the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Quantifying the Role of Parametric Uncertainty in Projections of Large-Scale Glacier Change
Abstract. Large-scale glacier evolution models are widely used to generate projections of glacier mass change at regional- to global-scales. In model intercomparison projects, these projections come from multiple different models, allowing for the uncertainties associated with different model structures to be assessed. However, these intercomparisons tend to ignore the uncertainties associated with poorly constrained parameters. Therefore, these projections may miss important contributions to uncertainty, but we lack estimates of the size of these uncertainties. To bridge this gap, we quantify parametric uncertainty in projections of glacier volume change in Iceland under experiments from the glacier model intercomparison exercise, GlacierMIP3. To do so, we perform experiments with a large-scale glacier evolution model, ‘GO-VA’, using an ensemble of calibrated parameter sets, rather than with a single set of model parameters as was the case in GlacierMIP3. Our results show that parametric uncertainty can be a major, and in some cases dominant, source of uncertainty in projections of glacier volume change. We find that failing to account for parametric uncertainty reduces overall projection uncertainty by 7–91 % across scenarios of global mean temperature change, with the largest reductions occurring for scenarios where climate forcing uncertainty is highly constrained. Comparison with the GlacierMIP3 ensemble suggests that parametric uncertainty is comparable to structural model uncertainty and, depending on the strength of the forcing, can even be larger. Taken together, these findings highlight the importance of accounting for parametric uncertainty, alongside structural model uncertainty, in model intercomparison projects to more comprehensively characterise projection uncertainty.
- Preprint
(2627 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Review of James et al.', Jordi Bolibar, 26 Jun 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2069', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Jul 2026
The manuscript entitled “Quantifying the Role of Parametric Uncertainty in Projections of Large-Scale Glacier Change” presents how uncertainty in calibrated model parameters affects projections of glacier volume change in Iceland using the GO-VA glacier model within the GlacierMIP3 framework. The results show that parametric uncertainty is often as large as, or larger than, structural model uncertainty, highlighting the need to include parameter uncertainty in glacier model intercomparison studies to produce more robust future projections.
Overall, this is a useful contribution to the field, clearly demonstrating the relevance of parameter uncertainty in glacier evolution modeling and uncertainty quantification. I have a few comments and suggestions below (not in order of importance).
Section 2.4: The calibration relies solely on mass balance observations. This inherently limits parameter identifiability, as different parameter combinations may reproduce mass balance while still implying different or unconstrained internal glacier states (e.g. thickness evolution or spatial distribution of ice). I appreciate that observational constraints at the scale of full RGI regions are limited in both availability and quality. However, it would still be useful to briefly justify why additional constraints (e.g. glacier geometry changes, ice thickness estimates) were not (or could not be) incorporated, particularly given the strong focus of the paper on parametric uncertainty and equifinality.
Figure 4 is difficult to interpret. Please label axes with parameter names and ranges. More importantly, please clarify (in Sec 3.1.2) the purpose of showing all pairwise parameter combinations. For example, in the 𝑐 - 𝑝 parameter space (2nd row/6th column vs 6th row/2nd column), I would expect some consistent differences between tuning and history matching. If I am interpreting correctly, low values of 𝑐 are NOT ruled out with high values of p for the upper quadrant (tuning), but it is for the regional-mean calibration (Ln 317). This figure needs to be explained further in the text, right now it is difficult to see how and why constraints differ between the two calibration approaches across parameter pairs.
Ln 313-314: It might be more informative to show the intersection (“union space”) of accepted parameter sets in a figure, since the fact that only 16 parameter sets overlap between methods. That said, I find it unclear how the two calibration approaches are conceptually justified as parallel constraints, rather than alternative definitions of calibration.
Figure 5: It would be helpful to use the same axes range as Figure 3 to allow a direct visual comparison, and perhaps also include a comparable figure for the first calibration approach (tuning).
line 329-331: These parameter responses are interesting, but arise from parameter compensation rather than direct physical relationships, so they are not necessarily “counter-intuitive”. It might be clearer to frame these as interactions driven by compensating effects between parameters under calibration constraints.
General comment: It would be helpful to have a clear distinction between the "tuned", “calibrated”, "full", and "NROY" ensembles, explicitly stated somewhere in the Methods section. I had to go back and forth between the methods and the results section to figure this out.
Ln 385: The stronger constraint (“narrowing”) from more recent historical periods is interesting. Can you clarify why calibration is more effective (if that is the correct interpretation) for these periods under these forcings than for earlier historical periods? Can you please also add some further details on the differences between the historical vs future and full vs NROY distributions seen in Fig. 7.
Discussion section:
- I recommend adding a Limitations subsection. For example, a brief note on the limitations of drawing this comparison from a single glacier model (GO-VA) and whether the conclusions about parametric vs structural uncertainty can be generalised.
- Also, Iceland has a specific climate regime and glacier type distribution, which likely influences parameter importance. I suggest adding some discussion on how transferable these Iceland-specific results are to other RGI regions. For example, based on Section 3.4, it would be useful to briefly discuss whether the strong role of precipitation-related parameters under warming scenarios is likely to be specific to Iceland or more generally applicable.
- There is some dependence of results on calibration design choices (e.g. history matching discrepancy term, threshold selection, aggregation scale). Appendix A is useful, it would be helpful to explicitly state how robust the main conclusions are to reasonable alternative calibration choices.
- The statement that parametric uncertainty can rival or exceed structural uncertainty may be sensitive to model structure, calibration design, region, so I recommend framing it more carefully.
My main concern is that equifinality remains only partially resolved. While non-identifiability is clearly demonstrated (which is a strong point of the paper), it is still unclear whether the remaining NROY space is physically meaningful or still over-permissive. To my earlier point, since calibration is based solely on mass balance, parameter compensation may allow correct aggregated behaviour for potentially unrealistic internal states. This limitation should be acknowledged more explicitly.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2069-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 174 | 39 | 14 | 227 | 16 | 15 |
- HTML: 174
- PDF: 39
- XML: 14
- Total: 227
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please find the review in the attached document.