No abstract

We present the official land uplift model NKG2016LU of the Nordic Commission of Geodesy (NKG) for northern Europe. The model was released in 2016 and covers an area from 49° to 75° latitude and 0° to 50° longitude. It shows a maximum absolute uplift of 10.3 mm/a near the city of Umeå in northern Sweden and a zero-line that follows the shores of Germany and Poland. The model replaces the NKG2005LU model from 2005. Since then, we have collected more data in the core areas of NKG2005LU, specifically in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, and included observations from the Baltic countries as well. Additionally, we have derived an underlying geophysical glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) model within NKG as an integrated part of the NKG2016LU project. A major challenge is to estimate a realistic uncertainty grid for the model. We show how the errors in the observations and the underlying GIA model propagate through the calculations to the final uplift model. We find a standard error better than 0.25 mm/a for most of the area covered by precise levelling or uplift rates from Continuously Operating Reference Stations and up to 0.7 mm/a outside this area. As a check, we show that two different methods give approximately the same uncertainty estimates. We also estimate changes in the geoid and derive an alternative uplift model referring to this rising geoid. Using this latter model, the maximum uplift in Umeå reduces from 10.3 to 9.6 mm/a and with a similar reduction ratio elsewhere. When we compare this new NKG2016LU with the former NKG2005LU, we find the largest differences where the GIA model has the strongest influence, i.e. outside the area of geodetic observation. Here, the new model gives from − 3 to 4 mm/a larger values. Within the observation area, similar differences reach − 1.5 mm/a at the northernmost part of Norway and − 1.0 mm/a at the northwestern coast of Denmark, but generally within the range of − 0.5 to 0.5 mm/a.

The seismicity of Scandinavia is low to intermediate in intensity and with magnitudes that rarely exceed 5.5. Even so, the seismicity is characterized by a great diversity in space and time, related to the fact that its driving forces, or sources of stress, are multiple and also diverse in nature. The dominant driving forces range from plate-related (such as ridge push) through regional to local ones (such as topography); all, however, are somehow related to lateral inhomogeneities in lithospheric structure. Whereas it was earlier assumed that the post-glacial uplift was the main cause for the seismicity of Scandinavia, we now conclude that the uplift may at most be playing a minor role. Along the coastal stretch of northern Norway there are still some indications that the seismicity, which is often shallow, normal faulting and swarm related, may be related to the still remaining glacial-isostatic adjustment. The flexuring that is needed to explain such behaviour could, however, also be related to erosion and sedimentation processes. It will take more work to separate these potential driving forces.

In Norway, as in the rest of Fennoscandia, the process of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment causes ongoing crustal deformation. The vertical and horizontal movements of the Earth can be measured to a high degree of precision using GNSS. The Norwegian GNSS network has gradually been established since the early 1990s and today contains approximately 140 stations. The stations are established both for navigation purposes and for studies of geophysical processes. Only a few of these stations have been analyzed previously. We present new velocity estimates for the Norwegian GNSS network using the processing package GAMIT. We examine the relation between time-series length and precision. With approximately 3.5 years of data, we are able to reproduce the secular vertical rate with a precision of 0.5 mm/year. To establish a continuous crustal velocity field in areas where we have no GNSS receivers or the observation period is too short to obtain reliable results, either interpolation or modeling is required. We experiment with both approaches in this analysis by using (i) a statistical interpolation method called Kriging and (ii) a GIA forward model. In addition, we examine how our vertical velocity field solution is affected by the inclusion of data from repeated leveling. Results from our geophysical model give better estimates on the edge of the network, but inside the network the statistical interpolation method performs better. In general, we find that if we have less than 3.5 years of data for a GNSS station, the

Changes to mean sea level and/or sea level extremes (e.g., storm surges) will lead to changes in coastal impacts. These changes represent a changing exposure or risk to our society. Here, we present 21st century sea-level projections for Norway largely based on the Fifth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC AR5). An important component of past and present sea-level change in Norway is glacial isostatic adjustment. We therefore pay special attention to vertical land motion, which is constrained using new geodetic observations with improved spatial coverage and accuracies, and modelling work. Projected ensemble mean 21st century relative sea-level changes for Norway are, depending on location, from −0.10 to 0.30 m for emission scenario RCP2.6; 0.00 to 0.35 m for RCP 4.5; and 0.15 to 0.55 m for RCP8.5. For all RCPs, the projected ensemble mean indicates that the vast majority of the Norwegian coast will experience a rise in sea level. Norway's official return heights for extreme sea levels are estimated using the average conditional exceedance rate (ACER) method. We adapt an approach for calculating sea level allowances for use with the ACER method. All the allowances calculated give values above the projected ensemble mean Relative Sea Level (RSL) rise, i.e., to preserve the likelihood of flooding from extreme sea levels, a height increase above the most likely RSL rise should be used in planning. We also show that the likelihood of exceeding present-day return heights will dramatically increase with sea-level rise.