Cited by 345Cryospheric studies and observationsGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchPolar Research and Ecology

Evolving Understanding of Antarctic Ice‐Sheet Physics and Ambiguity in Probabilistic Sea‐Level Projections

Open access
Kopp, Robert E., DeConto, Robert M., Bader, Daniel A., Hay, Carling C., Horton, Radley M., Kulp, Scott, Oppenheimer, Michael, Pollard, David +1 more·2017·Earth's Future

Abstract

Mechanisms such as ice‐shelf hydrofracturing and ice‐cliff collapse may rapidly increase discharge from marine‐based ice sheets. Here, we link a probabilistic framework for sea‐level projections to a small ensemble of Antarctic ice‐sheet (AIS) simulations incorporating these physical processes to explore their influence on global‐mean sea‐level (GMSL) and relative sea‐level (RSL). We compare the new projections to past results using expert assessment and structured expert elicitation about AIS changes. Under high greenhouse gas emissions (Representative Concentration Pathway [RCP] 8.5), median projected 21st century GMSL rise increases from 79 to 146 cm. Without protective measures, revised median RSL projections would by 2100 submerge land currently home to 153 million people, an increase of 44 million. The use of a physical model, rather than simple parameterizations assuming constant acceleration of ice loss, increases forcing sensitivity: overlap between the central 90% of simulations for 2100 for RCP 8.5 (93–243 cm) and RCP 2.6 (26–98 cm) is minimal. By 2300, the gap between median GMSL estimates for RCP 8.5 and RCP 2.6 reaches >10 m, with median RSL projections for RCP 8.5 jeopardizing land now occupied by 950 million people (versus 167 million for RCP 2.6). The minimal correlation between the contribution of AIS to GMSL by 2050 and that in 2100 and beyond implies current sea‐level observations cannot exclude future extreme outcomes. The sensitivity of post‐2050 projections to deeply uncertain physics highlights the need for robust decision and adaptive management frameworks.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/2017ef000663

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Models of mass loss from the Antarctic ice-sheet are highly uncertain and models of the extent of Antarctic sea ice do not match reality well.

    “In particular, models of mass loss from the Antarctic ice-sheet are highly uncertain [449] and models of the extent of Antarctic sea ice do not match reality well [263].”

    From Tackling climate change with machine learning (2023) · cites this paper as [449]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Houser, T., Hsiang, S., Kopp, R., & Larsen, K. (2015). Economic Risks of Climate Change: An American Prospectus (p. 376). New York: Columbia University Press.
  2. Kasperson, R. E. (2008). Coping with deep uncertainty: Challenges for environmental assessment and decision making. In G. Bammer & M. Smithson (Eds.), Uncertainty and Risk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 337-347). London, England: Earthscan.
  3. NASA JPL (2013). NASA Shuttle Radar Topography Mission Global 1 arc second [Dataset]. NASA LP DAAC. https://doi.org/10.5067/MEaSUREs/SRTM/ SRTMGL1.003 · DOI
  4. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016). Assessment of Approaches to Updating the Social Cost of Carbon: Phase 1 Report on a Near-Term Update (p. 74). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21898 10.1002/2017EF000663 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kopp, R. E., DeConto, R. M., Bader, D. A., Hay, C. C., Horton, R. M., Kulp, S., Oppenheimer, M., Pollard, D., & Strauss, B. H.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (US)
  • Climate Central (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Kopp, Robert E.
Venue
Earth's Future
Published
2017-12
Volume
5
Issue
12
Pages
1217-1233
ISSN
2328-4277 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2775588074
Cited by
345
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 1
FWCI
19.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Earth s Future (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (ICER‐1663807/1664013/1663693, OCE‐1202632, AGS 1203910/1203792)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Cryospheric studies and observations
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Polar Research and Ecology
Keywords
Antarctic ice sheet, sea level projections, marine-based ice sheets, probabilistic projections, expert elicitation, global mean sea level, relative sea level, RCP8.5, RCP2.6, ice sheet discharge, coastal submergence, adaptive management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review