ces/ces_flyer_glacierssnowandice.pdf
To distinguish between rain and snow, the volume is com-
pared to the water equivalent but the volume of snow is ten times larger.
Figure 1. How PWD22 determines the type of precipitation.
Using the information about the changes of the backscatter signal, water equivalent and temper-
ature the Vaisala Present Weather Detector can give information about the type of precipitation.
It is also used
/media/vedurstofan-utgafa-2019/VI_2019_009.pdf
management, XXVI Nordic hydrological conference, Riga, Latvia August 9-11 2010. Nordic hydrological programme report No. 51. p138-139.
Kurpniece. L., Lizuma, L., Timuhins, A., KolcovaT., Kukuls, I. (2010). Climate Change Impacts on Hydrological Regime in Latvia. Conference on Future Climate and Renewable Energy, Oslo, May 31-June 2, 2010.
Meilutytė-Barauskienė D., Kriaučiūnienė J. & Kovalenkovienė M
/ces/publications/nr/1938
to c. 10% increase
Uncertainty related to choice of GCM
• Changing seasonality (2021-2050 vs 1961-1990)
in Sweden
T2m Precipitation Wind speed
Colored lines represent averages over RCMs forced by the same GCM
Gray field is max/min of all RCM simulations
An example of CC in the next few decades
2011-2040
vs
1961-1990
Why are differences between ensemble
members so large?
Winter (DJF)
M
S
L
P
T
2
/media/ces/Kjellstrom_Erik_CES_2010.pdf
not representative of present or future climate
conditions?
Winter mean T in Helsinki (1961-2008)
1961-
20081961-
1990
Temperature (°C)
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
-12 4
Simplest case: change in mean climate,
with no change in the magnitude of variability
If variability changes as well, the two tails of the distribution
(e.g., warm and cold) will be affected differently.
IPCC (2001
/media/ces/RaisanenJouni_CES_2010.pdf
variability
Models
Emission scenarios
2000 2100
LEVEL OF
UNCERTAINTY
Near future End of the
century
Natural climate variability + +
Climate model sensitivity (+) ++
Emission scenarios ++
Source: J. Räisänen (Univ. of Helsinki)
Probabilistic forecasts
of temperature change
in southern Finland
(1971-2000 barb2right 2011-2020)
Temperature change (ºC)
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
1
/
º
C
/media/loftslag/Case_B___Road_transport_operation_and_infrastructure_planning.pdf
L. Michaelis, S. Mori, T. Morita, W.Pepper,
H. Pitcher, L. Price, K. Raihi, A. Roehrl, H.-H. Rogner, A. Sankovski, M.Schlesinger,
P.Shukla, S. Smith, R. Swart, S. van Rooijen, N. Victor, Z. Dadi, 2000: IPCC Special Report
on Emission Scenarios. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA.
a)
b)
c)
Fig.1 Change of annual extreme temperature range
/media/ces/CES_D2.4_VMGO.pdf