the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 21 Jan 2025
Understanding Changes in Iceland’s Streamflow Dynamics in Response to Climate Change
Abstract. The hydrological cycle in high-latitude regions is undergoing significant changes due to climate change. Iceland, with its extensive data from undisturbed catchments, provides a unique opportunity to study these changes in snow- and glacier-melt dominated regions. The country's heavy reliance on hydropower, without any connections to other electricity markets, makes understanding these changes crucial. Recent decades have seen warming outpace global warming trends in Iceland, along with increased precipitation, reduced glacier mass, rising soil temperatures and expanded vegetation cover. The impacts of these environmental shifts on streamflow remain largely unexplored. Our study uses the LamaH-Ice dataset, which includes streamflow observations, atmospheric forcings from climate reanalyses, and catchment characteristics, to investigate changes in Iceland's streamflow dynamics over recent decades. We first examine the long-term variability in streamflow and its primary drivers, correlating it with major climate indices. We then analyze trends during the last 30 and 50 years in annual, seasonal, and daily streamflow volumes, the timing of the spring freshet, and extreme flow conditions, linking these changes to environmental conditions and catchment attributes. Results show high inter-annual variability, decadal fluctuations, and strong correlations with the Arctic Oscillation, as reported in earlier studies. Streamflow trends vary by location and river type, with increased precipitation driving higher annual average flows in most rivers, while summer flows have decreased in most rivers, which is linked to lower summer precipitation and increased evapotranspiration. This study is the first to report coherent regional and seasonal trends in Icelandic streamflow. Annual low flows have increased in most rivers. Glacial rivers show positive streamflow trends during the last 50 years, but negative trends during the last 30 years. The findings offer crucial insights into Iceland's hydrological changes amid rapid climatic shifts, with broader implications for reservoir operations and water resources management. This study enhances our understanding of Icelandic hydrology and contributes to global knowledge on climate-induced hydrological changes.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2626 KB)
-
Supplement
(4138 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2626 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4138 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4186', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Feb 2025
Manuscript Review: "Understanding Changes in Iceland’s Streamflow Dynamics in Response to Climate Change"
1) Impact
This study makes a significant contribution to our understanding of how climate change affects Icelandic streamflow dynamics. By utilizing the extensive LamaH-Ice dataset, the authors provide valuable insights into long-term hydrological trends in Iceland. The findings have important implications for hydropower management, water resource planning, and ecological sustainability. Moreover, the regional focus on Iceland enriches the global discussion on climate-induced hydrological changes.
2) Strengths
- Comprehensive Data Utilization: The use of the LamaH-Ice dataset, which covers a broad network of largely undisturbed catchments, increases the reliability of the study.
- Multi-Decadal Analysis: The examination of streamflow trends over both 30- and 50-year periods allows for a nuanced understanding of short- and long-term hydrological changes.
- Climatic Correlations: The study effectively links streamflow variations with large-scale climate drivers such as the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which strengthens the analysis.
- Operational Relevance: The discussion on hydropower implications makes the study practically useful for policymakers and energy managers.
- Clear Visualization: The figures—including maps, heatmaps, and rolling mean analyses—effectively convey trends and spatial variations.
3) Weaknesses
- Limited Discussion on Anthropogenic Influence: Although the study excludes heavily regulated rivers, it does not sufficiently explore how human interventions (e.g., land use changes, hydropower infrastructure) might interact with climate-driven changes. In particular, the catchment of the Kárahnjúkar Hydropower Plant is scarcely considered because the paper focuses on gauging stations where the river is minimally affected by human activities. But wouldn’t the effect of a changing stream flow be particularly interesting for Iceland's biggest hydropower plant?
- Uncertainty in Precipitation Data: The reliance on ERA5-Land reanalysis for precipitation introduces potential biases, as noted by the authors. A discussion on alternative precipitation datasets or validation techniques could strengthen the results.
- Glacial Dynamics Interpretation: The study links decreasing glacial river flow trends over the past 30 years to glacier retreat, but it does not explore potential non-linear meltwater contributions or threshold effects. In large glaciers such as Vatnajökull, enhanced ice melt may play a more dominant role than glacier retreat in influencing meltwater contributions. For instance, Figure 5 shows the precipitation trend, which correlates well with results from Kárahnjúkar watershed (Heger et al. 2025) where contributions to streamflow increase in spring and autumn while snowmelt decreases. Specifically, Figure 5 indicates that in the region of Kárahnjúkar, spring precipitation has increased by approximately 10%, whereas winter precipitation has decreased.
- Limited Policy Discussion: Although the manuscript mentions implications for hydropower management, it does not propose specific adaptive strategies.
- Statistical Significe: Figure 6 illustrates sub-seasonal trends in temperature and precipitation and shows that in the second period analyzed, the trends are considerably stronger, which could be interpreted as an intensification of extremes. The authors mention that many trends are not statistically significant, a point that is reflected in the data. Some variables decrease between 1973 and 2023 but then increase again between 1993 and 2023. Additionally, glacier melt was less intense in the last decade compared to the 1990s, reflecting not only variability in annual weather but not necessarily a robust trend. This variability could be discussed in the context of the uncertainty of a weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) (see Rahmstorf 2024), which may influence both climate extremes and glacier dynamics.
4) Specific Editorial Suggestions
Line 80 "it’s location" "its location" (remove the apostrophe)
Line 115 "which only returns as runoff up to decades later": Consider rewording for clarity: "which contributes to runoff decades later"
Line 199 "The warming appears to have slowed in recent years.": Consider adding a reference or supporting data for this claim
Line 390 "An overlying dashed black line indicates that the trend is significant (p < 0.05)." Consider rewording to match the style of other trend significance descriptions
Line 414 "We see that the trend is negative in most cases, although there are only 4 significant trends.": Suggest quantifying "most cases"
Line 505 "While a large majority of annual trends are positive...": Consider rewording for clarity: e.g. "Although most annual trends are positive, only eight out of 25 stations show statistically significant increases for 1973-2023."
Final Recommendations
- To enhance the impact of the conclusions, the authors could emphasize some key quantitative findings (please check the numeric values):
- Temperature Rise: Annual average temperatures have increased by approximately 0.2°C per decade.
- Precipitation Increase: Total precipitation rises by about 1.5% per decade, with notable seasonal variations (around a 10% increase in spring(?) and decreases in winter).
- Streamflow Variability: While 21 out of 25 gauges show positive streamflow trends for 1973–2023, glaciated rivers display predominantly negative summer trends in the recent 30-year period— this could possibly be linked to a weakening of the AMOC (Rahmstorf 2024)?
Highlighting quantitative results in the conclusions would strengthen the paper's data-driven arguments and improve its relevance for climate impact assessments and policy formulation.
- Address some of the identified weaknesses: Expand the discussion on anthropogenic influences (perhaps the watershed of Kárahnjúkar Hydropower Plant could be used as a representative example), address uncertainties in precipitation data by comparing with alternative datasets or validation techniques, and consider non-linear responses in glacier melt.
- Enhance policy relevance: suggest specific adaptive strategies for hydropower and water management to improve the applied value of the study.
- Correct Editorial Errors: Implement the minor editorial corrections listed above to enhance clarity and precision throughout the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4186-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Hörður Bragi Helgason, 24 Mar 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4186', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Mar 2025
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hörður Bragi Helgason, 24 Mar 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4186', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Feb 2025
Manuscript Review: "Understanding Changes in Iceland’s Streamflow Dynamics in Response to Climate Change"
1) Impact
This study makes a significant contribution to our understanding of how climate change affects Icelandic streamflow dynamics. By utilizing the extensive LamaH-Ice dataset, the authors provide valuable insights into long-term hydrological trends in Iceland. The findings have important implications for hydropower management, water resource planning, and ecological sustainability. Moreover, the regional focus on Iceland enriches the global discussion on climate-induced hydrological changes.
2) Strengths
- Comprehensive Data Utilization: The use of the LamaH-Ice dataset, which covers a broad network of largely undisturbed catchments, increases the reliability of the study.
- Multi-Decadal Analysis: The examination of streamflow trends over both 30- and 50-year periods allows for a nuanced understanding of short- and long-term hydrological changes.
- Climatic Correlations: The study effectively links streamflow variations with large-scale climate drivers such as the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which strengthens the analysis.
- Operational Relevance: The discussion on hydropower implications makes the study practically useful for policymakers and energy managers.
- Clear Visualization: The figures—including maps, heatmaps, and rolling mean analyses—effectively convey trends and spatial variations.
3) Weaknesses
- Limited Discussion on Anthropogenic Influence: Although the study excludes heavily regulated rivers, it does not sufficiently explore how human interventions (e.g., land use changes, hydropower infrastructure) might interact with climate-driven changes. In particular, the catchment of the Kárahnjúkar Hydropower Plant is scarcely considered because the paper focuses on gauging stations where the river is minimally affected by human activities. But wouldn’t the effect of a changing stream flow be particularly interesting for Iceland's biggest hydropower plant?
- Uncertainty in Precipitation Data: The reliance on ERA5-Land reanalysis for precipitation introduces potential biases, as noted by the authors. A discussion on alternative precipitation datasets or validation techniques could strengthen the results.
- Glacial Dynamics Interpretation: The study links decreasing glacial river flow trends over the past 30 years to glacier retreat, but it does not explore potential non-linear meltwater contributions or threshold effects. In large glaciers such as Vatnajökull, enhanced ice melt may play a more dominant role than glacier retreat in influencing meltwater contributions. For instance, Figure 5 shows the precipitation trend, which correlates well with results from Kárahnjúkar watershed (Heger et al. 2025) where contributions to streamflow increase in spring and autumn while snowmelt decreases. Specifically, Figure 5 indicates that in the region of Kárahnjúkar, spring precipitation has increased by approximately 10%, whereas winter precipitation has decreased.
- Limited Policy Discussion: Although the manuscript mentions implications for hydropower management, it does not propose specific adaptive strategies.
- Statistical Significe: Figure 6 illustrates sub-seasonal trends in temperature and precipitation and shows that in the second period analyzed, the trends are considerably stronger, which could be interpreted as an intensification of extremes. The authors mention that many trends are not statistically significant, a point that is reflected in the data. Some variables decrease between 1973 and 2023 but then increase again between 1993 and 2023. Additionally, glacier melt was less intense in the last decade compared to the 1990s, reflecting not only variability in annual weather but not necessarily a robust trend. This variability could be discussed in the context of the uncertainty of a weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) (see Rahmstorf 2024), which may influence both climate extremes and glacier dynamics.
4) Specific Editorial Suggestions
Line 80 "it’s location" "its location" (remove the apostrophe)
Line 115 "which only returns as runoff up to decades later": Consider rewording for clarity: "which contributes to runoff decades later"
Line 199 "The warming appears to have slowed in recent years.": Consider adding a reference or supporting data for this claim
Line 390 "An overlying dashed black line indicates that the trend is significant (p < 0.05)." Consider rewording to match the style of other trend significance descriptions
Line 414 "We see that the trend is negative in most cases, although there are only 4 significant trends.": Suggest quantifying "most cases"
Line 505 "While a large majority of annual trends are positive...": Consider rewording for clarity: e.g. "Although most annual trends are positive, only eight out of 25 stations show statistically significant increases for 1973-2023."
Final Recommendations
- To enhance the impact of the conclusions, the authors could emphasize some key quantitative findings (please check the numeric values):
- Temperature Rise: Annual average temperatures have increased by approximately 0.2°C per decade.
- Precipitation Increase: Total precipitation rises by about 1.5% per decade, with notable seasonal variations (around a 10% increase in spring(?) and decreases in winter).
- Streamflow Variability: While 21 out of 25 gauges show positive streamflow trends for 1973–2023, glaciated rivers display predominantly negative summer trends in the recent 30-year period— this could possibly be linked to a weakening of the AMOC (Rahmstorf 2024)?
Highlighting quantitative results in the conclusions would strengthen the paper's data-driven arguments and improve its relevance for climate impact assessments and policy formulation.
- Address some of the identified weaknesses: Expand the discussion on anthropogenic influences (perhaps the watershed of Kárahnjúkar Hydropower Plant could be used as a representative example), address uncertainties in precipitation data by comparing with alternative datasets or validation techniques, and consider non-linear responses in glacier melt.
- Enhance policy relevance: suggest specific adaptive strategies for hydropower and water management to improve the applied value of the study.
- Correct Editorial Errors: Implement the minor editorial corrections listed above to enhance clarity and precision throughout the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4186-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Hörður Bragi Helgason, 24 Mar 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4186', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Mar 2025
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hörður Bragi Helgason, 24 Mar 2025
Peer review completion
Post-review adjustments
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7,430 | 2,388 | 238 | 10,056 | 712 | 240 | 373 |
- HTML: 7,430
- PDF: 2,388
- XML: 238
- Total: 10,056
- Supplement: 712
- BibTeX: 240
- EndNote: 373
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Andri Gunnarsson
Óli Grétar Blöndal Sveinsson
Bart Nijssen
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2626 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4138 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper