Ayako Abe-Ouchi

Ayako Abe-Ouchi

Top Cited Scholar 2026
Auto-generated profile, based on publicly available information

Ayako Abe-Ouchi

University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan [JP

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

33Years (1994-Present)

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

Representative Publications

View All Publications
4 June 2007 in Climate of the Past
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PBP. Braconnot
P. Braconnot
BOB. Otto-Bliesner
B. Otto-Bliesner
SHSandy Harrison
Sandy Harrison
SJS. Joussaume
S. Joussaume
JPJ.-Y. Peterchmitt
J.-Y. Peterchmitt
YZY. Zhao
Y. Zhao
A set of coupled ocean-atmosphere simulations using state of the art climate models is now available for the Last Glacial Maximum and the Mid-Holocene through the second phase of the Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project (PMIP2). This study presents the large-scale features of the simulated climates and compares the new model results to those of the atmospheric models from the first phase of the PMIP, for which sea surface temperature was prescribed or computed using simple slab ocean formulations. We consider the large-scale features of the climate change, pointing out some of the major differences between the different sets of experiments. We show in particular that systematic differences between PMIP1 and PMIP2 simulations are due to the interactive ocean, such as the amplification of the African monsoon at the Mid-Holocene or the change in precipitation in mid-latitudes at the LGM. Also the PMIP2 simulations are in general in better agreement with data than PMIP1 simulations.

25 March 2012 in Nature Climate Change
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PBPascale Braconnot
Pascale Braconnot
SHSandy Harrison
Sandy Harrison
MKMasa Kageyama
Masa Kageyama
PBPatrick J. Bartlein
Patrick J. Bartlein
VMValerie Masson-Delmotte
Valerie Masson-Delmotte
YZYan Zhao
Yan Zhao

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.

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

7 August 2013 in Nature
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AAAyako Abe-Ouchi
Ayako Abe-Ouchi
FSFuyuki Saito
Fuyuki Saito
KKKenji Kawamura
Kenji Kawamura
MRMaureen E. Raymo
Maureen E. Raymo
JOJun’iChi Okuno
Jun’iChi Okuno
HBHeinz Blatter
Heinz Blatter

20 November 2015 in Reviews of Geophysics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ABA Berger
A Berger
MCM Crucifix
M Crucifix
DHDavid Arnold Hodell
David Arnold Hodell
CMC Mangili
C Mangili
JMJF McManus
JF McManus
RVRiveiros N Vazquez
Riveiros N Vazquez
Interglacials, including the present (Holocene) period, are warm, low land ice extent (high sea level), end‐members of glacial cycles. Based on a sea level definition, we identify eleven interglacials in the last 800,000 years, a result that is robust to alternative definitions. Data compilations suggest that despite spatial heterogeneity, Marine Isotope Stages (MIS) 5e (last interglacial) and 11c (~400 ka ago) were globally strong (warm), while MIS 13a (~500 ka ago) was cool at many locations. A step change in strength of interglacials at 450 ka is apparent only in atmospheric CO2 and in Antarctic and deep ocean temperature. The onset of an interglacial (glacial termination) seems to require a reducing precession parameter (increasing Northern Hemisphere summer insolation), but this condition alone is insufficient. Terminations involve rapid, nonlinear, reactions of ice volume, CO2, and temperature to external astronomical forcing. The precise timing of events may be modulated by millennial‐scale climate change that can lead to a contrasting timing of maximum interglacial intensity in each hemisphere. A variety of temporal trends is observed, such that maxima in the main records are observed either early or late in different interglacials. The end of an interglacial (glacial inception) is a slower process involving a global sequence of changes. Interglacials have been typically 10–30 ka long. The combination of minimal reduction in northern summer insolation over the next few orbital cycles, owing to low eccentricity, and high atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations implies that the next glacial inception is many tens of millennia in the future.