the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Probabilistic projections of the Amery Ice Shelf catchment, Antarctica, under high ice-shelf basal melt conditions
Abstract. Antarctica's Lambert Glacier drains about one-sixth of the ice from the East Antarctica Ice Sheet and is considered stable due to the strong buttressing provided by the Amery Ice Shelf. While previous projections of the sea-level contribution from this sector of the ice sheet have predicted significant mass loss only with near complete removal of the ice shelf, the ocean warming necessary for this was deemed unlikely. Recent climate projections through 2300 indicate that sufficient ocean warming is a distinct possibility after 2100. This work explores the impact of parametric uncertainty on projections of the Lambert-Amery system's (hereafter "Amery sector") response to abrupt ocean warming through Bayesian calibration of a perturbed-parameter ice-sheet model ensemble. We address the computational cost of uncertainty quantification for ice-sheet model projections via statistical emulation, which employs surrogate models for fast and inexpensive parameter space exploration while retaining critical features of the high-fidelity simulations. To this end, we build Gaussian process (GP) emulators from simulations of the Amery sector at medium resolution (4–20 km mesh) using the MPAS-Albany Land Ice (MALI) model. We consider six input parameters that control basal friction, ice stiffness, calving, and ice-shelf basal melting. From these, we generate 200 perturbed input parameter initializations using space-filling Sobol sampling. For our end-to-end probabilistic modeling workflow, we first train emulators on the simulation ensemble then calibrate the input parameters using observations of the mass balance, grounding line movement, and calving front movement with priors assigned via expert knowledge. Next, we use MALI to project a subset of simulations to 2300 using ocean and atmosphere forcings from a climate model for both low and high greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. From these simulation outputs, we build multivariate emulators by combining GP regression with principal component dimension reduction to emulate multivariate sea-level contribution time series data from the MALI simulations. We then use these emulators to propagate uncertainty from model input parameters to predictions of glacier mass loss to 2300, demonstrating that the calibrated posterior distributions have both greater mass loss and reduced variance than the uncalibrated prior distributions. Parametric uncertainty is large enough through about 2130 that the two projections under different emissions scenarios are indistinguishable from one another. However, after rapid ocean warming in the first half of the twenty-second century, the projections become statistically distinct within decades. Overall, this study demonstrates an efficient Bayesian calibration and uncertainty propagation workflow for ice-sheet model projections and identifies the potential for large sea-level rise contributions from the Amery sector of the Antarctic Ice Sheet after 2100 under high greenhouse gas emission scenarios.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2953 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2953 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1677', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Jul 2024
Review Report on “Probabilistic projections of the Amery Ice Shelf catchment,
Antarctica, under high ice-shelf basal melt conditions”
The manuscript discusses the calibration of the MPAS-Albany Land Ice (MALI) model to reduce parametric uncertainties and generate more constrained future projections. Based on a perturbed physics ensemble with 200 runs, the authors have built a GP emulator and used it for Bayesian calibration following the framework of Kennedy and O’Hagan (2001, hereafter referred to as KOH). To propagate the quantified parametric uncertainty in future projections, another set of emulators is used: a PCA-based emulator for the entire trajectory and scalar emulators for certain future time points. The results show that, under the high emission scenario (SSP5), the Amery sector may significantly contribute to sea level rise after the year 2100.
Overall, the statistical approaches used for emulation and calibration are well-designed, and the scientific results are an important contribution to the literature on the future of Antarctica. Therefore, the manuscript is suitable for publication in The Cryosphere. I have only a few minor comments:
- Two hundred ensemble members seem to be quite small given that the number of parameters being calibrated is six. Some comments on how the number of ensemble members was determined would be useful.
- In Section 3.4, the three observed variables are assumed to be independent when defining the likelihood function. I think some comments or justification is needed on this point.
- The covariance function for the GP emulator is defined as the Matérn with a smoothness of 2.5, for which I commend the authors for avoiding the common mistake of using the squared exponential function. I think it would be even better if they added a brief statement on the implication of this choice, noting that the resulting GP is twice mean square differentiable and hence highly smooth.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1677-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sanket Jantre, 13 Aug 2024
- Two hundred ensemble members seem to be quite small given that the number of parameters being calibrated is six. Some comments on how the number of ensemble members was determined would be useful.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1677', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Jul 2024
This study seeks to evaluate the future contribution to sea-level rise of the Amery Ice Shelf catchment, and in particular this study takes a Bayesian approach and accounts for parametric uncertainty of AmIS response under different climate scenarios. The authors use Gaussian process emulators to calibrate ensembles of uncertain parameters and then use a second set of emulators to propagate this uncertainty to future sea-level rise contribution. Ultimately, they find that AmIS has the potential to contribute to sea-level rise significantly. The methodology is sensible and well-justified, the results are of great interest to the glaciology community, and the manuscript is well-written. I have a handful of comments below:
[1] Ensemble filtering: The authors seem to have removed RELX ensemble members that lie in parts of the parameter space that the emulators may struggle with. I am curious what these parts of the parameter space are, and whether the removal of these regions of the parameter space may affect estimates of posterior uncertainty? This filtering step also seems to have removed a significant portion of the ensemble members (resulting in only 119 members, if I’m understanding the text correctly), which seems to be low. Is this still an appropriate number of members to conduct the calibration?
[2] Effect of parametric uncertainty: the authors study the bulk effect of all parametric uncertainty (listed in Table 1) on projections of glacier behavior. Are the authors able to say anything about the contributions of uncertainty in individual parameters on sea-level rise contribution? Does one parameter contribute more than others? If the existing simulations cannot provide this detail, I don’t believe the authors need to include it, as there is already quite a bit in this manuscript and the focus is on quantifying overall uncertainty and SLR contribution, but if the existing runs can provide this, this would be useful detail to include.
[3] In general, the axes labels on the figures are faint, making it difficult to read. If possible, it would be good to bold the text to make it clearer.
[4] Figure 8: I did not quite understand what subplot c added to this figure – is it showing the same information as subplot b?
[5] Figure 11: the colorbar labels in subplots b and c are very small and hard to read
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1677-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sanket Jantre, 13 Aug 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1677', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Jul 2024
Review Report on “Probabilistic projections of the Amery Ice Shelf catchment,
Antarctica, under high ice-shelf basal melt conditions”
The manuscript discusses the calibration of the MPAS-Albany Land Ice (MALI) model to reduce parametric uncertainties and generate more constrained future projections. Based on a perturbed physics ensemble with 200 runs, the authors have built a GP emulator and used it for Bayesian calibration following the framework of Kennedy and O’Hagan (2001, hereafter referred to as KOH). To propagate the quantified parametric uncertainty in future projections, another set of emulators is used: a PCA-based emulator for the entire trajectory and scalar emulators for certain future time points. The results show that, under the high emission scenario (SSP5), the Amery sector may significantly contribute to sea level rise after the year 2100.
Overall, the statistical approaches used for emulation and calibration are well-designed, and the scientific results are an important contribution to the literature on the future of Antarctica. Therefore, the manuscript is suitable for publication in The Cryosphere. I have only a few minor comments:
- Two hundred ensemble members seem to be quite small given that the number of parameters being calibrated is six. Some comments on how the number of ensemble members was determined would be useful.
- In Section 3.4, the three observed variables are assumed to be independent when defining the likelihood function. I think some comments or justification is needed on this point.
- The covariance function for the GP emulator is defined as the Matérn with a smoothness of 2.5, for which I commend the authors for avoiding the common mistake of using the squared exponential function. I think it would be even better if they added a brief statement on the implication of this choice, noting that the resulting GP is twice mean square differentiable and hence highly smooth.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1677-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sanket Jantre, 13 Aug 2024
- Two hundred ensemble members seem to be quite small given that the number of parameters being calibrated is six. Some comments on how the number of ensemble members was determined would be useful.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1677', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Jul 2024
This study seeks to evaluate the future contribution to sea-level rise of the Amery Ice Shelf catchment, and in particular this study takes a Bayesian approach and accounts for parametric uncertainty of AmIS response under different climate scenarios. The authors use Gaussian process emulators to calibrate ensembles of uncertain parameters and then use a second set of emulators to propagate this uncertainty to future sea-level rise contribution. Ultimately, they find that AmIS has the potential to contribute to sea-level rise significantly. The methodology is sensible and well-justified, the results are of great interest to the glaciology community, and the manuscript is well-written. I have a handful of comments below:
[1] Ensemble filtering: The authors seem to have removed RELX ensemble members that lie in parts of the parameter space that the emulators may struggle with. I am curious what these parts of the parameter space are, and whether the removal of these regions of the parameter space may affect estimates of posterior uncertainty? This filtering step also seems to have removed a significant portion of the ensemble members (resulting in only 119 members, if I’m understanding the text correctly), which seems to be low. Is this still an appropriate number of members to conduct the calibration?
[2] Effect of parametric uncertainty: the authors study the bulk effect of all parametric uncertainty (listed in Table 1) on projections of glacier behavior. Are the authors able to say anything about the contributions of uncertainty in individual parameters on sea-level rise contribution? Does one parameter contribute more than others? If the existing simulations cannot provide this detail, I don’t believe the authors need to include it, as there is already quite a bit in this manuscript and the focus is on quantifying overall uncertainty and SLR contribution, but if the existing runs can provide this, this would be useful detail to include.
[3] In general, the axes labels on the figures are faint, making it difficult to read. If possible, it would be good to bold the text to make it clearer.
[4] Figure 8: I did not quite understand what subplot c added to this figure – is it showing the same information as subplot b?
[5] Figure 11: the colorbar labels in subplots b and c are very small and hard to read
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1677-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sanket Jantre, 13 Aug 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
339 | 178 | 51 | 568 | 18 | 21 |
- HTML: 339
- PDF: 178
- XML: 51
- Total: 568
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Matthew J. Hoffman
Nathan M. Urban
Trevor Hillebrand
Mauro Perego
Stephen Price
John D. Jakeman
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2953 KB) - Metadata XML