230

Annals of Glaciology 42 2005

Estimating the contribution of Arctic glaciers to sea-level change
in the next 100 years
J. OERLEMANS,1 R.P. BASSFORD,2 W. CHAPMAN,3 J.A. DOWDESWELL,4
A.F. GLAZOVSKY,5 J.-O. HAGEN,6 K. MELVOLD,6 M. DE RUYTER DE WILDT,1
R.S.W. VAN DE WAL1
1

Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research Utrecht, PO Box 80.005, Utrecht University, Princetonplein 5,3584 CC Utrecht, The Netherlands
E-mail: joerlemans@phys.uu.nl
2
Bristol Glaciology Centre, School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, University Road, Bristol, BS8 1SS, UK
3
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, 105 S. Gregory Avenue, Urbana, IL 61081, USA
4
Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1ER, UK
5
Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, 29 Staromonetny Street, 109017 Moscow, Russia
6
Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, PO Box 104, NO-0316 Oslo, Norway
ABSTRACT. In this paper, we report on an approach to estimate the contribution of Arctic glaciers to
sea-level change. In our calculation we assume that a static approach is feasible. We only calculatechanges in the surface balance from modelled sensitivities. These sensitivities, summarized in theseasonal sensitivity characteristic, can be used to calculate the change in the surface mass budget forgiven anomalies of monthly temperature and precipitation. We have based our calculations on a
subdivision of all Arctic ice into 13 regions: four sectors of the Greenland ice sheet; the Canadian Arctic>748 N; the Canadian Arctic <748 N; Alaska, USA; Iceland; Svalbard; Zemlya Frantsa Iosifa, Russia;
Novaya Zemlya, Russia; Severnaya Zemlya, Russia; and Norway/Sweden >608 N. As forcing for the
calculations, we have used the output from five climate models, for the period 2000–2100. Thesemodels were forced by the same greenhouse-gas scenario (IPCC-B2). The calculated contributions to
sea-level rise in the year 2100 vary from almost zero to about 6 cm. The differences among the models
stem first of all from differences in the precipitation. The largest contribution to sea-level change comesfrom the Greenland ice sheet. The glaciers in Alaska also make a large contribution, not because of thearea they cover, but because they are more sensitive than other glaciers in the Arctic. The climate
models do not agree on regional patterns. The runoff from Svalbard glaciers, for instance, increases fortwo models and decreases for the three other models. We conclude that the uncertainty due to a simple
representation of the glaciological processes is probably smaller than the uncertainty induced by thedifferences in the climate-change scenarios produced by the models.

1. OUTLINE AND SET-UP OF STUDY
Global sea level is rising at a rate of 10–20 cm per century(Church and others, 2001). There is concern that anthropogenic forcing of climate may lead to significant global
warming and, as a consequence, to an increasing rate of sealevel rise. Thermal expansion of the oceans and changes inthe volume of land ice are supposed to be the mostimportant factors that affect sea level on the decadal tocentury timescale.
The rise of sea level during the last 100–150 years is partly
understood. Estimates of the contribution from thermal
expansion, obtained by running ocean models with appropriate forcing, are in the 3–7 cm range for the period 1865–
1990 (e.g. de Wolde and others, 1995; Church and others,2001). Meteorological records can be used to estimate themelt from glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland ice sheet(GIS). By using modelled sensitivities of glacier massbalance, Zuo and Oerlemans (1997) calculated a contribution of 5–8 cm to sea-level rise for the period 1865–1990(glaciers + GIS). Church and others (2001) report estimatesin the 2–4 cm range for the 20th century from glaciers only.
It therefore appears that the observed sea-level rise can be
explained partly by thermal expansion and melting ofglaciers and small ice caps. It is also very possible that
long-term changes in the large polar ice sheets (Antarctica
and Greenland) are large enough to make a significant
contribution to sea-level change. Model calculations with athree-dimensional thermomechanical model of the Antarctic
ice sheet suggest that this might be the case (e.g. Huybrechts
and de Wolde, 1999). The Antarctic ice sheet would still belosing mass in response to the large rise in sea levelassociated with the waning of the Northern Hemisphere ice
sheets during the last deglaciation. Similar studies for theGreenland ice sheet point to a situation in which the ice
sheet would be in rather close balance with the current
climatic conditions (Huybrechts, 1994; Van de Wal, 1999;
Church and others, 2001).
All these calculations and estimates are subject to aconsiderable uncertainty. Results depend on the choice ofinitial conditions, but these are poorly known. Glacier massbalance models have been tested mainly against observations
on mid-latitude glaciers, but most of the ice outside Greenland and Antarctica is found in the Arctic regions (Dowdeswell and others, 1997). The dynamic models of the Antarctic
and Greenland ice sheets mentioned above are not very wellconstrained, either with respect to model parameters or withrespect to the geological and geomorphological evidenceOerlemans and others: Estimating the contribution of Arctic glaciers to sea-level change

231

Table 1. Overview of the glacier regions used in the calculations. Climate sensitivity of the mean surface balance to an annual change intemperature and precipitation, respectively, is given in the third and fourth columns. The last column describes how the seasonal sensitivity
characteristic (SSC) of the various regions was obtained
Glacier
area

CT

CP

103 km2

mm K–1

mm %–1

I. Greenland ice sheet*

1756

–49

3.8

II. Canadian Arctic >748 N

108

–119

3.7

III. Canadian Arctic <748 N

43.4

–190

5.9

IV. Alaska, USA

75

–577

29.5

V. Iceland

10.9

–831

38.3

VI. Svalbard

36.6

–252

9.4

VII. Zemlya Frantsa Iosifa, Russia
VIII. Novaya Zemlya, Russia
IX. Severnaya Zemlya, Russia
X. Norway/Sweden >608 N

13.7
23.6
18.3
3.1

–252
–365
–365
–560

9.4
8.4
8.4
25.7

Method for obtaining SSC

Calculated with a spatially distributed energy-balance model (20 km
resolution) (Van de Wal and Oerlemans, 1994)
Mean of SSCs for White Glacier and Devon Ice Cap, scaled with annual
precipitation following Oerlemans (2001)
Based on SSCs for White Glacier and Devon Ice Cap, but factor 1.6 larger(based on scaling with precipitation) (Oerlemans, 1992, 2001; Zuo andOerlemans, 1997)
Based on SSC for Engabreen, Norway, but factor 0.8 larger (based on scaling
with precipitation) (Oerlemans, 1992, 2001; Zuo and Oerlemans, 1997)
Based on SSC for Vatnajökull, calculated with a two-dimensional energybalance model (500 m resolution) (de Ruyter de Wildt and others, 2003)
Mean of SSCs calculated for Lovénbreen, Kongsvegen, Austfonna north andAustfonna south (model from Oerlemans, 1992; input from K. Melvold)
SSC the same as for Svalbard (region VI)
SSC the same as for Severnaya Zemlya (region IX)
SSC calculated for Vavilov ice cap (Bassford and others, 2006)
Mean of SSCs for Engabreen, Norway, and Storglaciaren, Sweden (Oerlemans, 1992, 2001)*For the calculation of sea-level change the Greenland ice sheet was split into four sectors.

that can be used to judge the simulated late-Pleistocene/
Holocene response (e.g. Ritz and others, 1997).
Altogether there is a great need for further study of thelarger ice bodies. With regard to the globally integrated effectof glaciers, ice sheets and ice caps, the Arctic region is ofparticular importance. Although it has a relatively cold
climate, all glaciers and ice caps found there are subject toconsiderable melting and runoff in summer. Therefore Arctic
glaciers and ice caps are sensitive to climatic change: a small
increase in temperature will have an immediate effect on themelting and runoff. In view of the expected enhanced
greenhouse warming, relatively large changes in the volume
of Arctic ice bodies can be expected. In this paper, we
attempt to estimate the additional runoff from Arctic glaciersfor climate scenarios produced by coupled ocean–atmosphere models. This work was initiated by the Arctic Climate
Impact Assessment, for which such an estimate was required.
During the last few decades, Arctic ice masses have been
investigated with very different methods. In many cases,
only basic parameters have been measured, because logistic
constraints did not allow thorough studies to be made. In
other cases, a large amount of data on geometry, massbalance and ice dynamics has been collected. The diversityof the data available implies that it is difficult to obtain awell-balanced picture of what is known and what is
unknown. Nevertheless, in this contribution we want tomake an estimate of the climate sensitivity of all ice bodies
in the Arctic (Table 1). We have chosen to do this by using
results from energy-balance modelling, in which the mostimportant processes that regulate the exchange of mass andenergy between glacier surface and atmosphere are described. The dynamic response of glaciers is not considered(further comments on this are given below).
For some of the ice bodies, extensive studies with energybalance models have been made already (e.g. for theGreenland ice sheet (Van de Wal and Oerlemans, 1994; Vande Wal, 1996); for Svalbard glaciers (Fleming and others,1997); and for Vatnajökull, Iceland (de Ruyter de Wildt andothers, 2003)), and we will incorporate these to arrive at amore complete picture. In some cases, the input data for theenergy-balance modelling are extremely limited, and firstorder estimates of quantities like altitudinal precipitation
gradients have to be made.
In the calculation reported here, monthly output is usedfrom the climate models of the Hadley Centre, UK(HADLEY), of the Canadian Climate Center (CCC), of the
Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie, Hamburg, Germany(ECHAM), of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory,
Princeton, NJ, USA (GFDL), and of the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA (NCAR CSM). The
basic characteristics of these models and the experiments
carried out are described by Houghton and others (2001).
All results shown in this paper are for the IPCC-B2 scenarioof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The B2
scenario refers to a world with a steadily increasing
population, intermediate levels of economic development,
and diverse technological change (Houghton and others,
2001, p. 63). It is the most commonly used scenario forclimate impact studies.

2. CLIMATE SENSITIVITY OF GLACIER MASSBALANCE
To facilitate the discussion, we first review briefly somebasic concepts. The net mass budget N of a glacier or ice
sheet can be written asZN¼
b_ dx dy " C ¼ A B~ " C :ð1ÞAHere b_ is the specific balance rate (net gain or loss of mass
per unit area per unit of time), x and y are the horizontal
coordinates, and C is the rate at which mass is lost by

232

Oerlemans and others: Estimating the contribution of Arctic glaciers to sea-level change

calving into the sea or into lakes. B~ is the specific balance
averaged over the entire glacier surface (which has area A).
B~ also includes melting or accretion of ice at the glacierbase. Clearly, a glacier can only be in equilibrium when
N ¼ 0, which is generally not the case.
We now define monthly sensitivities of the mean surfacebalance to a change in atmospheric temperature as
ST , i ¼

@ B~
:
@ Ti0

ð2Þ

Here ST,i is the change in B~ due to the effect of a temperature
perturbation in month i. The temperature perturbation isdefined as the difference between the temperature of amonth and its long-term mean.
Similarly, the sensitivity to changes in precipitation canbe expressed as
SP , i ¼

@ B~
0 :
@ Pi

ð3Þ

The precipitation perturbation is defined as
0

Pi ¼

Pi
" 1:
Pm, i

ð4Þ

Here Pi is the precipitation in month i and Pm,i its long-termmean value.
The definitions of the sensitivities imply that a reference
state should be defined. The most straightforward approachis to take a state for which N ¼ 0, although this may be far
from the actual situation (which is not very well known for
most glaciers). Moreover, the sensitivities as defined above
are for a fixed glacier geometry and it will be assumed thatcalving rates remain constant.
The 24 sensitivity values defined by Equations (3) and (4)form a 2 % 12 matrix, which has been termed the seasonalsensitivity characteristic (SSC) by Oerlemans and Reichert(2000). Once the SSC is known, it is possible to calculate theconsequence of any future climate scenario given as
monthly anomalies in temperature and precipitation:
0

B~ ¼

12
X
i¼1

0

ST , i ðTi " !Þ þ

12
X
i¼1

0

SP , i ðPi " "Þ:ð5ÞHere the quantities ! and " are introduced to allow for an
imbalance between climate and glacier state. The volume ofice lost or gained in the course of time is now obtained from
Vk ðtÞ ¼ Ak

t
X
#¼t0

0

B~ ð#Þ:ð6Þ

The index k refers to the region (Table 1). Ak is the total
glacier area in region k. The volume change in region k isdenoted by Vk.
The glaciers and ice caps to which energy-balance
models were applied are mentioned in Table 1 (last column).
The climatic setting of these glaciers ranges from very dry(White Glacier and Devon Ice Cap, Canada; Greenland ice
sheet) to very humid (Vatnajökull; Engabreen, Norway).
There are also large differences in the annual temperature
range. For Vatnajökull this range is small ('15 K), and forWhite Glacier very large ('35 K). These differences inclimatic setting are the main reason for the different shapesof the SSCs. In Figure 1, SSCs are shown for six glaciers/ice
caps. In these graphs each bar represents a contribution to
the change in the mean specific balance due to a 1 K

temperature perturbation or a 10% precipitation increase inthat particular month (1 is January, etc.).
The contrast between the continental and maritime ice
caps is striking. The mean specific balance of the Greenland
ice sheet is least sensitive to temperature change, whereas
Vatnajökull shows the largest sensitivity. It can also be seen
that, for the Arctic ice caps, only the summer months
contribute to the temperature sensitivity. For Vatnajökull, on
the other hand, temperature anomalies in the winter halfyear also make a significant contribution to the total
sensitivity.
Some of the SSCs show a more regular pattern throughthe year than others, notably concerning the sensitivity tochanges in precipitation. This is related to the type of input
data. For White Glacier, for instance, the precipitation rate
through the year follows a smooth sine function, simply
because the paucity of data does not allow a moresophisticated scheme. On the other hand, the Vatnajökull
model is driven by detailed daily meteorological input fromnearby weather stations. The sensitivity of the specificbalance to a fractional change in precipitation will therefore
also reflect the monthly precipitation differences in the
climatology.
The next step is to estimate the climate sensitivity of all
Arctic ice masses, based on the modelling studies describedabove. For the Greenland ice sheet we simply take thevalues from the two-dimensional energy-balance model, but
for the other ice masses extrapolation has to be carried out.
Table 1 summarizes how this has been done for the various
regions.
It is also instructive to look at annual sensitivities, defined
as
CT ¼
CP ¼

12
X

ST , i

ð7Þ

SP , i :

ð8Þ

i¼1

12
X
i¼1

The sensitivity of the mean specific balance to a uniform
temperature change (CT) is thus obtained by summing up themonthly values (which is a good approximation; seeOerlemans and Reichert, 2000). The same procedure
applies to the sensitivity to changes in precipitation (CP).
Values of CT and CP are given in Table 1.
To put the results for the different regions in a better
context, we can also consider the climate sensitivity of ice
caps in terms of sea-level change (denoted by SLT for
temperature change and by SLP for precipitation change).
This merely involves multiplying CT and CP by the area of theice masses involved and dividing the resulting number by
the total area of the world ocean. Values of CT, SLT, CP and
SLP for the major glacier regions in the Arctic are shown in
Figure 2. Whereas Iceland has the largest sensitivity for bothtemperature and precipitation, the Greenland ice sheet has
the largest potential impact on sea level, in spite of its low
sensitivity. For a uniform 1 K warming, the contribution fromthe Greenland ice sheet to sea-level rise would be about thesame as that from the other glaciers and ice caps together.
The picture for an increase in precipitation appears as themirror image of the picture for an increase in temperature.
Again, Iceland and Alaska have the largest sensitivity, but
Greenland is still the most important with respect to sealevel change because of its size.

Oerlemans and others: Estimating the contribution of Arctic glaciers to sea-level change

233

Fig. 1. The SSC for a selection of glaciers and ice caps.

By summing up the values for the different regions wefind a sensitivity for a (uniform) temperature change of
0.53 mm sea-level rise a–1 K–1 and for a uniform change inprecipitation of 0.31 mm sea-level drop a–1 (10%)–1. Thisimplies that sea-level rise due to a 1 K warming could becancelled by an increase in precipitation of about 17%.

3. RESULTS
We now turn to the calculation of the mean balance of thevarious glacier regions for the next 100 years. As input for
Equation (5) we used monthly temperature and precipitation

anomalies from runs with the coupled ocean–atmospheremodels mentioned in section 1. These models and experiments are described in Houghton and others (2001). We do
not give a general discussion here on the outcome of thetransient model runs, because these have been describedand used elsewhere. Instead, we concentrate on the implications for Arctic glaciers. All results shown in this paper are
for the IPCC-B2 scenario, which is the most commonly used.
Data have been averaged over the respective glacier regions(Table 1). The Greenland ice sheet was split into four sectors,
because it covers a larger area over which monthly
anomalies vary significantly. These sectors were chosen as234

Oerlemans and others: Estimating the contribution of Arctic glaciers to sea-level change

Fig. 4. Contributions of temperature and precipitation effects to sealevel change in 2100 (with respect to 2000) for the five climate
models.

Fig. 2. Sensitivity of the mean surface balance to changes in annual
temperature (a) and annual precipitation (b). The resulting effects on
sea-level change (SLP and SLT) are also shown (in black). Note thatthe scales are different.

Fig. 3. Contribution of Arctic glaciers to sea-level change ascalculated from the output of five different climate models.

in Oerlemans (1991) and represent to some extent climatic
entities: the wet south and southeast sector with a maritime
climate; the cold, dry northeast sector; the cold but wetter
northwest sector; and the dry west sector with a very
continental climate (cold winters and warm summers).
Unfortunately, the current state of balance of mostglaciers and ice caps in the Arctic is not known. For someglaciers and ice caps, information on changes in extent overthe last few decades is available, but even then it is difficult
to quantify this in terms of ! and " and to generalize this foran entire region. In the calculations reported here we havetherefore set ! and " to zero.
Figure 3 shows the total contribution of Arctic glaciers to
sea-level rise calculated for the various models. Apparently,
the differences are very large. Most models predict that
Arctic glaciers will make a contribution to sea-level rise, but
the NCAR CSM model predicts little change. Further
analysis shows that this is due to a very large increase inprecipitation in the NCAR CSM model. In contrast, theHadley Centre model yields an almost 6 cm contribution to
sea-level rise in 2100.
In Figure 4 the contributions from precipitation andtemperature changes are considered separately (for the year
2100). This figure reveals that the inter-model differences are
first of all due to differences in the simulated precipitation.
For instance, in the Hadley Centre model the precipitation
over the Arctic glaciers in 2100 is not larger than today. At
the same time, the NCAR CSM model predicts a substantial
increase that cancels the increase in ablation. The large
differences among the various models are a consequence ofdifferent schemes for key processes in the (sub-)Arctic
regions, notably the formation of sea ice. The response of
the sea-ice pack to increased radiative forcing varies strongly
in the models (Houghton and others, 2001), and this has an
immediate feedback on precipitation patterns.
The effect of temperature change on the Arctic glaciers israther similar for the various models. Only the ECHAM
model gives somewhat larger values.
An issue that has drawn a lot of attention is the increase insnow accumulation over the Greenland ice sheet that could
be expected in a warming world (e.g. Ohmura and others,
1996; Van de Wal and others, 2001). Figure 5a illustrates theOerlemans and others: Estimating the contribution of Arctic glaciers to sea-level change

235

Fig. 5. The effect of precipitation changes only on sea level for Greenland (a) and Svalbard (b).

differences among the models, which once more appear tobe very large. The Hadley model does not predict an increasein accumulation, but in fact a small decrease. In contrast, theNCAR CSM model predicts a very large increase inaccumulation, equivalent to a 5 cm sea-level drop by 2100.
The changes in precipitation are not, of course, spatially
uniform. Even between the Greenland ice sheet andSvalbard, which are not so far apart, differences are evident.
This is illustrated in Figure 5b. Now the changes predicted by
the GFDL model are rather similar to that predicted by the
NCAR CSM model, while the Canadian model (CCC) seems
to be more in agreement with the Hadley Centre model.
Finally, we look at the relative contributions from thedifferent regions. Figure 6 shows the result from the ECHAM
model (precipitation + temperature) as a function of time.
Clearly, the largest contribution comes from the Greenland
ice sheet. The glaciers in Alaska also play an important role,
primarily because they are quite sensitive (Fig. 2). This is inline with the study of Arendt and others (2002), who showedthat glacier thinning in Alaska is now making a significant
contribution to global sea-level rise. The individual contributions from the other regions are significantly smaller.
This is a result either of the smaller area involved (e.g.
Severnaya Zemlya) or of the smaller climate sensitivity(Canadian Arctic). Altogether the glaciers and ice caps ofnorthern Canada and the Arctic islands make a contributionthat is comparable to that of Alaska alone.

As explained in section 1, our approach is purely static,
i.e. we do not allow ice masses to change their geometry in
response to a changing mass balance. We expect that for thelarger ice masses this is a valid assumption in view of all theother uncertainties. For smaller glaciers, large errors may

4. CONCLUDING REMARKSThe results of our calculations suggest that in the next
100 years Arctic glaciers will make a contribution to sealevel rise of 3.4 ( 2.4 cm. The large uncertainty in this value
is mainly due to the differences in precipitation as predictedby the various models.
It is likely that 3.4 cm is a lower estimate since it is basedon the assumption that the Arctic glaciers are currently inbalance with the prevailing climate. If the imbalancecorresponded to a value of 0.5 K of ! (uniform over theArctic region), the projected sea-level rise for 2100 would be
2.5 cm larger.

Fig. 6. Contributions of the different glacier regions to sea-levelchange as calculated from the output of the ECHAM model(precipitation and temperature effects).

236

Oerlemans and others: Estimating the contribution of Arctic glaciers to sea-level change

result (see also Oerlemans and others, 1998). A difficult
aspect of Arctic glaciers is the fact that many of them arecalving glaciers. For many ice caps the loss of mass bycalving is comparable in magnitude with ablation and runoff(e.g. Dowdeswell and others, 2002). So far little work has
been done on the modelling of calving glaciers, and thecurrent state of the art does not allow a meaningful estimateof how calving would increase for a given climate-change
scenario and how this would work out on the geometry andsurface mass balance of a glacier. However, changes arelikely to be towards greater calving because greater surface
melting would usually mean greater water supply to the bed
and thus greater lubrication, velocity and calving (e.g.
Zwally and others, 2002).
In our calculations we used output from climate models
for just one greenhouse-gas emission scenario (IPCC-B2),
which is considered to be the most likely to occur. However,
it is clear that other scenarios will give different estimates.
Broadly speaking, we believe that the uncertainty in theestimate of sea-level rise from Arctic glaciers introduced byour simplified approach is probably smaller than theuncertainty related to the climatic forcing.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This paper is a contribution to MAGICS (Mass balance ofArctic Glaciers and Ice sheets in relation to Climate and Sea
level changes), a project of the Working Group on Arctic
Glaciology of the International Arctic Science Committee(IASC). This work was partly supported by the European
Union through the SPICE project (EVK2-2001-00262 SPICE).

REFERENCES
Arendt, A.A., K.A. Echelmeyer, W.D. Harrison, C.S. Lingle and
V.B. Valentine. 2002. Rapid wastage of Alaska glaciers and theircontribution to rising sea level. Science, 297(5580), 382–386.
Bassford, R.P., M.J. Siegert and J.A. Dowdeswell. 2006. Quantifying
the mass balance of ice caps on Severnaya Zemlya, RussianHigh Arctic. III: Sensitivity of ice caps in Severnaya Zemlya tofuture climate change. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res., 38(1), 21–33.
Church, J.A. and 7 others. 2001. Changes in sea level. In Houghton,
J.T. and 7 others, eds. Climate change 2001: the scientific basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge,
etc., Cambridge University Press, 639–693
De Ruyter de Wildt, M.S., J. Oerlemans and H. Björnsson. 2003. A
calibrated mass balance model for Vatnajökull, Iceland. Jökull,
52, 1–20.
De Wolde, J.R., R. Bintanja and J. Oerlemans. 1995. On thermal
expansion over the last hundred years. J. Climate, 8(11),2881–2891.

Dowdeswell, J.A. and 10 others. 1997. The mass balance of
circum-Arctic glaciers and recent climate change. Quat. Res.,
48(1), 1–14.
Dowdeswell, J.A. and 10 others. 2002. Form and flow of the Academy of Sciences ice cap, Severnaya Zemlya, Russian High Arctic. J. Geophys. Res., 107(B4), 2076. (10.1029/2000JB000129.)
Fleming, K.M., J.A. Dowdeswell and J. Oerlemans. 1997. Modelling the mass balance of northwest Spitsbergen glaciers andresponses to climate change. Ann. Glaciol., 24, 203–210.
Houghton, J.T. and 7 others, eds. Climate change 2001: thescientific basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge, etc., Cambridge University Press.
Huybrechts, P. 1994. The present evolution of the Greenland ice
sheet: an assessment by modelling. Global Planet. Change,9(1–2), 39–51.
Huybrechts, P. and J. de Wolde. 1999. The dynamic response of theGreenland and Antarctic ice sheets to multiple-century climatic
warming. J. Climate, 12(8), 2169–2188.
Oerlemans, J. 1991. The mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet:sensitivity to climate change as revealed by energy-balance
modelling. The Holocene, 1(1), 40–49.
Oerlemans, J. 1992. Climate sensitivity of glaciers in southern Norway: application of an energy-balance model to Nigardsbreen,
Hellstugubreen and Alfotbreen. J. Glaciol., 38(129), 223–232.
Oerlemans, J. 2001. Glaciers and climate change. Lisse, etc.,
A.A. Balkema.
Oerlemans, J. and B.K. Reichert. 2000. Relating glacier massbalance to meteorological data by using a seasonal sensitivity
characteristic. J. Glaciol., 46(152), 1–6.
Oerlemans, J. and 10 others. 1998. Modelling the response of
glaciers to climate warming. Climate Dyn., 14(4), 267–274.
Ohmura, A., M. Wild and L. Bengtsson. 1996. A possible change inmass balance of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets in the
coming century. J. Climate, 9(9), 2124–2135.
Ritz, C., A. Fabre and A. Letréguilly. 1997. Sensitivity of aGreenland ice sheet model to ice flow and ablation parameters:
consequences for the evolution through the last glacial cycle.
Climate Dyn., 13(1), 11–24.
Van de Wal, R.S.W. 1996. Mass-balance modelling of the Greenland ice sheet: a comparison of an energy-balance model and a
degree-day model. Ann. Glaciol., 23, 36–45.
Van de Wal, R.S.W. 1999. Processes of buildup and retreat of theGreenland ice sheet. J. Geophys. Res., 104(D4), 3899–3906.
Van de Wal, R.S.W. and J. Oerlemans. 1994. An energy balance
model for the Greenland ice sheet. Global Planet. Change,9(1–2), 115–131.
Van de Wal, R.S.W., M. Wild and J. de Wolde. 2001. Short-term
volume changes of the Greenland ice sheet in response to
doubled CO2 conditions. Tellus, 53B(1), 94–102.
Zuo, Z. and J. Oerlemans. 1997. Contribution of glacier melt to sealevel rise since AD 1865: a regionally differentiated calculation.
Climate Dyn., 13, 835–845.
Zwally, H.J., W. Abdalati, T. Herring, K. Larson, J. Saba andK. Steffen. 2002. Surface melt-induced acceleration of Greenland ice-sheet flow. Science, 297(5579), 218–222.