), 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
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
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 Irrigationa
Scenario Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Current 101 85 59 13 6 4 1 6 39 79 8497
A2 145 132 73 10 10 7 6 8 4 75 92 123
B2 137 119 75 16 6 6 6 5 21 74 110 141
aValues are in millimeters.
10 of 18
W00A15 VAN ROOSMALEN ET AL.: CLIMATE AND LAND USE CHANGE W00A15
time and larger area where groundwater levels rise above
the drain levels. Table 6 shows the mean discharges
/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
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