), most of the earthquakes (80%)
occur in the upper crust down to 17 km in depth, a minority (19%) in the middle crust (17-31 km) and
only a few in the lower crust 31-45 km (1%) [1]. The seismogenic layer is less than 30 km in depth.
The layer seems to be rather uniform across Fennoscandia. We suggest that the middle to lower crustal
boundary may add compositional and rheological constraints
/media/norsem/norsem_korja.pdf
An
article recently published in the journal Frontiers in Earth Science on
glacier changes in Iceland describes changes in the volume and mass of the Icelandic
glaciers since they reached historical maximum extent at the end of the
so-called Little Ice Age shortly before 1900. The results of a number of
studies covering about 99% of the glacier area are summarized
/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
supported by the
majority of responses to one of the quantitative
questions (to which 13 out of 20 participants
responded on a five-point Likert scale—strongly
agree, agree, neither agree or disagree, disagree,
strongly disagree), where 11 respondents “agreed”
that the activities in the workshop helped them to
share their views and opinions with others, and the
other two “neither agreed nor disagreed
/media/loftslag/Moellenkampetal_etal-2010.pdf
.Interdisciplinarit
y
Differen
tdiscipline
s
ar
e
involve
d
in
definin
g
an
d
executin
g
th
e
research
:i
n
additio
n
to
technica
lan
d
engineerin
g
science
sals
o
fo
rinstanc
e
ecolog
y
an
d
th
e
socia
lscience
s
Folk
e
et
al
.(
200
5),
Vos
s
et
al
.(
200
6)
20
.Elicitatio
n
o
fmenta
l
models/critica
lself
-
reflectio
n
abou
t
assumption
s
Researcher
s
allo
w
thei
rresearc
h
to
be
challenge
d
/media/loftslag/Huntjens_etal-2010-Climate-change-adaptation-Reg_Env_Change.pdf
and Irrigation
Current climate 560 23 264 243 10 18
A2 scenario + 74 (13%) 0 + 50 (19%) 0 0 + 16 (89%)
B2 scenario + 118 (21%) +1 (4%) + 84 (32%) + 20 (8%) 0 + 9 (50%)
aWater balance values are in millimeters. Relative changes are in parentheses.
Table 4. Spatially Averaged, Mean Monthly Recharge for the
Current Climate and the A2 and B2 Scenarios for the Simulation
Without Abstractions
/media/loftslag/vanRoosmalen_etal-2009-WRR_2007WR006760.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
ANN−10
−5
0
5
10
15
20
delta w (%
)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17C
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
g
e
o
s
t
r
o
p
h
i
c
w
i
n
d
s
p
e
e
d
(
%
)
Change in wind over the Baltic Sea in 70 years time at the time of CO2-doubling
Chen and Aschberger, 2006
17
CM
IP
G
CM
s
A need for regional ensemble simulations
head2right Changes are uncertain
head2right Size and sometimes even sign
/media/ces/Kjellstrom_Erik_CES_2010.pdf
HYDROPOWER IN ICELAND
Impacts and adaption in future climate
Authors
Óli Grétar Blöndal Sveinsson (Phd)
Úlfar Linnet (MSc)
Elías B. Elíasson (MSc)
Landsvirkjuns system
•Installed power 1850 MW
• 96 % Hydroelectricity
• 4% Geothermal
•Production capacity 13 TWh/a
•Customer base
• 86 % Large industries
• 14 % Small businesses / Household
•No connection to other countries
•Reliability a major
/media/ces/Linnet_Ulfar_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