IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/112978.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the appropriate and inappropriate uses of probability distributions in climate projections and some alternatives

Author

Listed:
  • Katzav, Joel
  • Thompson, Erica L.
  • Risbey, James
  • Stainforth, David A.
  • Bradley, Seamus
  • Frisch, Mathias

Abstract

When do probability distribution functions (PDFs) about future climate misrepresent uncertainty? How can we recognise when such misrepresentation occurs and thus avoid it in reasoning about or communicating our uncertainty? And when we should not use a PDF, what should we do instead? In this paper, we address these three questions. We start by providing a classification of types of uncertainty and using this classification to illustrate when PDFs misrepresent our uncertainty in a way that may adversely affect decisions. We then discuss when it is reasonable and appropriate to use a PDF to reason about or communicate uncertainty about climate. We consider two perspectives on this issue. On one, which we argue is preferable, available theory and evidence in climate science basically exclude using PDFs to represent our uncertainty. On the other, PDFs can legitimately be provided when resting on appropriate expert judgement and recognition of associated risks. Once we have specified the border between appropriate and inappropriate uses of PDFs, we explore alternatives to their use. We briefly describe two formal alternatives, namely imprecise probabilities and possibilistic distribution functions, as well as informal possibilistic alternatives. We suggest that the possibilistic alternatives are preferable.

Suggested Citation

  • Katzav, Joel & Thompson, Erica L. & Risbey, James & Stainforth, David A. & Bradley, Seamus & Frisch, Mathias, 2021. "On the appropriate and inappropriate uses of probability distributions in climate projections and some alternatives," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112978, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:112978
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/112978/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. L. Bamber & W. P. Aspinall, 2013. "An expert judgement assessment of future sea level rise from the ice sheets," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 424-427, April.
    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. Le Bars, Dewi, 2018. "Uncertainty in sea level rise projections due to the dependence between contributors," Earth Arxiv uvw3s, Center for Open Science.
    2. Tony E. Wong & Alexander M. R. Bakker & Klaus Keller, 2017. "Impacts of Antarctic fast dynamics on sea-level projections and coastal flood defense," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 347-364, September.
    3. Klaus Desmet & Robert E. Kopp & Scott A. Kulp & Dávid Krisztián Nagy & Michael Oppenheimer & Esteban Rossi-Hansberg & Benjamin H. Strauss, 2021. "Evaluating the Economic Cost of Coastal Flooding," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 444-486, April.
    4. Xiukang Wang, 2022. "Managing Land Carrying Capacity: Key to Achieving Sustainable Production Systems for Food Security," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, March.
    5. Emily Ho & David V. Budescu & Valentina Bosetti & Detlef P. Vuuren & Klaus Keller, 2019. "Not all carbon dioxide emission scenarios are equally likely: a subjective expert assessment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 545-561, August.
    6. Hristos Karahalios, 2017. "Evaluating the knowledge of experts in the maritime regulatory field," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(4), pages 426-441, May.
    7. Delavane B. Diaz, 2015. "Integrated Assessment of Climate Catastrophes with Endogenous Uncertainty: Does the Risk of Ice Sheet Collapse Justify Precautionary Mitigation?," Working Papers 2015.64, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    8. Verschuur, Jasper & Le Bars, Dewi & Drijfhout, Sybren & Katsman, Caroline & de Vries, Sierd & Ranasinghe, Roshanka & Aarninkhof, Stefan, 2018. "Implications of ambiguity in Antarctic ice sheet dynamics for future coastal erosion estimates: a probabilistic assessment," Earth Arxiv dysza, Center for Open Science.
    9. World Health Organization, Foodborne Epidemiology Reference Group, Source Attribution Task Force, 2016. "Research Synthesis Methods in an Age of Globalized Risks: Lessons from the Global Burden of Foodborne Disease Expert Elicitation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 191-202, February.
    10. Alexander M. R. Bakker & Domitille Louchard & Klaus Keller, 2017. "Sources and implications of deep uncertainties surrounding sea-level projections," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 339-347, February.
    11. Delavane Diaz & Klaus Keller, 2016. "A Potential Disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet: Implications for Economic Analyses of Climate Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 607-611, May.
    12. Joel Katzav & Erica L. Thompson & James Risbey & David A. Stainforth & Seamus Bradley & Mathias Frisch, 2021. "On the appropriate and inappropriate uses of probability distributions in climate projections and some alternatives," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-20, November.
    13. Cooke, Roger M., 2014. "Deep and Shallow Uncertainty in Messaging Climate Change," RFF Working Paper Series dp-14-11, Resources for the Future.
    14. Jiaxun Li & Feifei Cao & Di Wu & Xiao Fu & Ye Tian & Gang Wu, 2018. "Determining Soil Nutrients Reference Condition in Alpine Region Grassland, China: A Case Study of Hulun Buir Grassland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-12, December.
    15. Hylke Vries & Roderik S. W. Wal, 2016. "Response to commentary by J. L. Bamber, W. P. Aspinall and R. M. Cooke (2016)," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 137(3), pages 329-332, August.
    16. Thomas David Pol & Jochen Hinkel, 2019. "Uncertainty representations of mean sea-level change: a telephone game?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 393-411, March.
    17. Jérémy Rohmer & Gonéri Cozannet & Jean-Charles Manceau, 2019. "Addressing ambiguity in probabilistic assessments of future coastal flooding using possibility distributions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(1), pages 95-109, July.
    18. Abigail R Colson & Roger M Cooke, 2018. "Expert Elicitation: Using the Classical Model to Validate Experts’ Judgments," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 113-132.
    19. Robert Kopp & Benjamin Horton & Andrew Kemp & Claudia Tebaldi, 2015. "Past and future sea-level rise along the coast of North Carolina, USA," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 132(4), pages 693-707, October.
    20. Abigail R Colson & Itamar Megiddo & Gerardo Alvarez-Uria & Sumanth Gandra & Tim Bedford & Alec Morton & Roger M Cooke & Ramanan Laxminarayan, 2019. "Quantifying uncertainty about future antimicrobial resistance: Comparing structured expert judgment and statistical forecasting methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    climate projection; deep uncertainty; possibility theory; probability; uncertainty representations;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ehl:lserod:112978. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.