4.6 Article

Brief communication: A roadmap towards credible projections of ice sheet contribution to sea level

Journal

CRYOSPHERE
Volume 15, Issue 12, Pages 5705-5715

Publisher

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/tc-15-5705-2021

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Accurately projecting mass loss from ice sheets is crucial, but current models may not accurately represent historical data and show overconfidence in predicted outcomes. Uncertainties in future sea level contributions from Greenland and Antarctica may be higher than reported. Investment in research must match the scale of the challenge to achieve credible projections of ice sheet contribution to sea level.
Accurately projecting mass loss from ice sheets is of critical societal importance. However, despite recent improvements in ice sheet models, our analysis of a recent effort to project ice sheet contribution to future sea level suggests that few models reproduce historical mass loss accurately and that they appear much too confident in the spread of predicted outcomes. The inability of models to reproduce historical observations raises concerns about the models' skill at projecting mass loss. Here we suggest that uncertainties in the future sea level contribution from Greenland and Antarctica may well be significantly higher than reported in that study. We propose a roadmap to enable a more realistic accounting of uncertainties associated with such forecasts and a formal process by which observations of mass change should be used to refine projections of mass change. Finally, we note that tremendous government investment and planning affecting tens to hundreds of millions of people is founded on the work of just a few tens of scientists. To achieve the goal of credible projections of ice sheet contribution to sea level, we strongly believe that investment in research must be commensurate with the scale of the challenge.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available