Abstract:
The response of the Antarctic ice sheet (AIS) to changing climate forcings is an important
driver of sea-level changes. Anthropogenic climate change may drive a sizeable AIS tipping
point response with subsequent increases in coastal flooding risks. Many studies analyzing
flood risks use simple models to project the future responses of AIS and its sea-level contributions.
These analyses have provided important new insights, but they are often silent on
the effects of potentially important processes such as Marine Ice Sheet Instability (MISI) or
Marine Ice Cliff Instability (MICI). These approximations can be well justified and result in
more parsimonious and transparent model structures. This raises the question of how this
approximation impacts hindcasts and projections. Here, we calibrate a previously published
and relatively simple AIS model, which neglects the effects of MICI and regional characteristics,
using a combination of observational constraints and a Bayesian inversion method.
Specifically, we approximate the effects of missing MICI by comparing our results to those
from expert assessments with more realistic models and quantify the bias during the last
interglacial when MICI may have been triggered. Our results suggest that the model can
approximate the process of MISI and reproduce the projected median melt from some previous
expert assessments in the year 2100. Yet, our mean hindcast is roughly 3/4 of the
observed data during the last interglacial period and our mean projection is roughly 1/6 and
1/10 of the mean from a model accounting for MICI in the year 2100. These results suggest
that missing MICI and/or regional characteristics can lead to a low-bias during warming
period AIS melting and hence a potential low-bias in projected sea levels and flood risks.
Description:
Any opinions findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
National Science Foundation or other funding
entities. The funders had no role in study design,
data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or
preparation of the manuscript.,
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.