Skip to main content

Expressions of likelihood and confidence in the IPCC uncertainty assessment process

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • 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 2004

  • Dessai S, Hulme M (2004) Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Clim Policy 4(2):107–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz S, Ravetz J (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Kluwer, Dordrecht, p 229

    Google Scholar 

  • Giles J (2002) When doubt is a sure thing. Nature 418:476–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 881

    Google Scholar 

  • Houghton JT et al (eds) (1996) Climate change 1995: the science of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 572

    Google Scholar 

  • Houghton JT, Jenkins G, Ephraums J (eds) (1990) Climate change: the IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 365

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2006) Guidance notes for lead authors of the IPCC fourth assessment report on addressing uncertainties. Appendix in Manning 2006. Adv Clim Change Res 2:13–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger J (1988) Developing policies for responding to climate change. Technical report, World Meteorological Organization. WCIP-1, WMO/TD-No. 225, p 53

  • Kandlikar M, Risbey J, Dessai S (2005) Representing and communicating deep uncertainty in climate change assessments. Comptes Rendus Geosci 337(4):443–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manabe S, Stouffer R (1993) Century-scale effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on the ocean-atmosphere system. Nature 364(6434):215–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning M (2006) The treatment of uncertainties in the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report. Adv Clim Change Res 2(1):13–21

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 2004

  • Mastrandrea M, Schneider SH (2004) Probabilistic integrated assessment of ‘dangerous’ climate change. Science 304:571–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 33–51

  • 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 430:768–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1979) Carbon dioxide and climate: a scientific assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p 22

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1982) Carbon dioxide and climate: A second assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p 72

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1992) Policy implications of greenhouse warming: mitigation, adaptation, and the science base. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p 944

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz J (1971) Scientific knowledge and its social problems. Clarendon, Oxford, p 449 (reprint: Transaction, New Brunswick, 1996)

    Google Scholar 

  • Risbey JS (2002) Comment on Soon et al. 2002: modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Clim Res 22(2):185–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1036–1050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrader-Frechette K (1984) Science policy, ethics, and economic methodology: some problems of technology assessment and environmental impact analysis. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):413–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Sluijs J (1997) Anchoring amid uncertainty. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, p 260

  • 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):481–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):133–144

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):291–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallsten T, Budescu D, Zwick R (1993) Comparing the calibration and coherence of numerical and verbal probability judgments. Manage Sci 39:176–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James S. Risbey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Risbey, J.S., Kandlikar, M. Expressions of likelihood and confidence in the IPCC uncertainty assessment process. Climatic Change 85, 19–31 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-007-9315-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-007-9315-7

Keywords

  • Climate Sensitivity
  • Thermohaline Circulation
  • Full Likelihood
  • Third Assessment Report
  • Likelihood Information