Cécile Agosta

Cécile Agosta

Auto-generated profile, based on publicly available information

Cécile Agosta

Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement (LSCE), CEA, CNRS, UVSQ, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

16Years (2011-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
17 September 2020 in The Cryosphere
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HSHélène Seroussi
Hélène Seroussi
SNSophie Nowicki
Sophie Nowicki
APAntony J. Payne
Antony J. Payne
HGHeiko Goelzer
Heiko Goelzer
WLWilliam H. Lipscomb
William H. Lipscomb
TZThomas Zwinger
Thomas Zwinger
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 28 mm 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.

25 April 2017 in The Cryosphere
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
XFXavier Fettweis
Xavier Fettweis
JBJason Box
Jason Box
CACécile Agosta
Cécile Agosta
CACharles Amory
Charles Amory
CKChristoph Kittel
Christoph Kittel
HGHubert Gallée
Hubert Gallée
With the aim of studying the recent Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) surface mass balance (SMB) decrease relative to the last century, we have forced the regional climate MAR (Modèle Atmosphérique Régional; version 3.5.2) model with the ERA-Interim (ECMWF Interim Re-Analysis; 1979–2015), ERA-40 (1958–2001), NCEP–NCARv1 (National Centers for Environmental Prediction–National Center for Atmospheric Research Reanalysis version 1; 1948–2015), NCEP–NCARv2 (1979–2015), JRA-55 (Japanese 55-year Reanalysis; 1958–2014), 20CRv2(c) (Twentieth Century Reanalysis version 2; 1900–2014) and ERA-20C (1900–2010) reanalyses. While all these forcing products are reanalyses that are assumed to represent the same climate, they produce significant differences in the MAR-simulated SMB over their common period. A temperature adjustment of +1 °C (respectively −1 °C) was, for example, needed at the MAR boundaries with ERA-20C (20CRv2) reanalysis, given that ERA-20C (20CRv2) is ∼ 1 °C colder (warmer) than ERA-Interim over Greenland during the period 1980–2010. Comparisons with daily PROMICE (Programme for Monitoring of the Greenland Ice Sheet) near-surface observations support these adjustments. Comparisons with SMB measurements, ice cores and satellite-derived melt extent reveal the most accurate forcing datasets for the simulation of the GrIS SMB to be ERA-Interim and NCEP–NCARv1. However, some biases remain in MAR, suggesting that some improvements are still needed in its cloudiness and radiative schemes as well as in the representation of the bare ice albedo. Results from all MAR simulations indicate that (i) the period 1961–1990, commonly chosen as a stable reference period for Greenland SMB and ice dynamics, is actually a period of anomalously positive SMB (∼ +40 Gt yr−1) compared to 1900–2010; (ii) SMB has decreased significantly after this reference period due to increasing and unprecedented melt reaching the highest rates in the 120-year common period; (iii) before 1960, both ERA-20C and 20CRv2-forced MAR simulations suggest a significant precipitation increase over 1900–1950, but this increase could be the result of an artefact in the reanalyses that are not well-enough constrained by observations during this period and (iv) since the 1980s, snowfall is quite stable after having reached a maximum in the 1970s. These MAR-based SMB and accumulation reconstructions are, however, quite similar to those from Box (2013) after 1930 and confirm that SMB was quite stable from the 1940s to the 1990s. Finally, only the ERA-20C-forced simulation suggests that SMB during the 1920–1930 warm period over Greenland was comparable to the SMB of the 2000s, due to both higher melt and lower precipitation than normal.

20 April 2023 in Earth System Science Data
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
IOInès N. Otosaka
Inès N. Otosaka
ASAndrew Shepherd
Andrew Shepherd
EIErik R. Ivins
Erik R. Ivins
NSNicole-Jeanne Schlegel
Nicole-Jeanne Schlegel
CACharles Amory
Charles Amory
BWBert Wouters
Bert Wouters
Ice losses from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have accelerated since the 1990s, accounting for a significant increase in the global mean sea level. Here, we present a new 29-year record of ice sheet mass balance from 1992 to 2020 from the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE). We compare and combine 50 independent estimates of ice sheet mass balance derived from satellite observations of temporal changes in ice sheet flow, in ice sheet volume, and in Earth's gravity field. Between 1992 and 2020, the ice sheets contributed 21.0±1.9 mm to global mean sea level, with the rate of mass loss rising from 105 Gt yr −1 between 1992 and 1996 to 372 Gt yr −1 between 2016 and 2020. In Greenland, the rate of mass loss is 169±9 Gt yr −1 between 1992 and 2020, but there are large inter-annual variations in mass balance, with mass loss ranging from 86 Gt yr −1 in 2017 to 444 Gt yr −1 in 2019 due to large variability in surface mass balance. In Antarctica, ice losses continue to be dominated by mass loss from West Antarctica (82±9 Gt yr −1 ) and, to a lesser extent, from the Antarctic Peninsula (13±5 Gt yr −1 ). East Antarctica remains close to a state of balance, with a small gain of 3±15 Gt yr −1 , but is the most uncertain component of Antarctica's mass balance. The dataset is publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5285/77B64C55-7166-4A06-9DEF-2E400398E452 (IMBIE Team, 2021).

5 May 2021 in Nature
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
TETamsin L. Edwards
Tamsin L. Edwards
SNSophie Nowicki
Sophie Nowicki
BMBen Marzeion
Ben Marzeion
RHRegine Hock
Regine Hock
HGHeiko Goelzer
Heiko Goelzer
TZThomas Zwinger
Thomas Zwinger

17 September 2020 in The Cryosphere
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HGHeiko Goelzer
Heiko Goelzer
SNSophie Nowicki
Sophie Nowicki
APAnthony Payne
Anthony Payne
ELEric Larour
Eric Larour
HSHelene Seroussi
Helene Seroussi
MBMichiel Van den Broeke
Michiel Van den Broeke
The Greenland ice sheet is one of the largest contributors to global mean sea-level rise today and is expected to continue to lose mass as the Arctic continues to warm. The two predominant mass loss mechanisms are increased surface meltwater run-off and mass loss associated with the retreat of marine-terminating outlet glaciers. In this paper we use a large ensemble of Greenland ice sheet models forced by output from a representative subset of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) global climate models to project ice sheet changes and sea-level rise contributions over the 21st century. The simulations are part of the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP6 (ISMIP6). We estimate the sea-level contribution together with uncertainties due to future climate forcing, ice sheet model formulations and ocean forcing for the two greenhouse gas concentration scenarios RCP8.5 and RCP2.6. The results indicate that the Greenland ice sheet will continue to lose mass in both scenarios until 2100, with contributions of 90±50 and 32±17 mm to sea-level rise for RCP8.5 and RCP2.6, respectively. The largest mass loss is expected from the south-west of Greenland, which is governed by surface mass balance changes, continuing what is already observed today. Because the contributions are calculated against an unforced control experiment, these numbers do not include any committed mass loss, i.e. mass loss that would occur over the coming century if the climate forcing remained constant. Under RCP8.5 forcing, ice sheet model uncertainty explains an ensemble spread of 40 mm, while climate model uncertainty and ocean forcing uncertainty account for a spread of 36 and 19 mm, respectively. Apart from those formally derived uncertainty ranges, the largest gap in our knowledge is about the physical understanding and implementation of the calving process, i.e. the interaction of the ice sheet with the ocean.

29 January 2019 in The Cryosphere
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CACécile Agosta
Cécile Agosta
CACharles Amory
Charles Amory
CKChristoph Kittel
Christoph Kittel
AOAnais Orsi
Anais Orsi
VFVincent Favier
Vincent Favier
XFXavier Fettweis
Xavier Fettweis
The Antarctic ice sheet mass balance is a major component of the sea level budget and results from the difference of two fluxes of a similar magnitude: ice flow discharging in the ocean and net snow accumulation on the ice sheet surface, i.e. the surface mass balance (SMB). Separately modelling ice dynamics and SMB is the only way to project future trends. In addition, mass balance studies frequently use regional climate models (RCMs) outputs as an alternative to observed fields because SMB observations are particularly scarce on the ice sheet. Here we evaluate new simulations of the polar RCM MAR forced by three reanalyses, ERA-Interim, JRA-55, and MERRA-2, for the period 1979–2015, and we compare MAR results to the last outputs of the RCM RACMO2 forced by ERA-Interim. We show that MAR and RACMO2 perform similarly well in simulating coast-to-plateau SMB gradients, and we find no significant differences in their simulated SMB when integrated over the ice sheet or its major basins. More importantly, we outline and quantify missing or underestimated processes in both RCMs. Along stake transects, we show that both models accumulate too much snow on crests, and not enough snow in valleys, as a result of drifting snow transport fluxes not included in MAR and probably underestimated in RACMO2 by a factor of 3. Our results tend to confirm that drifting snow transport and sublimation fluxes are much larger than previous model-based estimates and need to be better resolved and constrained in climate models. Sublimation of precipitating particles in low-level atmospheric layers is responsible for the significantly lower snowfall rates in MAR than in RACMO2 in katabatic channels at the ice sheet margins. Atmospheric sublimation in MAR represents 363 Gt yr−1 over the grounded ice sheet for the year 2015, which is 16 % of the simulated snowfall loaded at the ground. This estimate is consistent with a recent study based on precipitation radar observations and is more than twice as much as simulated in RACMO2 because of different time residence of precipitating particles in the atmosphere. The remaining spatial differences in snowfall between MAR and RACMO2 are attributed to differences in advection of precipitation with snowfall particles being likely advected too far inland in MAR.