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
and Relative Changes When Comparing the A2
and B2 Scenarios to the Current Climatea
Scenario Net Recharge Horizontal Boundary Outflow Drain Flow Base Flow Water Supply Irrigation
Simulations Not Including Abstractions and Irrigation
Current climate 550 23 279 252
A2 scenario + 67 (12%) + 1 (4%) + 56 (20%) + 13 (5%)
B2 scenario + 113 (21%) + 1 (4%) + 92 (33%) + 22 (9%)
Simulations Including Abstractions
/media/loftslag/vanRoosmalen_etal-2009-WRR_2007WR006760.pdf
S., Roald, L.A., Engen-Skaugen, T. Projected effects of climate change on the hydrology of Norway. Conference on Future Climate and Renewable Energy: Impacts, Risks and Adaptation, Oslo, 31 May - 2 June 2010, 80-81.
Bergström, S. HUVA training course for the hydropower industry. Lecture on climate change and hydropower. Stockholm, December 2, 2010.
Bergström, S. Lecture on climate
/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
2015, 2025, 2035 and 2050
North (Blanda) East (Karahnjukar) South (Thorisvatn)
Change in average inflow to the main storage reservoirs
Watershed
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
i
n
f
l
o
w
[
m
3
/
s
]
0
2
0
4
0
6
0
8
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
Last 50 years
Last 20 years
Last 15 years
Last 10 years
Last 5 years
Temperature corrected
Transformation of climate measurements
•Change in temperature
• 0.75 °C/100y 1950-1975
• 1.55
/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
)
Annual
Winter
Summer
• Accounts for natural
variability and differences
between climate models
Width of the distribution primarily determined by
natural temperature variability: larger in winter than in summer.
Winter Summer Annual
Best estimate (ºC) 1.3 0.7 1.0
5-95% uncertainty range (ºC) -0.5…+3.1 -0.2…+1.6 0.0…+1.8
Probability of warming (%) 90% 90% 96%
Ref: Räisänen and Ruokolainen (2007
/media/loftslag/Case_B___Road_transport_operation_and_infrastructure_planning.pdf
deviation across the ensemble) and sign agreement (a percentage of models in the ensemble that
project the same sign of changes as the entire ensemble does).
Analysis
In Fig.1a shown are simulated changes in the annual extreme temperature range calculated
as difference between 20 yr mean absolute annual maxima and minima temperatures in baseline
and future scenario periods. The range
/media/ces/CES_D2.4_VMGO.pdf
presentations of own poster (2 minutes per
student) + poster session + refreshments +
formation of groups
Students
Tuesday, August 23
9:00 - 9:45 Introduction to Horsens case study on water HJH Horsens case + TOR
9:45 - 10:30 Introduction to Finnish case study on roads AP
Coffee
11:00 - 12:45 Exersize works Students
Lunch
13:45 - 15:30 Uncertainty concepts and tools JCR Refsgaard et al. (2007)
van der
/media/vedurstofan/PhD_course-Programme_26Aug2011-final.pdf