TY  - JOUR
A1  - Abeysekara, A. U.
A1  - Archer, A.
A1  - Benbow, Wystan
A1  - Bird, Ralph
A1  - Brose, Robert
A1  - Buchovecky, M.
A1  - Bugaev, V.
A1  - Connolly, M. P.
A1  - Cui, Wei
A1  - Errando, Manel
A1  - Falcone, A.
A1  - Feng, Qi
A1  - Finley, John P.
A1  - Flinders, A.
A1  - Fortson, L.
A1  - Furniss, Amy
A1  - Gillanders, Gerard H.
A1  - Huetten, M.
A1  - Hanna, David
A1  - Hervet, O.
A1  - Holder, J.
A1  - Hughes, G.
A1  - Humensky, T. B.
A1  - Johnson, Caitlin A.
A1  - Kaaret, Philip
A1  - Kar, P.
A1  - Kelley-Hoskins, N.
A1  - Kertzman, M.
A1  - Kieda, David
A1  - Krause, Maria
A1  - Krennrich, F.
A1  - Lang, M. J.
A1  - Lin, T. T. Y.
A1  - Maier, Gernot
A1  - McArthur, S.
A1  - Moriarty, P.
A1  - Mukherjee, Reshmi
A1  - Ong, R. A.
A1  - Park, N.
A1  - Perkins, Jeremy S.
A1  - Petrashyk, A.
A1  - Pohl, Martin
A1  - Popkow, Alexis
A1  - Pueschel, Elisa
A1  - Quinn, J.
A1  - Ragan, K.
A1  - Reynolds, P. T.
A1  - Richards, Gregory T.
A1  - Roache, E.
A1  - Rulten, C.
A1  - Sadeh, I.
A1  - Santander, M.
A1  - Sembroski, G. H.
A1  - Shahinyan, Karlen
A1  - Tyler, J.
A1  - Wakely, S. P.
A1  - Weiner, O. M.
A1  - Weinstein, A.
A1  - Wells, R. M.
A1  - Wilcox, P.
A1  - Wilhelm, Alina
A1  - Williams, David A.
A1  - Zitzer, B.
A1  - Vurm, Indrek
A1  - Beloborodov, Andrei
T1  - A Strong Limit on the Very-high-energy Emission from GRB 150323A
JF  - The astrophysical journal : an international review of spectroscopy and astronomical physics
N2  - On 2015 March 23, the Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System (VERITAS) responded to a Swift-Burst Alert Telescope (BAT) detection of a gamma-ray burst, with observations beginning 270 s after the onset of BAT emission, and only 135 s after the main BAT emission peak. No statistically significant signal is detected above 140 GeV. The VERITAS upper limit on the fluence in a 40-minute integration corresponds to about 1% of the prompt fluence. Our limit is particularly significant because the very-high-energy (VHE) observation started only similar to 2 minutes after the prompt emission peaked, and Fermi-Large Area Telescope observations of numerous other bursts have revealed that the high-energy emission is typically delayed relative to the prompt radiation and lasts significantly longer. Also, the proximity of GRB 150323A (z = 0.593) limits the attenuation by the extragalactic background light to similar to 50% at 100-200 GeV. We conclude that GRB 150323A had an intrinsically very weak high-energy afterglow, or that the GeV spectrum had a turnover below similar to 100 GeV. If the GRB exploded into the stellar wind of a massive progenitor, the VHE non-detection constrains the wind density parameter to be A greater than or similar to 3 x 10(11) g . cm(-1), consistent with a standard Wolf-Rayet progenitor. Alternatively, the VHE emission from the blast wave would be weak in a very tenuous medium such as the interstellar medium, which therefore cannot be ruled out as the environment of GRB 150323A.
KW  - gamma rays: general
KW  - gamma-ray burst: general
KW  - gamma-ray burst: individual (GRB 150323A)
Y1  - 2018
U6  - https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aab371
SN  - 0004-637X
SN  - 1538-4357
VL  - 857
IS  - 1
PB  - IOP Publ. Ltd.
CY  - Bristol
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Seroussi, Helene
A1  - Nowicki, Sophie
A1  - Payne, Antony J.
A1  - Goelzer, Heiko
A1  - Lipscomb, William H.
A1  - Abe-Ouchi, Ayako
A1  - Agosta, Cecile
A1  - Albrecht, Torsten
A1  - Asay-Davis, Xylar
A1  - Barthel, Alice
A1  - Calov, Reinhard
A1  - Cullather, Richard
A1  - Dumas, Christophe
A1  - Galton-Fenzi, Benjamin K.
A1  - Gladstone, Rupert
A1  - Golledge, Nicholas R.
A1  - Gregory, Jonathan M.
A1  - Greve, Ralf
A1  - Hattermann, Tore
A1  - Hoffman, Matthew J.
A1  - Humbert, Angelika
A1  - Huybrechts, Philippe
A1  - Jourdain, Nicolas C.
A1  - Kleiner, Thomas
A1  - Larour, Eric
A1  - Leguy, Gunter R.
A1  - Lowry, Daniel P.
A1  - Little, Chistopher M.
A1  - Morlighem, Mathieu
A1  - Pattyn, Frank
A1  - Pelle, Tyler
A1  - Price, Stephen F.
A1  - Quiquet, Aurelien
A1  - Reese, Ronja
A1  - Schlegel, Nicole-Jeanne
A1  - Shepherd, Andrew
A1  - Simon, Erika
A1  - Smith, Robin S.
A1  - Straneo, Fiammetta
A1  - Sun, Sainan
A1  - Trusel, Luke D.
A1  - Van Breedam, Jonas
A1  - van de Wal, Roderik S. W.
A1  - Winkelmann, Ricarda
A1  - Zhao, Chen
A1  - Zhang, Tong
A1  - Zwinger, Thomas
T1  - ISMIP6 Antarctica
BT  - a multi-model ensemble of the Antarctic ice sheet evolution over the 21st century
JF  - The Cryosphere : TC ; an interactive open access journal of the European Geosciences Union
N2  - 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.
Y1  - 2020
U6  - https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-3033-2020
SN  - 1994-0416
SN  - 1994-0424
VL  - 14
IS  - 9
SP  - 3033
EP  - 3070
PB  - Copernicus
CY  - Göttingen
ER  -