@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{DurandvandenBroekeLeCozannetetal.2022,
  author    = {Durand, Gael and van den Broeke, Michiel R. and Le Cozannet, Goneri and Edwards, Tamsin L. and Holland, Paul R. and Jourdain, Nicolas C. and Marzeion, Ben and Mottram, Ruth and Nicholls, Robert J. and Pattyn, Frank and Paul, Frank and Slangen, Aimee B. A. and Winkelmann, Ricarda and Burgard, Clara and van Calcar, Caroline J. and Barre, Jean-Baptiste and Bataille, Amelie and Chapuis, Anne},
  title     = {Sea-Level rise: from global perspectives to local services},
  series = {Frontiers in Marine Science},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Marine Science},
  publisher = {Frontiers Media},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {2296-7745},
  doi       = {10.3389/fmars.2021.709595},
  pages     = {8},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Coastal areas are highly diverse, ecologically rich, regions of key socio-economic activity, and are particularly sensitive to sea-level change. Over most of the 20th century, global mean sea level has risen mainly due to warming and subsequent expansion of the upper ocean layers as well as the melting of glaciers and ice caps. Over the last three decades, increased mass loss of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets has also started to contribute significantly to contemporary sea-level rise. The future mass loss of the two ice sheets, which combined represent a sea-level rise potential of similar to 65 m, constitutes the main source of uncertainty in long-term (centennial to millennial) sea-level rise projections. Improved knowledge of the magnitude and rate of future sea-level change is therefore of utmost importance. Moreover, sea level does not change uniformly across the globe and can differ greatly at both regional and local scales. The most appropriate and feasible sea level mitigation and adaptation measures in coastal regions strongly depend on local land use and associated risk aversion. Here, we advocate that addressing the problem of future sea-level rise and its impacts requires (i) bringing together a transdisciplinary scientific community, from climate and cryospheric scientists to coastal impact specialists, and (ii) interacting closely and iteratively with users and local stakeholders to co-design and co-build coastal climate services, including addressing the high-end risks.},
  language  = {en}
}