The ice sheets covering Antarctica and Greenland present the greatest uncertainty in, and largest potential contribution to, future sea level rise. The uncertainty arises from a paucity of suitable observations covering the full range of ice sheet behaviors, incomplete understanding of the influences of diverse processes, and limitations in defining key boundary conditions for the numerical models. To investigate the impact of these uncertainties on ice sheet projections we undertook a structured expert judgement study. Here, we interrogate the findings of that study to identify the dominant drivers of uncertainty in projections and their relative importance as a function of ice sheet and time. We find that for the 21st century, Greenland surface melting, in particular the role of surface albedo effects, and West Antarctic ice dynamics, specifically the role of ice shelf buttressing, dominate the uncertainty. The importance of these effects holds under both a high-end 5°C global warming scenario and another that limits global warming to 2°C. During the 22nd century the dominant drivers of uncertainty shift. Under the 5°C scenario, East Antarctic ice dynamics dominate the uncertainty in projections, driven by the possible role of ice flow instabilities. These dynamic effects only become dominant, however, for a temperature scenario above the Paris Agreement 2°C target and beyond 2100. Our findings identify key processes and factors that need to be addressed in future modeling and observational studies in order to reduce uncertainties in ice sheet projections.

Drawing on risk methods from volcano crises, we developed a rapid COVID-19 infection model for the partial return of pupils to primary schools in England in June and July 2020, and a full return in September 2020. The model handles uncertainties in key parameters, using a stochastic re-sampling technique, allowing us to evaluate infection levels as a function of COVID-19 prevalence and projected pupil and staff headcounts. Assuming average national adult prevalence, for the first scenario (as at 1 June 2020) we found that between 178 and 924 [90% CI] schools would have at least one infected individual, out of 16 769 primary schools in total. For the second return (July), our estimate ranged between 336 (2%) and 1873 (11%) infected schools. For a full return in September 2020, our projected range was 661 (4%) to 3310 (20%) infected schools, assuming the same prevalence as for 5 June. If national prevalence fell to one-quarter of that, the projected September range would decrease to between 381 (2%) and 900 (5%) schools but would increase to between 2131 (13%) and 9743 (58%) schools if prevalence increased to 4× June level. When regional variations in prevalence and school size distribution were included in the model, a slight decrease in the projected number of infected schools was indicated, but uncertainty on estimates increased markedly. The latter model variant indicated that 82% of infected schools would be in areas where prevalence exceeded the national average and the probability of multiple infected persons in a school would be higher in such areas. Post hoc, our model projections for 1 September 2020 were seen to have been realistic and reasonable (in terms of related uncertainties) when data on schools' infections were released by official agencies following the start of the 2020/2021 academic year.