Probabilistic inversion of expert assessments to inform projections about Antarctic ice sheet responses

PLoS One. 2017 Dec 29;12(12):e0190115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190115. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

The response of the Antarctic ice sheet (AIS) to changing global temperatures is a key component of sea-level projections. Current projections of the AIS contribution to sea-level changes are deeply uncertain. This deep uncertainty stems, in part, from (i) the inability of current models to fully resolve key processes and scales, (ii) the relatively sparse available data, and (iii) divergent expert assessments. One promising approach to characterizing the deep uncertainty stemming from divergent expert assessments is to combine expert assessments, observations, and simple models by coupling probabilistic inversion and Bayesian inversion. Here, we present a proof-of-concept study that uses probabilistic inversion to fuse a simple AIS model and diverse expert assessments. We demonstrate the ability of probabilistic inversion to infer joint prior probability distributions of model parameters that are consistent with expert assessments. We then confront these inferred expert priors with instrumental and paleoclimatic observational data in a Bayesian inversion. These additional constraints yield tighter hindcasts and projections. We use this approach to quantify how the deep uncertainty surrounding expert assessments affects the joint probability distributions of model parameters and future projections.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Antarctic Regions
  • Global Warming
  • Ice Cover*
  • Models, Theoretical
  • Probability*
  • Uncertainty

Grants and funding

This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation through the Network for Sustainable Climate Risk Management (SCRiM) under NSF cooperative agreement GEO-1240507 and the Penn State Center for Climate Risk Management. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or other funding entities. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.