the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
ISEFlow v1.0: A Flow-Based Neural Network Emulator for Improved Sea Level Projections and Uncertainty Quantification
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 (v1.0), 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.
- Preprint
(3874 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-870', Anders Levermann, 26 Mar 2025
reply
Dear authors,
This is a very interesting approach. There is another emulator for both Greenland and Antarctica that might be worthwhile comparing the results too, because it is a very transparent extrapolation of the observed sea level contribution into the future:
Future sea-level rise constrained by observations and long-term commitment
M. Mengel•, A. Levermann, K. Frieler, A. Robinson, B. Marzeion, R. Winkelmann
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 113 (2016), 2597-2602, doi:10.1073/pnas.1500515113.This is not necessary for the paper, but perhaps interesting.
Cheers
Anders
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-870-CC1 -
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-870', Juan Antonio Añel, 08 Apr 2025
reply
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.htmlYou have archived the data that you use to produce your manuscript in a website that does not comply with our requirements as suitable repository. Therefore, you must store the data necessary to replicate your work (input data for training the model and outputs) in one of the acceptable repositories according to our policy, and reply to this comment with its link and permanent identifier (e.g. DOI). Please, do it as soon as possible, as we can not accept manuscripts in Discussions that do not comply with our policy.
Also, in any potentially reviewed version of your manuscript, you must include the mentioned information in the "Code and Data Availability" section.
I would like to note that the "Code and Data Availability" section is not designed to host information to publicize the last version of a model, webage, etc. but to assure the replicability of the published work. Therefore, I would ask you to remove all the information that you have in such section that does not correspond to the exact permanent repositories of your manuscript. This includes links to Ghub, mentions to GitHub sites, etc.
Finally, I have to note that if you do not fix these problems, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-870-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Peter Van Katwyk, 10 Apr 2025
reply
Dr. Añel,
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. All of the data and code can be found within the Zenodo repository mentioned at the end of the existing statement, with additional details about ISMIP6 and the current ISEFlow versions being included for completeness. However, to better comply with GMD requirements, we have updated the Zenodo archive to clearly show the data and code, and altered the Code and Data Availability section to be as follows:
"Code and data availability. The processed datasets and code needed to reproduce the ISMIP6 data processing, model training, evaluation, and results for both ISEFlow-AIS and ISEFlow-GRIS are archived in a Zenodo repository found at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15190429 (Van Katwyk et al., 2025). The original ISMIP6 datasets, from which ISEFlow training data was processed, can be found at the following: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11176 (Forcings), https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11176023 (GrIS outputs), and https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11176028 (AIS outputs). "
This change will be reflected in future versions of the manuscript. Thank you for your feedback.
Peter Van Katwyk
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-870-AC1 -
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 14 Apr 2025
reply
Dear authors,
Many thanks for your reply. However, I would like to clarify an issue here. You state that you use ISMIP6 as input data for your work. However, it is not clear to me that you have provided such data here. After a quick check of your code, I have seen that you provide "EmulatorData" and "DeepEnsemble" data. Also, at least some of these input datasets seem to be in a binary format (it is not the case of the results, which seem to be in .csv). Therefore, please, clarify if your Zenodo repository contains the data necessary to replicate your work, namely the exact ISMIP6 data used. If it is not in the repository, we need that you add it.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-870-CEC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Peter Van Katwyk, 14 Apr 2025
reply
Dr. Añel,
Yes, the data provided in the repository, specifically in the "iseflow-manscript/data/AIS" and "iseflow-manuscript/data/GrIS" directories, contains the complete dataset for replicating every part of this work. The data includes the training, validation, and testing data for each ice sheet emulator. Within each of these CSV files (train.csv, val.csv, test.csv), you will find the exact ISMIP6 forcings and model characteristics used as inputs, as well as the "SLE" column, which contains the outputs. The EmulatorDataset and DeepEnsemble in the code are just Python classes for handling specific processing steps of those train, val, and test datasets in the repository, and do not tie to other data that is not included. Hopefully this helps.
Peter
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-870-AC2 -
CEC3: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 14 Apr 2025
reply
Dear authors,
Many thanks for the explanation, and your work to comply with the replicability of your manuscript. We can consider the current version of your manuscript in compliance with the Code and Data policy of the journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-870-CEC3
-
CEC3: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 14 Apr 2025
reply
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Peter Van Katwyk, 14 Apr 2025
reply
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 14 Apr 2025
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Peter Van Katwyk, 10 Apr 2025
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-870', Tamsin Edwards, 10 Jul 2025
reply
Dear Peter and team,
I’m sorry for the long delay in posting this comment, which was due to a number of reasons.
This ambitious study aims to compare the emulator projections of ice sheet contributions to sea level by 2100 of emulandice (Edwards et al., 2021) and LARMIP (Levermann et al., 2020) with an alternative machine learning approach: Normalising Flow, combined with an ensemble of Long Short-Term Memory neural network models.
It is very welcome to have fresh eyes on this scientific challenge: in particular, a new approach that pays attention to emulator uncertainties, which I view as absolutely essential. Other strengths of the study include: emulating the ice sheets at the basin level, not the ice sheet level; explicitly including many ISM input choices in the emulators, rather than just the ISMIP6-wide parameters, and investigating the advantages of using local/other climate forcings than GSAT; and using ML for gaining scientific insight. The manuscript is generally well-written, and the code and input data are made available.
However, I noticed that two of the cited papers do not exist, and have the hallmarks of being confabulated by generative AI (i.e. a merging of plausible authors, title words, journal and doi): Toms et al. and McGovern et al. (L202-3). Based on this, I must unfortunately recommend the paper is withdrawn.
I hope the authors will revise and resubmit the study. I had already made partial notes for a review, and share these here in case they are useful.
The study uses a standalone GP, rather than (as I think is generally implied) the emulandice code itself, and does not appear to be implemented in the same way. For example:
- Emulandice used linear trends with GPs for the residuals, and the exponent of the covariance functions for the ice sheets was 0.1 (meaning the effect of the covariance was very small - fell to zero at small distance). This study uses an exponent of 2.0 (L191), and I think also zero mean trends. These are both very smooth functions, so might well give similar results, but are not the same.
- The emulandice GP for Greenland also included a categorical variable for whether a model used the ISMIP6 retreat parameterisation or not, which is not mentioned here.
- The emulandice nugget is estimated without bounds, but (looking at the code) the nugget here is bounded, with an initial (or possibly fixed?) variance of 5.0.
- I believe different datasets were used for training. ISEFlow does not use the CSV files included with emulandice, and the study doesn’t document whether identical pre-processing steps (e.g. imputation, selection) were applied. More importantly, it looks like the same models were not used: emulandice was trained with additional simulations not in the official ISMIP6 datasets, including an additional model for Antarctica (BISICLES) and simulations that explored extreme or interacting parameter values to improve the emulator. I can’t see these in the train.csv files.
- I believe the priors for projections are not the same either – instead they use the ensemble values. This is fine for validation, but not for “the projections with emulandice” (Fig. 4), which implies it is the same method used in Edwards et al. (2021) and AR6.
- Some details appear to be wrongly described (two of the three ice sheet parameters are continuous, not categorical: L284; I assume L194 on basins should say “outputs” not “input forcings”?)
The analysis should therefore either be corrected to reproduce or use emulandice, or else described as a Gaussian Process emulator with broad similarities to emulandice. Either way, I would want to see some kind of like-for-like comparison of their results, to demonstrate the degree of reproduceability and support the study’s conclusions. These comments apply to reproducing LARMIP too, of course.
I think the trade-offs in the choice of inputs should also be discussed: it’s unsurprising that using local annual temperature or SMB would be better at capturing these relationships than simple GSAT change from 2015-2100, but this would not be suitable for using ISEFlow in the sea level calculation framework FACTS used for the IPCC AR6 (the reason, of course, that emulandice uses GSAT). The FACTS requirement to drive projections with GSAT contributes to the lack of scenario dependence in emulandice’s AIS projections, because the climate and ice sheet responses vary so widely across models with respect to GSAT. Using local climate variables would require the specification of prior distributions on each when making sea level projections that would require substantial judgements (e.g. whether to use distributions sampled directly from CMIP, or adjust these to account for additional uncertainties): definitely a worthwhile approach to investigate, but needs more comment on the pros and cons.
I did not finish reviewing the full paper, but did spot another line to correct: ISMIP6 did generate some projections under SSPs (L412). I’d also avoid using the word “simulate” to refer to the output of an emulator (e.g. L413, 436, 492).
There is a lot of really fantastic work here, and we absolutely need a diversity of approaches for this problem. I would be happy to review a future manuscript, or even to collaborate, if that would be helpful.
Best wishes,
Tamsin
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-870-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,029 | 119 | 25 | 1,173 | 20 | 36 |
- HTML: 1,029
- PDF: 119
- XML: 25
- Total: 1,173
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 36
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1