Search

ABSTRACT How has the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) varied over the past centuries and what is the risk of an anthropogenic AMOC collapse? We report probabilistic projections of the future climate which improve on previous AMOC projection studies by (i) greatly expanding the considered observational constraints and (ii) carefully sampling the tail areas of the parameter probability distribution function (pdf). We use a Bayesian inversion to constrain a simple model of the coupled climate, carbon cycle and AMOC systems using observations to derive multicentury hindcasts and projections. Our hindcasts show considerable skill in representing the observational constraints. We show that robust AMOC risk estimates can require carefully sampling the parameter pdfs. We find a low probability of experiencing an AMOC collapse within the 21st century for a business-as-usual emissions scenario. The probability of experiencing an AMOC collapse within two centuries is 1/10. The probability of crossing a forcing threshold and triggering a future AMOC collapse (by 2300) is approximately 1/30 in the 21st century and over 1/3 in the 22nd. Given the simplicity of the model structure and uncertainty in the forcing assumptions, our analysis should be considered a proof of concept and the quantitative conclusions subject to severe caveats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The response of the Antarctic ice sheet (AIS) to changing global temperatures is a key component of sea-level projections. Current projections of the AIS contribution to sea-level changes are deeply uncertain. This deep uncertainty stems, in part, from (i) the inability of current models to fully resolve key processes and scales, (ii) the relatively sparse available data, and (iii) divergent expert assessments. One promising approach to characterizing the deep uncertainty stemming from divergent expert assessments is to combine expert assessments, observations, and simple models by coupling probabilistic inversion and Bayesian inversion. Here, we present a proof-of-concept study that uses probabilistic inversion to fuse a simple AIS model and diverse expert assessments. We demonstrate the ability of probabilistic inversion to infer joint prior probability distributions of model parameters that are consistent with expert assessments. We then confront these inferred expert priors with instrumental and paleoclimatic observational data in a Bayesian inversion. These additional constraints yield tighter hindcasts and projections. We use this approach to quantify how the deep uncertainty surrounding expert assessments affects the joint probability distributions of model parameters and future projections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rising sea levels increase the probability of future coastal flooding. Many decision-makers use risk analyses to inform the design of sea-level rise (SLR) adaptation strategies. These analyses are often silent on potentially relevant uncertainties. For example, some previous risk analyses use the expected, best, or large quantile (i.e., 90%) estimate of future SLR. Here, we use a case study to quantify and illustrate how neglecting SLR uncertainties can bias risk projections. Specifically, we focus on the future 100-yr (1% annual exceedance probability) coastal flood height (storm surge including SLR) in the year 2100 in the San Francisco Bay area. We find that accounting for uncertainty in future SLR increases the return level (the height associated with a probability of occurrence) by half a meter from roughly 2.2 to 2.7 m, compared to using the mean sea-level projection. Accounting for this uncertainty also changes the shape of the relationship between the return period (the inverse probability that an event of interest will occur) and the return level. For instance, incorporating uncertainties shortens the return period associated with the 2.2 m return level from a 100-yr to roughly a 7-yr return period (∼15% probability). Additionally, accounting for this uncertainty doubles the area at risk of flooding (the area to be flooded under a certain height; e.g., the 100-yr flood height) in San Francisco. These results indicate that the method of accounting for future SLR can have considerable impacts on the design of flood risk management strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate researchers use carbon dioxide emission scenarios to explore alternative climate futures and potential impacts, as well as implications of mitigation and adaptation policies. Often, these scenarios are published without formal probabilistic interpretations, given the deep uncertainty related to future development. However, users often seek such information, a likely range or relative probabilities. Without further specifications, users sometimes pick a small subset of emission scenarios and/or assume that all scenarios are equally likely. Here, we present probabilistic judgments of experts assessing the distribution of 2100 emissions under a business-as-usual and a policy scenario. We obtain the judgments through a method that relies only on pairwise comparisons of various ranges of emissions. There is wide variability between individual experts, but they clearly do not assign equal probabilities for the total range of future emissions. We contrast these judgments with the emission projection ranges derived from the shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs) and a recent multi-model comparison producing probabilistic emission scenarios. Differences on long-term emission probabilities between expert estimates and model-based calculations may result from various factors including model restrictions, a coverage of a wider set of factors by experts, but also group think and inability to appreciate long-term processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many institutions worldwide are considering how to include uncertainty about future changes in sea-levels and storm surges into their investment decisions regarding large capital infrastructures. Here we examine how to characterize deeply uncertain climate change projections to support such decisions using Robust Decision Making analysis. We address questions regarding how to confront the potential for future changes in low probability but large impact flooding events due to changes in sea-levels and storm surges. Such extreme events can affect investments in infrastructure but have proved difficult to consider in such decisions because of the deep uncertainty surrounding them. This study utilizes Robust Decision Making methods to address two questions applied to investment decisions at the Port of Los Angeles: (1) Under what future conditions would a Port of Los Angeles decision to harden its facilities against extreme flood scenarios at the next upgrade pass a cost-benefit test, and (2) Do sea-level rise projections and other information suggest such conditions are sufficiently likely to justify such an investment? We also compare and contrast the Robust Decision Making methods with a full probabilistic analysis. These two analysis frameworks result in similar investment recommendations for different idealized future sea-level projections, but provide different information to decision makers and envision different types of engagement with stakeholders. In particular, the full probabilistic analysis begins by aggregating the best scientific information into a single set of joint probability distributions, while the Robust Decision Making analysis identifies scenarios where a decision to invest in near-term response to extreme sea-level rise passes a cost-benefit test, and then assembles scientific information of differing levels of confidence to help decision makers judge whether or not these scenarios are sufficiently likely to justify making such investments. Results highlight the highly-localized and context dependent nature of applying Robust Decision Making methods to inform investment decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many coupled human-natural systems have the potential to exhibit a highly nonlinear threshold response to external forcings resulting in fast transitions to undesirable states (such as eutrophication in a lake). Often, there are considerable uncertainties that make identifying the threshold challenging. Thus, rapid learning is critical for guiding management actions to avoid abrupt transitions. Here, we adopt the shallow lake problem as a test case to compare the performance of four common data assimilation schemes to predict an approaching transition. In order to demonstrate the complex interactions between management strategies and the ability of the data assimilation schemes to predict eutrophication, we also analyze our results across two different management strategies governing phosphorus emissions into the shallow lake. The compared data assimilation schemes are: ensemble Kalman filtering (EnKF), particle filtering (PF), pre-calibration (PC), and Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) estimation. While differing in their core assumptions, each data assimilation scheme is based on Bayes’ theorem and updates prior beliefs about a system based on new information. For large computational investments, EnKF, PF and MCMC show similar skill in capturing the observed phosphorus in the lake (measured as expected root mean squared prediction error). EnKF, followed by PF, displays the highest learning rates at low computational cost, thus providing a more reliable signal of an impending transition. MCMC approaches the true probability of eutrophication only after a strong signal of an impending transition emerges from the observations. Overall, we find that learning rates are greatest near regions of abrupt transitions, posing a challenge to early learning and preemptive management of systems with such abrupt transitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When researchers complete a manuscript, they need to choose a journal to which they will submit the study. This decision requires to navigate trade-offs between multiple objectives. One objective is to share the new knowledge as widely as possible. Citation counts can serve as a proxy to quantify this objective. A second objective is to minimize the time commitment put into sharing the research, which may be estimated by the total time from initial submission to final decision. A third objective is to minimize the number of rejections and resubmissions. Thus, researchers often consider the trade-offs between the objectives of (i) maximizing citations, (ii) minimizing time-to-decision, and (iii) minimizing the number of resubmissions. To complicate matters further, this is a decision with multiple, potentially conflicting, decision-maker rationalities. Co-authors might have different preferences, for example about publishing fast versus maximizing citations. These diverging preferences can lead to conflicting trade-offs between objectives. Here, we apply a multi-objective decision analytical framework to identify the Pareto-front between these objectives and determine the set of journal submission pathways that balance these objectives for three stages of a researcher’s career. We find multiple strategies that researchers might pursue, depending on how they value minimizing risk and effort relative to maximizing citations. The sequences that maximize expected citations within each strategy are generally similar, regardless of time horizon. We find that the “conditional impact factor”—impact factor times acceptance rate—is a suitable heuristic method for ranking journals, to strike a balance between minimizing effort objectives and maximizing citation count. Finally, we examine potential co-author tension resulting from differing rationalities by mapping out each researcher’s preferred Pareto front and identifying compromise submission strategies. The explicit representation of trade-offs, especially when multiple decision-makers (co-authors) have different preferences, facilitates negotiations and can support the decision process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study contributes a stochastic, multi-objective adaptation of the classic environmental economics Lake Problem as a computationally simple but mathematically challenging benchmarking problem. The Lake Problem considers a hypothetical town by a lake, which hopes to maximize its economic benefit without crossing a nonlinear, and potentially irreversible, pollution threshold. Optimization objectives are maximize economic benefit, minimize phosphorus in the lake, maximize the probability of avoiding the pollution threshold, and minimize the probability of drastic phosphorus loading reductions in a given year. Uncertainty is introduced through a stochastic natural phosphorus inflow. We performed comprehensive diagnostics using six algorithms: the Borg multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA), MOEA/D, epsilon-MOEA, the Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGAII), epsilon-NSGAII, and Generalized Differential Evolution 3 (GDE3) to evaluate their controllability, reliability, efficiency, and effectiveness. Our results show only the self-adaptive search of the Borg MOEA was capable of performing well on this nontrivial benchmarking problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]