Climatic Change

, 108:641 | Cite as

Reducing doubt about uncertainty: Guidance for IPCC’s third assessment

  • Richard H. MossEmail author


It is usually necessary to apply incomplete and uncertain information to inform policy and decision making, creating the need to characterize the state of knowledge and identify when more certain information may be available. After all, some information is better than none and conversely, even perfect information is of no use if it is available only after a decision has been made. In scientific assessments for global change, the challenges are particularly acute because of scientific complexity, long time horizons, and large political and economic stakes, among other factors. Moss and Schneider prepared uncertainty guidelines for the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that recommended a process to make expert judgments of levels of confidence and uncertainty more systematic and transparent. The guidance provided calibrated uncertainty terms to improve communication of findings to users and urged preparation of a traceable account of the authors’ assessment of the evidence for each major finding. This article reviews the recommendations and their effectiveness and highlights ensuing critiques and the evolution of uncertainty guidance for subsequent assessment reports. It discusses emerging challenges in providing science for decision making in the era of increasing model resolution and complexity and burgeoning interest in information to inform adaptation and mitigation at regional and finer scales.


Lead Author Subjective Judgment Climate Science Intuitive Approach Expert Elicitation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agrawala S (1998a) Context and early origins of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Clim Chang 39:605–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawala S (1998b) Structural and process history of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Clim Chang 39:621–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen M, Raper S et al (2001) Uncertainty in the IPCC’s third assessment report. Science 293:430–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen MR, Booth BB et al (2004) Observational constraints on future climate: distinguishing robust from model-dependent statements of uncertainty in climate forecasting. IPCC Risk and Uncertainty Workshop, Maynooth, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  5. Budescu DV, Broomell S et al (2009) Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Psychol Sci 20:299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CCSP (2009) Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in decisionmaking. A report by the climate change science program and the subcommittee on global change research. M. G. Morgan, H. Dowlatabadi, M. Henrionet al. Washington, DC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 96Google Scholar
  7. CIA (1964) Words of estimative probability. Studies in intelligence. Washington, DC, Central Intelligence Agency: 12Google Scholar
  8. Dessai S, Hulme M (2004) Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities. Climate Policy 4:107–128Google Scholar
  9. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 229 ppCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giles J (2002) Scientific uncertainty: when doubt is a sure thing. Nature 418:476–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grubler A, Nakicenovic N (2001) Identifying dangers in an uncertain climate. Nature 412:15–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ha-Duong M (2003) Imprecise probability bridges scenario-forecast gap. Pittsburgh, PA, 15 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. Hall J, Fu G et al (2007) Imprecise probabilities of climate change: aggregation of fuzzy scenarios and model uncertainties. Clim Chang 81:265–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hawkins E, Sutton R (2010) The potential to narrow uncertainty in projections of regional precipitation change. Climate Dynamics: 1–12Google Scholar
  15. IAC (2010) Climate change assessments: Review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC. InterAcademy Council, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  16. IPCC (2001a) Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC (2001b) Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC (2001c) Climate change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  19. IPCC (2001d) Climate change 2001: Synthesis report. Contribution of working group I, II, and III to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  20. IPCC (2005) Guidance notes for lead authors of the IPCC fourth assessment report on addressing uncertainties. Intergovernmental panel on climate change, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  21. IPCC (2007) Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  22. Kriegler E, Held H (2005) Utilizing belief functions for the estimation of future climate change. Int J Approx Reason 39:185–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lempert R, Schlesinger ME (2001) Climate-change strategy needs to be robust. Nature 412:375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manning MR (2003) The difficulty of communicating uncertainty. Clim Chang 61:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Manning MR, Petit M (2003) A concept paper for the AR4 cross cutting theme: uncertainties and risk. Geneva, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 14Google Scholar
  26. Mastrandrea MD, Field CB et al (2010) Guidance note for lead authors of the IPCC fifth assessment report on consistent treatment of uncertainties. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  27. Min S-K, Simonis D et al (2007) Probabilistic climate change predictions applying Bayesian model averaging. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical. Physical and Engineering Sciences 365:2103–2116Google Scholar
  28. Morgan MG (1998) Uncertainty analysis in risk assessment. Human and Ecological Risk Analysis 4(1):25–39Google Scholar
  29. Morgan MG, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Morgan MG, Keith DW (1995) Subjective judgments by climate experts. Environ Sci Technol 29:468–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moss RH, Schneider SH (2000) Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: Recommendations to lead authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. Cross-cutting issues in the IPCC Third assessment report. R. Pachauri, and Taniguchi, T. Tokyo, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute for IPCC,pp 33–52Google Scholar
  32. Nature (2010) Validation required. Nature 463:849Google Scholar
  33. NDU (1978) Climate change to the year 2000. National Defense University, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  34. NIC (2007) Iran: nuclear intentions and capabilities. N. I. Council. Washington, DC: 9Google Scholar
  35. Nordhaus WD (1994) Expert opinion on climatic change. Am Sci 82:45–51Google Scholar
  36. Oppenheimer M, O’Neill BC et al (2007) The limits of consensus. Science 317:1505–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Patt A (2007) Assessing model-based and conflict-based uncertainty. Glob Environ Chang 17:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Patt A, Dessai S (2005) Communicating uncertainty: lessons learned and suggestions for climate change assessment. Comptes Rendus Geosciences 337:425–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Patt AG, Schrag DP (2003) Using specific language to describe risk and probability. Clim Chang 61:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Petersen AC (2006) Simulating nature: a philosophical study of computer-simulation uncertainties and their role in climate science and policy advice. Ph.D Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit, 220 ppGoogle Scholar
  41. Pidgeon N, Fischoff B (2011) The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nature Clim Change 1:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pittock AB, Jones RN et al (2001) Probabilities will help us plan for climate change. Nature 413:249–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Politi MC, Han PKJ, et al (2007) Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Medical Decision Making (Sep-Oct):681–695Google Scholar
  44. Reilly J, Stone PH et al (2001) Uncertainty and climate change assessments. Science 293:430–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Risbey J, Kandlikar M (2007) Expressions of likelihood and confidence in the IPCC uncertainty assessment process. Clim Chang 85:19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schneider SH (2001) What is ‘dangerous’ climate change? Nature 411:17–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Swart R, Bernstein L et al (2009) Agreeing to disagree: uncertainty management in assessing climate change, impacts and responses by the IPCC. Clim Chang 92:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Titus JG, Narayanan VK (1995) Probability of sea level rise. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, 186 ppGoogle Scholar
  49. USGCRP (2000) US national assessment of the potential consequences of climate cariability and change. US Global Change Research Program, Washington DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© U.S. Government 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Joint Global Change Research Institute, University of MarylandPacific Northwest National LaboratoryMarylandUSA

Personalised recommendations