<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">TC</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>The Cryosphere</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">TC</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">The Cryosphere</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1994-0424</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/tc-12-3001-2018</article-id><title-group><article-title>Modelling the late Holocene and future evolution of Monacobreen, northern
Spitsbergen</article-title><alt-title>Modelling the late Holocene and future evolution of
Monacobreen</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Modelling the late Holocene and future evolution of
Monacobreen}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{J. Oerlemans}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Oerlemans</surname><given-names>Johannes</given-names></name>
          <email>j.oerlemans@uu.nl</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5701-4161</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><institution>Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University,
Princetonplein 5, Utrecht, 3585CC, the Netherlands</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Johannes Oerlemans (j.oerlemans@uu.nl)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>21</day><month>September</month><year>2018</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>12</volume>
      <issue>9</issue>
      <fpage>3001</fpage><lpage>3015</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>12</day><month>January</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>16</day><month>February</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>15</day><month>August</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>26</day><month>August</month><year>2018</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        
        
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract>
    <p id="d1e77">Monacobreen is a 40 km long surge-type tidewater glacier in northern
Spitsbergen. During 1991–1997 Monacobreen surged and advanced by about
2 km, but the front did not reach the maximum Little Ice Age (LIA) stand.
Since 1997 the glacier front is retreating at a fast rate (<?xmltex \hack{\mbox\bgroup}?><inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">125</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m a<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula><?xmltex \hack{\egroup}?>). The questions addressed in this study are as follows:
(1) Can the late Holocene behaviour of Monacobreen be understood in terms of
climatic forcing?, and (2) What will be the likely evolution of this glacier
for different scenarios of future climate change?</p>
    <p id="d1e104">Monacobreen is modelled with a minimal glacier model, including a
parameterization of the calving process as well as the effect of surges. The
model is driven by an equilibrium-line altitude (ELA) history derived from
lake sediments of a nearby glacier catchment in combination with
meteorological data from 1899 onwards. The simulated glacier length is in
good agreement with the observations: the maximum LIA stand, the front
position at the end of the surge, and the 2.5 km retreat after the surge
(1997–2016) are well reproduced (the mean difference between observed and
simulated glacier length being 6 % when scaled with the total retreat
during 1900–2016). The effect of surging is limited. Directly after a surge
the initiated mass balance perturbation due to a lower mean surface elevation
is about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.13</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which only
has a small effect on the long-term evolution of the glacier. The simulation
suggests that the major growth of Monacobreen after the Holocene climatic
optimum started around 1500 BCE. Monacobreen became a tidewater glacier
around 500 BCE and reached a size comparable to the present state around
500 CE. For the mid-B2 scenario (IPCC, 2013), which corresponds to a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> rise of the ELA, the model
predicts a volume loss of 20 % to 30 % by the year 2100 (relative to
the 2017 volume). For a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> rise
in the ELA this is 30 % to 40 %. However, much of the response to
21st century warming will still come after 2100.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e189">In view of the observed strong warming of the polar regions, the future
evolution of arctic ice masses is of great concern. Glacier retreat has a
huge impact on regional ecosystems, and it contributes significantly to
sea-level rise. The large ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are losing
mass (IPCC, 2013; Van den Broeke et al., 2016; Martín-Moreno et al.,
2017), and glaciers have retreated far behind their Little Ice Age (LIA)
maximum stands almost everywhere (Leclercq et al., 2014; Zemp et al., 2015).
Even the large tidewater glaciers of the Arctic region have retreated over
large distances (kilometres) during the past 100 years.
Although tidewater and surging glaciers have a strong internal component to
their dynamics, it has become clear that climatic forcing will now determine
to a large extent their future evolution.</p>
      <p id="d1e192">Different approaches have been taken to model the future behaviour of
glaciers. Individual glaciers have been studied with flowline models based on
approximate formulations of the mechanics of ice flow (e.g. Kruss, 1984;
Huybrechts et al., 1989; Oerlemans, 1997; Nick et al., 2007). In more recent
years, three-dimensional higher-order models have been employed, for instance
for the Rhône glacier (Jouvet et al., 2009) and for the Morteratsch glacier
(Zekkolari et al., 2013). Smaller ice caps are also being studied with such
models (e.g. Zekkolari et al., 2017; Schäfer et al., 2015).</p>
      <p id="d1e195">The projection of future glacier changes depends strongly on the definition
of the initial state used to start the integration. Glaciers have response
times of decades to centuries,<?pagebreak page3002?> implying that a reliable projection of future
evolution can only be achieved when changes over a past timespan can first of
all be reproduced (termed “dynamic calibration” in Oerlemans, 1997). This
timespan should have a duration of at least the response time, preferably
longer. In Oerlemans et al. (1998) this approach was applied to a sample of
12 glaciers, and a rather simple attempt was made to apply the results to the
entire glacier population on the globe.</p>
      <p id="d1e198">Along a different line, models have been constructed to treat the entire
glacier population on the globe (e.g. Radić et al., 2014; Huss and Hock,
2015). In these models the focus is on estimating global glacier mass changes
as a response to warming and its effect on sea-level rise. Processes like
accumulation, melting, calving, and dynamic adjustments of glacier geometries
are treated in a schematic way. The models have a large number of empirical
parameters and are tuned by comparison with observed mass balance data over
the past decades. Clearly, when questions of a global nature have to be dealt
with, global models are needed in which not every single glacier can be
treated in detail. Nevertheless, it seems that in studies of this kind
historical data on glacier fluctuations over the past centuries have not yet
been fully exploited.</p>
      <p id="d1e202">The modelling strategies discussed above have their advantages as well as
their limitations. The three-dimensional models require a large amount of
geometric input data, and the issue of boundary conditions in steep terrain
has not yet been resolved in a satisfactory way (dynamic simulation of steep
ice-free slopes and mass conservation). There appears to be room for an
intermediate approach with simpler models for individual glaciers that still
take into account a number of essential feedback mechanisms (altitude–mass
balance feedback, effect of overdeepenings, variable calving rates, effect
of regular surging on the long-term mass budget, inclusion of tributary
glaciers and basins).</p>
      <p id="d1e205">Minimal glacier models (MGMs, Oerlemans, 2011) offer the possibility to
model individual glaciers in a relatively simple way, while still dealing
with mechanisms like altitude–mass balance feedback, the effect of
overdeepenings in the bed, variable calving rates, the effect of regular
surging on the long-term mass budget, etc. MGMs require limited computational
resources and can therefore be used efficiently in control methods where many
integrations have to be carried out. MGMs have been applied to McCall
glacier in Alaska, (Oerlemans, 2011), to Hansbreen, a calving glacier in
southern Spitsbergen (Oerlemans et al., 2011), and to Abrahamsenbreen, a
surging glacier in northern Spitsbergen (Oerlemans and Van Pelt, 2015).</p>
      <p id="d1e208">In this paper, a MGM is applied to Monacobreen, a 40 km long glacier in
northern Spitsbergen that flows from the plateau Isachsenfonna (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m a.s.l.) into the Liefdefjord (glacier coordinates
79<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>23<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 12<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>38<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E; see the interactive topographic
thematic map operated by the Norsk Polarinstitutt:
<uri>http://toposvalbard.npolar.no</uri>, last access: 14 September 2018). The
glacier drains an area of about 400 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the
main stream has an average slope of only 0.027. Modelling Monacobreen is
difficult, because it is a surge-type calving glacier with many tributary
glaciers and basins. Some information is available on former positions of the
glacier front (Fig. 1). From 1991 to 1997 the glacier surged, leading to a
2 km advance of the glacier front (Mansell et al., 2012). Røthe et
al. (2015) made a reconstruction of the equilibrium-line altitude (ELA) for
the Holocene, derived from a thorough analysis of lake sediments in the
catchment of the small glacier Karlbreen in north-west Spitsbergen. Karlbreen
is located only about 25 km to the west of Monacobreen, and the ELA
reconstruction thus offers a unique possibility to simulate the evolution of
Monacobreen through Holocene times.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><caption><p id="d1e274">Front positions of Monacobreen in different years, drawn on a
topographic map of the Norsk Polarinstitutt
(<uri>http://toposvalbard.npolar.no</uri>, last access: 14 September 2018). The
Little Ice Age maximum stand occurred around 1900 (Martin-Moreno et al.,
2017), the 1999 and 2016 positions are from Landsat images (Pelto, 2017). The
maximum front position related to the surge was in 1997 (Mansell et al.,
2012). The 1992 position is just prior to the surge. In 2009 the glacier
front had retreated back to this location. The red dot serves as a reference
point for glacier length (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">37.8</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/12/3001/2018/tc-12-3001-2018-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e301">Monacobreen, with a distinct calving main stream and a large number of
tributaries, represents a glacier system that is typical for Spitsbergen.
The complexity of the geometry as well as the limited amount of data make it
a real challenge for a modelling study. Nevertheless, the question of how
the mass of such glacier systems will change in the near future has to be
considered, and the approach taken in this study is an attempt to do this in
a meaningful way. A MGM provides<?pagebreak page3003?> a reasonable match between the paucity of
data and an integrated mass budget approach, in which glacier mechanics are
parameterized in a simple way. The larger glacier systems on Svalbard
presumably have long response times, because they have small slopes and are
subject to relatively dry conditions. The strategy of using observations on
former glacier stands for calibration before integrating the model into the
future is tested in this paper. It is envisaged that the methodology can be
applied to other complex glacier systems in Svalbard and the Arctic.</p>
      <p id="d1e305">With respect to Monacobreen, the following more specific questions will be
addressed: (i) is it possible to simulate the broad characteristics of the
late Holocene evolution of Monacobreen?; (ii) to what extent does regular
surging affect the mass budget and long-term evolution of the glacier?; and
(iii) what is the likely range of mass loss in the coming centuries for
different scenarios of climate change?</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Glacier model</title>
      <p id="d1e314">Monacobreen is considered to be a stream (flowband) of length <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and
constant width <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mi>W</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, to which 10 tributary glaciers and basins supply mass if the
equilibrium line is sufficiently low (Fig. 2). The length is measured along
the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-axis, which follows the centerline of the flowband. With a width of
5 km and a length of 40 km, the area of the main stream is about
200 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Currently the area of the tributary basins is 191 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
(not including Seligerbreen), and since these basins have a higher mean
surface elevation than the main stream, they make a major contribution to the
total mass budget. The number of basins that actually feed the main stream
depends on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><caption><p id="d1e366">The 43 km long and 5 km wide flowband (grey) used to model
Monacobreen, shown as an overlay on a Landsat image (© Norsk
Polarinstitutt). The tributary glaciers and basins are numbered 1 to 10, and the
corresponding geometric properties are listed in Table 2.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=207.705118pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/12/3001/2018/tc-12-3001-2018-f02.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e375">In the following sections a number of parameterizations are introduced
concerning the global ice mechanics, geometry, calving, and climate forcing.
An overview of the parameters and their values (including the sources) is
given in Table 1.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e382">Overview of model parameters with corresponding references for more
information.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Param.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">value</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">meaning</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">reference</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Eq. (3) – relation between ice thickness and slope</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Oerlemans (2001)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.70 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Eq. (3) – calibrated to give observed surface height</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Map, Norsk Polarinstitutt</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0045</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">balance gradient, observed on nearby glaciers</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Oerlemans and Van Pelt (2015)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">175</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">“asymptotic” depth of fjord</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Based on map Hansen (2014)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1100 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">note: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is highest point of bed</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Map, Norsk Polarinstitutt</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15 000 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">calibrated to give observed water depth at front</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Based on map Hansen (2014)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">ice thickness at front (fraction of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Oerlemans et al. (2011)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.15 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">calving parameter, as observed for Hansbreen</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Oerlemans et al. (2011)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.027 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">calibrated with amplitude of 1991–1997 surge</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Mansell et al. (2012)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">8 a</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">calibrated with observed duration of 1991–1997 surge</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Mansell et al. (2012)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">35 m <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">K</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">based on energy-balance modelling</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Van Pelt et al. (2012)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">based on energy-balance modelling</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Van Pelt et al. (2012)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">584 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">reference ELA for time &lt; 1899, tuning parameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">tuning to length record</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">627 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">reference ELA for time &gt; 1899, tuning parameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">tuning to length record</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Basic formulation</title>
      <p id="d1e901">The evolution of the glacier system is described by the conservation of mass
(or volume, since ice density is considered to be constant). Since a
distinction is made between the main stream and tributary glaciers, the
governing equation is conveniently written as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M43" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">M</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:munderover><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">tot</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the volume of the main stream of Monacobreen, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the calving
flux (&lt; 0), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">M</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the surface mass budget of the main
stream, and the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the contributions from the tributary glaciers.
The total mass budget of the main stream is denoted by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">tot</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
calculation of the mass fluxes from the tributaries is discussed in
Sect. 2.2.</p>
      <?pagebreak page3004?><p id="d1e1009"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>The glacier volume <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (of the main stream) is given by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the mean ice thickness. Differentiating with respect
to time yields
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M52" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">tot</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Following Oerlemans (2011), the mean ice thickness is written as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M53" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msup><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Here <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is the mean bed slope over the glacier length, and thus
varies in time. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the “surge function”, making it possible to impose a
surge cycle. A rapid decrease in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> leads to a reduction of the mean ice
thickness and consequently an increase in the glacier length to fulfill mass
conservation. This technique was successfully applied in the study of
Abrahamsenbreen (Oerlemans and Van Pelt, 2015). Equation (3) is based on
extensive numerical experimentation with a shallow ice approximation model,
including a Weertman type sliding law. For many glaciers the parameter values
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> work well, but the
larger glaciers in northern Svalbard flow over beds with relatively low
resistance, and smaller values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> apply (to be discussed later).
Note that in the limit for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>⟶</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the mean thickness
varies with the square root of the glacier length, which is in agreement with
the standard analytical theory for plane shearing flow (Vialov, 1958).</p>
      <p id="d1e1275">After some straightforward algebraic manipulation (Oerlemans, 2011), the
prognostic equation for glacier length can be written as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M61" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">tot</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M62" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          The expressions for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
will be given in Sect. 2.3, where the bed geometry is discussed.</p>
      <p id="d1e1499">Equation (4) is the prognostic equation for the model. Although there is no
spatial resolution, it should be stressed that the incorporation of Eq. (3)
implies that the height–mass balance feedback is fully taken into account.
In fact, as has been demonstrated in Oerlemans (2011,
Fig. 5.8), the model fairly
accurately reproduces the hysteresis implied by an overdeepening. When the
balance profile with height is linear, only the mean ice thickness enters the
expression for the surface mass budget (see Sect. 2.2). So the fact that the
ice thickness is not calculated as a spatial variable has no effect on the
calculated climate-driven evolution of the glacier.</p>
      <p id="d1e1503">For a given bed topography, the mean bed slope depends on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. So for a concave
bed, a retreating glacier will become thinner because of its reduced length
and steeper bed. The MGM thus captures the feedback between geometry,
glacier thickness, and mass budget.</p>
      <p id="d1e1513">Equation (4) is a nonlinear equation, because <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> appears implicitly in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">tot</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as well as in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>. However, it
is not a stiff equation and a stable numerical solution can easily be
obtained by integration with the explicit first-order Euler scheme. Tests
have shown that for all applications in this paper, a 1a time step is
practical and adequate. Computational demands are negligible: a 1000 a
simulation typically takes one second on a laptop.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>The mass budget</title>
      <p id="d1e1561">Surface mass balance measurements are not available for Monacobreen, and
therefore the same strategy is followed as in the study of Abrahamsenbreen
(Oerlemans and Van Pelt, 2015). Based on existing mass balance observations
on glaciers in northwest Spitsbergen filed at the World Glacier Monitoring
Service (Zürich), the balance rate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is taken as a linear
function of altitude, i.e.
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M71" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the equilibrium-line altitude (used as climatic forcing) and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the balance gradient. From the measurements it appears that a
characteristic value is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0045</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Oerlemans and Van Pelt, 2015). The
equilibrium-line altitude is used as the parameter to impose climate change
to the glacier model. The total mass loss or gain of the flowband is found by
integrating the balance rate over the glacier length:

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M75" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E7"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is the mean bed elevation of the glacier (note that this
quantity as well as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> depends on the glacier length).</p>
      <?pagebreak page3005?><p id="d1e1759">The tributary glaciers and basins are treated in a simple way, in which the
surface geometry is fixed. This is justified because the tributaries have
larger slopes and therefore a weaker altitude–mass balance feedback. The
tributaries are assumed to be in an equilibrium state, and therefore only
supply mass to the main stream when they have a positive budget (which is the
case when the mean surface elevation is less than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). Each tributary
glacier is described as a basin with a tilted trapezoidal shape. The basin
has length <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and width <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is a
local coordinate running from the lowest part of the basin <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to the
highest point of the basin (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The surface elevation is taken as
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the surface slope. Each of the ten
individual basins is thus characterized by five parameters: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Note that the basins can become narrower when going up
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) or are wider (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The
values of the geometric parameters were all estimated from the topographical
map referred to in Sect. 1, and are listed in Table 2. Since the interest is
in the bulk mass budget of a basin, the uncertainties in the geometric
parameters have a limited effect only. The total mass budget <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of basin
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is found to be

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M95" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:munderover><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="[" close=""><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced close="}" open="{"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E8"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mfenced open="" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            The final term in the mass budget is the calving rate. The calving rate is
assumed to be proportional to the water depth <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, so the calving flux can be
written as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E9" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M97" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the ice thickness at the glacier front, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is
the “calving parameter”. The type of calving law formulated in Eq. (9) has
been suggested by, among others, Brown et al. (1982), Funk and
Röthlisberger (1989), Pelto and Warren (1991), Björnsson et
al. (2000). There are many mechanisms leading to the production of icebergs
(for a comprehensive review, see Benn et al., 2007). In recent years
numerical models have been developed that simulate the calving process in
great detail (e.g. Krug et al., 2014). Results from such models provide
insight into the details of the calving process, but cannot be simply used to
formulate a more general calving law for use in large-scale models of
tidewater glaciers. In the present study the interest is in the global
dynamics of a glacier system and its evolution on larger timescales. It is
therefore reasonable to assume that mass loss by calving is generally larger
when the glacier front is in deeper water.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2"><caption><p id="d1e2193">Geometrical characteristics of the tributary basins of Monacobreen.
Basin numbers as indicated in Fig. 2.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">basin</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>(m)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">T1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7000</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2200</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.00</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">T2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3000</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4800</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">200</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.23</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">T3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">8500</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3000</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">300</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.065</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.18</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">T4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3200</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1500</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">550</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.71</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">T5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4700</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3800</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">800</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.085</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.54</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">T6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4300</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7500</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">900</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.65</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">T7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4700</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1600</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">650</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.095</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">T8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7600</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1800</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">500</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.078</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.82</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">T9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5700</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4300</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">450</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.080</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.70</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">T10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3800</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">800</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">220</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.54</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e2528">The thickness at the glacier front is not explicitly calculated and
therefore has to be expressed in the mean ice thickness and/or glacier
length. As for Hansbreen, the following parameterization is used:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E10" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M108" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close="}" open="{"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the ratio of water density to ice density, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
is a constant giving the ratio of the frontal ice thickness to the mean ice
thickness. So according to Eq. (10) the ice thickness can never be less then
the critical thickness for flotation.</p>
      <p id="d1e2578">The use of Eq. (10) allows the model glacier to undergo a smooth transition
between a land-based terminus and a calving front, which is a prerequisite
for long-term simulations in which a model glacier should have the
possibility to grow from zero volume to a long calving glacier and
back. Recent model studies with more comprehensive numerical models have
focused on simulating and explaining the short-term (seasonal to decadal)
fluctuations in calving fluxes and glacier front behaviour (e.g. Otero et
al., 2017; Todd and Christoffersen, 2014). It should be stressed that the
parameterization in the MGM is not meant to simulate such short-term
fluctuations but attempt to quantify the calving flux as a long-term
component of the total mass budget. With respect to the use of comprehensive
numerical models, it should be noted that validation against long-term
fluctuations of individual glaciers (including the LIA maximum stand) has not
yet been attempted or published.</p>
      <p id="d1e2581">At Hansbreen, Polish scientists have produced the longest series of calving
flux measurements for any tidewater glacier in Svalbard (Blaszczyk et al.,
2009; Petlicki et al., 2015). There are certain similarities between the
calving fronts of Hansbreen and Monacobreen. The water depth around the
current location of the calving front is in the same range, and both
glaciers exhibit a seasonal fluctuation of the calving front position of
comparable magnitude (see also Mansell et al., 2012). There are no
systematic observations of the calving flux at Monacobreen that allow us to
determine a value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Therefore in this study the same parameter values are
used as found for Hansbreen, namely <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.15</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page3006?><sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Geometry of the main stream</title>
      <p id="d1e2632">The bed of Monacobreen has never been mapped. Airborne radio-echo sounding
in the past has revealed strong internal reflections, and it appeared to be
impossible to map the bed of the glacier (Dowdeswell et al., 1984). Until
today, the thickness of Monacobreen is unknown. Methods have been developed
to estimate ice thickness from the surface topography, with or without
information about the surface mass balance distributions (Farinotti et al.,
2017). At the present state of the art, these methods do not yet appear to
be reliable for the larger glaciers in Spitsbergen. Input data are too
uncertain and the condition of near-equilibrium, needed to estimate the
balance flux, is not met. The fact that timescales are large and surge
behaviour is present complicates the application of ice-thickness models
substantially. In addition there is a large uncertainty about the sliding
regime. A few test calculations done by the author revealed that estimated
ice thicknesses are much too large for the few glaciers on Spitsbergen for
which bed elevation data exist.</p>
      <p id="d1e2635">However, the surface elevation of Monacobreen is quite smooth and regular
(Fig. 3), and it is unlikely that there are significant overdeepenings or
major steps in the bed. For the nearby glaciers Kronebreen and Kongsvegen, a
compilation of bedrock data from various sources was published by Hagen and
Saetrang (1991), with a further analysis in Melvold and Hagen (1998).
Kronebreen descends from the same plateau as Monacobreen, albeit in the other
direction. The bed profile of Kronebreen can be represented reasonably well
with a function of the form <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">exp</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the bed height at the glacier head (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is
the length scale that determines how fast the bed drops off along the glacier
flowline (Van Dongen, 2014).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><caption><p id="d1e2695">Upper curve: glacier surface elevation of Monacobreen along the
flowband according to the topographic map
(<uri>http://toposvalbard.npolar.no</uri>, last access: 14 September 2018). Lower
curve: the bed profile as used in the model.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/12/3001/2018/tc-12-3001-2018-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2707">Here a similarity between the bed profiles of Kronebreen and Monacobreen is
assumed. This is based on the fact that these glaciers share a number of
characteristics (long calving glacier, fairly smooth topography, and located in
a similar geological setting). The bed profile of the main stream of
Monacobreen is therefore formulated as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E11" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M118" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">exp</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          The value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (negative for a tidewater glacier) determines the bed
height for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the bed elevation at the head of the glacier now
is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The mean bed slope over the length of the glacier,
needed in Eq. (5), thus becomes
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E12" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M122" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>exp⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          The change of the mean bed slope with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, also needed in Eq. (5), is
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E13" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M124" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close="]" open="["><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>exp⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>exp⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Finally, the mean bed elevation over the glacier length needed in Eq. (7) is
found to be
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E14" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M125" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>exp⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          The bathymetry of Liefdefjorden is well known (e.g. Hansen, 2014). The water
depth varies considerably, but is mostly between 50 and 200 m (far away from
the glacier in the fjord). It is therefore appropriate to use
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">175</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m. The value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is then determined by requiring that
the water depth at the glacier front is close to the observed value of about
75 m (averaged over the width of the glacier). The resulting bed profile is
shown in Fig. 3. Note that with this choice of parameters calving occurs
whenever the glacier is longer than about 28 km.</p>
      <p id="d1e3016">With the observed surface elevation and the parameterized bed profile, the
corresponding mean ice thickness is 247 m. This is reproduced by the model
when <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in Eq. (3) is set to 1.70 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This
is a fairly small value compared to the measured value for Hansbreen
(3.0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, but somewhat larger than that found for
Kronebreen (1.43 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Van Dongen, 2014). Apparently
both Kronebreen and Monacobreen have beds that provide a relatively low
resistance to ice flow. The parameter values derived above are also listed in
Table 1.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <title>Imposing surges</title>
      <p id="d1e3082">Monacobreen surged from 1991 to 1997. The duration of surges of the larger
glaciers in Svalbard is rather long, and<?pagebreak page3007?> Monacobreen is no exception. The
velocity field and front positions during the surge have been documented in
detail from analysis of a large number of satellite images (Mansell et al.,
2012). During the surge the glacier front advanced by about 2 km. Compared
to the glacier length, this is not much. It is likely that the LIA maximum
stand as mapped in 1907 occurred at the end of a surge. This would suggest
that the surge cycle of Monacobreen is about 100 years.</p>
      <p id="d1e3085">In the model, following Oerlemans (2011), the surge function is prescribed as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E15" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M132" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mtext>for</mml:mtext><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          The surge starts at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the characteristic timescale
of the surge. Denoting the length of the surge cycle by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the values
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are regularly spaced with intervals <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> determines by
how much the mean ice thickness is reduced at the end of the surge.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><caption><p id="d1e3240">Illustration of the modelled surge cycle, as characterized by
glacier length <bold>(a)</bold>, mean ice thickness <bold>(b)</bold> and net balance
<bold>(c)</bold>. The duration of the surge cycle has been set to 100 years.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/12/3001/2018/tc-12-3001-2018-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3258">Surges as reproduced in the model are shown in Fig. 4. It appears that the
observed amplitude and duration of the surge can be matched well with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.027</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> a. A surge cycle of 100 years has been
prescribed (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The equilibrium-line altitude was
constant and set to 619 m, because this produces a glacier length of about
40 km. When a surge begins, the mean ice thickness (and thus surface
elevation) immediately starts to decrease. This is a direct consequence of
mass conservation. The lower surface leads to a negative net balance that
peaks at the end of the surge. The curves for the net balance and mean ice
thickness are not identical, as the glacier area also changes (the net
balance is the total mass budget divided by the glacier area). The change in
the net balance also involves a contribution from the changing calving rate,
but for the present geometric set up (the water depth increases only very
slightly at the glacier front) this is an insignificant effect. The maximum
perturbation of the net balance is only <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.13</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This is much less than for Abrahamsenbreen, where
it was found to be <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Oerlemans and Van Pelt, 2015). The difference stems from the fact that the
relative surge amplitude (maximum frontal advance divided by glacier length)
for Abrahamsenbreen is more than twice that of Monacobreen. In view of the
small effect on the net balance, it is likely that the effect of regular
surging on the long-term response of Monacobreen to climatic change is
limited. This will be illustrated further in Sect. 5.2, where an integration
with surging is compared to an integration without surging.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Basic sensitivity and response time</title>
      <p id="d1e3389">According to the map in Hagen et al. (1993), the estimated equilibrium-line
altitude in the region of Monacobreen is 500 to 600 m a.s.l., with a
tendency to lower values when going in northwesterly direction. The estimate
is based on an assumption of balance, i.e. a situation in which the glaciers
would be in equilibrium. This is currently not the case, and the equilibrium
line over the past decades has certainly been higher. In the model the value
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is taken as the same for the entire domain, except for basins 1, 2, and 3,
where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is perturbed by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m, respectively. This is
done to take the decline of the ELA as mapped in Hagen et al. (1993) into
account. In fact, without the lowering of the ELA the net mass budget of
basin 1 (Seligerbreen) would be negative, and the tributary could never supply
mass to Monacobreen (as it did until recently). Altogether, the ELA map of
Hagen et al. (1993) appears to be consistent with the mass budgets of the
tributaries.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><caption><p id="d1e3438"><bold>(a)</bold> Evolution of glaciers length <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (black) for stepwise
changes in the equilibrium-line altitude <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (in red). <bold>(b)</bold> The
corresponding components of the mass budget.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/12/3001/2018/tc-12-3001-2018-f05.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e3466">The evolution of Monacobreen for stepwise forcing of the equilibrium line is
shown in Fig. 5. As can be expected in view of the very small slope, it turns
out that the climate sensitivity of the glacier is very large. Changing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
from 775 to 575 m makes the glacier grow by 24 km. Bringing back the
equilibrium line to 600 m (in two steps) does not reveal a sign of
hysteresis (as would probably occur when there would be an overdeepening in
the bed). The adjustment to a changing climate apparently takes a long time;
the e-folding response time is about 250 a.</p>
      <?pagebreak page3008?><p id="d1e3476"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>The corresponding components of the mass budget are shown in Fig. 5. To
facilitate a comparison, all components are expressed as a specific balance.
The important role played by the tributary glaciers and basins becomes clear
immediately. Only at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> CE, when <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> drops instantaneously by 200 m,
does the main stream have a positive balance. This does not last very long,
however, because the increasing glacier length soon leads to a much larger
ablation zone. When the glacier length is of the order of 40 km, as it is
today, the negative net surface balance of the main stream and the calving
flux contribute roughly equally to the compensation of the net input from the
tributaries.</p>
      <p id="d1e3500">The timescale of about 250 years can be compared with an estimate of the much
used volume timescale <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi>J</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> defined by Jóhannesson et al. (1989):
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E16" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M155" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi>J</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the maximum ice thickness, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
balance rate at the glacier front. Using 350 m as a maximum ice thickness
and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as a typical balance rate
yields a value of about 140 a. However, as demonstrated by Oerlemans (2001)
and confirmed by Leysinger Vieli and Gudmundsson (2004) with a higher-order
numerical glacier model, for glaciers with small slopes the altitude–mass
balance feedback makes the timescale considerably longer. Since Monacobreen
has a very small average slope (0.027), the value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">250</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> a is a
plausible one.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Climatic forcing</title>
      <p id="d1e3620">A simulation of the Holocene evolution of Monacobreen requires an appropriate
climatic forcing function. Fortunately, an ELA history for a small valley
glacier on Mitrahalvøya, which is only 25 km west of the central part of
Monacobreen, has been reconstructed from lake sediments (Røthe et al.,
2014). This glacier, Karlbreen, currently has an area of about
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the glacier head is at about
500 m a.s.l. This is an important height because it puts a lower limit on
the ELA in times when there was no glacial activity (in this case the ELA has
to be above the mountain top). The glacier drains through a series of three
lakes, and an extensive sediment analysis has provided a full history of
glacial activity. By using former glacier stands, Røthe et al. (2014) were
able to convert sediment parameters to ELA values, assuming an equilibrium
between glacier size and ELA. According to Røthe et al. (2014), there was
very little glacial activity during the period of 9200 to 3500 BCE, implying
that the equilibrium line was mostly above 500 m a.s.l. After the Holocene
climatic optimum there has been a long-term trend towards lower values of the
ELA, with significant fluctuations superposed on this. Since a glacier like
Karlbreen probably has a response timescale of the order of 20 to 30 a, the
reconstruction is bound to be less accurate for shorter timescales.
Therefore the reconstruction for Karlbreen is combined with ELAs estimated
from meteorological observations at Svalbard Airport (Longyearbyen) since 1899
(Førland et al., 2011).</p>
      <p id="d1e3637">There is a distinct west–east gradient in the ELA in northwest Spitsbergen
(Hagen et al., 1993). The ELA rises in the eastward direction mainly due to
lower precipitation rates. Therefore, the absolute reconstructed ELA values
cannot be used to force the model for Monacobreen, so the ELA perturbation
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">R</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relative to a reference value <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is used. The ELA is now
formulated as

              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E17" specific-use="align" content-type="subnumberedsingle"><mml:math id="M163" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E17.1"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mtext>for</mml:mtext><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1899</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">R</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E17.2"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mtext>for</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1899</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">M</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

          Here <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">M</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the ELA perturbation obtained from the
meteorological data. The constants <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> need not necessarily
be the same because it is unknown how precisely the meteorological
observations connect to the past. These constants will therefore be used as
tuning parameters.</p>
      <?pagebreak page3009?><p id="d1e3805">The relation between the ELA and temperature and precipitation is based on
calculations with an energy balance model, as described in Van Pelt et
al. (2012) and used in Oerlemans and Van Pelt (2015). The sensitivities are
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">35</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">K</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.25</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are perturbations of the annual mean temperature and
precipitation. It should be noted that the value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is rather small compared to values found for glaciers in a midlatitude
alpine setting, which are of the order of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">K</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This stems from the fact that summer temperature
anomalies over Spitsbergen (and in general over the Arctic region) are much
smaller than mean annual temperature anomalies. Since summer temperature
determines to a large extent the ELA perturbation, the net effect is that the
sensitivity to an annual temperature anomaly is relatively small (for a
further discussion on this point, see Van Pelt et al., 2012).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><caption><p id="d1e3928"><bold>(a)</bold> Evolution of glaciers length <inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (black) as a response
to the reconstructed equilibrium-line altitude <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (in red);
<bold>(b)</bold> close-up of the period 1800–2016. Observed glacier stands are
shown as blue dots.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/12/3001/2018/tc-12-3001-2018-f06.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e3957">As shown in Fig. 6a, the variation of reconstructed ELA values from
mid-Holocene times until today have a typical range of 200 m. If this would
solely be a temperature effect, the drop in ELA since the mid-Holocene would
correspond to a 5.7 K decrease in temperature (according to the sensitivity
referred to above). This is more than the reconstructions of mid-Holocene
warmth in the Arctic actually suggest, which are in the 2 to 4 K range (e.g.
CAPE, 2006; Axford et al., 2017). However, there is also a direct effect of
changes in orbitally driven insolation variations. The differences in summer
insolation between mid-Holocene and present day are between 5 % and
10 %, depending on the precise location and definition of the summer
season (Berger and Loutre, 1991). The increased insolation certainly caused
higher melt rates in the mid-Holocene, and thereby a higher equilibrium line.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <title>Holocene evolution of Monacobreen</title>
      <p id="d1e3967">The minimal glacier model constructed in the previous sections has been
forced with the ELA reconstruction discussed above. Information on former
stands of Monacobreen is limited, but the existing data points can
nevertheless be used to calibrate and test the model. For a successful
simulation, in which the simulated glacier length matches the observed
record, two conditions have to be fulfilled: (i) the MGM should have
sufficient dynamics to respond in a realistic way to climate forcing, and
(ii) the forcing function (the ELA reconstruction) is accurate enough to make
the glacier grow and shrink at the right times. It is not at all trivial,
even with optimal values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, that the maximum glacier
stand comes at the right time.</p>
      <p id="d1e3992">In Sect. 5.1 the best possible simulation will be discussed (the reference
simulation). In Sect. 5.2, sensitivity tests are described in which parameters
are varied, or processes are switched off.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <title>Reference simulation</title>
      <p id="d1e4000">The ELA reconstruction from the Karlbreen basin is available from the year
2155 BCE, but the model integration starts a bit earlier to have an
equilibrated state at this time. For the final outcome the precise choice is
not important because the response time of the glacier is much shorter than
the period of integration. Surging is included, and the duration of the surge
cycle is set to 100 a. The strategy is simple: try to adjust the values
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> until the LIA maximum stand (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">43.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km) and the
1997 maximum front position at the end of the surge (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">40.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km) are
reproduced. This turned out to be the case for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">584</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m a.s.l. and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">627</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m a.s.l., which are plausible values. There appeared to be no
need to adjust the calving parameter.</p>
      <p id="d1e4080">The corresponding evolution of the glacier length is shown in Fig. 6. Due to
declining summer insolation, at the end of the Holocene climatic optimum the
arctic climate cools and the equilibrium line drops. For Monacobreen the ELA
is then around 830 m and the length of the glacier is about 15 km. From
1700 BCE the ELA decreases markedly, and the glacier grows to a size of
about 30 km and becomes a tidewater glacier. During a few centuries BCE, the
ELA fluctuates between 650 and 700 m until it drops by another 100 m in
the first century CE. In this range of ELA values Monacobreen is quite
sensitive, and the 100 m drop in the ELA is sufficient to make the glacier
grow to its current size. The lowest ELA values for the entire period are
during the 19th century and this then leads to a maximum glacier stand around
1900 (in combination with the surge). The rise of the ELA during the 20th
century leads to a 3.5 km retreat of the glacier front until<?pagebreak page3010?> the last surge
starts in 1991. This surge coincides with a sharp increase in the ELA of
another 100 m, and as a consequence the retreat of the glacier front after
the surge is almost twice as fast as after the previous surge. In Fig. 6b a
close-up is given of the past few hundred years, including the observed
glacier front positions (in terms of glacier length).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><caption><p id="d1e4085">The components of the mass budget corresponding to the simulation
shown in Fig. 6, expressed as a specific balance rate.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/12/3001/2018/tc-12-3001-2018-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4094">At this point it should be recalled that the tuning procedure is
straightforward. Four calibration parameters (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
have been used to match: (i) the LIA maximum stand, (ii) the glacier stand at
the onset of the surge, (iii) the amplitude of the surge, and (iv) the timescale of the surge.</p>
      <p id="d1e4133">The simulated position of the glacier front in 2016 is rather close to the
observed position without any further tuning. Apparently this result can be
obtained with a calving parameter that is constant in time. This is in
agreement with the analysis of Mansell et al. (2012), who did not find
significant fluctuations in the calving rate during the surge. Altogether,
the simulated evolution of Monacobreen during the Holocene is in good
agreement with the observational evidence. A great deal of this result is
probably on the account of the realistic ELA reconstruction from the
Karlbreen basin (Røthe at al., 2014).</p>
      <p id="d1e4136"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>The components of the mass budget corresponding to the model integration of
Fig. 6 are shown in Fig. 7. For reference the glacier length is also shown. A
distinction is made between the total contribution from the tributaries, the
surface balance of the main stream, and the calving flux. All components are
shown as a specific balance, i.e. expressed as a specific net loss or gain
averaged over the area of the main stream. The contribution from the
tributaries is always positive, and the surface balance of the main stream is
always negative. Since these two components are entirely determined by
changes in the ELA, which are always the same over the entire domain, it is
not surprising that the fluctuations are highly correlated (note that the
area of the main stream varies significantly). Around 500 BCE Monacobreen
becomes a tidewater glacier and the calving flux gradually becomes more
important. During the past 1000 years the mass loss by calving is of the same
order as the surface balance of the main stream. However, after the
1991–1997 surge the surface balance of the main stream has become much more
negative and represents a greater loss than the calving. This is clearly due
to the strong increase in the ELA.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <title>Sensitivity tests</title>
      <p id="d1e4146">The reference balance gradient used in this study has been taken as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0045</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This is based on long-term observations on a number of
glaciers in western Spitsbergen. As discussed in Oerlemans (2001), balance
gradients are smaller in dryer climates (e.g. typically <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.003</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on cold
glaciers in the Canadian Arctic) and larger in wetter climates (up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on the maritime glaciers of New
Zealand and Patagonia). On many mid-latitude glaciers values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.007</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are
found. Calculations with simple as well as more comprehensive models have
shown that the effect of varying <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> on the equilibrium size of glaciers
is not very large, whereas response times may change significantly (e.g.
Oerlemans, 2001; Leysinger Vieli and Gudmundsson, 2004). Glaciers with larger
balance gradients respond faster to climate change, as can also be seen in
Eq. (15). Against this background, simulations with different values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> were carried out. The earlier
findings were also confirmed for Monacobreen; a larger value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
implies a somewhat larger glacier for a given ELA as well as a shorter
response time for a change in the ELA.</p>
      <p id="d1e4321">Since Monacobreen was in a slightly warmer climate than today during most of
the Holocene, a case with a somewhat larger value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is an
appropriate one to discuss. In Fig. 8 the reference run described in
Sect. 5.1 is compared with a simulation with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0065</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Clearly, the
larger balance gradient leads to a slightly larger glacier. Averaged over the
last 1000 years the difference in length is 2.8 km. In order to match the
maximum glacier stand as well as the glacier length at the start of the
surge, the model has to be recalibrated. This is accomplished by adjusting
the values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m, respectively.<?pagebreak page3011?> The
corresponding simulated glacier length is also shown in Fig. 8. It is obvious
that after recalibration, the differences with the original simulation are
small.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8"><caption><p id="d1e4419">Sensitivity of glacier length to a larger balance gradient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0065</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> instead of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0045</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The reference
run is shown in black, the result for the larger gradient in blue. The red
curve shows the result after the model has been recalibrated by adjusting the
values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>The dashed curve shows a run in which surging
has been switched off (but all other parameters as for the reference run).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/12/3001/2018/tc-12-3001-2018-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4505">The dashed curve in Fig. 8 shows the result of a calculation in which surging
was switched off. Because the surge amplitude is quite small (see discussion
in Sect. 2.4), it is not surprising that the effect of surging on the
long-term evolution of Monacobreen is limited. In the absence of surging, the
mean glacier length (e.g. averaged as a 100 a running mean value) is slightly
larger, the difference being about 0.5 km over the past 1000 years. Varying
the surge amplitude reveals that the effect is roughly proportional to this
amplitude (not shown). For a larger balance gradient the effect of surging on
the long-term mean glacier length is somewhat larger, but still small
compared to the total length.</p>
      <p id="d1e4509">In another set of experiments the calving parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was varied (Fig. 9).
In the first run the calving was set to zero. This has a profound effect on
the late Holocene evolution of the glacier. The model predicts that without
mass loss by calving, the glacier would at present be 15 km longer. Halving
the calving parameter also makes the glacier larger, but now a recalibration
has been carried out by simply adjusting the ELA. Raising the equilibrium
line by just 15 m appears to be enough to match the observed length record
again (red curve in Fig. 9). Doubling the calving parameter, on the other
hand, requires a 35 m drop of the equilibrium line to match the observations
again. When looking further back in time, the recalibrated runs for different
calving parameters show somewhat different results, but the overall pattern
of glacier evolution during the late Holocene appears to be a robust finding.
It is clear that the forcing function dominates the evolution, and that on
the longer timescales considered here the glacier mechanics are “slaved”
by the external forcing.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><caption><p id="d1e4521">Sensitivity of glacier length to different values of the calving
parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. For a halved (red curve) or doubled (green curve) value of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, the model has been recalibrated by adjusting the ELA (values given in
legend).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/12/3001/2018/tc-12-3001-2018-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <title>Future evolution of Monacobreen</title>
      <p id="d1e4551">Recent trends and future climate change in Svalbard has been examined in
detail by Fjørland et al. (2011). There is broad agreement between
temperature trends obtained by downscaling results from global climate models
(forced with greenhouse gas emissions) and observations at Svalbard Airport
for the period 1912–2010. Projections for the Svalbard region indicate a
future warming rate up to year 2100 that is three times larger than the observed rate
during the past 100 years. For precipitation, the long-term observational
series show a modest increase over the past 100 years, and projections
indicate a further increase up to year 2100. In the present study the
projected changes in temperature and precipitation for northwest Spitsbergen
are used to estimate the future trend in the ELA.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e4556">Projections of glacier length <bold>(a)</bold> and volume
<bold>(b)</bold> for different climate change scenarios. The labels refer to the
ELA reference period (either 1961–1990 or 1987–2016) and the rise of the
ELA per year during the 21st century (in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/12/3001/2018/tc-12-3001-2018-f10.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e4590">For the B2 emission scenario (IPCC, 2013), the rate at which annual
temperature and precipitation increases in the ensemble–mean projection is
fairly linear until about 2090<?pagebreak page3012?> and levels off somewhat afterwards
(Fjørland et al., 2011). Combining the mid-B2 annual temperature and
precipitation trends with the ELA sensitivities discussed in Sect. 3 yields
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.86</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.
Against this reference the possible future evolution of Monacobreen was
studied by imposing values of 0, 2, 4, and 6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. It should be noted that these
values have also been used for glaciers in other parts of the world (e.g. in
the Alps; Oerlemans et al., 2017). Although warming is larger in the polar
regions (the “polar amplification”), this is not so much reflected in the
rise of the equilibrium line. The reason is that summer temperatures increase
much less than annual mean temperatures. In the calculation of the ELA
sensitivities this has been taken into account. However, since the climate
change scenarios are formulated as a change in the ELA, the possibility
remains to convert meteorological variables into changes in the ELA for
different sensitivities.</p>
      <p id="d1e4658">When making projections of future climate change scenarios, the outcome
depends on the choice of the reference period. Starting from a warm year
(e.g. 2015, ELA <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 809 m) and increasing the ELA by a certain amount will
give a very different result from starting in a cold year (e.g. 2014, ELA
668 m). Therefore the reference ELA should be a mean value over a longer
period. Moreover, it is unclear to what extent the very high ELA values since
2000 represent an expression of natural variability on the decadal timescale or whether they are a direct response to greenhouse-gas-induced warming. To deal
with this uncertainty, two 30 a reference periods were used to define the ELA
perturbation associated with the projected climate change: (i) 1987–2016,
i.e. a recent 30 a period; and (ii) 1961–1990 as the last official period
to define the climatology. The resulting eight projections of glacier length
are shown in Fig. 10a. The integrations are extended until 2200, and the
ELA perturbation is kept fixed after 2100. The curves immediately make it clear
that typically half of the response to 21st century warming will come after
2100.</p>
      <p id="d1e4669">For reference period (ii) and no climate change
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), Monacobreen would hardly retreat. Note
that this scenario actually implies that ELA values return to significantly
lower values than observed over the last two decades. In contrast, for
reference period (i) and no climate change, in the year 2100 the glacier
front would have retreated by 3.5 km.</p>
      <p id="d1e4692">For the strong-warming scenario with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and reference period (i), the model predicts a
glacier retreat of about 9 km by the year 2100. At this point the glacier
would be grossly out of balance, since the ELA is then at 1038 m a.s.l.,
which is above most of the accumulation basin. In 2100 the volume of
Monacobreen would be about 60 % of the present-day volume (Fig. 10b). For
the extreme-warming scenario <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and reference period (i), Monacobreen would
have virtually disappeared within two centuries.</p>
      <p id="d1e4759">If the Paris Agreement becomes reality, the mid-B2 scenario with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
perhaps the most likely one. In this case the front of Monacobreen would
retreat by 3.5 to 5.5 km in the coming 80 years, depending on the choice of
reference period. The glacier volume would have been reduced by 20 % to
30 % with respect to the current volume.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e4800">In this paper it has been demonstrated that the conceptual simplicity of the
MGM makes it possible to study the response of a large tidewater glacier to
climate change in a<?pagebreak page3013?> transparent way. Calibration turned out to be a
straightforward procedure, in which three characteristic glacier front
positions could be reproduced accurately (LIA maximum stand, front position
at the end of the recent surge, and present-day front position). Here the quality
of the reconstructed ELA history from Røthe at al. (2014) certainly plays
an important role. The approach of defining a main stream that is fed by
tributary glaciers and basins seems to work well. The tributary basins were
included in a passive way. In fact, the basins were assumed to have a fixed
geometry and to be in balance with the prevailing ELA. This should work well
as long as the characteristic timescales of the basins are shorter than those
of the main stream (perhaps for Louetbreen this is not quite the case). In
principle all individual basins can be modelled with a MGM as well, implying
the introduction of a response time and the local height–mass balance
feedback. However, for the present study this was not considered appropriate
given the little information available for these basins.</p>
      <p id="d1e4803">A significant result from this study is that surging has a limited effect on
the long-term evolution of Monacobreen. The relative surge amplitude
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, loosely defined as the maximum advance divided by the glacier
length, is quite small (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). <inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> determines to a large
extent by how much the mean surface elevation drops. The combined effect of a
lower surface elevation and a larger area determines the mass budget
perturbation implied by the surge. It was found that for Monacobreen, this
perturbation amounts to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.13</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (when expressed as a change in the net balance
rate of the main stream, see Fig. 4). It is interesting to compare these
numbers with those of Abrahamsenbreen (Oerlemans and Van Pelt, 2015). For
Abrahamsenbreen the surge amplitude is 0.14, and the perturbation of the mass
budget is about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e4902">It should be noted that the perturbation of the mass budget is solely
determined by the redistribution of mass and not by the details of how this
distribution actually takes place. When a glacier increases its length
during a surge, the change in mean surface elevation is entirely dictated by
the conservation of mass and not by the details of the surging mechanism. This
implies that conclusions about the effect of surging on the long-term mass
budget can be drawn even when the surging process itself is not fully
understood.</p>
      <p id="d1e4905">Calving has a significant effect on the total mass budget of Monacobreen, but
different values of the calving parameter do not change the qualitative
evolution of the glacier during the Holocene very much. The range over which
Monacobreen fluctuates is somewhat smaller for a larger calving parameter
(the green curve in Fig. 9). This is understandable for a bed profile that
slopes downward along the flowline, because the front of a growing glacier
comes into deeper water and the mass loss by calving increases.</p>
      <p id="d1e4909">It has been observed that on shorter timescales details of the bathymetry
may have significant effects on the calving rate and thereby on the position
of a tidewater glacier front (e.g. Vieli et al., 2002). According to the
measured bathymetry in the Liefdefjorden, these variations, with an amplitude
of 10 to 50 m, are irregularly spaced and consist mainly of deposited
moraines. It is unlikely that a similar bed would currently be present under
Monacobreen with its very smooth surface, or have existed in the fjord before the
glacier started to advance in late Holocene times. Therefore it does not seem
meaningful to include a map of the present-day bathymetry of the
Liefdefjorden in one way or another. Probably, the smaller features of the
bed profile do not matter too much for the glacier evolution on longer timescales, unless there are very marked jumps in bed or side geometry that could
serve a pinning points. However, this does not seem to be the case.</p>
      <p id="d1e4912">The MGM has very simple dynamics: there is no spatial resolution and the
mechanics are contained in a relation between length, mean ice thickness, and
mean bed slope, with simple formulations of the calving and surging
processes. These formulations do not shed further light on the nature of
the calving and surging processes, but the effects on the mass budget, and
thus on the long-term evolution of the glacier, are dealt with. At this point
one may ask whether it would be possible to study the Monacobreen glacier
system with a three-dimensional higher-order model and make a comparison with the
simple approach taken here. Modelling the main stream would probably be
feasible, but to deal with all the tributaries would require a large amount
of data on the bed geometry, which are not available and thus would have to be
generated indirectly. Generating the surge cycle in a higher-order model,
involving a coupling of ice mechanics and glacier hydrology, is another major
difficulty to deal with. Perhaps at the present state of the art, it would be
more realistic to strive for a hybrid model, in which a comprehensive model
for the main stream is combined with MGMs for the tributary glaciers and basins.
However, on longer timescales glacier mechanics are always slaved by the
mass budget. The results from the recalibrated runs with different parameter
values for balance gradient, surge amplitude, and calving parameters support
this view. It thus seems likely that a model with a comprehensive treatment
of ice mechanics, when driven with the same climatic forcing and calibrated
with the observed glacier stands, will produce a similar evolution of
Monacobreen during the late Holocene.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability">

      <p id="d1e4919">The observed glacier length data for Monacobreen derived in
this paper have been archived by the World Glacier Monitoring Service
(Zürich), <uri>https://wgms.ch/fogbrowser/</uri> (last access: 13 September
2018).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p id="d1e4928">The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><?pagebreak page3014?><p id="d1e4934">I am grateful to Torgeir Opeland Røthe (University of Bergen) for making
the ELA-reconstruction data available, and to Øyvind Nordli (MET Norway)
for supplying meteorological data for Svalbard Airport (Longyearbyen). The
comments from two anonymous referees were very helpful in improving the paper
– thank you!</p><p id="d1e4936">This study has been sponsored by the Netherlands Earth System Science Centre
(Utrecht, The Netherlands).<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: Valentina Radic<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: two anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Axford, Y., Levy, L. B., Kelly, M. A., Francis, D. R., Hall, B. L., Langdon,
P. G., and Lowell, T. V.: Timing and magnitude of early to middle Holocene
warming in East Greenland inferred from chironmids, Boreas, 64, 678–687,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12247" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/bor.12247</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Benn, D. I., Hulton, N. R. J., and Mottram, R. H.: “Calving laws”, sliding
laws' and the stability of tidewater glaciers, Ann. Glaciol., 46, 123–130,
2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Berger, A. and Loutre, M. F.: Insolation values for the climate of the last
10 million years, Quaternary Sci. Rev., 10, 297–317, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Blaszczyk M., Jania, J. A., and Hagen, J. O.: Tidewater glaciers of Svalbard:
Recent changes and estimates of calving fluxes, Pol. Polar Res., 30, 85–142,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Björnsson, H.: Scales and rates of glacial sediment removal: a 20 km
long, 300 m deep trench created beneath Breidamerkurjökull during the
Little Ice Age, Ann. Glaciol., 22, 141–146, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Björnsson, H., Pálsson, F., and Gudmundsson, S:
Jökulsárlón at Breidamerkursandur, Vatnajökull, Iceland: 20th
century changes and future outlook, Jökull, 50, 1–18, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Brown, C. S., Meier, M. F., and Post, A.: Calving speed of Alaska tidewater
glaciers with applications to the Columbia Glacier, Alaska, U. S. Geol. Surv.
Prof. Pap., 1258-C, 13 pp., 1982.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>CAPE-Last Interglacial Project Members: Last Interglacial Arctic warmth
confirms polar amplification of climate change, Quateranry Sci. Rev., 25,
1383–1400, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.01.033" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.01.033</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Dowdeswell, J. A., Drewry, D. J., Liestel, O., and Orheim, O.: Radio-echo
sounding of Spitsbergen glaciers: problems in the interpretation of layer and
bottom returns, J. Glaciol., 30, 16–21, 1984.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Farinotti, D., Brinkerhoff, D. J., Clarke, G. K. C., Fürst, J. J., Frey,
H., Gantayat, P., Gillet-Chaulet, F., Girard, C., Huss, M., Leclercq, P. W.,
Linsbauer, A., Machguth, H., Martin, C., Maussion, F., Morlighem, M.,
Mosbeux, C., Pandit, A., Portmann, A., Rabatel, A., Ramsankaran, R., Reerink,
T. J., Sanchez, O., Stentoft, P. A., Singh Kumari, S., van Pelt, W. J. J.,
Anderson, B., Benham, T., Binder, D., Dowdeswell, J. A., Fischer, A.,
Helfricht, K., Kutuzov, S., Lavrentiev, I., McNabb, R., Gudmundsson, G. H.,
Li, H., and Andreassen, L. M.: How accurate are estimates of glacier ice
thickness? Results from ITMIX, the Ice Thickness Models Intercomparison
eXperiment, The Cryosphere, 11, 949–970,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-949-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-11-949-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Førland, E. J., Benestad, R., Hanssen-Baur, I., Haugen, J. E., and
Skaugen, T. E.: Temperature and precipitation development at Svalbard
1900–2100, Adv. Meteorol., 2011, 1–14, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/893790" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1155/2011/893790</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Funk, M. and Röthlisberger, H.: Forecasting the effects of a planned
reservoir which will partially flood the tongue of Unteraargletscher in
Switzerland, Ann. Glaciol., 13, 76–81, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Hagen, J. O., Liestøl, O., Roland, E., and Jørgensen, T.: Glacier atlas
of Svalbard and Jan Mayen, Norsk Polarinstitutt Medd. nr. 129, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Hagen, J. O. and  Saetrang, A.: Radio-echo soundings of sub-polar glaciers with
low-frequency radar, Polar Res., 9, 99–107, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3402/polar.v9i1.6782" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3402/polar.v9i1.6782</ext-link>, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Hansen, T.: Late Weichselian and Holocene sedimentary processes and glacier
dynamics in Woodfjorden, Bockfjorden and Liefdefjorden, North Spitsbergen,
Master thesis, The Arctic University of Norway, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Huss, M. and Hock, R.: A new model for global glacier change and sea-level
rise, Front. Earth Sci., 3, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2015.00054" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/feart.2015.00054</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Huybrechts, P., De Nooze, P., and Decleir, H.: Numerical modelling of Glacier
d'Argentière and its historic front variations, in: Glacier fluctuations
and climatic change, edited by: Oerlemans, J., Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, 373–389, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>IPCC: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 1535 pp.,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1017/CBO9781107415324</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Jóhannesson, T., Raymond, C., and Waddington, E.: Time-scale adjustment
of glaciers to changes in mass balance, J. Glaciol., 35, 355–369,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S002214300000928X" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1017/S002214300000928X</ext-link>, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Jouvet G., Huss, M., Blatter, H., Picasso, M., and Rappaz, J.: Numerical
simulation of Rhonegletscher from 1874 to 2100, J. Comput. Phys., 17,
6426–6439, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2009.05.033" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jcp.2009.05.033</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Krug, J., Weiss, J., Gagliardini, O., and Durand, G.: Combining damage and
fracture mechanics to model calving, The Cryosphere, 8, 2101–2117,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-2101-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-8-2101-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Kruss, P.: Terminus response of Lewis Glacier, Mount Kenya, Kenya, to
sinusoidal net-balance forcing, J. Glaciol., 30, 212–217, 1984.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Leclercq, P. W., Oerlemans, J., Basagic, H. J., Bushueva, I., Cook, A. J.,
and Le Bris, R.: A data set of worldwide glacier length fluctuations, The
Cryosphere, 8, 659–672, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-659-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-8-659-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Leysinger Vieli, G. J.-M. C. and Gudmundsson, G. H.: On estimating length
fluctuations of glaciers caused by changes in climatic forcing, J. Geophys.
Res., 109, F01007, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JF000027" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003JF000027</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Mansell, D., Luckman, A., and Murray, T.: Dynamics of tidewater surge-type
glaciers in northwest Svalbard, J. Glaciol., 58, 110–118,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/2012JoG11J058" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/2012JoG11J058</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Martín-Moreno, A., Alvarez, F. A., and  Hagen J. O.: “Little Ice Age”
glacier extent and subsequent retreat in Svalbard archipelago, The Holocene,
27, 1379–1390, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683617693904" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1177/0959683617693904</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page3015?><ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Mjelvold, K. and Hagen, J. O.: Evolution of a surge-type glacier in its
quiescent phase: Kongsvegen, Spitsbergen, 1964–95, J. Glaciol., 44,
394–404, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Nick, F. M., Van der Kwast, J., and J. Oerlemans, J.: Simulation of the
evolution of Breidamerkurjökull in the late Holocene, J. Geophys.
Res., 112, B01103, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004358" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JB004358</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Oerlemans, J.: A flowline model for Nigardsbreen, Norway: projection of
future glacier length based on dynamic calibration with the historic record,
Ann. Glaciol., 24, 382–389, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Oerlemans, J.: Glaciers and Climate Change, A.A. Balkema Publishers,
Rotterdam, 148 pp., 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Oerlemans, J.: Minimal Glacier Models, Second edn., Igitur, Utrecht
University, ISBN 978-90-6701-022-1, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Oerlemans, J. and van Pelt, W. J. J.: A model study of Abrahamsenbreen, a
surging glacier in northern Spitsbergen, The Cryosphere, 9, 767–779,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-767-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-9-767-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Oerlemans, J., Anderson, B., Hubbard, A., Huybrechts, Ph., Johannesson, T.
J., Knap, W. H., Schmeits, M., Stroeven, A. P., Van de Wal, R. S. W.,
Wallinga, J., and Zuo, Z.: Modelling the response of glaciers to climate
warming, Clim. Dynam., 14, 267–274, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Oerlemans, J., Haag, M., and Keller, F.: Slowing down the retreat of the
Morteratsch glacier, Switzerland, by artificially produced summer snow: a
feasibility study, Climatic Change, 145, 189–203,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2102-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10584-017-2102-1</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Oerlemans, J., Jania, J., and Kolondra, L.: Application of a minimal glacier
model to Hansbreen, Svalbard, The Cryosphere, 5, 1–11,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-5-1-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-5-1-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Otero, J., Navarro, F. J., Laparazan, J. J., Welty, E., Puczko, D., and
Finkelnburg, R.: Modeling the controls on the front position of a tidewater
glacier in Svalbard, Front. Earth Sci., 5, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2017.00029" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/feart.2017.00029</ext-link>,
2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Pelto, M.: Monacobreen seperates from Seligerbreen, Svalbard, American
Geophysical Union Blogosphere 29 June 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Pelto, M. S. and Warren, C. R.: Relationship between tidewater glacier
calving velocity and water depth at the calving front, Ann. Glaciol., 15,
115–118, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Petlicki, M., Cieply, M., Jania, J. A., Promisnka, A., and Kinnard, C.:
Calving of tidewater glacier driven by melting at the grounding line, J.
Glaciol., 61, 851–862, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/2015JoG15J062" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/2015JoG15J062</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Radić, V., Bliss, A., Beedlow, A. C., Hock, R., Miles, E., and Cogley, J.
G.: Regional and global projections of twenty-first century glacier mass
changes in response to climate scenarios from global climate models, Clim.
Dynam. 42, 37–58, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1719-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-013-1719-7</ext-link>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Røthe, T. O., Bakke, J., Vasskog, K., Gjerde, M., D'Andrea W. J., and
Bradley. R. S.: Arctic Holocene glacier fluctuations reconstructed from lake
sediments at Mitrahalvøya, Spitsbergen, Quat. Sci. Rev., 109, 111–125,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00091" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/feart.2018.00091</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Schäfer, M., Möller, M., Zwinger, T., and Moore, J. C.: Dynamic
modelling of future glacier changes: Mass- balance/elevation feedback in
projections for the Vestfonna ice cap, Nordaustlandet, Svalbard, J. Glaciol.,
61, 1121–1136, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/2015JoG14J184" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/2015JoG14J184</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Todd, J. and Christoffersen, P.: Are seasonal calving dynamics forced by
buttressing from ice mélange or undercutting by melting? Outcomes from
full-Stokes simulations of Store Glacier, West Greenland, The Cryosphere, 8,
2353–2365, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-2353-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-8-2353-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>van den Broeke, M. R., Enderlin, E. M., Howat, I. M., Kuipers Munneke, P.,
Noël, B. P. Y., van de Berg, W. J., van Meijgaard, E., and Wouters, B.:
On the recent contribution of the Greenland ice sheet to sea level change,
The Cryosphere, 10, 1933–1946, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-1933-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-10-1933-2016</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Van Dongen, E.: Application of a minimal model to Kongsvegen and Kronebreen,
Thesis, IMAU, Utrecht University, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>van Pelt, W. J. J., Oerlemans, J., Reijmer, C. H., Pohjola, V. A.,
Pettersson, R., and van Angelen, J. H.: Simulating melt, runoff and
refreezing on Nordenskiöldbreen, Svalbard, using a coupled snow and
energy balance model, The Cryosphere, 6, 641–659,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-6-641-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-6-641-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Vialov, S. S.: Regularities of glacial shields movement and the theory of
plastic viscous flow, Int. Assoc. Hydrolog. Sci. Publi., 47, 266–275, 1958.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Vieli, A., Jania, J., and Kolondra, L.: The retreat of a tidewater glacier:
observations and model calculations on Hansbreen, Svalbard, J. Glaciol.,
48, 592–600, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Zekollari, H., Huybrechts, P., Fürst, J., Rybak, J., and Eisen, O.:
Calibration of a higher-order 3-D ice-flow model of the Morteratsch glacier
complex, Engadin, Switzerland, Ann. Glaciol., 54, 343–351,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/2013AoG63A434" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/2013AoG63A434</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Zekollari, H., Huybrechts, P., Noël, B., van de Berg, W. J., and van den
Broeke, M. R.: Sensitivity, stability and future evolution of the world's
northernmost ice cap, Hans Tausen Iskappe (Greenland), The Cryosphere, 11,
805–825, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-805-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-11-805-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Zemp, M. et al.: Historically unprecedented global glacier decline in the
early 21st century, J. Glaciol., 61, 754–761, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/2015JoG15J017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/2015JoG15J017</ext-link>,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Modelling the late Holocene and future evolution of Monacobreen, northern Spitsbergen</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Monacobreen is a 40&thinsp;km long surge-type tidewater glacier in northern
Spitsbergen. During 1991–1997 Monacobreen surged and advanced by about
2&thinsp;km, but the front did not reach the maximum Little Ice Age (LIA) stand.
Since 1997 the glacier front is retreating at a fast rate (<span style="" class="text"> ∼ 125&thinsp;m&thinsp;a<sup>−1</sup></span>). The questions addressed in this study are as follows:
(1) Can the late Holocene behaviour of Monacobreen be understood in terms of
climatic forcing?, and (2) What will be the likely evolution of this glacier
for different scenarios of future climate change?</p><p>Monacobreen is modelled with a minimal glacier model, including a
parameterization of the calving process as well as the effect of surges. The
model is driven by an equilibrium-line altitude (ELA) history derived from
lake sediments of a nearby glacier catchment in combination with
meteorological data from 1899 onwards. The simulated glacier length is in
good agreement with the observations: the maximum LIA stand, the front
position at the end of the surge, and the 2.5&thinsp;km retreat after the surge
(1997–2016) are well reproduced (the mean difference between observed and
simulated glacier length being 6&thinsp;% when scaled with the total retreat
during 1900–2016). The effect of surging is limited. Directly after a surge
the initiated mass balance perturbation due to a lower mean surface elevation
is about −0.13 m w. e.  a<sup>−1</sup>, which only
has a small effect on the long-term evolution of the glacier. The simulation
suggests that the major growth of Monacobreen after the Holocene climatic
optimum started around 1500&thinsp;BCE. Monacobreen became a tidewater glacier
around 500&thinsp;BCE and reached a size comparable to the present state around
500&thinsp;CE. For the mid-B2 scenario (IPCC, 2013), which corresponds to a  ∼ 2 m a<sup>−1</sup> rise of the ELA, the model
predicts a volume loss of 20&thinsp;% to 30&thinsp;% by the year 2100 (relative to
the 2017 volume). For a  ∼ 4 m a<sup>−1</sup> rise
in the ELA this is 30&thinsp;% to 40&thinsp;%. However, much of the response to
21st century warming will still come after 2100.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Axford, Y., Levy, L. B., Kelly, M. A., Francis, D. R., Hall, B. L., Langdon,
P. G., and Lowell, T. V.: Timing and magnitude of early to middle Holocene
warming in East Greenland inferred from chironmids, Boreas, 64, 678–687,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12247" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12247</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Benn, D. I., Hulton, N. R. J., and Mottram, R. H.: “Calving laws”, sliding
laws' and the stability of tidewater glaciers, Ann. Glaciol., 46, 123–130,
2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Berger, A. and Loutre, M. F.: Insolation values for the climate of the last
10 million years, Quaternary Sci. Rev., 10, 297–317, 1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Blaszczyk M., Jania, J. A., and Hagen, J. O.: Tidewater glaciers of Svalbard:
Recent changes and estimates of calving fluxes, Pol. Polar Res., 30, 85–142,
2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Björnsson, H.: Scales and rates of glacial sediment removal: a 20&thinsp;km
long, 300&thinsp;m deep trench created beneath Breidamerkurjökull during the
Little Ice Age, Ann. Glaciol., 22, 141–146, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Björnsson, H., Pálsson, F., and Gudmundsson, S:
Jökulsárlón at Breidamerkursandur, Vatnajökull, Iceland: 20th
century changes and future outlook, Jökull, 50, 1–18, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Brown, C. S., Meier, M. F., and Post, A.: Calving speed of Alaska tidewater
glaciers with applications to the Columbia Glacier, Alaska, U. S. Geol. Surv.
Prof. Pap., 1258-C, 13 pp., 1982.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
CAPE-Last Interglacial Project Members: Last Interglacial Arctic warmth
confirms polar amplification of climate change, Quateranry Sci. Rev., 25,
1383–1400, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.01.033" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.01.033</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Dowdeswell, J. A., Drewry, D. J., Liestel, O., and Orheim, O.: Radio-echo
sounding of Spitsbergen glaciers: problems in the interpretation of layer and
bottom returns, J. Glaciol., 30, 16–21, 1984.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Farinotti, D., Brinkerhoff, D. J., Clarke, G. K. C., Fürst, J. J., Frey,
H., Gantayat, P., Gillet-Chaulet, F., Girard, C., Huss, M., Leclercq, P. W.,
Linsbauer, A., Machguth, H., Martin, C., Maussion, F., Morlighem, M.,
Mosbeux, C., Pandit, A., Portmann, A., Rabatel, A., Ramsankaran, R., Reerink,
T. J., Sanchez, O., Stentoft, P. A., Singh Kumari, S., van Pelt, W. J. J.,
Anderson, B., Benham, T., Binder, D., Dowdeswell, J. A., Fischer, A.,
Helfricht, K., Kutuzov, S., Lavrentiev, I., McNabb, R., Gudmundsson, G. H.,
Li, H., and Andreassen, L. M.: How accurate are estimates of glacier ice
thickness? Results from ITMIX, the Ice Thickness Models Intercomparison
eXperiment, The Cryosphere, 11, 949–970,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-949-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-949-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Førland, E. J., Benestad, R., Hanssen-Baur, I., Haugen, J. E., and
Skaugen, T. E.: Temperature and precipitation development at Svalbard
1900–2100, Adv. Meteorol., 2011, 1–14, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/893790" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/893790</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Funk, M. and Röthlisberger, H.: Forecasting the effects of a planned
reservoir which will partially flood the tongue of Unteraargletscher in
Switzerland, Ann. Glaciol., 13, 76–81, 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Hagen, J. O., Liestøl, O., Roland, E., and Jørgensen, T.: Glacier atlas
of Svalbard and Jan Mayen, Norsk Polarinstitutt Medd. nr. 129, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Hagen, J. O. and  Saetrang, A.: Radio-echo soundings of sub-polar glaciers with
low-frequency radar, Polar Res., 9, 99–107, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3402/polar.v9i1.6782" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3402/polar.v9i1.6782</a>, 1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Hansen, T.: Late Weichselian and Holocene sedimentary processes and glacier
dynamics in Woodfjorden, Bockfjorden and Liefdefjorden, North Spitsbergen,
Master thesis, The Arctic University of Norway, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Huss, M. and Hock, R.: A new model for global glacier change and sea-level
rise, Front. Earth Sci., 3, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2015.00054" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2015.00054</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Huybrechts, P., De Nooze, P., and Decleir, H.: Numerical modelling of Glacier
d'Argentière and its historic front variations, in: Glacier fluctuations
and climatic change, edited by: Oerlemans, J., Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, 373–389, 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
IPCC: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 1535 pp.,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Jóhannesson, T., Raymond, C., and Waddington, E.: Time-scale adjustment
of glaciers to changes in mass balance, J. Glaciol., 35, 355–369,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S002214300000928X" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1017/S002214300000928X</a>, 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Jouvet G., Huss, M., Blatter, H., Picasso, M., and Rappaz, J.: Numerical
simulation of Rhonegletscher from 1874 to 2100, J. Comput. Phys., 17,
6426–6439, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2009.05.033" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2009.05.033</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Krug, J., Weiss, J., Gagliardini, O., and Durand, G.: Combining damage and
fracture mechanics to model calving, The Cryosphere, 8, 2101–2117,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-2101-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-2101-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Kruss, P.: Terminus response of Lewis Glacier, Mount Kenya, Kenya, to
sinusoidal net-balance forcing, J. Glaciol., 30, 212–217, 1984.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Leclercq, P. W., Oerlemans, J., Basagic, H. J., Bushueva, I., Cook, A. J.,
and Le Bris, R.: A data set of worldwide glacier length fluctuations, The
Cryosphere, 8, 659–672, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-659-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-659-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Leysinger Vieli, G. J.-M. C. and Gudmundsson, G. H.: On estimating length
fluctuations of glaciers caused by changes in climatic forcing, J. Geophys.
Res., 109, F01007, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JF000027" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JF000027</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Mansell, D., Luckman, A., and Murray, T.: Dynamics of tidewater surge-type
glaciers in northwest Svalbard, J. Glaciol., 58, 110–118,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/2012JoG11J058" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/2012JoG11J058</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Martín-Moreno, A., Alvarez, F. A., and  Hagen J. O.: “Little Ice Age”
glacier extent and subsequent retreat in Svalbard archipelago, The Holocene,
27, 1379–1390, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683617693904" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683617693904</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Mjelvold, K. and Hagen, J. O.: Evolution of a surge-type glacier in its
quiescent phase: Kongsvegen, Spitsbergen, 1964–95, J. Glaciol., 44,
394–404, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Nick, F. M., Van der Kwast, J., and J. Oerlemans, J.: Simulation of the
evolution of Breidamerkurjökull in the late Holocene, J. Geophys.
Res., 112, B01103, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004358" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004358</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Oerlemans, J.: A flowline model for Nigardsbreen, Norway: projection of
future glacier length based on dynamic calibration with the historic record,
Ann. Glaciol., 24, 382–389, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Oerlemans, J.: Glaciers and Climate Change, A.A. Balkema Publishers,
Rotterdam, 148 pp., 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Oerlemans, J.: Minimal Glacier Models, Second edn., Igitur, Utrecht
University, ISBN 978-90-6701-022-1, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Oerlemans, J. and van Pelt, W. J. J.: A model study of Abrahamsenbreen, a
surging glacier in northern Spitsbergen, The Cryosphere, 9, 767–779,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-767-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-767-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Oerlemans, J., Anderson, B., Hubbard, A., Huybrechts, Ph., Johannesson, T.
J., Knap, W. H., Schmeits, M., Stroeven, A. P., Van de Wal, R. S. W.,
Wallinga, J., and Zuo, Z.: Modelling the response of glaciers to climate
warming, Clim. Dynam., 14, 267–274, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Oerlemans, J., Haag, M., and Keller, F.: Slowing down the retreat of the
Morteratsch glacier, Switzerland, by artificially produced summer snow: a
feasibility study, Climatic Change, 145, 189–203,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2102-1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2102-1</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Oerlemans, J., Jania, J., and Kolondra, L.: Application of a minimal glacier
model to Hansbreen, Svalbard, The Cryosphere, 5, 1–11,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-5-1-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-5-1-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Otero, J., Navarro, F. J., Laparazan, J. J., Welty, E., Puczko, D., and
Finkelnburg, R.: Modeling the controls on the front position of a tidewater
glacier in Svalbard, Front. Earth Sci., 5, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2017.00029" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2017.00029</a>,
2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Pelto, M.: Monacobreen seperates from Seligerbreen, Svalbard, American
Geophysical Union Blogosphere 29 June 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Pelto, M. S. and Warren, C. R.: Relationship between tidewater glacier
calving velocity and water depth at the calving front, Ann. Glaciol., 15,
115–118, 1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Petlicki, M., Cieply, M., Jania, J. A., Promisnka, A., and Kinnard, C.:
Calving of tidewater glacier driven by melting at the grounding line, J.
Glaciol., 61, 851–862, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/2015JoG15J062" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/2015JoG15J062</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Radić, V., Bliss, A., Beedlow, A. C., Hock, R., Miles, E., and Cogley, J.
G.: Regional and global projections of twenty-first century glacier mass
changes in response to climate scenarios from global climate models, Clim.
Dynam. 42, 37–58, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1719-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1719-7</a>, 2014.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Røthe, T. O., Bakke, J., Vasskog, K., Gjerde, M., D'Andrea W. J., and
Bradley. R. S.: Arctic Holocene glacier fluctuations reconstructed from lake
sediments at Mitrahalvøya, Spitsbergen, Quat. Sci. Rev., 109, 111–125,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00091" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00091</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Schäfer, M., Möller, M., Zwinger, T., and Moore, J. C.: Dynamic
modelling of future glacier changes: Mass- balance/elevation feedback in
projections for the Vestfonna ice cap, Nordaustlandet, Svalbard, J. Glaciol.,
61, 1121–1136, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/2015JoG14J184" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/2015JoG14J184</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Todd, J. and Christoffersen, P.: Are seasonal calving dynamics forced by
buttressing from ice mélange or undercutting by melting? Outcomes from
full-Stokes simulations of Store Glacier, West Greenland, The Cryosphere, 8,
2353–2365, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-2353-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-2353-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
van den Broeke, M. R., Enderlin, E. M., Howat, I. M., Kuipers Munneke, P.,
Noël, B. P. Y., van de Berg, W. J., van Meijgaard, E., and Wouters, B.:
On the recent contribution of the Greenland ice sheet to sea level change,
The Cryosphere, 10, 1933–1946, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-1933-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-1933-2016</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Van Dongen, E.: Application of a minimal model to Kongsvegen and Kronebreen,
Thesis, IMAU, Utrecht University, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
van Pelt, W. J. J., Oerlemans, J., Reijmer, C. H., Pohjola, V. A.,
Pettersson, R., and van Angelen, J. H.: Simulating melt, runoff and
refreezing on Nordenskiöldbreen, Svalbard, using a coupled snow and
energy balance model, The Cryosphere, 6, 641–659,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-6-641-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-6-641-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Vialov, S. S.: Regularities of glacial shields movement and the theory of
plastic viscous flow, Int. Assoc. Hydrolog. Sci. Publi., 47, 266–275, 1958.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Vieli, A., Jania, J., and Kolondra, L.: The retreat of a tidewater glacier:
observations and model calculations on Hansbreen, Svalbard, J. Glaciol.,
48, 592–600, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Zekollari, H., Huybrechts, P., Fürst, J., Rybak, J., and Eisen, O.:
Calibration of a higher-order 3-D ice-flow model of the Morteratsch glacier
complex, Engadin, Switzerland, Ann. Glaciol., 54, 343–351,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/2013AoG63A434" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/2013AoG63A434</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Zekollari, H., Huybrechts, P., Noël, B., van de Berg, W. J., and van den
Broeke, M. R.: Sensitivity, stability and future evolution of the world's
northernmost ice cap, Hans Tausen Iskappe (Greenland), The Cryosphere, 11,
805–825, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-805-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-805-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Zemp, M. et al.: Historically unprecedented global glacier decline in the
early 21st century, J. Glaciol., 61, 754–761, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/2015JoG15J017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/2015JoG15J017</a>,
2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
