How to interpret expert judgment assessments of 21st century sea-level rise

Vries, Hylke de; Wal, R. S. W. van de

doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1346-x

Cited by 18 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, Ritz et al [8] recently presented an estimate for the Antarctic ice dynamical contribution to SLR in the 21st century using a process-based approach. They too found a non-normal distribution of the uncertainties, though less skewed than the De Vries and Van de Wal [5] distribution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Around the same time, Bamber and Aspinall [4] presented an estimate based on expert judgement, which had a strongly skewed uncertainty distribution rather than the symmetric distribution presented in IPCC. With the same data but a different way to process the expert opinions, De Vries and Van de Wal [5] presented an estimate with a lower high-end estimate than Bamber and Aspinall [4], though still a strongly skewed uncertainty distribution. Although expert elicitations document the level of consensus on a certain topic, they are sensitive to, for instance, the level of expertise of the interviewees and the way experts are selected.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study, we will compare and contrast three different types of uncertainty distributions for the mass loss contribution to SLR due to ice dynamics [1,5,8]. We will specifically look at the effect on sea-level allowances rather than focusing on the sea-level projections.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Impact of Uncertainties in Ice Sheet Dynamics on Sea-Level Allowances at Tide Gauge Locations

Slangen

Wal

Reerink

et al. 2017

JMSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sea level is projected to rise in the coming centuries as a result of a changing climate. One of the major uncertainties is the projected contribution of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica to sea-level rise (SLR). Here, we study the impact of different shapes of uncertainty distributions of the ice sheets on so-called sea-level allowances. An allowance indicates the height a coastal structure needs to be elevated to keep the same frequency and likelihood of sea-level extremes under a projected amount of mean SLR. Allowances are always larger than the projected SLR. Their magnitude depends on several factors, such as projection uncertainty and the typical variability of the extreme events at a location. Our results show that allowances increase significantly for ice sheet dynamics' uncertainty distributions that are more skewed (more than twice, compared to Gaussian uncertainty distributions), due to the increased probability of a much larger ice sheet contribution to SLR. The allowances are largest in regions where a relatively small observed variability in the extremes is paired with relatively large magnitude and/or large uncertainty in the projected SLR, typically around the equator. Under the RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway) projections of SLR, the likelihood of extremes increases more than a factor 10 4 at more than 50-87% of the tide gauges.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Impact of Uncertainties in Ice Sheet Dynamics on Sea-Level Allowances at Tide Gauge Locations

Slangen

Wal

Reerink

et al. 2017

JMSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…

Abstract We clarify key aspects of the evaluation, by de Vries and van de Wal (2015), of our expert elicitation paper on the contributions of ice sheet melting to sea level rise due to future global temperature rise scenarios (Bamber and Aspinall 2013), and extend the conversation with further analysis of their proposed approach for combining expert uncertainty judgments. Aspinall (2013: [BA13]), and welcome this opportunity to clarify the work presented in BA13 and extend the analysis of VW15.

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A commentary on “how to interpret expert judgment assessments of twenty-first century sea-level rise” by Hylke de Vries and Roderik SW van de Wal

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We clarify key aspects of the evaluation, by de Vries and van de Wal (2015), of our expert elicitation paper on the contributions of ice sheet melting to sea level rise due to future global temperature rise scenarios (Bamber and Aspinall 2013), and extend the conversation with further analysis of their proposed approach for combining expert uncertainty judgments. Aspinall (2013: [BA13]), and welcome this opportunity to clarify the work presented in BA13 and extend the analysis of VW15. The problem of finding a science-based quantification of uncertainty for poorly constrained physical models with large societal impacts deserves high priority in the climate community. This entails crossing discipline boundaries and will take that community outside its usual scientific comfort zone. We therefore salute the authors of VW13 for venturing into this alien terrain and welcome the opportunity to address some of the issues they raise. We thank de Vries and van de Wal (2015: [VW15]) for their detailed consideration of Bamber andThe present commentary discusses certain important and unique attributes of BA13's expert weighting scheme that are misinterpreted in VW15, then addresses the Bconsensus distributionô f VW15, their Blevel of consensus^, and the issue of lognormal fitting elicited data.1 Weighting scheme VW15 state: BThe answers of the experts [in BA13] were weighted using a specialised weighting technique, which involved the self-estimated level of expertise and confidence of the respondents^.

show abstract

“…In a critical assessment of BA13's elicitation, De Vries and Van de Wal (2015) propose a third approach. Concerned about weighting of experts and a too large influence of outlier opinions, they suggest to use a median estimate (the red dots), a method previously applied by Horton et al (2014).…”

Section: The Interpretation Of the Ipcc's Likely Rangementioning

confidence: 99%

Sources and implications of deep uncertainties surrounding sea-level projections

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long-term flood risk management often relies on future sea-level projections. Projected uncertainty ranges are however widely divergent as a result of different methodological choices. The IPCC has condensed this deep uncertainty into a single uncertainty range covering 66% probability or more. Alternatively, structured expert judgment summarizes divergent expert opinions in a single distribution. Recently published uncertainty ranges that are derived from these Bconsensus^assessments appear to differ by up to a factor four. This might result in overconfidence or overinvestment in strategies to cope with sea-level change. Here we explore possible reasons for these different interpretations. This is important for (i) the design of robust strategies and (ii) the exploration of pathways that may eventually lead to some kind of consensus distributions that are relatively straightforward to interpret.

show abstract

How to interpret expert judgment assessments of 21st century sea-level rise

Cited by 18 publications

References 20 publications

The Impact of Uncertainties in Ice Sheet Dynamics on Sea-Level Allowances at Tide Gauge Locations

The Impact of Uncertainties in Ice Sheet Dynamics on Sea-Level Allowances at Tide Gauge Locations

A commentary on “how to interpret expert judgment assessments of twenty-first century sea-level rise” by Hylke de Vries and Roderik SW van de Wal

Sources and implications of deep uncertainties surrounding sea-level projections

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About