Climatic Change

, Volume 92, Issue 1–2, pp 1–29 | Cite as

Agreeing to disagree: uncertainty management in assessing climate change, impacts and responses by the IPCC

  • Rob Swart
  • Lenny Bernstein
  • Minh Ha-Duong
  • Arthur Petersen
Open Access
Article

Abstract

Dealing consistently with risk and uncertainty across the IPCC reports is a difficult challenge. Huge practical difficulties arise from the Panel’s scale and interdisciplinary context, the complexity of the climate change issue and its political context. The key question of this paper is if the observed differences in the handling of uncertainties by the three IPCC Working Groups can be clarified. To address this question, the paper reviews a few key issues on the foundations of uncertainty analysis, and summarizes the history of the treatment of uncertainty by the IPCC. One of the key findings is that there is reason to agree to disagree: the fundamental differences between the issues covered by the IPCC’s three interdisciplinary Working Groups, between the type of information available, and between the dominant paradigms of the practitioners, legitimately lead to different approaches. We argue that properly using the IPCC’s Guidance Notes for Lead Authors for addressing uncertainty, adding a pedigree analysis for key findings, and particularly communicating the diverse nature of uncertainty to the users of the assessment would increase the quality of the assessment. This approach would provide information about the nature of the uncertainties in addition to their magnitude and the confidence assessors have in their findings.

References

  1. ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) (2004) Impacts of a warming Arctic. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen M, Raper S, Mitchell J (2001) Uncertainty in the IPCC’s third assessment report. Sci 293(5529):430–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen MR, Booth BBB, Frame DJ, Gregory JM, Kettleborough JA, Smith LA, Stainforth DA, Scoot PA (2004) Observational constraints on future climate: distinguishing robust from model-dependent statement of uncertainty in climate forecasting. In: Manning M, Petit M, Easterling D, Murphy J, Patwardhan A, Rogner H, Swart R, Yohe G (eds) IPCC workshop report: describing scientific uncertainties in climate change to support analysis of risk and of options. IPCC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  4. AuYeung F, Haywood JB, Schafer A (2001) Future light-duty vehicles: predicting their fuel consumption and carbon-reduction potential. SAE Paper 2001-01-1081. Presented at the SAE 2001 World Congress, Detroit, MI, March 5–8, 2001Google Scholar
  5. Briscoe M (2004) Communicating uncertainties in the science of climate change: an overview of efforts to reduce miscommunication between the research community, policy makers and the public. International Centre for Technology AssessmentGoogle Scholar
  6. Craye M (2006) Personal communication. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  7. Craye M, Funtowicz S, van der Sluijs JP (2005) A reflexive approach to dealing with uncertainties in environmental health risk science and policy. Int J Risk Assess Manage 5(2–4):216–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Finetti B (1937) La prévision: Ses lois logiques, ses Sources Subjectives, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré 7, Paris, pp 1–68Google Scholar
  9. Edwards PN (1999) Global climate science, uncertainty and politics: data-laden models, model-filtered data. Sci Cult 8:437–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellsberg D (2001) Risk, ambiguity and decision. Studies in Philosophy, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  12. Giles J (2002) Scientific uncertainty: when doubt is a sure thing. Nature 418:476–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gruebler A, Nakicenovic N (2001) Identifying dangers in an uncertain climate: we need to research all the potential outcomes, not try to guess which is likeliest to occur. Nature 412:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ha-Duong M (2005) Scenarios, probability and possible futures. Pre- and post-print documents halshs-00003925_v1, HAL, CCSd/CNRSGoogle Scholar
  15. IPCC (2005) Guidance notes for lead authors of the IPCC fourth assessment report on addressing uncertainties. http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/uncertaintyguidancenote.pdf
  16. IPCC (2007a) Climate change 2007 – the physical science basis; contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC (2007b) Climate change 2007 – impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC (2007c) Climate change 2007 – mitigation of climate change; contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. ISO/IEC (2002) Guide 73:2002 risk management – vocabulary – guidelines for use in standards. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  20. Janssen PHM, Petersen AC, van der Sluijs JP, Risbey JS, Ravetz JR (2003) RIVM/MNP guidance for uncertainty assessment and communication: quickscan hints & actions list. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven. http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/digitaaldepot/Guidance_QS-HA.pdf
  21. Janssen PHM, Petersen AC, van der Sluijs JP, Risbey JS, Ravetz JR (2005) A guidance for assessing and communicating uncertainties. Water Sci Tech 52:125–131Google Scholar
  22. Kandlikar M, Risbey J, Dessai S (2005) Representing and communicating deep uncertainty in climate change assessment. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 337(4):443–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kloprogge P, van der Sluijs JP, Petersen AC (2005) A method for the analysis of assumptions in assessments: exploring the value-ladenness of two indicators in the fifth Dutch environmental outlook, MNP Report 550002010. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  24. Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Hart, Schaffner & Marx, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  25. Kriegler E, Held H (2005) Utilizing belief functions for the estimation of future climate change. Int J Approx Reasoning 39:185–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Manning M (2003) The difficulty of communicating uncertainty. Clim Change 61:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Manning M, Petit M (2004) A concept paper for the AR4 cross cutting theme: uncertainties and risk. IPCC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  28. Manning M, Petit M, Easterling D, Murphy J, Patwardhan A, Rogner H, Swart R, Yohe G (2004) IPCC workshop report: describing scientific uncertainties in climate change to support analysis of risk and of options. IPCC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  29. McIntyre S, McKitrick R (2003) Corrections to the Mann, et al. (1998) proxy data base and Northern Hemisphere average temperature series. Energy Environ 14:751–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McIntyre S, McKitrick R (2005) The M&M critique of MBH98 northern hemisphere climate index: update and implications. Energy Environ 16:69–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: general synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Moss RH, Schneider SH (2000) Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: recommendations to lead authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. IPCC Supporting Material, IPCC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  33. Nakicenovic N et al (2005) Special report on emission scenarios. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  34. Nimier V (2004) Information evaluation: a formalization of operational recommendations. Proceedings of the seventh international conference on information fusion, in Stockholm, Sweden, 28 June to 1 July 2004. http://www.fusion2004.foi.se/proc.html
  35. NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface temperature reconstructions for the last 2,000 years. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. Parker W (2005) Improving the treatment of uncertainty in IPCC assessments. Unpublished manuscript. http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~parkerw/papers/ParkerUncertaintyIPCC.pdf
  37. Patt A (2008) Sources of climate change uncertainty and different response to assessed likelihood. Glob Environ Change (in press)Google Scholar
  38. Patt A, Dessai S (2005) Communicating uncertainty: lessons learned and suggestions for climate change assessment. Compte Rendus Geosci 337:427–441Google Scholar
  39. Patt A, Schrag D, Dessai S (2004) Communicating probabilities with words: potential pitfalls and biases. In: Manning M, Petit M, Easterling D, Murphy J, Patwardhan A, Rogner H, Swart R, Yohe G (eds) IPCC workshop report: describing scientific uncertainties in climate change to support analysis of risk and of options. IPCC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  40. Patt AG, Schrag D (2003) Using specific language to describe risk and probability. Clim Change 61:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Petersen AC (2000) Philosophy of climate science. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 81:265–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Petersen AC (2006) Simulating nature: a philosophical study of computer-model uncertainties and their role in climate science and policy advice, Het Spinhuis, Apeldoorn/Antwerpen. http://hdl.handle.net/1871/11385
  43. Pittock BA, Jones RN, Mitchell CD (2001) Probabilities will help us plan for climate change. Nature 413:249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Popper KR (1959) The propensity interpretation of probability. Brit J Phil Sci 10:25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Price L, de la Rue du Can S, Sinton J, Worrell E (2006) Sectoral trends in global energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, LBLN-56144, Berkeley, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  46. Raes F, Swart R (2007) Climate assessment: what’s next. Science 318:1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reilly J, Stone PH, Forest CE, Webster MD, Jacoby HD, Prinn RG (2001) Uncertainty and climate change assessments. Science 293(5529):430–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Risbey J (2004) Agency and the assignment of probabilities to greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Clim Change 67:37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Risbey JS, Kandlikar M (2007) Expressions of likelihood and confidence in the IPCC uncertainty assessment process. Clim Change 85:19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Savage LJ (1954) The foundations of statistics. Dover, 0-486-62349-1Google Scholar
  51. Schneider S (2001) What is ‘dangerous’ climate change? Nature 411:17–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schneider S (2002) Can we estimate the likelihood of climate change at 2100? Climate Change 52:441–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smithson M (1989) Ignorance and uncertainty: emerging paradigms. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Tonn B (2005) Imprecise probabilities and scenarios. Futures 37:767–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van der Sluijs JP, Craye M, Funtowicz S, Kloprogge P, Ravetz J, Risbey J (2005) Combining quantitative and qualitative measures of uncertainty in model based environmental assessment: the NUSAP system. Risk Anal 25(2):481–492Google Scholar
  56. Van der Sluijs JP, Petersen AC, Janssen PH, Risbey JS, Ravetz JR (2008) Exploring the quality of evidence for complex and contested policy decisions. Environ Res Lett 3(024008):9Google Scholar
  57. Von Mises R (1957) Probability, statistics and truth. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Walker WE, Harremoës P, Rotmans J, van der Sluijs JP, van Asselt MBA, Janssen P, Krayer von Krauss MP (2003) Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integ Assess 4:5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Walley P (1991) Statistical reasoning with imprecise probabilities. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  60. Wynne B (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventative paradigm. Global Environ Change 2:111–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rob Swart
    • 1
  • Lenny Bernstein
    • 2
  • Minh Ha-Duong
    • 3
  • Arthur Petersen
    • 1
  1. 1.Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)BilthovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.L.S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.AshevilleUSA
  3. 3.Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le Développement (CIRED)Nogent-sur-Marne CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations