Equipped to deal with uncertainty in climate and impacts predictions: lessons from internal peer review

Wesselink, Anna, Challinor, Andrew Juan, Watson, James, Bevan, Keith, Allen, Icarus, Hanlon, Helen, Lopez, Ana, Otto, Friederike, Morse, Andy, Rye, Cameron, Saux-Picard, Stephane, Stainforth, David and Suckling, Emma (2014) Equipped to deal with uncertainty in climate and impacts predictions: lessons from internal peer review. Climatic Change, 132 1: . doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1213-1


Author Wesselink, Anna
Challinor, Andrew Juan
Watson, James
Bevan, Keith
Allen, Icarus
Hanlon, Helen
Lopez, Ana
Otto, Friederike
Morse, Andy
Rye, Cameron
Saux-Picard, Stephane
Stainforth, David
Suckling, Emma
Title Equipped to deal with uncertainty in climate and impacts predictions: lessons from internal peer review
Journal name Climatic Change   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0165-0009
1573-1480
Publication date 2014-08-12
Year available 2014
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1007/s10584-014-1213-1
Open Access Status
Volume 132
Issue 1
Total pages 14
Place of publication Dordrecht, The Netherlands
Publisher Springer
Collection year 2015
Language eng
Formatted abstract
The quantification of uncertainty is an increasingly popular topic, with clear importance for climate change policy. However, uncertainty assessments are open to a range of interpretations, each of which may lead to a different policy recommendation. In the EQUIP project researchers from the UK climate modelling, statistical modelling, and impacts communities worked together on ‘end-to-end’ uncertainty assessments of climate change and its impacts. Here, we use an experiment in peer review amongst project members to assess variation in the assessment of uncertainties between EQUIP researchers. We find overall agreement on key sources of uncertainty but a large variation in the assessment of the methods used for uncertainty assessment. Results show that communication aimed at specialists makes the methods used harder to assess. There is also evidence of individual bias, which is partially attributable to disciplinary backgrounds. However, varying views on the methods used to quantify uncertainty did not preclude consensus on the consequential results produced using those methods. Based on our analysis, we make recommendations for developing and presenting statements on climate and its impacts. These include the use of a common uncertainty reporting format in order to make assumptions clear; presentation of results in terms of processes and trade-offs rather than only numerical ranges; and reporting multiple assessments of uncertainty in order to elucidate a more complete picture of impacts and their uncertainties. This in turn implies research should be done by teams of people with a range of backgrounds and time for interaction and discussion, with fewer but more comprehensive outputs in which the range of opinions is recorded.
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Non-UQ
Additional Notes This article is part of a Special Issue on “Managing Uncertainty in Predictions of Climate and Its Impacts” edited by Andrew Challinor and Christopher Ferro.

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Non HERDC
Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 3 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 4 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 10 Mar 2015, 11:36:29 EST by James Watson on behalf of Centre for Plant Science