We propose a modification of a maximum likelihood procedure for tuning parameter values in models, based upon the comparison of their output to field data. Our methodology, which uses polynomial approximations of the sample space to increase the computational efficiency, differs from similar Bayesian estimation frameworks in the use of an alternative likelihood distribution, is shown to better address problems in which covariance information is lacking, than its more conventional counterpart. Lack of covariance information is a frequent challenge in large-scale geophysical estimation. This is the case in the geophysical problem considered here. We use a nearshore model for long shore currents and observational data of the same to show the contrast between both maximum likelihood methodologies. Beyond a methodological comparison, this study gives estimates of parameter values for the bottom drag and surface forcing that make the particular model most consistent with data; furthermore, we also derive sensitivity estimates that provide useful insights regarding the estimation procedure as well as of the model itself.