@article{HortonKhanCahilletal.2020,
  author    = {Horton, Benjamin P. and Khan, Nicole S. and Cahill, Niamh and Lee, Janice S. H. and Shaw, Timothy A. and Garner, Andra J. and Kemp, Andrew C. and Engelhart, Simon E. and Rahmstorf, Stefan},
  title     = {Estimating global mean sea-level rise and its uncertainties by 2100 and 2300 from an expert survey},
  series = {npj Climate and Atmospheric Science},
  volume    = {3},
  journal   = {npj Climate and Atmospheric Science},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Springer Nature},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {2397-3722},
  doi       = {10.1038/s41612-020-0121-5},
  pages     = {1 -- 8},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Sea-level rise projections and knowledge of their uncertainties are vital to make informed mitigation and adaptation decisions. To elicit projections from members of the scientific community regarding future global mean sea-level (GMSL) rise, we repeated a survey originally conducted five years ago. Under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 2.6, 106 experts projected a likely (central 66\% probability) GMSL rise of 0.30-0.65 m by 2100, and 0.54-2.15 m by 2300, relative to 1986-2005. Under RCP 8.5, the same experts projected a likely GMSL rise of 0.63-1.32 m by 2100, and 1.67-5.61 m by 2300. Expert projections for 2100 are similar to those from the original survey, although the projection for 2300 has extended tails and is higher than the original survey. Experts give a likelihood of 42\% (original survey) and 45\% (current survey) that under the high-emissions scenario GMSL rise will exceed the upper bound (0.98 m) of the likely range estimated by the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is considered to have an exceedance likelihood of 17\%. Responses to open-ended questions suggest that the increases in upper-end estimates and uncertainties arose from recent influential studies about the impact of marine ice cliff instability on the meltwater contribution to GMSL rise from the Antarctic Ice Sheet.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{NowickiBindschadlerAbeOuchietal.2013,
  author    = {Nowicki, Sophie and Bindschadler, Robert A. and Abe-Ouchi, Ayako and Aschwanden, Andy and Bueler, Ed and Choi, Hyeungu and Fastook, Jim and Granzow, Glen and Greve, Ralf and Gutowski, Gail and Herzfeld, Ute and Jackson, Charles and Johnson, Jesse and Khroulev, Constantine and Larour, Eric and Levermann, Anders and Lipscomb, William H. and Martin, Maria A. and Morlighem, Mathieu and Parizek, Byron R. and Pollard, David and Price, Stephen F. and Ren, Diandong and Rignot, Eric and Saito, Fuyuki and Sato, Tatsuru and Seddik, Hakime and Seroussi, Helene and Takahashi, Kunio and Walker, Ryan and Wang, Wei Li},
  title     = {Insights into spatial sensitivities of ice mass response to environmental change from the SeaRISE ice sheet modeling project II Greenland},
  series = {Journal of geophysical research : Earth surface},
  volume    = {118},
  journal   = {Journal of geophysical research : Earth surface},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {American Geophysical Union},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {2169-9003},
  doi       = {10.1002/jgrf.20076},
  pages     = {1025 -- 1044},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {The Sea-level Response to Ice Sheet Evolution (SeaRISE) effort explores the sensitivity of the current generation of ice sheet models to external forcing to gain insight into the potential future contribution to sea level from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. All participating models simulated the ice sheet response to three types of external forcings: a change in oceanic condition, a warmer atmospheric environment, and enhanced basal lubrication. Here an analysis of the spatial response of the Greenland ice sheet is presented, and the impact of model physics and spin-up on the projections is explored. Although the modeled responses are not always homogeneous, consistent spatial trends emerge from the ensemble analysis, indicating distinct vulnerabilities of the Greenland ice sheet. There are clear response patterns associated with each forcing, and a similar mass loss at the full ice sheet scale will result in different mass losses at the regional scale, as well as distinct thickness changes over the ice sheet. All forcings lead to an increased mass loss for the coming centuries, with increased basal lubrication and warmer ocean conditions affecting mainly outlet glaciers, while the impacts of atmospheric forcings affect the whole ice sheet.},
  language  = {en}
}