@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{StrotsevaFeinschmidtSchipkeGunteretal.2019,
  author    = {Strotseva-Feinschmidt, Anna and Schipke, Christine S. and Gunter, Thomas C. and Brauer, Jens and Friederici, Angela D.},
  title     = {Young children's sentence comprehension},
  series = {Brain and cognition : a journal of experimental and clinical research},
  volume    = {134},
  journal   = {Brain and cognition : a journal of experimental and clinical research},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {San Diego},
  issn      = {0278-2626},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.bandc.2018.09.003},
  pages     = {110 -- 121},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Sentence comprehension requires the assignment of thematic relations between the verb and its noun arguments in order to determine who is doing what to whom. In some languages, such as English, word order is the primary syntactic cue. In other languages, such as German, case-marking is additionally used to assign thematic roles. During development children have to acquire the thematic relevance of these syntactic cues and weigh them against semantic cues. Here we investigated the processing of syntactic cues and semantic cues in 2- and 3-year-old children by analyzing their behavioral and neurophysiological responses. Case-marked subject-first and object-first sentences (syntactic cue) including animate and inanimate nouns (semantic cue) were presented auditorily. The semantic animacy cue either conflicted with or supported the thematic roles assigned by syntactic case-marking. In contrast to adults, for whom semantics did not interfere with case-marking, children attended to both syntactic and to semantic cues with a stronger reliance on semantic cues in early development. Children's event-related brain potentials indicated sensitivity to syntactic information but increased processing costs when case-marking and animacy assigned conflicting thematic roles. These results demonstrate an early developmental sensitivity and ongoing shift towards the use of syntactic cues during sentence comprehension.},
  language  = {en}
}