IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/wirecc/v5y2014i5p663-676.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The IPCC and treatment of uncertainties: topics and sources of dissensus

Author

Listed:
  • Carolina E. Adler
  • Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn

Abstract

Characterizing uncertainty in the assessment of evidence is common practice when communicating science to users, a prominent example being the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports (ARs). The IPCC guidance note is designed to assist authors in the assessment process by assuring consistent treatment of uncertainties across working groups (WGs). However, debate on this approach has surfaced among scholars on whether applying the guidance note indeed yields the desired consistent treatment of uncertainties thus facilitating effective communication of findings to users. The IPCC guidance note is therefore a paradigmatic case for reviewing concerns regarding treatment of uncertainties for policy. We reviewed published literature that outline disagreement or dissensus on the guidance note in the IPCC assessment process, structured as three distinct topics. First, whether the procedure is reliable and leads to robust results. Second, whether the broad scope of diverse problems, epistemic approaches, and user perspectives allow for consistent and appropriate application. Third, whether the guidance note is adequate for the purpose of communicating clear and relevant information to users. Overall, we find greater emphasis placed on problems arising from the procedure and purpose of the assessment, rather than the scope of application. Since a procedure needs to be appropriate for its purpose and scope, a way forward entails not only making deliberative processes more transparent to control biases. It also entails developing differentiated instruments to account for diversity and complexity of problems, approaches, and perspectives, treating sources of uncertainty as relevant information to users. WIREs Clim Change 2014, 5:663–676. doi: 10.1002/wcc.297 This article is categorized under: Integrated Assessment of Climate Change > Integrated Assessment by Expert Panels Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Climate Science and Decision Making

Suggested Citation

  • Carolina E. Adler & Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn, 2014. "The IPCC and treatment of uncertainties: topics and sources of dissensus," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(5), pages 663-676, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:wirecc:v:5:y:2014:i:5:p:663-676
    DOI: 10.1002/wcc.297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.297
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/wcc.297?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jingwen Huo & Jing Meng & Heran Zheng & Priti Parikh & Dabo Guan, 2023. "Achieving decent living standards in emerging economies challenges national mitigation goals for CO2 emissions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Pilpola, Sannamari & Lund, Peter D., 2020. "Analyzing the effects of uncertainties on the modelling of low-carbon energy system pathways," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    4. Joseph P. Reser & Graham L. Bradley, 2020. "The nature, significance, and influence of perceived personal experience of climate change," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(5), September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:wirecc:v:5:y:2014:i:5:p:663-676. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1757-7799 .

    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.