Climate Sense

[

] 239

dAptAtion

And

itigAtion

trAtegieS

and societal systems, policy makers will need different

methodologies and frameworks. Examples of these kinds of

impact include changes in river runoff that may necessitate

changes in the management of energy and water resources.

Capacity building to meet these challenges is ongoing.

Institutional realignment, starting with the merger of the

IcelandicMeteorological Office (IMO) and the Hydrological

Service will enable better support for policymakers. Climate

information services must be strengthened to ensure that

stakeholders have access to relevant information in a timely

manner. It is also important to participate at the regional

and international level. IMO has been active in several

International Polar Year projects, leading one on hydrol-

ogy, called Arctic-Hydra. Furthermore, IMO has headed

a series of Nordic-Baltic climate impact projects focusing

on three main renewable energy resources; hydropower,

biofuels and wind power, and how future climate change

within the next 20–30 years can impact these resources. All

the National Hydro-Meteorological Services in the region

are partners in this cooperation, which in many respects

constitutes a regional Climate Services Application Program

for the Nordic-Baltic region, including Greenland. A future

ambition is to develop the network into a formal Regional

Climate Service Application Program.

Theproject also intends tocontribute to theNordicCouncil

ofMinisters Top-level Research Initiative Programmes 2009–

2013, which will focus on impact studies, adaptation to

climate change and the interactionof climate changewith the

cryosphere, among other themes. Recognizing and respond-

ing to the risks and opportunities posed by climate change is

a challenging task for both scientist and policy makers alike.

As a consequence, glacial river runoff will increase during the first half

of the 21st century and peak before its end. Hydropower potential can

therefore be expected to increase in the first half of the century. Based on

past experience, changes in glacial riverbeds are likely, which can impact

both energy production and road services. Furthermore, it is likely that

production of magmawill increase under the thinningVatnajökull ice cap,

whichmay result inmore frequent or larger volcanic eruptions in the area.

Concomitant with the projected warming, further changes in biota

are likely. The enhancement of plant productivity and upward displace-

ment of tree limits is likely to continue. The impact onmarine life is more

uncertain, not the least due to insufficient knowledge of the long-term

consequences of recently discovered acidification of the oceans.

Impacts of projected climate change are likely to touch all sectors of

Icelandic society. Projected increases in hydropower potential, along with

enhanced plant productivity will affect the resource base of the country,

while increased risk of flooding both from rivers and rising sea levels will

influence planning and civil response. Because it is likely that there will

also be impacts that are not presently anticipated, decision makers must

be equipped to deal with uncertainties in impact projections.

The Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change discusses the need for adopting risk management practices in

dealing with projected impacts. In Iceland, there is a need to better quan-

tify the magnitude of impacts and assess the probability of significantly

adverse outcomes. To this end, further monitoring, systematic attribution

and enhancedmodelling, both of regional climate change and also of likely

impacts, will be required.

Iceland already has substantial experience in dealing with riskmanage-

ment of natural hazards, and existing frameworks can be adopted to deal

with some climate risks, such as possible increases in extreme weather,

flooding and volcanic eruptions. To deal with impacts that are not related

to singular events but rather affect the background conditions of natural

Thinning of Snæfellsjökull and glacial rebound in Iceland

Left: the changes in surface topography of the Snæfellsjökull glacier 1999-2008. The figure shows a widespread loss of ice, on average about 1.5 metres

per year. The red line indicates the outline of the glacier in 2000

Right: vertical motion of the land surface in Iceland based on measurements 1993-2004.

Positive numbers (green to red colours) indicate uplift, negative numbers (blue to violet colours) indicate subsidence

. Dots show the station network