Scientific uncertainty and climate change: Part II. Uncertainty and mitigation
- 1k Downloads
In public debate surrounding climate change, scientific uncertainty is often cited in connection with arguments against mitigative action. This article examines the role of uncertainty about future climate change in determining the likely success or failure of mitigative action. We show by Monte Carlo simulation that greater uncertainty translates into a greater likelihood that mitigation efforts will fail to limit global warming to a target (e.g., 2 °C). The effect of uncertainty can be reduced by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Taken together with the fact that greater uncertainty also increases the potential damages arising from unabated emissions (Lewandowsky et al. 2014), any appeal to uncertainty implies a stronger, rather than weaker, need to cut greenhouse gas emissions than in the absence of uncertainty.
KeywordsTemperature Response Climate Sensitivity Carbon Budget Precautionary Principle Mitigation Effort
Preparation of this paper was facilitated by a Discovery Grant from the Australian Research Council, an Australian Professorial Fellowship, a Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award, and a Wolfson Research Merit Award from the Royal Society, to the first author, by a Future Fellowship from the Australian Research Council to Ben Newell, and funding from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Climate Systems Science. The work was also supported by a Linkage Grant from the Australian Research Council and a grant from the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility and the CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship. We thank four reviewers for their incisive critique and helpful comments. Correspondence to the first author at the School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, 12A Priory Road, Bristol BS8 1TU, United Kingdom (email@example.com). Personal web page: http://www.cogsciwa.com.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2005) Guidance notes for lead authors of the IPCC fourth assessment report on addressing uncertainties. (Technical Report)Google Scholar
- Kahan DM, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J (2006) Laws of fear: beyond the precautionary principle. Harv Law Rev 119:1071–1109Google Scholar
- Lewandowsky S, Risbey JS, Smithson M, Newell BR, Hunter J (2014) Scientific uncertainty and climate change: Part I. Uncertainty and unabated emissions. Clim Chang. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1082-7
- Meehl GA, Stocker TF, Collins WD, Friedlingstein P, Gaye AT, Gregory JM, Zhao Z-C (2007) Global climate projections. In: Solomon S et al. (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panelGoogle Scholar
- Nilsson M, Beaglehole R, Sauerborn R (2009) Climate policy: lessons from tobacco control. Lancet:1955–1956Google Scholar
- Nisbet MC (2009) Framing science: a new paradigm in public engagement. In: Kahlor L, Stout P (eds) Understanding science: new agendas in science communication. Taylor & Francisb, New York, pp 40–67Google Scholar
- Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt. Bloomsbury Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Proctor RN (2008) On playing the Nazi card. Tob Control:289–290Google Scholar
- Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk- assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19:689–701Google Scholar
- Socolow R (2011) Wedges reaffirmed. Bulletin of the atomic scientists, (web edition)Google Scholar