Advertisement

Conceptualizing Uncertainty: An Assessment of the Uncertainty Framework of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

  • Nicolas WüthrichEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the European Studies in Philosophy of Science book series (ESPS, volume 5)

Abstract

We are facing uncertainties regarding climate change and its impacts. To conceptualize and communicate these uncertainties to policy makers, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has introduced an uncertainty framework. In this paper, I assess the latest, most developed version of this framework. First, I provide an interpretation of this framework, which draws from supporting documents and the practice of its users. Second, I argue that even a charitable interpretation exhibits three substantial conceptual problems. These problems point towards untenable assumptions regarding evidence aggregation in the context of climate scientific findings. Third, I put forward a tentative roadmap for improving the uncertainty framework.

Keywords

Climate science Evidence aggregation IPCC assessment report Uncertainty guidance note 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Richard Bradley, Thomas Clarmann, Roman Frigg, Stephan Güttinger, Casey Helgeson, Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn, Vivek Sant, and Philippe van Basshuysen provided helpful feedback on earlier versions of this paper. I am also thankful for comments by two anonymous reviewers and audiences at the EPSA conference in Düsseldorf, the BSPS conference in Manchester, the GAP.9 conference in Osnabrück, and the Karlsruhe Institute for Technology.

References

  1. Adler, Caroline E., and Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn. 2014. The IPCC and treatment of uncertainties: Topics and sources of dissensus. WIRES Climate Change 5: 663–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aven, Terje, and Ortwin Renn. 2015. An evaluation of the treatment of risk and uncertainties in the IPCC reports on climate change. Risk Analysis 35: 701–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Budescu, David V., Han-Hui Por, Stephen B. Broomell, and Michael Smithson. 2014. The interpretation of IPCC probabilistic statements around the world. Nature Climate Change: 1–5. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2194.
  4. Carnap, Rudolf. 1947. On the application of inductive logic. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 8: 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke, Brendan, Donald Gillies, Phyllis Illari, Frederica Russo, and Jon Williamson. 2014. Mechanisms and the evidence hierarchy. Topoi 33: 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hollande, Francois. 2015. Ouverture du Leaders’ event at annual conference of parties 21. https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/cop21cmp11_statement_hollande.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2016.
  7. IPCC. 2013. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fifth assessment report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. Thomas F. Stocker, Dahe Qin, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Melinda M. B. Tignor, Simon K. Allen, Judith Boschung, Alexander Nauels, Yu Xia, Vincent Bex, and Pauline M. Midgley. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2014a. Intergovernmental panel on climate change: Organization. http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml. Accessed 5 Apr 2016.
  9. ———. 2014b. Intergovernmental panel on climate change: Working groups / task force. http://www.ipcc.ch/working_groups/working_groups.shtml. Accessed 5 Apr 2016.
  10. Jones, Roger N. 2011. The latest iteration of IPCC uncertainty guidance: An author perspective. Climate Change 108: 733–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kelly, Thomas. 2005. The epistemic significance of disagreement. In Oxford studies in epistemology, ed. Tamar S. Gendler and John Hawthorne, 167–196. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Mastrandrea, Michael D., Christopher B. Field, Thomas F. Stocker, Ottmar Edenhofer, Kristie L. Ebi, David J. Frame, Hermann Held, Elmar Kriegler, Katharine J. Mach, Patrick R. Matschoss, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Gary W. Yohe, and Francis Zwiers. 2010. Guidance note for lead authors of the IPCC fifth assessment report on consistent treatment of uncertainties. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch. Accessed 5 Apr 2016.
  13. Mastrandrea, Michael D., Katharine J. Mach, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Ottmar Edenhofer, Thomas F. Stocker, Christopher B. Field, Kristie L. Ebi, and Patrick R. Matschoss. 2011. The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: A common approach across the working groups. Climate Change 108: 675–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Morgan, M. Granger. 2014. Use and (abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111: 7176–7184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Socolow, Robert H. 2011. High-consequence outcomes and internal disagreements: tell us more, please. Climate Change 108: 775–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stegenga, Jacob. 2011. Is meta-analysis the platinum standard of evidence? Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42: 497–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. United Nations. 2015. Conference of the parties twenty-first session Paris 30 November to 11 December 2015: Adoption of the Paris Agreement. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department for Philosophy, Logic and Scientific MethodLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK

Personalised recommendations