Climatic Change

, Volume 85, Issue 1–2, pp 19–31

Expressions of likelihood and confidence in the IPCC uncertainty assessment process

Article

Abstract

Communication of uncertainty information in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments has evolved through successive reports to provide increasingly formal classifications for subjective and objective information. The first IPCC assessments provided uncertainty information in largely subjective form via linguistic categorizations depicting different levels of confidence. Recent assessments have codified linguistic terms to avoid ambiguity and introduced probabilistic ranges to express likelihoods of events occurring. The adoption of formal schemes to express likelihood and confidence provides more powerful means for analysts to express uncertainty. However, the combination of these two metrics to assess information may engender confusion when low confidence levels are matched with very high/low likelihoods that have implicit high confidence. Part of the difficulty is that the degree to which different quantities in the assessments are known varies tremendously. One solution is to provide likelihood information in a scheme with a range of different precision levels that can be matched to the level of understanding. A version of this scheme is also part of the IPCC uncertainty guidance and is described here.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen M, Booth B, Frame D, Gregory J, Kettleborough J, Smith L, Stainforth D, Stott P (2004) Observational constraints on future climate: distinguishing robust from model-dependent statements of uncertainty in climate forecasting. In: IPCC workshop on describing scientific uncertainties in climate change to support analysis of risk and of options, Ireland, 11–13 May 2004Google Scholar
  2. Dessai S, Hulme M (2004) Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Clim Policy 4(2):107–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Funtowicz S, Ravetz J (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Kluwer, Dordrecht, p 229Google Scholar
  4. Giles J (2002) When doubt is a sure thing. Nature 418:476–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) (2001) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 881Google Scholar
  6. Houghton JT et al (eds) (1996) Climate change 1995: the science of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 572Google Scholar
  7. Houghton JT, Jenkins G, Ephraums J (eds) (1990) Climate change: the IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 365Google Scholar
  8. IPCC (2006) Guidance notes for lead authors of the IPCC fourth assessment report on addressing uncertainties. Appendix in Manning 2006. Adv Clim Change Res 2:13–21Google Scholar
  9. Jaeger J (1988) Developing policies for responding to climate change. Technical report, World Meteorological Organization. WCIP-1, WMO/TD-No. 225, p 53Google Scholar
  10. Kandlikar M, Risbey J, Dessai S (2005) Representing and communicating deep uncertainty in climate change assessments. Comptes Rendus Geosci 337(4):443–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Manabe S, Stouffer R (1993) Century-scale effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on the ocean-atmosphere system. Nature 364(6434):215–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Manning M (2006) The treatment of uncertainties in the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report. Adv Clim Change Res 2(1):13–21Google Scholar
  13. Manning M, Petit M (2004) A concept paper for the AR4 cross cutting theme: uncertainties and risk. Position paper for the IPCC Risk and Uncertainty workshop, Maynooth, Ireland, May 2004Google Scholar
  14. Mastrandrea M, Schneider SH (2004) Probabilistic integrated assessment of ‘dangerous’ climate change. Science 304:571–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moss R, Schneider SH (2000) Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: Recommendations to lead 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. Technical report. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, pp 33–51Google Scholar
  16. Murphy J, Sexton DMH, Barnett DN, Jones GS, Webb MJ, Collins M, Stainforth DA (2004) Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature 430:768–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. National Research Council (1979) Carbon dioxide and climate: a scientific assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p 22Google Scholar
  18. National Research Council (1982) Carbon dioxide and climate: A second assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p 72Google Scholar
  19. National Research Council (1992) Policy implications of greenhouse warming: mitigation, adaptation, and the science base. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p 944Google Scholar
  20. Ravetz J (1971) Scientific knowledge and its social problems. Clarendon, Oxford, p 449 (reprint: Transaction, New Brunswick, 1996)Google Scholar
  21. Risbey JS (2002) Comment on Soon et al. 2002: modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Clim Res 22(2):185–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Risbey JS, Lamb PJ, Miller RL, Morgan MC, Roe GH (2002) Exploring the structure of regional climate scenarios by combining synoptic and dynamic guidance and GCM output. J Clim 15(9):1036–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schrader-Frechette K (1984) Science policy, ethics, and economic methodology: some problems of technology assessment and environmental impact analysis. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  24. Shackley S, Risbey J, Stone P, Wynne B (1999) Adjusting to policy expectations in climate change modeling: an interdisciplinary study of flux adjustments in coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models. Clim Change 43(2):413–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. van der Sluijs J (1997) Anchoring amid uncertainty. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, p 260Google Scholar
  26. van der Sluijs J, Craye M, Funtowicz S, Kloprogge P, Ravetz J, Risbey J (2005a) Combining quantitative and qualitative measures of uncertainty in model-based environmental assessment: the NUSAP system. Risk Anal 25(2):481–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van der Sluijs J, Craye M, Funtowicz S, Kloprogge P, Ravetz J, Risbey J (2005b) Experiences with the NUSAP system for multidimensional uncertainty assessment. Water Sci Technol 52(6):133–144Google Scholar
  28. van der Sluijs J, Eijndhoven J, Shackley S, Wynne B (1998) Anchoring devices in science for policy: the case of consensus around climate sensitivity. Soc Stud Sci 28(2):291–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wallsten T, Budescu D, Zwick R (1993) Comparing the calibration and coherence of numerical and verbal probability judgments. Manage Sci 39:176–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric ResearchHobartAustralia
  2. 2.Institute for Asian ResearchUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations