Skip to main content
Book cover

Climate Modelling pp 361–380Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Uncertainty in Climate Science and Climate Policy

Abstract

In this chapter, we argue for and describe the gap that exists between current practice in mainstream academic climate science, and the practical needs of policymakers charged with exploring possible interventions in the context of climate change. By ‘mainstream academic climate science’ we mean the type of climate science that dominates in universities and research centres. We argue that academic climate science does not equip climate scientists to be as helpful as they might be, when involved in climate policy assessment. We attribute this partly to an over-investment in high-resolution climate simulators, and partly to a culture that is uncomfortable with the inherently subjective or personalistic nature of the probabilities in climate science.

Keywords

  • Climate Science
  • Climate Policy Assessment
  • High-resolution Climate Simulations
  • Mind Projection Fallacy
  • Tetlock

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.

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

Fig. 12.1

References

  • Andrieu, C., A. Doucet, and R. Holenstein. 2010. Particle Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 72 (3): 269–302. With Discussion, 302–342.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Aspinall, W.P. 2010. A Route to More Tractable Expert Advice. Nature 463: 294–295.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Aspinall, W.P., and R.M. Cooke. 2013. Quantifying Scientific Uncertainty from Expert Judgment Elicitation. In Rougier et al. (2013), Chapter 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnston, A.G., M.K. Tippett, M.L. L’Heureux, S. Li, and D.G. DeWitt. 2012. Skill of Real-Time Seasonal ENSO Model Predictions During 2002–11: Is Our Capability Increasing? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 93 (5): 631–651.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, R.M., and L.H.J. Goossens. 2000. Procedures Guide for Structured Expert Judgement in Accident Consequence Modelling. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 90 (3): 303–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crucifix, M. 2012. Oscillators and Relaxation Phenomena in Pleistocene Climate Theory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series A, Reprint Available at arXiv:1103.3393v1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curry, J.A., and P.J. Webster. 2011. Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 92 (12): 1667–1682.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • de Finetti, B. 1964. Foresight: Its Logical Laws, Its Subjective Sources. In Studies in Subjective Probability, ed. H. Kyburg and H. Smokler, 93–158. New York: Wiley. (2nd ed., New York: Krieger, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. 2003. Reckoning with Risk: Learning to Live with Uncertainty. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, M. 1997. Prior Inferences for Posterior Judgements. In Structures and Norms in Science. Volume Two of the Tenth International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Florence, August 1995, ed. M.L.D. Chiara, K. Doets, D. Mundici, and J. van Benthem, 55–71. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, M., and D.A. Wooff. 2007. Bayes Linear Statistics: Theory & Methods. Chichester: Wiley.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, S. 1999. Toward Evidence-Based Medical Statistics. 1: The p-value Fallacy. Annals of Internal Medicine 130: 995–1004.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, S., and S. Greenland. 2007. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Problems in the Analysis. PLoS Medicine 4(4): e168. A Longer Version of the Paper Is Available at http://www.bepress.com/jhubiostat/paper135

  • Guilyardi, E., A. Wittenberg, A. Fedorov, M. Collins, C. Wang, A. Capotondi, G.J. van Oldenborgh, and T. Stockdale. 2009. Understanding El Niño in Ocean—Atmosphere General Circulation Models: Progress and Challenges. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 90 (3): 325–340.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hájek, A. 2012. Interpretations of Probability. In ed. E.N. Zalta, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer Edition). Forthcoming URL http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/probability-interpret/

  • Howson, C., and P. Urbach. 2006. Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. 3rd ed. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J.P.A. 2005. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Medicine 2 (8): e124. See also Goodman and Greenland (2007) and Ioannidis (2007).

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Author’s Reply to Goodman and Greenland. PLoS Medicine 4 (6): e215.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Jaynes, E.T. 2003. Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, R.C. 2004. Subjective Probability: The Real Thing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Unfortunately This First Printing Contains Quite a Large Number of Typos.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kalnay, E. 2002. Atmospheric Modeling, Data Assimilation and Predictability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lad, F. 1996. Operational Subjective Statistical Methods. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, A., M.G.W. Schmidt, E. Kriegler, and H. Held. 2012. Anticipating Climate Threshold Damages. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 17: 163–175.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mastrandrea, M.D., C.B. Field, T.F. Stocker, O. Edenhofer, K.L. Ebi, D.J. Frame, H. Held, E. Kriegler, P.R. Matschoss K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, G.W. Yohe, and F.W. Zwiers. 2010. Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. Technical report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J.M., D.M.H. Sexton, D.N. Barnett, G.S. Jones, M.J. Webb, M. Collins, and D.A. Stainforth. 2004. Quantification of Modelling Uncertainties in a Large Ensemble of Climate Change Simulations. Nature 430: 768–772.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J., R. Clark, M. Collins, C. Jackson, M. Rodwell, J.C. Rougier, B. Sanderson, D. Sexton, and T. Yokohata. 2011. Perturbed Parameter Ensembles as a Tool for Sampling Model Uncertainties and Making Climate Projections. In Proceedings of ECMWF Workshop on Model Uncertainty, 20–24 June 2011, pp. 183–208. Available Online, http://www.ecmwf.int/publications/library/ecpublications/_pdf/workshop/2011/Model_uncertainty/Murphy.pdf

  • Newman, T.J. 2011. Life and Death in Biophysics. Physical Biology 8: 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paris, J.B. 1994. The Uncertain Reasoner’s Companion: A Mathematical Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, W.S. 2010. Predicting Weather and Climate: Uncertainty, Ensembles and Probability. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 41: 263–272.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, F.P. 1931. Truth and Probability. In Foundations of Mathematics and Other Essays, ed. R.B. Braithwaite, 156–198. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rougier, J.C. 2007. Probabilistic Inference for Future Climate Using an Ensemble of Climate Model Evaluations. Climatic Change 81: 247–264.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rougier, J.C., R.S.J. Sparks, and L.J. Hill, eds. 2013. Risk and Uncertainty Assessment for Natural Hazards. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santner, T.J., B.J. Williams, and W.I. Notz. 2003. The Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments. New York: Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L.J. 1954. The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Dover. Revised 1972 Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L.J., et al. 1962. The Foundations of Statistical Inference. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J.Q. 2010. Bayesian Decision Analysis: Principle and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P.E. 2005. Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walley, P. 1991. Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities. London: Chapman & Hall.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Jonathan Rougier

  2. University Walk, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Jonathan Rougier

  3. Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Michel Crucifix

Authors
  1. Jonathan Rougier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michel Crucifix
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Prof. Elisabeth A. Lloyd

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    Prof. Eric Winsberg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rougier, J., Crucifix, M. (2018). Uncertainty in Climate Science and Climate Policy. In: A. Lloyd, E., Winsberg, E. (eds) Climate Modelling. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65058-6_12

Download citation