Uncertainty be damned, let's make ice and sea level projections anyway

‘A better path’ toward projecting, planning for rising seas on a warmer Earth

From Princeton University, by Morgan Kelly, Office of Communications

More useful projections of sea level are possible despite substantial uncertainty about the future behavior of massive ice sheets, according to Princeton University researchers.

In two recent papers in the journals Nature Climate Change and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the researchers present a probabilistic assessment of the Antarctic contribution to 21st-century sea-level change. Their methodology folds observed changes and models of different complexity into unified projections that can be updated with new information. This approach provides a consistent means to integrate the potential contribution of both continental ice sheets — Greenland and Antarctica — into sea-level rise projections.

“No single ice sheet model or methodology for projections provides sufficient information for good policy and planning decisions,” explained lead author Christopher Little, a postdoctoral research associate in the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy in Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

“Furthermore, there are fundamental limitations in the observational data available on and near ice sheets,” Little said. “Projections of their response to 21st century climate changes are thus very poorly constrained. There’s unlikely to be a single answer in the near future: a better objective is a comprehensive, transparent baseline that can be improved over time.”

The Princeton approach provides a more informative projection of future sea levels that politicians and coastal planners can use to prepare for higher seas, said Little, who works in the group of co-author Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton’s Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs. Little and Oppenheimer worked on both papers with Nathan Urban, a former postdoctoral researcher with Oppenheimer now at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Oppenheimer

In two recent papers, Princeton University researchers present a probabilistic assessment of the Antarctic contribution to 21st-century sea-level change. Their methodology provides a consistent means to integrate the potential contribution of continental ice sheets such as Greenland and Antarctica into sea-level rise projections. In existing projections, the contribution of Antarctica to future sea-level rise is almost entirely derived from locations where present-day mass loss is concentrated (area 15, above). This is despite evidence that future discharge in other drainage basins — which comprise more than 96 percent of the ice sheet’s area — remains uncertain. (Image courtesy of Christopher Little)

Little explains the findings of both papers as follows:

“Gauging the future rate of sea-level rise is critical for climate-change policy and coastal-planning efforts. One crucial component is the melting of polar ice sheets.

“During the past 20 years, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost an increasing amount of ice and now contribute roughly one-third of the rate of global mean sea-level rise. However, the standard tools used to project these ice sheets’ contribution to future sea levels are limited by inadequate process understanding and sparse data. Ice sheets interact with the ocean on small spatial scales, and their motion is strongly governed by poorly understood properties of the ice as well as the sediment hidden several miles beneath it. Sea-level rise projections should reflect these uncertainties.

“Recently, several groups have used alternative techniques to forecast maximum possible sea levels — known as upper bounds — that do not explicitly model ice dynamics. Upper bound estimates by the year 2100 projected using these techniques are up to 6 feet (three times higher than future sea level estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)). However, the physical basis underlying these projections and their likelihood of occurrence remain unclear.

“In our group, we think we can more consistently assess disparate sources of information. In two recent papers, we introduce a novel framework for projecting the mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet that allows for the conversion of current and future uncertainties of ice-sheet dynamics into probability distributions that may be supplemented by expert judgments. The power of this framework arises from its ability to improve and compare projections in a transparent manner.

“Like watersheds on land, ice sheets discharge precipitation that falls over a wide drainage basin through relatively narrow outlets. Although ice flow is linked across basins, each basin may remain relatively independent over time periods less than a century. The framework described in these two papers projects mass balance separately for each drainage basin, while allowing for correlated trends driven by underlying physical processes occurring at larger spatial scales.

The first paper, published in PNAS, introduces this ‘basin-by-basin’ framework and reveals that, even with limited information, a comprehensive probabilistic approach can provide insight that is missing from previous projections. We performed sensitivity analyses by changing the set of assumptions applied to each basin. For each set of assumptions, Monte Carlo simulations [computer algorithms based on random sampling] were used to generate 30,000 to 50,000 scenarios of mass changes originating from each basin and the continent as a whole.

“In previous scenario-based projections, the contribution of Antarctica to future sea-level rise is almost entirely derived from locations where present-day mass loss is concentrated. This is despite evidence that future discharge in other drainage basins — which comprise more than 96 percent of the ice sheet’s area — remains uncertain.

“By incorporating the entire ice sheet, the PNAS study demonstrated that uncertainty in ice discharge outside regions where scientists ‘expect’ ice loss might result in additional sea-level rise that must be considered in projections. In addition, we quantitatively show that the likelihood of upper bounds must be taken into account when assessing their magnitude and appropriate uncertainty reduction efforts.

The second paper, published in Nature Climate Change, extended the framework to include Bayesian updating, which allows prior assumptions to be updated as new data are collected. We combined model-based basin-level projections with data-based extrapolations and previously reported continental-scale observations to forecast the Antarctic contribution to sea-level change.

“The paper projected a 95th percentile ice-mass loss equal to a 13-centimeter (5.1-inch) increase in sea level by 2100; other estimates provide upper bounds reaching up to 60 centimeters (roughly 23.5 inches), but with no quantification of probability. This paper suggests that most earlier projections either overestimated Antarctica’s possible contribution to sea-level rise; implied physical changes inconsistent with underlying methodological assumptions; or, assume an extremely low risk tolerance.

“Future work on this framework includes further addressing inconsistencies in different methodologies, which will continue to refine the range of upper-bound sea-level projections. Our group also intends to include the solid earth and gravitational response that modulates sea-level changes at the local level, allowing the generation of a global map of the local probability distribution of sea-level rise.”

The paper, “Probabilistic framework for assessing the ice sheet contribution to sea level change,” was published February 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The article, “Upper bounds on twenty-first-century Antarctic ice loss assessed using a probabilistic framework,” was published online March 17 in Nature Climate Change. Both papers were funded by the Princeton Environmental Institute‘s Carbon Mitigation Initiative, and Princeton University’s Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

87 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chris @njsnowfan
April 5, 2013 3:12 am

My prediction for this Arctic summer melt season is season. I predict tha Arctic Ice will melt again but not as severe as last year and should bottom just above 2007 low. Lets see how good I do.
I do have two concerns, the BC (black carbon) deposits on the sea ice and snow from the past 6 months+ and the arctic storms were strong with lost of cracking of the sea ice since Feb.
Air travel has been up big the past 6 months and mankind in the N hem was burning lots of dirty fuels to stay warm so BC emmisions were heavy.

knr
April 5, 2013 3:13 am

‘More useful ‘ to whom ?
‘novel framework’ is that another way of saying ‘we guess ‘
‘The Princeton approach provides a more informative projection of future sea levels that politicians’
By ‘Lucky chance ‘ would this produced results which are ‘useful’ to those with particular agenda to push and would this work by further ‘lucky chance ‘ call for more research in the area ?
‘changing the set of assumptions applied to each basin’
Of course how they select the ‘assumptions’ and why is the key but has above you can’t help but fell that ‘lucky chance ‘ will mean the assumption process gives them the results they wanted to get at the start.

Yorkshireman
April 5, 2013 3:32 am

C. Little. How appropriate.

Jimbo
April 5, 2013 3:45 am

Their methodology folds observed changes and models of different complexity into unified projections that can be updated with new information…..

Why not just base it on “observed changes”? Is it because no evidence can be found for an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise? Some papers find deceleration!!!
2011
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/full/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1

David Schofield
April 5, 2013 3:53 am

Second paper:
‘Probabilistic framework……’ Says ‘no quantification of probability’. WUWT?

andrewmharding
Editor
April 5, 2013 4:00 am

Looking on the bright side, at least they have given up telling us that sea levels will rise if the Arctic ice melts!

Jimbo
April 5, 2013 4:01 am

A picture speaks a thousand words. From MasterResource.
http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/sea_level_rise_fig1.jpg
http://www.masterresource.org/2011/09/rapid-sea-level-rise-nature-no/
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

Melt may explain Antarctica’s sea ice expansion
Climate scientists have been intrigued by observations that Antarctic sea ice shows a small but statistically significant expansion of about 1.9% per decade since 1985,….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21991487

They need to let go of Antarctica for the time being. It’s just a stubborn climate change denier.

Owen in GA
April 5, 2013 4:03 am

Was this actually released on 1 April? More consistent WRONG projections aren’t any better than inconsistent WRONG projections. Until they really delve into the actual physics occurring on the ground and get out of their “models as reality” paradigm it won’t get better!

April 5, 2013 4:12 am

After reading the above, I was forced to spend a half hour checking the ‘WUWT’ Sea Ice Page in order to get back on a solid factual basis. You would have thought that Princeton Environmental Institute‘s Carbon Mitigation Initiative could have been funding something useful instead of funding this sort of stuff.

Eliza
April 5, 2013 4:13 am
Ian W
April 5, 2013 4:16 am

During the past 20 years, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost an increasing amount of ice and now contribute roughly one-third of the rate of global mean sea-level rise.”
Have they actually checked the ‘amount of ice’ in Antarctica recently? It has been at record levels for a considerable time. Greenland the ice melt that everyone was panicking about turns out to be less and cyclical.
So how can the lack of ice melt from these areas contribute “one third of the rate of global sea level rise“?

Kaboom
April 5, 2013 4:18 am

New: bullshit now in two new, exciting flavors.

Richard M
April 5, 2013 4:19 am

Let me see how this works. We have biased researchers using biased models and biased measurements of other biased researchers. Yeah, what could go wrong.
Has anyone in climate science every heard of double blind studies and why they were created?

Hoser
April 5, 2013 4:32 am

They already “know” what is happening in Antarctica. Now they just have to build models to make their position plausible, and produce wonderful graphs and maps to help the gullible understand and support them. How frustrating they have to constantly beg for funding. %P

Jonathan Abbott
April 5, 2013 4:40 am

“…for good policy and planning decisions,”
So, right off the bat they are explicitly stating that the whole purpose of their research is for political purposes.

April 5, 2013 4:46 am

Given that Hockey Stick Mark III just crashed and burned, I suppose this was predictable …

Felflames
April 5, 2013 4:59 am

I just had a flashback to one of my old teachers ‘ comment on assumptions.
“If you assumed elephants had wings, could you make money selling steel umbrellas?”

Village Idiot
April 5, 2013 4:59 am

Uncertainty be damned, let’s make ice and sea level projections anyway.
“By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.”
Now that’s what I call a projection made on solid science 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/02/global-cooling-methods-and-testable-decadal-predictions/

Steve Keohane
April 5, 2013 4:59 am

“The paper projected a 95th percentile ice-mass loss equal to a 13-centimeter (5.1-inch) increase in sea level by 2100; other estimates provide upper bounds reaching up to 60 centimeters (roughly 23.5 inches)
Let’s see, 1.5mm/decade to 69mm/decade when we have been ~3mm/decade for decades. So we can look forward to a 50% to 2300% increase in the rate of sea level rise. The main thrust, 95% CL, is sea level increase will be half of what it was for the last century. WTF

Chuck L
April 5, 2013 5:02 am

These papers and the people who write them are like cockroaches. As soon as a paper is squashed and debunked, there is a lot of scurrying around in the dark by “researchers” and a new one appears.

lurker passing through, laughing
April 5, 2013 5:07 am

These clowns could save money by simply using the script from “The Day After Tomorrow” and borrow some visuals as well.

The end game of AGW hype is endlessly entertaining.

April 5, 2013 5:11 am

The key point, as others here have touched upon, is not that the projections be accurate, but that they be “useful.” Useful in supporting the alarmist agenda, that is.

wws
April 5, 2013 5:19 am

“Has anyone in climate science every heard of double blind studies and why they were created?”
Of course they have! And since the desired result is always FAR more important than the method used to reach it, they sure aren’t going to let themselves get caught by that trap!!!
As far as their “predictions”, I got a dartboard that’ll match or beat their results any day of the week.

David
April 5, 2013 5:28 am

In yhe meantime, Al Gore still has his ocean-side mansion…

David
April 5, 2013 5:29 am

Sorry, folks – must learn to hut my compyter keys nore accurateky…

1 2 3 4
Verified by MonsterInsights