Climatic Change

, Volume 69, Issue 2–3, pp 343–365 | Cite as

Influence Diagrams for Representing Uncertainty in Climate-Related Propositions

  • Jim HallEmail author
  • Craig Twyman
  • Alison Kay


In order to respond to policy questions about the potential impacts of climate change it is usually necessary to assemble large quantities of evidence from a variety of sources. Influence diagrams provide a formal mechanism for structuring this evidence and representing its relationship with the climate-related question of interest. When populated with probabilistic measures of belief an influence diagram provides a graphical representation of uncertainty, which can help to synthesize complex and contentious arguments into a relatively simple, yet evidence-based, graphical output.

Following unusually damaging floods in October–November 2000 the UK government commissioned research with a view to establishing the extent to which the floods were a manifestation of hydrological climate change. By way of example application, influence diagrams have been used to represent the evidential reasoning and uncertainties in responding to this question. Three alternative approaches to the mathematization of uncertainty in influence diagrams are demonstrated and compared. In situations of information scarcity and imprecise expert judgements, methods based on interval probabilities have proved to be attractive. Interval probabilities can, it is argued, represent ambiguity and ignorance in a more satisfactory manner than the conventional Bayesian alternative. The analysis provides a quantified commentary on the uncertainties in the conclusion that the events of October–November 2000 were extreme, but cannot in themselves be attributed to climate change.


Climate Change Graphical Representation Probabilistic Measure Formal Mechanism Expert Judgement 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen, M.: 1999, ‘Do-it-yourself climate prediction’, Nature 401, 642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, M., Raper, S. and Mitchell, J.: 2001, ‘Uncertainty in the IPCC’s third assessment report’, Science 293, 430–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin, J. F.: 1986a, ‘Support logic programming’, Int. J. Intelligent Syst. 1, 73–204.Google Scholar
  4. Baldwin, J. F.: 1986b, ‘Evidential support logic programming’, Fuzzy Sets Syst.24, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldwin, J. F., Martin, T. P., and Pilsworth, B. W.: 1995, FRIL – Fuzzy and Evidential Reasoning in Artificial Intelligence, Research Studies Press, Taunton, MA.Google Scholar
  6. BBC: 2000, ‘UK floods a climate alarm call’, BBC News, 21 November 2000: http:/// (viewed 26/09/02).
  7. Bell, D. E., Raiffa, H., and Tversky, A. (eds.): 1988, Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative and Prescriptive Interactions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  8. CEH: 2001, ‘To what degree can the October/November 2000 flood events be attributed to climate change?’, DEFRA FD2304 Technical Report, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford.Google Scholar
  9. Chevé, M. and Congar, R.: 2003, ‘Managing environmental risks under scientific uncertainty and controversy’, Paper presented at the EARE 2003 conference, Bilbao, Spain.Google Scholar
  10. Cooke, R. M.: 1991, Experts in Uncertainty, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  11. Cozman, F. G.: 2000, ‘Credal networks’, Artif. Intelligence J. 120, 199–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Curley, S. P. and Golden, J. I., ‘Using belief functions to represent degrees of belief’, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 58, 271–303.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, J. P. and Hall, J. W.: 2003, ‘A software supported process for assembling evidence and handling uncertainty in decision-making’, Decis. Support Syst. 35(3), 415–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellsberg, D.: 1961, ‘Risk, ambiguity and Savage’s axioms’, Q. J. Econ. 75, 643–669.Google Scholar
  15. Ferrell, W. R.: 1994, ‘Discrete subjective probabilities and decision analysis: Elicitation, calibration and combination’, in Wright, G. and Ayton, P. (eds.), Subjective Probability, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  16. Ferson, S., Nelsen, R., Hajagos, J., Berleant, D., Zhang, J., Tucker, W. T., Ginzburg, L., and Oberkampf, W. L.: 2004, ‘Dependence in probabilistic modeling, Dempster-Shafer theory and probability bounds analysis’, Report SAND2004-xxxx, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.Google Scholar
  17. Fertig, K. W. and Breese, J. S.: 1990, ‘Interval influence diagrams’, in Henrion, M., Shacter, R. D., Kanal, L. N. and Lemmer, J. F. (eds.), Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 5, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 149–161.Google Scholar
  18. Gammerman, A. (ed.): 1995, Probabilistic Reasoning and Bayesian Belief Networks, Alfred Waller, Henley.Google Scholar
  19. Genest, C. and Zidek, J. V.:1986, ‘Combining probability distributions: A critique and annotated bibliography’, Stat. Sci. 1(1), 114–148.Google Scholar
  20. Gilboa, I.: 1987, ‘Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities’, J. Math. Econ. 16, 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilboa, I. and Schmeidler, D.: 1989, ‘Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior’, J. Math. Econ. 18, 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilks, W. R., Richardson, S., and Spiegelhalter, D. J. (eds.): 1996, Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice, Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  23. Grüber, A. and Nakicenovic, N.: 2001, ‘Identifying dangers in uncertain climate’, Nature 412, 15.Google Scholar
  24. Hall, J. W., Blockley, D. I., and Davis, J. P.:1998, ‘Uncertain inference using interval probability theory’, Int. J. Approx. Reason. 19(3–4), 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hegerl, G. C., Hasselmann, K., Cubasch, U., Mitchell, J. F. B., Roeckner, E., Voss, R. and Waszkewitz, J.: 1997, ‘Multi-fingerprint detection and attribution analysis of greenhouse gas, greenhouse gas-plus-aerosol and solar forced climate change’, Clim. Dyn. 13(9), 613–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Henkind, S. J. and Harrison, M. C.: 1988, ‘An analysis of four uncertainty calculi’, Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. IEEE 18(5), 700–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Henrion, M.: 1988, ‘Propagating uncertainty in Bayesian Networks by Probabilistic Logic Sampling’, in Lemmer, J. F. and Kanal, L. N. (eds.), Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 2, Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  28. Henry, C. and Henry, M.: 2002, ‘Formalization and application of the precautionary principle’, Discussion paper 2002009, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES), Université Catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
  29. Howard, R. A. and Matheson, J.: 1981, ‘Influence Diagrams’, in The Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis, Vol. II, Strategic Decisions Group, Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
  30. Institute of Hydrology: 1999, Flood Estimation Handbook, Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford.Google Scholar
  31. Jensen, F. V.: 1996, An Introduction to Bayesian Networks, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Keynes, J. M.: 1921, A Treatise on Probability, MacMillan, London.Google Scholar
  33. Krause, P. J. and Clark, D. A.: 1993, Representing Uncertain Knowledge: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Intellect Books, Oxford.Google Scholar
  34. Kuikka, S. and Varis, O.: 1997, ‘Uncertainties of climatic change impacts in Finnish watersheds: A Bayesian network analysis of expert knowledge’, Boreal Environ. Res.2(1), 109–128.Google Scholar
  35. Merkhoffer, M. W.: 1987, ‘Quantifying judgmental uncertainty: Methodology, experiences and insights’, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 17, 741–752.Google Scholar
  36. Oliver, R. M. and Smith, J. Q. (eds.): 1990, Influence Diagrams, Belief Nets and Decision Analysis, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Pearl, J.: 1988, Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo.Google Scholar
  38. Penning-Rowsell, E. C. and Chatterton, J. B.:2002, ‘Autumn 2000 floods in England and Wales assessment of national economic and financial losses’, Middlesex University Flood Hazard Research Centre.Google Scholar
  39. Pittock, B. A., Jones, R. N. and Mitchell, C. D.: 2001, ‘Probabilities will help us plan for climate change’, Nature 413, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Risbey, J. S., Kandlikar, M., and Karoly, D. J.: 2000, ‘A protocol to articulate and quantify uncertainties in climate change detection and attribution’, Clim. Res. 16, 61–78.Google Scholar
  41. Risbey, J. and Kandlikar, M.: 2002, ‘Expert assessment of uncertainties in detection and attribution of climate change’, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 83, 1317–1326.Google Scholar
  42. Savage, L. J.: 1954, The Foundations of Statistics, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  43. Schmeidler, D.: 1989, ‘Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity’, Econometrica 45, 571–587.Google Scholar
  44. Schneider, S. H.: 2001, ‘What is dangerous climate change?’, Nature 411, 17–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Schneider, S. H.: 2002, ‘Can we estimate the likelihood of climatic scenarios at 2100?’, Clim. Change 52, 441–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sentz, K. and Ferson, S.: 2002, ‘Combination of evidence in Dempster-Shafer theory’, Report SAND2002-0835, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.Google Scholar
  47. Shachter, R. D.: 1988, ‘Probabilistic inference and influence diagrams’, Oper. Res. 36(4), 589–604.Google Scholar
  48. Shackley, S., Young, P., Parkinson, S., and Wynne, B.: 1998, ‘Uncertainty, complexity and concepts of good science in climate change modelling: Are GCMs the best tools?’, Clim. Change 38(2), 59–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shafer, G.: 1976, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  50. Shafer, G. and Pearl, J.: 1990, Readings in Uncertain Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo.Google Scholar
  51. Spiegelhalter, D. J.: 1986, ‘A Statistical View of Uncertainty in Expert Systems’, in Kanal, L. N. and Lemmer, J. F. (eds.), Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, North-Holland, New York, pp. 17–48.Google Scholar
  52. Stocker, T. F. and Schmittner, A.: 1997, ‘Influence of CO2 emission rates on the stability of the thermohaline circulation’, Nature 388, 862–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stott, P. A., Tett, S. F. B., Jones, G. S., Allen, M. R., Ingram, W. J., and Mitchell, J. F. B.: 2001, ‘Attribution of twentieth century temperature change to natural and anthropogenic causes’, Clim. Dyn. 17(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  54. van Lenthe, J., Hendrickx, L., Biesiot, W., and Vlek, C.: 1997, ‘A decision-analytic approach to the integrated assessment of climate change’, Risk Decis. Policy 2(3), 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walley, P.: 1991, Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities, Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  56. Wallsten, T. S., Forsyth, B. H. and Budescu, D. V.: 1983, ‘Stability and coherence of health experts’, upper and lower subjective probabilities about dose-response functions’, Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 31, 277–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Wigley, T. M. L. and Raper, S. C. B.: 2001, ‘Interpretation of high projections for global-mean warming’, Science 293, 451–454.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Young, P., Parkinson, S., and Lees, M.: 1996, ‘Simplicity out of complexity in environmental modelling: Occam’s razor revisited’, J. Appl. Stat. 23(2–3), 165–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.Centre for Ecology and HydrologyWallingfordUK

Personalised recommendations