skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: The use of decision making under deep uncertainty in the IPCC
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) exists to provide policy-relevant assessments of the science related to climate change. As such, the IPCC has long grappled with characterizing and communicating uncertainty in its assessments. Decision Making under Deep Uncertainty (DMDU) is a set of concepts, methods, and tools to inform decisions when there exist substantial and significant limitations on what is and can be known about policy-relevant questions. Over the last twenty-five years, the IPCC has drawn increasingly on DMDU concepts to more effectively include policy-relevant, but lower-confidence scientific information in its assessments. This paper traces the history of the IPCC’s use of DMDU and explains the intersection with key IPCC concepts such as risk, scenarios, treatment of uncertainty, storylines and high-impact, low-likelihood outcomes, and both adaptation and climate resilient development pathways. The paper suggests how the IPCC might benefit from enhanced use of DMDU in its current (7th) assessment cycle.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2103754
PAR ID:
10517314
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ; ;
Publisher / Repository:
Frontiers Media
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Frontiers in Climate
Volume:
6
ISSN:
2624-9553
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al (, Nature Climate Change)
    Future sea-level change is characterized by both quantifiable and unquantifiable uncertainties. Effective communication of both types of uncertainty is a key challenge in translating sea-level science to inform long-term coastal planning. Scientific assessments play a key role in the translation process and have taken diverse approaches to communicating sea-level projection uncertainty. Here we review how past IPCC and regional assessments have presented sea-level projection uncertainty, how IPCC presentations have been interpreted by regional assessments and how regional assessments and policy guidance simplify projections for practical use. This information influenced the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report presentation of quantifiable and unquantifiable uncertainty, with the goal of preserving both elements as projections are adapted for regional application. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; ; (, WIREs Climate Change)
    Abstract The release of new and updated sea‐level rise (SLR) information, such as from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports, needs to be better anticipated in coastal risk and adaptation assessments. This requires risk and adaptation assessments to be regularly reviewed and updated as needed, reflecting the new information but retaining useful information from earlier assessments. In this paper, updated guidance on the types of SLR information available is presented, including for sea‐level extremes. An intercomparison of the evolution of the headline projected ranges across all the IPCC reports show an increase from the fourth and fifth assessments to the most recent “Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate” assessment. IPCC reports have begun to highlight the importance of potential high‐end sea‐level response, mainly reflecting uncertainties in the Greenland/Antarctic ice sheet components, and how this might be considered in scenarios. The methods that are developed here are practical and consider coastal risk assessment, adaptation planning, and long‐term decision‐making to be an ongoing process and ensure that despite the large uncertainties, pragmatic adaptation decisions can be made. It is concluded that new sea‐level information should not be seen as an automatic reason for abandoning existing assessments, but as an opportunity to review (i) the assessment's robustness in the light of new science and (ii) the utility of proactive adaptation and planning strategies, especially over the more uncertain longer term. This article is categorized under:Assessing Impacts of Climate Change > Scenario Development and Application 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; (, Interface Focus)
    null (Ed.)
    Forests increasingly will be used for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as a natural climate solution, and the implementation of forest-based CDR presents a complex public policy challenge. In this paper, our goal is to review a range of policy tools in place to support use of forests for CDR and demonstrate how concepts from the policy design literature can inform our understanding of this domain. We explore how the utilization of different policy tools shapes our ability to use forests to mitigate and adapt to climate change and consider the challenges of policy mixes and integration, taking a close look at three areas of international forest policy, including the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and voluntary carbon offset markets. As it is our expertise, we then examine in detail the case of the USA as a country that lacks aggressive implementation of national climate policies but has potential to increase CDR through reforestation and existing forest management on both public and private land. For forest-based CDR to succeed, a wide array of policy tools will have to be implemented in a variety of contexts with an eye towards overcoming the challenges of policy design with regard to uncertainty in policy outcomes, policy coherence around managing forests for carbon simultaneously with other goals and integration across governance contexts and levels. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; (, Climatic Change)
    In this reply, we address a comment on our paper “Combining probability with qualitative degree-of-certainty metrics in assessment” (Helgeson et al. Clim Change 149(3):517–525, 2018). Our original paper proposes an incremental systematization of confidence and likelihood language used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Our goals were to improve consistency across findings and support use of confidence judgments in decision making. The comment critiques our proposal and recommends against its adoption. We argue that this recommendation is based on two misunderstandings. The first concerns trading off confidence against the precision of a finding (our proposal endorses and systematizes the practice). We defend this practice and attribute opposition to an overzealous Bayesianism inapt for the IPCC context. The second misunderstanding concerns our purported commitment to a specific procedure for producing confidence judgements. We clarify that our proposal makes no such commitment. We also note, contrary to the comment’s claim, that a version of the procedure in question has been used in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al (, Global Change Biology)
    Abstract Effective nitrogen fertilizer management is crucial for reducing nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions while ensuring food security within planetary boundaries. However, climate change might also interact with management practices to alter N2O emission and emission factors (EFs), adding further uncertainties to estimating mitigation potentials. Here, we developed a new hybrid modeling framework that integrates a machine learning model with an ensemble of eight process‐based models to project EFs under different climate and nitrogen policy scenarios. Our findings reveal that EFs are dynamically modulated by environmental changes, including climate, soil properties, and nitrogen management practices. Under low‐ambition nitrogen regulation policies, EF would increase from 1.18%–1.22% in 2010 to 1.27%–1.34% by 2050, representing a relative increase of 4.4%–11.4% and exceeding the IPCC tier‐1 EF of 1%. This trend is particularly pronounced in tropical and subtropical regions with high nitrogen inputs, where EFs could increase by 0.14%–0.35% (relative increase of 11.9%–17%). In contrast, high‐ambition policies have the potential to mitigate the increases in EF caused by climate change, possibly leading to slight decreases in EFs. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that global EFs are expected to continue rising due to warming and regional drying–wetting cycles, even in the absence of changes in nitrogen management practices. This asymmetrical influence of nitrogen fertilizers on EFs, driven by climate change, underscores the urgent need for immediate N2O emission reductions and further assessments of mitigation potentials. This hybrid modeling framework offers a computationally efficient approach to projecting future N2O emissions across various climate, soil, and nitrogen management scenarios, facilitating socio‐economic assessments and policy‐making efforts. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email