Climatic Change

, Volume 130, Issue 2, pp 87–100 | Cite as

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

  • Hylke de VriesEmail author
  • Roderik S. W. van de Wal


In a recent paper Bamber and Aspinall (Nat Clim Change 3:424–427, 2013) (BA13) investigated the sea-level rise that may result from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets during the 21st century. Using data from an expert judgment elicitation, they obtained a final high-end (P95) value of +84 cm integrated sea-level change from the ice sheets for the 2010–2100 period. However, one key message was left largely undiscussed: The experts had strongly diverging opinions about the ice-sheet contributions to sea-level rise. We argue that such (lack of) consensus should form an essential and integral part of the subsequent analysis of the data. By employing a method that keeps the level of consensus included, and that is also more robust to outliers and less dependent on the choice of the underlying distributions, we obtain on the basis of the same data a considerably lower high-end estimate for the ice-sheet contribution, +53 cm (+38-77 cm interquartile range of “expert consensus”). The method compares favourably with another recent study on expert judgement derived sea-level rise by Horton et al. (Q Sci Rev 84:1–6, 2014). Furthermore we show that the BA13 results are sensitive to a number of assumptions, such as the shape and minimum of the underlying distribution that were not part of the expert elicitation itself. Our analysis therefore demonstrates that one should be careful in considering high-end sea-level rise estimates as being well-determined and fixed numbers.


Expert Elicitation Full Black Line Expert Answer Ocean Thermal Expansion Consensus Band 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors thank Andreas Sterl, Renske de Winter and Thomas Reerink for constructive comments. The data is read off by eye from the supplementary material of BA13 where needed.

Supplementary material

10584_2015_1346_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (176 kb)
(PDF 176 KB)


  1. Bamber JL, Aspinall WP (2013) An expert judgment assessment of future sea level rise from the ice sheets. Nat Clim Change 3:424–427. doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1778 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrand NE, Hindmarsh RCA, Arthern RJ, Williams CR, Mouginot J, Scheuchl B, Rignot E, Ligtenberg SRM, Van Den Broeke MR, Edwards TL, Cook AJ, Simonsen SB (2013) Computing the volume response of the antarctic peninsula ice sheet to warming scenarios to 2200. J Glaciol 59(215):397–409. doi: 10.3189/2013JoG12J139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Budnitz RJ, Apostolakis G, Boore DM, Cluff LS, Coppersmith KJ, Cornell CA, Morris PA (1998) Use of technical expert panels: applications to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Risk Anal 18(4):463–469. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00361.x. ISSN 1539-6924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Church JA, Clark PU, Cazenave A, Gregory JM, Jevrejeva S, Levermann A, Merrifield MA, Milne GA, Nerem RS, Nunn PD, Payne AJ, Pfeffer WT, Stammer D, Unnikrishnan AS (2013) Chapter 13, sea level change. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, NY, USA.
  5. Cooke RM (1991) Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis CH, Li Y, McConnell JR, Frey MM, Hanna E (2005) Snowfall-driven growth in east antarctic ice sheet mitigates recent sea-level rise. Science 308(5730):1898–1901. doi: 10.1126/science.1110662. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Holland DM, Thomas RH, De Young B, Ribergaard MH, Lyberth B (2008) Acceleration of jakobshavn isbrae triggered by warm subsurface ocean waters. Nat Geosci 1:659–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Horton BJ, Rahmstorf S, Engelhart SE, Kemp AC (2014) Expert assessment of sea-level rise by AD 2100 and AD 2300. Q Sci Rev 84:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Howat IM, Joughin I, Scambos TA (2007) Rapid changes in ice discharge from greenland outlet glaciers. Science 315(5818):1559–1561. doi: 10.1126/science.1138478 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Inter Academy Council (2010) Climate change assessments: review of the processes and procedures of the ipcc. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. Jacobs S, Jenkins A, Giulivi CF, Dutrieux P (2011) Stronger ocean circulation and increased melting under pine island glacier ice shelf. Nat Geosci 4:519–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Joughin I, Alley RB (2011) Stability of the west antarctic ice sheet in a warming world. Nat Geosci 4(8):506–513. doi: 10.1038/ngeo1194 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Little CM, Oppenheimer M, Urban NM (2013) Upper bounds on twenty-first-century antarctic ice loss assessed using a probabilistic framework. Nat Clim Chang 3:654–659. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1845 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meehl GA, Stocker TF, Collins WD, Friedlingstein P, Gaye AT, Gregory JM, Kitoh A, Knutti R, Murphy JM, Noda A, Raper SCB, Watterson IG, Weaver AJ, Zhao Z-C (2007) Global Climate Projections. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Meinshausen M, Smith S, Calvin K, Daniel J, Kainuma M, Lamarque J-F, Matsumoto K, Montzka S, Raper S, Riahi K, Thomson A, Velders G, Van Vuuren DP (2011) The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Clim Chang 109:213–241. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z. ISSN 0165-0009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nick FM, Van der Veen CJ, Vieli A, Benn DI (2010) A physically based calving model applied to marine outlet glaciers and implications for the glacier dynamics. J Glaciol 56(199):781–794. doi: 10.3189/002214310794457344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nick FM, Langer M, Payne AJ, Edwards T, Joughin I, Vieli A, Griggs J, Pattyn F, Van de Wal RSW (2013) Future sea-level rise from greenlands major outlet glaciers in a warming climate. Nature 497:235–238. doi: 10.1038/nature12068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rignot E, Velicogna I, Van den Broeke MR, Monaghan A, Lenaerts JTM (2011) Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise. Geophys Res Lett 38(5). doi: 10.1029/2011GL046583. ISSN 1944-8007
  19. Schoof C (2012) Marine ice sheet stability. J Fluid Mechan 698(5):62–72. doi: 10.1017/jfm.2012.43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Vaughan DG (2008) West antarctic ice sheet collapse – the fall and rise of a paradigm. Clim Chang 91(1-2):65–79. doi: 10.1007/s10584-008-9448-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vaughan DG, Arthern R (2007) Why is it hard to predict the future of ice sheets?. Science 315(5818):1503–1504. doi: 10.1126/science.1141111. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zickfeld K, Levermann A, Morgan M.G, Kuhlbrodt T, Rahmstorf S, Keith DW (2007) Expert judgements on the response of the atlantic meridional overturning circulation to climate change. Clim Chang 82(3-4):235–265. doi: 10.1007/s10584-007-9246-3. ISSN 0165-0009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zickfeld K, Morgan MG, Frame DJ, Keith DW (2010) Expert judgments about transient climate response to alternative future trajectories of radiative forcing. Proc Nat Acad Sci 107(28):12451–12456. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908906107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI)De BiltThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations