Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T07:32:35.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sensitivities of glacier mass balance and runoff to climate perturbations in Norway

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2017

Markus Engelhardt*
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Thomas V. Schuler
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Liss M. Andreassen
Affiliation:
Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE), Oslo, Norway
*
Correspondence: Markus Engelhardt <Markus.Engelhardt@geo.uio.no>
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study evaluates sensitivities of glacier mass balance and runoff to both annual and monthly perturbations in air temperature and precipitation at four highly glacierized catchments: Engabreen in northern Norway and Ålfotbreen, Nigardsbreen and Storbreen, which are aligned along a west–east profile in southern Norway. The glacier mass-balance sensitivities to changes in annual air temperature range from 1.74 m w.e. K−1 for Ålfotbreen to 0.55 m w.e. K−1 for Storbreen, the most maritime and the most continental glaciers in this study, respectively. The runoff sensitivities of all catchments are 20–25% per degree temperature change and 6–18% for a 30% precipitation change. A seasonality of the sensitivities becomes apparent. With increasing continentality, the sensitivity of mass balance and runoff to temperature perturbations during summer increases, and the sensitivity of annual runoff to both temperature and precipitation perturbations is constricted towards changes during the ablation period. Comparing sensitivities in northern and southern Norway, as well as the variability across southern Norway, reveals that continentality influences sensitivities more than latitude does.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) [year] 2015
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Outline of Norway with the location of the four glacier catchments used for this study.

Figure 1

Table 1. Overview of the studied catchments with name of the containing glacier, catchment area, degree of glacierization, mean annual air temperature, Ta, mean annual precipitation sum, Pa, difference between the mean temperatures of the warmest and coldest months, A, latitude, Φ, index of continentality, k, and mean runoff for the period of available measurements. The climate data are based on the seNorge dataset and averaged for the study period (1961–2012)

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Climographs for the four studied catchments (averaged seNorge data for the period 1961–2012).

Figure 3

Table 2. Overview of the glaciers within the studied catchments with area, associated mapping year, glacier elevation range, equilibrium-line altitude (ELA) and seasonal mass balances (BW, BS) for the period of available measurements (data based on Kjøllmoen and others, 2010)

Figure 4

Table 3. Parameter sets and model performance for the catchment areas. Model performance is expressed by the coefficients of variation (root-mean-square error divided by the average) between modeled and measured seasonal mass balances, and the Nash–Sutcliffe coefficient, which is calculated using modeled and measured daily runoff values

Figure 5

Table 4. Absolute seasonal and annual mass-balance sensitivities (βW, βS, βN; m w.e.) and relative changes (%) of the seasonal mass balances for the studied glaciers using perturbations in mean annual air temperature (index T) and precipitation sum (index P)

Figure 6

Fig. 3. Sensitivity of annual mass balance (m w.e.) to changes in annual temperature and precipitation.

Figure 7

Fig. 4. Sensitivity of winter mass balances (βW) and summer mass balances (βS) to increases in monthly temperature (Tm) by 1 K and increases in monthly precipitation (Pm) by 30%.

Figure 8

Table 5. Mean modelled runoff, absolute (m3 s−1) and relative (%) runoff sensitivities (R) for the studied catchments (1961–2012) using perturbations in mean annual air temperature (index T) and precipitation sum (index P)

Figure 9

Fig. 5. Sensitivity of annual runoff (%) to changes in annual temperature and precipitation.

Figure 10

Fig. 6. Sensitivity of annual runoff (%) to an increase in monthly temperature (Tm) by 1 K and a decrease in monthly precipitation (Pm) by 30%.