IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v173y2022i1d10.1007_s10584-022-03382-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Confidence levels and likelihood terms in IPCC reports: a survey of experts from different scientific disciplines

Author

Listed:
  • A. Kause

    (Leuphana University Lüneburg)

  • W. Bruine de Bruin

    (Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, and Center for Economic and Social Research, University of Southern California)

  • J. Persson

    (Lund University)

  • H. Thorén

    (University of Helsinki)

  • L. Olsson

    (Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies LUCSUS, Lund University)

  • A. Wallin

    (Lund University Cognitive Science, Lund University)

  • S. Dessai

    (University of Leeds)

  • N. Vareman

    (Lund University)

Abstract

Scientific assessments, such as those by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), inform policymakers and the public about the state of scientific evidence and related uncertainties. We studied how experts from different scientific disciplines who were authors of IPCC reports, interpret the uncertainty language recommended in the Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. This IPCC guidance note discusses how to use confidence levels to describe the quality of evidence and scientific agreement, as well likelihood terms to describe the probability intervals associated with climate variables. We find that (1) physical science experts were more familiar with the IPCC guidance note than other experts, and they followed it more often; (2) experts’ confidence levels increased more with perceptions of evidence than with agreement; (3) experts’ estimated probability intervals for climate variables were wider when likelihood terms were presented with “medium confidence” rather than with “high confidence” and when seen in context of IPCC sentences rather than out of context, and were only partly in agreement with the IPCC guidance note. Our findings inform recommendations for communications about scientific evidence, assessments, and related uncertainties.

Suggested Citation

  • A. Kause & W. Bruine de Bruin & J. Persson & H. Thorén & L. Olsson & A. Wallin & S. Dessai & N. Vareman, 2022. "Confidence levels and likelihood terms in IPCC reports: a survey of experts from different scientific disciplines," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 1-18, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:173:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-022-03382-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-022-03382-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-022-03382-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-022-03382-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Casey Helgeson & Richard Bradley & Brian Hill, 2018. "Combining probability with qualitative degree-of-certainty metrics in assessment," Post-Print hal-01966704, HAL.
    2. Casey Helgeson & Richard Bradley & Brian Hill, 2018. "Combining probability with qualitative degree-of-certainty metrics in assessment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 517-525, August.
    3. Lauren C. Howe & Bo MacInnis & Jon A. Krosnick & Ezra M. Markowitz & Robert Socolow, 2019. "Acknowledging uncertainty impacts public acceptance of climate scientists’ predictions," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(11), pages 863-867, November.
    4. Adam J. L. Harris & Han-Hui Por & Stephen B. Broomell, 2017. "Anchoring climate change communications," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 387-398, February.
    5. Gary Yohe & Michael Oppenheimer, 2011. "Evaluation, characterization, and communication of uncertainty by the intergovernmental panel on climate change—an introductory essay," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 629-639, October.
    6. Yasmina Okan & Eva Janssen & Mirta Galesic & Erika A. Waters, 2019. "Using the Short Graph Literacy Scale to Predict Precursors of Health Behavior Change," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(3), pages 183-195, April.
    7. Casey Helgeson & Richard Bradley & Brian Hill, 2018. "Combining Probability with Qualitative Degree-of-Certainty Metrics in Assessment," Working Papers hal-01933825, HAL.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:2:p:130-143 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Budescu, David V. & Wallsten, Thomas S., 1985. "Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 391-405, December.
    10. Michael Mastrandrea & Katharine Mach, 2011. "Treatment of uncertainties in IPCC Assessment Reports: past approaches and considerations for the Fifth Assessment Report," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 659-673, October.
    11. Adam Harris & Adam Corner & Juemin Xu & Xiufang Du, 2013. "Lost in translation? Interpretations of the probability phrases used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in China and the UK," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(2), pages 415-425, November.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:7:p:467-476 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Scott Janzwood, 2020. "Confident, likely, or both? The implementation of the uncertainty language framework in IPCC special reports," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(3), pages 1655-1675, October.
    14. Helgeson, Casey & Bradley, Richard & Hill, Brian, 2018. "Combining Probability with Qualitative Degree-of-Certainty Metrics in Assessment," HEC Research Papers Series 1298, HEC Paris.
    15. David V. Budescu & Han-Hui Por & Stephen B. Broomell & Michael Smithson, 2014. "The interpretation of IPCC probabilistic statements around the world," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 4(6), pages 508-512, June.
    16. Charles A. Ogunbode & Rouven Doran & Gisela Böhm, 2020. "Exposure to the IPCC special report on 1.5 °C global warming is linked to perceived threat and increased concern about climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 361-375, February.
    17. Marcus R. Munafò & Brian A. Nosek & Dorothy V. M. Bishop & Katherine S. Button & Christopher D. Chambers & Nathalie Percie du Sert & Uri Simonsohn & Eric-Jan Wagenmakers & Jennifer J. Ware & John P. A, 2017. "A manifesto for reproducible science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(1), pages 1-9, January.
    18. Rob Swart & Lenny Bernstein & Minh Ha-Duong & Arthur Petersen, 2009. "Agreeing to disagree: uncertainty management in assessing climate change, impacts and responses by the IPCC," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 1-29, January.
    19. Michael Mastrandrea & Katharine Mach & Gian-Kasper Plattner & Ottmar Edenhofer & Thomas Stocker & Christopher Field & Kristie Ebi & Patrick Matschoss, 2011. "The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 675-691, October.
    20. Tomas Molina & Ernest Abadal, 2021. "The Evolution of Communicating the Uncertainty of Climate Change to Policymakers: A Study of IPCC Synthesis Reports," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, February.
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:1:p:25-47 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Scott Janzwood, 2020. "Confident, likely, or both? The implementation of the uncertainty language framework in IPCC special reports," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(3), pages 1655-1675, October.
    2. Marina Baldissera Pacchetti & Suraje Dessai & David A. Stainforth & Seamus Bradley, 2021. "Assessing the quality of state-of-the-art regional climate information: the case of the UK Climate Projections 2018," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 1-25, September.
    3. Casey Helgeson & Richard Bradley & Brian Hill, 2018. "Combining probability with qualitative degree-of-certainty metrics in assessment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 517-525, August.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:363-393 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. David R. Mandel & Daniel Irwin, 2021. "Facilitating sender-receiver agreement in communicated probabilities: Is it best to use words, numbers or both?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 363-393, March.
    6. repec:wrk:wrkemf:22 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Adam J. L. Harris & Han-Hui Por & Stephen B. Broomell, 2017. "Anchoring climate change communications," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 387-398, February.
    8. Marie Juanchich & Theodore G. Shepherd & Miroslav Sirota, 2020. "Negations in uncertainty lexicon affect attention, decision-making and trust," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(3), pages 1677-1698, October.
    9. Manuel Gottschick, 2015. "How stakeholders handle uncertainty in a local climate adaptation governance network," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 445-457, October.
    10. Richard S. J. Tol, 2016. "The Impacts Of Climate Change According To The Ipcc," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(01), pages 1-20, February.
    11. Rosemarie McMahon & Michael Stauffacher & Reto Knutti, 2015. "The unseen uncertainties in climate change: reviewing comprehension of an IPCC scenario graph," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 141-154, November.
    12. Tomas Molina & Ernest Abadal, 2021. "The Evolution of Communicating the Uncertainty of Climate Change to Policymakers: A Study of IPCC Synthesis Reports," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, February.
    13. Michael Morreau, 2020. "Supergrading: how diverse standards can improve collective performance in ranking tasks," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(4), pages 541-565, May.
    14. Dawn Liu Holford & Marie Juanchich & Tom Foulsham & Miroslav Sirota & Alasdair D. F. Clarke, 2021. "Eye-tracking evidence for fixation asymmetries in verbal and numerical quantifier processing," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(4), pages 969-1009, July.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:4:p:969-1009 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. J. Refsgaard & K. Arnbjerg-Nielsen & M. Drews & K. Halsnæs & E. Jeppesen & H. Madsen & A. Markandya & J. Olesen & J. Porter & J. Christensen, 2013. "The role of uncertainty in climate change adaptation strategies—A Danish water management example," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 337-359, March.
    17. Kari De Pryck, 2021. "Controversial Practices: Tracing the Proceduralization of the IPCC in Time and Space," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S7), pages 80-89, December.
    18. Minal Pathak & Joyashree Roy & Shaurya Patel & Shreya Some & Purvi Vyas & Nandini Das & Priyadarshi Shukla, 2021. "Communicating climate change findings from IPCC reports: insights from outreach events in India," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 1-14, October.
    19. Teigen, Karl Halvor & Juanchich, Marie & Løhre, Erik, 2022. "What is a “likely” amount? Representative (modal) values are considered likely even when their probabilities are low," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    20. Pablo Borges de Amorim & Pedro B. Chaffe, 2019. "Towards a comprehensive characterization of evidence in synthesis assessments: the climate change impacts on the Brazilian water resources," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(1), pages 37-57, July.
    21. David Klenert & Franziska Funke & Linus Mattauch & Brian O’Callaghan, 2020. "Five Lessons from COVID-19 for Advancing Climate Change Mitigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 751-778, August.
    22. Lea Berrang‐Ford & Friederike Döbbe & Ruth Garside & Neal Haddaway & William F. Lamb & Jan C. Minx & Wolfgang Viechtbauer & Vivian Welch & Howard White, 2020. "Editorial: Evidence synthesis for accelerated learning on climate solutions," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), December.
    23. Piers Steel & Sjoerd Beugelsdijk & Herman Aguinis, 2021. "The anatomy of an award-winning meta-analysis: Recommendations for authors, reviewers, and readers of meta-analytic reviews," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(1), pages 23-44, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:173:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10584-022-03382-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.