Skip to main content
Log in

Certainty, uncertainty, and climate change

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

References

  • Budescu DV, Broomell S, Por H (2009) Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Psychol Res 20:299–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Budnitz RJ, Apostolakis G, Boore DM, Cluff LS, Coppersmith KJ, Cornell CA, Morris PA (1995) Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance on Uncertainty and the Use of Experts. UCRL-ID 122160. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casman EA, Morgan MG, Dowlatabadi H (1999) Mixed levels of uncertainty in complex policy models. Risk Anal 19(1):33–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtright A, Morgan MG, Keith D (2008) Expert assessment of future photovoltaic technology. Environ Sci Technol 42:9031–9038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis R (2010) Fundamental constants: big G revisited. Nature 468:181–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowlatabadi H, Morgan MG (1993) A model framework for integrated studies of the climate problem. Energ Policy 21(3): 209–221. Reprinted in The International Library of Critical Writings in Economics. Blaug M (Series Editor); Kunreuther H, Rose AZ (eds) (2004) The economics of natural hazards. Edward Elgar Publishing Company

  • Evans JS, Gray GM, Sielken RL Jr, Smith AE, Valdez-Flores C, Graham JD (1994a) Using of probabilistic expert judgment in uncertainty analysis of carcinogenic potency. Regul Toxicol Pharm 20:15–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans JS, Graham JD, Gray GM, Sielken RL Jr (1994b) A distributional approach to characterizing low-dose cancer risk. Risk Anal 14:25–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O’Donoghue T (2002) Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. J Econ Lit XL:351–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frumhoff PC, McCarthy JJ, Melillo JM, Moser SC, Wuebbles DJ (2007) Confronting climate change in the North East: Science, impacts and solutions. A report of the North East Climate Impact Assessment. Available on line at: http://www.northeastclimateimpacts.org/pdf/confronting-climate-change-in-the-u-s-northeast.pdf

  • Heal G (2009) The economics of climate change: a post-stern perspective. Clim Change 96:275–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrion M, Fischhoff B (1986) Assessing uncertainty in physical constants. Am J Phys 54:791–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: synthesis report. In: Pachauri RK, Reisinger A (eds) Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, core writing team, IPCC, Geneva

  • Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) (1982) Judgments under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press

  • Lave LB, Dowlatabadi H, McRae GJ, Morgan MG, Rubin ES (1992) Uncertainties of climate change. Nature 355

  • Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B, Phillips LD (1982) Calibration of probabilities: the state of the art in 1980. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumina Decision Systems (2011) Details at www.lumina.com

  • Morgan MG (1998) Uncertainty analysis in risk assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 4(1):25–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MG, Dowlatabadi H (1996) Learning from integrated assessment of climate change. Clim Change 34:337–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MG, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MG, Keith D (1995) Subjective judgments by climate experts. Environ Sci Technol 29(10):468–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MG, Keith D (2008) Improving the way we think about projecting future energy use and emissions of carbon dioxide. Clim Change 90(3):189–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MG, Kandlikar M, Risbey J, Dowlatabadi H (1999) Editorial - Why conventional tools for policy analysis are often inadequate for problems of global change. Clim Change 41:271–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MG, Pitelka LF, Shevliakova E (2001) Elicitation of expert judgments of climate change impacts on forest ecosystems. Clim Change 49(3):279–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman C (2002) Risk Communication: A mental models approach, Cambridge University Press, New York.

  • Morgan MG, Cantor R, Clark WC, Fisher A, Jacoby HD, Janetos AC, Kinzig AP, Melillo J, Street RB, Wilbanks TJ (2005) Learning from the U.S. National Assessment of Climate Change. Environ Sci Technol 39:9023–9032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MG, Adams P, Keith D (2006) Elicitation of expert judgments of aerosol forcing. Clim Change 75:195–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MG, Dowlatabadi H, Henrion M, Keith D, Lempert R, McBride S, Small M, Wilbanks T (2009) Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in decisionmaking. CCSP 5.2, A Report by the Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss R et al (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463:747–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss R, Schneider SH (2000) Uncertainties in the IPCCTAR: recommendations to authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. In: Pachauri R, Taniguchi T, Tanaka K (eds) Guidance papers on the cross cutting issues of the third assessment report of the IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 33–51. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supportingmaterial/guidance-papers-3rd-assessment.pdf

  • Nakicenovic N, Swart R (eds) (2000) IPCC special report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

  • Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Press

  • Rubin ES, Lave LB, Morgan MG (1991–92) Keeping climate research relevant. Issues Sci Technol VIII(2):47–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling TC (1995) Intergenerational discounting. Energ Policy 23:395–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider SW (2001) What is “dangerous” climate change? Nature 411:17–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smil V (2003) Energy at the crossroads. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Spetzler CS, Staël von Holstein C-AS (1975) Probability encoding in decision analysis. Manage Sci 22:340–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern N (1982) The Eckert-Mauchly computers: conceptual triumphs, commercial tribulations. Technol Cult 23:569–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Environmental Protection Agency (1996) Proposed guidelines for cancer risk assessment, EPA/600P-92/003 C, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington

  • US National Assessment (2000) Climate change impacts on the United States, overview report of the national assessment synthesis team for the US National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, Cambridge University Press

  • Viscusi WK (1995) Fatal tradeoffs: public and private responsibilities for risk. Oxford University Press

  • Wallsten TS, Budescu DV, Rapoport A, Zwick R, Forsyth B (1986) Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. J Exp Psychol Gen 155(4):348–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zickfeld K, Levermann A, Kuhlbrodt T, Rahmstorf S, Morgan MG, Keith D (2007) Expert judgments on the response on the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation to climate change. Clim Change 82:235–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zickfeld K, Morgan MG, Frame D, Keith D (2010) Expert judgments about transient climate response to alternative future trajectories of radiative forcings. P Natl Acad Sci USA 107:12451–12456

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this paper was supported by the Center for Climate and Energy Decision Making (CEDM) at Carnegie Mellon University under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation (SES-0949710). I thank my many collaborators who have helped me in the evolution of my thinking about these matters, most notably Hadi Dowlatabadi, Max Henrion and David Keith.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Granger Morgan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morgan, M.G., Mellon, C. Certainty, uncertainty, and climate change. Climatic Change 108, 707 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0184-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0184-8

Keywords

Navigation