Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:05:44.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expert Judgment for Climate Change Adaptation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Erica Thompson ,
Roman Frigg  and
Casey Helgeson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Climate change adaptation is largely a local matter, and adaptation planning can benefit from local climate change projections. Such projections are typically generated by accepting climate model outputs in a relatively uncritical way. We argue, based on the IPCC’s treatment of model outputs from the CMIP5 ensemble, that this approach is unwarranted and that subjective expert judgment should play a central role in the provision of local climate change projections intended to support decision-making.

Type
Evidence for Climate Policy
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 83 , Issue 5 , December 2016 , pp. 1110 - 1121
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

This work was supported by the AHRC’s Managing Severe Uncertainty project (AH/J006033/1), the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (grant FFI2012-37354), and the Natural Environment Research Council (grant NE/M008304/1).

References

American Meteorological Society. 2015. “A Policy Statement of the American Meteorological Society: Climate Services.” AMS Council. https://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-services1/.Google Scholar
Aspinall, Willy. 2010. “A Route to More Tractable Expert Advice.” Nature 463 (7279): 294–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Besa, Monica C. 2013. “Using Climate Information to Support Adaptation Planning and Policy-Making: A Practical Case Study in Bagamojo District, Coastal Tanzania.” weADAPT, the Collaborative Platform on Climate Adaptation.Google Scholar
California Energy Commission. 2016. “Precipitation: Decadal Averages Map.” Cal-Adapt. http://cal-adapt.org/precip/decadal/.Google Scholar
Cooke, Roger, and Goossens, Louis. 2000. “Procedures Guide for Structured Expert Judgment.” Project Report, European Commission Nuclear Science and Technology.Google Scholar
Cooke, Roger M. 1991. Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cooke, Roger M. 2013. “Uncertainty Analysis Comes to Integrated Assessment Models for Climate Change … and Conversely.” Climatic Change 117 (3): 467–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, Roger M. 2014. “Deep and Shallow Uncertainty in Messaging Climate Change.” In Safety, Reliability and Risk Analysis: Beyond the Horizon, ed. Steenbergen, Raphael D. J. M., van Gelder, Pieter H. A. J. M., Miraglia, Simona, and Vrouwenvelder, A. C. W. M., 13–25. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Frigg, Roman, Bradley, Seamus, Du, Hailiang, and Smith, Leonard A.. 2014. “Laplace’s Demon and the Adventures of His Apprentices.” Philosophy of Science 81 (1): 31–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frigg, Roman, Smith, Leonard A., and Stainforth, David A.. 2013. “The Myopia of Imperfect Climate Models: The Case of UKCP09.” Philosophy of Science 80:886–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frigg, Roman, Smith, Leonard A., and Stainforth, David A. 2015. “An Assessment of the Foundational Assumptions in High-Resolution Climate Projections: The Case of UKCP09.” Synthese 192 (12): 3979–4008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genest, Christian, and Zidek, James V.. 1986. “Combining Probability Distributions: A Critique and an Annotated Bibliography.” Statistical Science 1 (1): 114–35.Google Scholar
Goossens, Louis H. J., Cooke, Roger, Hale, Andrew R., and Rodić-Wiersma, Ljiliana. 2008. “Fifteen Years of Expert Judgement at TUDelft.” Safety Science 46 (2): 234–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goossens, Louis H. J., Cooke, Roger M., Woudenberg, Fred, and Der Torn, Pieter Van. 1998. “Expert Judgement and Lethal Toxicity of Inhaled Chemicals.” Journal of Risk Research 1 (2): 117–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
High Speed Two Limited. 2013. “London-West Midlands Environmental Statement.” Vol. 5, “Technical Appendices: Resilience to Impacts from Climate Conditions.” https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/259614/Volume5_Climate_Change_Resilience_Report_CL-003_000.pdf.Google Scholar
Knutti, Reto, Furrer, Reinhard, Tebaldi, Claudia, Cermak, Jan, and Meehl, Gerald A.. 2010. “Challenges in Combining Projections from Multiple Climate Models.” Journal of Climate 23:2739–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knutti, Reto, and Sedlacek, Jan. 2013. “Robustness and Uncertainties in the New CMIP5 Coordinated Climate Model Projections.” Nature Climate Change 3:369–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martini, Carlo, and Boumans, Marcel, eds. 2014. Experts and Consensus in Social Science. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maslin, Mark, and Austin, Patrick. 2012. “Uncertainty: Climate Models at Their Limit?” Nature 486 (7402): 183–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mearns, Linda. 2014. “Credibility of Regional Climate Model Projections of Future Climate.” Lecture, Knowledge and Models in Climate Science: Philosophical, Historical, and Scientific Perspectives, University of Western Ontario, October 2014. Available at http://youtube.com/watch?v=uAM5bHH4VGo.Google Scholar
Office, Met. 2009. “Worked Examples.” UK Climate Projections. http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/23102.Google Scholar
Morgan, M. Granger. 2014. “Use (and Abuse) of Expert Elicitation in Support of Decision Making for Public Policy.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (20): 7176–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Nature Conservancy. 2009. “ClimateWizard.” http://www.climatewizard.org/AboutUs.html.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, Michael, O’Neill, Brian C., Webster, Mort, and Agrawala, Shardul. 2007. “The Limits of Consensus.” Science 317 (5844): 1505–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi. 2007. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?” In Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren, ed. DiMento, Joseph F. C. and Doughman, Pamela, 65–99. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. 2014. “ClimateImpactsOnline.” http://www.climateimpactsonline.com/.Google Scholar
Reifen, Catherine, and Toumi, Ralf. 2009. “Climate Projections: Past Performance No Guarantee of Future Skill?” Geophysical Research Letters 36 (13): L13704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reilly, John, Stone, Peter H., Forest, Chris E., Webster, Mort D., Jacoby, Henry D., and Prinn, Ronald G.. 2001. “Uncertainty and Climate Change Assessments.” Science 293 (5529): 430–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, Harold T., et al. 2010. “Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC.” Technical Report, InterAcademy Council.Google Scholar
Stocker, Thomas F., Qin, Dahe, Plattner, Gian-Kasper, Tignor, Melinda M. B., Allen, Simon K., Boschung, Judith, Nauels, Alexander, Xia, Yu, Bex, Vincent, and Midgley, Pauline M., eds. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilby, Robert, Nicholls, Robert J., Warren, Rachel, Wheater, Howard S., Clarke, Derek, and Dawson, Richard J.. 2011. “New Nuclear Build: Adaptation Options over the Full Life-Cycle.” Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Civil Engineering 164 (4): 129–36.Google Scholar
Yohe, Gary, and Oppenheimer, Michael. 2011. “Evaluation, Characterization, and Communication of Uncertainty by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—an Introductory Essay.” Climatic Change 108 (4): 629–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar