@article{SeroussiNowickiPayneetal.2020,
  author    = {Seroussi, Helene and Nowicki, Sophie and Payne, Antony J. and Goelzer, Heiko and Lipscomb, William H. and Abe-Ouchi, Ayako and Agosta, Cecile and Albrecht, Torsten and Asay-Davis, Xylar and Barthel, Alice and Calov, Reinhard and Cullather, Richard and Dumas, Christophe and Galton-Fenzi, Benjamin K. and Gladstone, Rupert and Golledge, Nicholas R. and Gregory, Jonathan M. and Greve, Ralf and Hattermann, Tore and Hoffman, Matthew J. and Humbert, Angelika and Huybrechts, Philippe and Jourdain, Nicolas C. and Kleiner, Thomas and Larour, Eric and Leguy, Gunter R. and Lowry, Daniel P. and Little, Chistopher M. and Morlighem, Mathieu and Pattyn, Frank and Pelle, Tyler and Price, Stephen F. and Quiquet, Aurelien and Reese, Ronja and Schlegel, Nicole-Jeanne and Shepherd, Andrew and Simon, Erika and Smith, Robin S. and Straneo, Fiammetta and Sun, Sainan and Trusel, Luke D. and Van Breedam, Jonas and van de Wal, Roderik S. W. and Winkelmann, Ricarda and Zhao, Chen and Zhang, Tong and Zwinger, Thomas},
  title     = {ISMIP6 Antarctica},
  series = {The Cryosphere : TC ; an interactive open access journal of the European Geosciences Union},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {The Cryosphere : TC ; an interactive open access journal of the European Geosciences Union},
  number    = {9},
  publisher = {Copernicus},
  address   = {G{\"o}ttingen},
  issn      = {1994-0416},
  doi       = {10.5194/tc-14-3033-2020},
  pages     = {3033 -- 3070},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Ice flow models of the Antarctic ice sheet are commonly used to simulate its future evolution in response to different climate scenarios and assess the mass loss that would contribute to future sea level rise. However, there is currently no consensus on estimates of the future mass balance of the ice sheet, primarily because of differences in the representation of physical processes, forcings employed and initial states of ice sheet models. This study presents results from ice flow model simulations from 13 international groups focusing on the evolution of the Antarctic ice sheet during the period 2015-2100 as part of the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison for CMIP6 (ISMIP6). They are forced with outputs from a subset of models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), representative of the spread in climate model results. Simulations of the Antarctic ice sheet contribution to sea level rise in response to increased warming during this period varies between 7:8 and 30.0 cm of sea level equivalent (SLE) under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario forcing. These numbers are relative to a control experiment with constant climate conditions and should therefore be added to the mass loss contribution under climate conditions similar to present-day conditions over the same period. The simulated evolution of the West Antarctic ice sheet varies widely among models, with an overall mass loss, up to 18.0 cm SLE, in response to changes in oceanic conditions. East Antarctica mass change varies between 6 :1 and 8.3 cm SLE in the simulations, with a significant increase in surface mass balance outweighing the increased ice discharge under most RCP 8.5 scenario forcings. The inclusion of ice shelf collapse, here assumed to be caused by large amounts of liquid water ponding at the surface of ice shelves, yields an additional simulated mass loss of 28mm compared to simulations without ice shelf collapse. The largest sources of uncertainty come from the climate forcing, the ocean-induced melt rates, the calibration of these melt rates based on oceanic conditions taken outside of ice shelf cavities and the ice sheet dynamic response to these oceanic changes. Results under RCP 2.6 scenario based on two CMIP5 climate models show an additional mass loss of 0 and 3 cm of SLE on average compared to simulations done under present-day conditions for the two CMIP5 forcings used and display limited mass gain in East Antarctica.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ClaussenBrovkinCalovetal.2005,
  author    = {Claussen, M. and Brovkin, Victor and Calov, R. and Ganopolski, A. and Kubatzki, C.},
  title     = {Did humankind prevent a Holocene glaciation?},
  issn      = {0165-0009},
  year      = {2005},
  abstract  = {Recently, W.F. Ruddiman (2003, Climatic Change, Vol. 61, pp. 261-293) suggested that the anthropocene, the geological epoch of significant anthropospheric interference with the natural Earth system, has started much earlier than previously thought (P. I. Crutzen and E. F. Stoermer, 2000, IGBP Newsletter, Vol. 429, pp. 623-628). Ruddiman proposed that due to human land use, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 began to deviate from their natural declining trends some 8000 and 5000 years ago, respectively. Furthermore, Ruddiman concluded that greenhouse gas concentrations grew anomalously thereby preventing natural large-scale glaciation of northern North America that should have occurred some 4000-5000 years ago without human interference. Here we would like to comment on (a) natural changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the Holocene and (b) on the possibility of a Holocene glacial inception. We substantiate our comments by modelling results which suggest that the last three interglacials are not a proper analogue for Holocene climate variations. In particular, we show that our model does not yield a glacial inception during the last several thousand years even if a declining trend in atmospheric CO2 was assumed},
  language  = {en}
}