Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for The Cryosphere (TC).
ISEFlow: A Flow-Based Neural Network Emulator for Improved Sea Level Projections and Uncertainty Quantification
Peter Van Katwyk,Baylor Fox-Kemper,Sophie Nowicki,Hélène Seroussi,and Karianne J. Bergen
Editorial note: this preprint is an update of https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-870. The original version had been posted on EGUsphere for submission to the journal Geoscientific Model Development. After interactive public discussion the preprint was archived since the authors decided to stop the peer review and substantially revise their manuscript for submission to the journal The Cryosphere.
Abstract. Ice sheets are the primary contributors to global sea level rise, yet projecting their future contributions remains challenging due to the complex, nonlinear processes governing their dynamics and uncertainties in future climate scenarios. This study introduces ISEFlow, a neural network-based emulator of the ISMIP6 ice sheet model ensemble designed to accurately and efficiently predict sea level contributions from both ice sheets while quantifying the sources of projection uncertainty. By integrating a normalizing flow architecture to capture data coverage uncertainty and a deep ensemble of LSTM models to assess emulator uncertainty, ISEFlow separates uncertainties arising from training data from those inherent to the emulator. Compared to existing emulators such as Emulandice and LARMIP, ISEFlow achieves substantially lower mean squared error and improved distribution approximation while maintaining faster inference times. This study investigates the drivers of increased accuracy and emission scenario distinction and finds that the inclusion of all available climate forcings, ice sheet model characteristics, and higher spatial resolution significantly enhances predictive accuracy and the ability to capture the effects of varying emissions scenarios compared to other emulators. We include a detailed analysis of importance of input variables using Shapley Additive Explanations, and highlight both the climate forcings and model characteristics that have the largest impact on sea level projections. ISEFlow offers a computationally efficient tool for generating accurate sea level projections, supporting climate risk assessments and informing policy decisions.
Received: 03 Oct 2025 – Discussion started: 01 Dec 2025
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Peter Van Katwyk,Baylor Fox-Kemper,Sophie Nowicki,Hélène Seroussi,and Karianne J. Bergen
Editorial note: this preprint is an update of https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-870. The original version had been posted on EGUsphere for submission to the journal Geoscientific Model Development. After interactive public discussion the preprint was archived since the authors decided to stop the peer review and substantially revise their manuscript for submission to the journal The Cryosphere.
Status: open (until 03 Feb 2026)
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
This paper introduces ISEFlow, a machine-learning based emulator for determining the sea-level rise components from mass lost from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.
This problem is a rich field for emulator development, since ice sheet dynamics are difficult to model. It is an important problem given the contributions to sea level rise that the GrIS and AIS are likely to make in the 21st century and beyond.
In my opinion this is a useful model that will add to the rapidly growing toolbox for modelling sea level rise and its components. From what I can tell, ISEFlow can emulate ISMIP models well, which I believe were from a small number of SSP/RCP projections. What would be very useful indeed would be the ability to produce projections for emissions scenarios not run in CMIP/ISMIP models. Is this possible at the moment in ISEFlow?
The remaining comments are mostly minor.
Figure 4: I think the SLR anomaly axis has the wrong sign, by tracing the origin of this figure back to IPCC (we have mass loss, so SLR anomaly should increase). I also think it would be nice to be consistent with the majority of literature and switch the colours of RCP2.6 and RCP8.5.
In all cases where comparative metrics are used such as MSE, MAE, KLD, JSD, etc. do they have units? I would be surprised if MSE and MEA didn’t.
Line 5: LSTM – introduce acronym
Line 25: “climate projections”: if I was being pedantic, the references in this sentence are pertaining to projections of sea level rise from ice sheet loss rather than the whole climate. Many examples of climate projection models are given in Romero-Prieto et al., accepted (https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-2691/). Or you could say ice sheet/cryosphere emulations to be specific.
Line 66: “accurately … projects future sea level”: again pedantic, it’s probably not correct to suggest that this model accurately projects the future sea level since we don’t have this observation; would it be better to say it accurately emulates the sea level rise components from ISMIP models?
Line 88: Coupled (not Climate) Model Intercomparison Project
Line 89: “yearly-averaged atmospheric and oceanic forcing anomalies”: it would be nice to have a list of these forcings, if it isn’t too long
Line 97: signpost to figures A1 and A2 on the ISMIP6 regions somewhere in this paragraph.
Line 115: 635 projections in the training set, 136 projections in the validation set. How were these numbers decided? And what makes up the total of 771 projections? Presumably this is some number of ice sheet models taking forcing data from a number of CMIP models under some number of scenarios?
Line 141: “another model”: “other models”?
Line 200: 256 GB RAM, I assume
Lines 189-190: This is a very opaque sentence for somebody not versed in machine learning.
Line 284, related to my first question: This paragraph reports that including variables beyond temperature improves emulations, which isn’t surprising. (Can you confirm whether this is global mean temperature or local temperature)? However, the mainstream climate emulators would generally give you only global mean surface temperature from emissions scenarios, which would allow a user to produce climate projections from any emissions scenario and not just the ones run by CMIP/ISMIP models. Therefore, can SLR projections from the GrIS and AIS components be produced from ISEFlow which are “good enough”, even if not ideal? Figure 5, if I interpret it correctly, seems to suggest so. This would really help to find a valuable use case for this model by piggybacking off GMST projections by emulators.
Line 301: D statistic of 0.158. Is this good? I have no feeling of what a good value is. Are there units here?
Caption to figure 5: you can drop the word “carbon” to be more general and accurate.
Peter Van Katwyk,Baylor Fox-Kemper,Sophie Nowicki,Hélène Seroussi,and Karianne J. Bergen
Editorial note: this preprint is an update of https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-870. The original version had been posted on EGUsphere for submission to the journal Geoscientific Model Development. After interactive public discussion the preprint was archived since the authors decided to stop the peer review and substantially revise their manuscript for submission to the journal The Cryosphere.
Peter Van Katwyk,Baylor Fox-Kemper,Sophie Nowicki,Hélène Seroussi,and Karianne J. Bergen
Editorial note: this preprint is an update of https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-870. The original version had been posted on EGUsphere for submission to the journal Geoscientific Model Development. After interactive public discussion the preprint was archived since the authors decided to stop the peer review and substantially revise their manuscript for submission to the journal The Cryosphere.
Viewed
Total article views: 220 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML
PDF
XML
Total
BibTeX
EndNote
149
55
16
220
20
26
HTML: 149
PDF: 55
XML: 16
Total: 220
BibTeX: 20
EndNote: 26
Views and downloads (calculated since 01 Dec 2025)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 01 Dec 2025)
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Total article views: 201 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 201 with geography defined
and 0 with unknown origin.
We developed ISEFlow, a new climate emulator model that predicts how melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica will contribute to future sea levels. Unlike past tools, it uses advanced machine learning to capture complex ice processes, distinguish between different greenhouse gas scenarios, and provide clearer estimates of uncertainty. This makes sea level projections more accurate and reliable, helping scientists and policymakers better plan for climate risks.
We developed ISEFlow, a new climate emulator model that predicts how melting ice sheets in...
This paper introduces ISEFlow, a machine-learning based emulator for determining the sea-level rise components from mass lost from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.
This problem is a rich field for emulator development, since ice sheet dynamics are difficult to model. It is an important problem given the contributions to sea level rise that the GrIS and AIS are likely to make in the 21st century and beyond.
In my opinion this is a useful model that will add to the rapidly growing toolbox for modelling sea level rise and its components. From what I can tell, ISEFlow can emulate ISMIP models well, which I believe were from a small number of SSP/RCP projections. What would be very useful indeed would be the ability to produce projections for emissions scenarios not run in CMIP/ISMIP models. Is this possible at the moment in ISEFlow?
The remaining comments are mostly minor.
Figure 4: I think the SLR anomaly axis has the wrong sign, by tracing the origin of this figure back to IPCC (we have mass loss, so SLR anomaly should increase). I also think it would be nice to be consistent with the majority of literature and switch the colours of RCP2.6 and RCP8.5.
In all cases where comparative metrics are used such as MSE, MAE, KLD, JSD, etc. do they have units? I would be surprised if MSE and MEA didn’t.
Line 5: LSTM – introduce acronym
Line 25: “climate projections”: if I was being pedantic, the references in this sentence are pertaining to projections of sea level rise from ice sheet loss rather than the whole climate. Many examples of climate projection models are given in Romero-Prieto et al., accepted (https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-2691/). Or you could say ice sheet/cryosphere emulations to be specific.
Line 66: “accurately … projects future sea level”: again pedantic, it’s probably not correct to suggest that this model accurately projects the future sea level since we don’t have this observation; would it be better to say it accurately emulates the sea level rise components from ISMIP models?
Line 88: Coupled (not Climate) Model Intercomparison Project
Line 89: “yearly-averaged atmospheric and oceanic forcing anomalies”: it would be nice to have a list of these forcings, if it isn’t too long
Line 97: signpost to figures A1 and A2 on the ISMIP6 regions somewhere in this paragraph.
Line 115: 635 projections in the training set, 136 projections in the validation set. How were these numbers decided? And what makes up the total of 771 projections? Presumably this is some number of ice sheet models taking forcing data from a number of CMIP models under some number of scenarios?
Line 141: “another model”: “other models”?
Line 200: 256 GB RAM, I assume
Lines 189-190: This is a very opaque sentence for somebody not versed in machine learning.
Line 284, related to my first question: This paragraph reports that including variables beyond temperature improves emulations, which isn’t surprising. (Can you confirm whether this is global mean temperature or local temperature)? However, the mainstream climate emulators would generally give you only global mean surface temperature from emissions scenarios, which would allow a user to produce climate projections from any emissions scenario and not just the ones run by CMIP/ISMIP models. Therefore, can SLR projections from the GrIS and AIS components be produced from ISEFlow which are “good enough”, even if not ideal? Figure 5, if I interpret it correctly, seems to suggest so. This would really help to find a valuable use case for this model by piggybacking off GMST projections by emulators.
Line 301: D statistic of 0.158. Is this good? I have no feeling of what a good value is. Are there units here?
Caption to figure 5: you can drop the word “carbon” to be more general and accurate.