s
fro
m
climat
e
ch
ang
e
an
d
cr
o
ss
bou
ndar
y
adaptatio
n
measu
res
.
In
th
e
Netherl
and
s
fo
r
hyd
rodyna
m
ic
mod
el
syst
em
s
lik
e
SOB
EK-
W
AQ
UA
(loca
lleve
l)
an
d
e.g
.
fo
rR
hi
ne
flo
w
(ba
sin
wi
de
)c
o
n
sid
er
ab
le
u
n
ce
rta
in
tie
s
ex
ist
(W
ee
rts
et
al
.200
3)
D
ev
el
op
m
en
to
fi
nt
eg
ra
te
d
ba
sin
m
o
de
l(
flo
od
ing
an
d
poll
ution)
.
2:
St
at
ist
ic
al
/q
ua
lit
/media/loftslag/VanderKeur_etal-2008-Uncertainty_IWRM-WARM.pdf
for Iceland were made. The CE
project used an ensemble of six GCMs and RCMs from the PRUDENCE project for four different
emissions scenarios (B1, B2, A2, and A1FI) developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). The GCMs used by the CE project showed more warming during winter than
summer. During winter, the median projected warming from 1961–90 to 2070–99 ranged from
3–6 K, and from 2
/media/ces/2010_005_.pdf
Different
kinds of weights were tried in the regression process in which case the least squares problem
becomes the problem of minimizing
{ }2102 ,...),()(log∑ −
i
iiii rMfPGXw ,
with respect to the parameters of the model f. The weights wi were generally of the form
),( rMq
p
wi = ,
where p was a normalization constant and usually q(M,r) was a discrete density distribution
made to correct
/media/vedurstofan/utgafa/skyrslur/2009/VI_2009_012.pdf
Resources and Energy Directorate
Edited by: Heidi H. Pikkarainen
Print: Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate
Number printed: 130
Cover design: Rune Stubrud
Prepared for: The CES project
Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate
Middelthunsgate 29
P.O. Box 5091 Majorstua
N-0301 OSLO
NORWAY
Telephone: +47 22 959595
Fax: +47 22 95 90 00
/media/ces/ces-oslo2010_proceedings.pdf
Discrete
numerical
Categorical Narrative
Constant in space and time A1 A2 A3
4Varies in time, not in space B1 B2 B3
Varies in space, not in time C1 C2 C3
It is noticed that the matrix is in reality three-dimensional
(source, type, nature). Thus, the categories type and nature
are not mutually exclusive, and it may be argued that the ma-
trix should be modified in such a way that the two uncer
/media/loftslag/Refsgaard_etal-2007-Uncertainty-EMS.pdf
10. Rake distribution for mapped faults/clusters in box J, Hella. ........................ 97
Figure B.11. Rake distribution for mapped faults/clusters in box K, Hraungerði. ............. 97
Figure B.12. Rake distribution for mapped faults/clusters in box L, Skeið. ........................ 98
Figure B.13. Rake distribution for mapped faults/clusters in box M, Land. ....................... 98/media/vedurstofan/utgafa/skyrslur/2010/2010_003rs.pdf
and
dips 89°. The strike deviates only 4° from the strike defined by the relocated aftershock
distribution on the Ingólfsfjall fault, which shows an 11 km long and an 8 km deep fault,
striking N181°E and dipping 89°. The mechanism of the earthquake on the Ingólfsfjall fault
could therefore have been immediately inferred. However, there were only three foreshocks
25
on the (second) Kross fault
/media/vedurstofan/utgafa/skyrslur/2010/2010_012rs.pdf
–8% likelihood that a vent will open on Heimaey. In other words, there is a 92–97% likelihood
that the next eruption within the volcanic system will not be on Heimaey. The most densely
populated parts of Heimaey in the north and around the harbor are the most vulnerable to
Moderate and Large lava flows originating on the island. Almost all infrastructure on the island
is vulnerable to lava
/media/vedurstofan-utgafa-2020/VI_2020_011_en.pdf