Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Confidence levels and likelihood terms in IPCC reports : a survey of experts from different scientific disciplines

Kause, Astrid LU ; De Bruin, Wändi Bruine ; Persson, Johannes LU orcid ; Thorén, Henrik LU ; Olsson, Lennart LU ; Wallin, Annika LU orcid ; Dessai, Suraje and Vareman, Niklas LU orcid (2022) In Climatic Change 173.
Abstract
Scientific assessments, such as those by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), inform policymakers and the public about the state of scientific evidence and related uncertainties. We studied how experts from different scientific disciplines who were authors of IPCC reports, interpret the uncertainty language recommended in the Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. This IPCC guidance note discusses how to use confidence levels to describe the quality of evidence and scientific agreement, as well likelihood terms to describe the probability intervals associated with climate variables. We find that (1) physical science experts were more familiar with the... (More)
Scientific assessments, such as those by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), inform policymakers and the public about the state of scientific evidence and related uncertainties. We studied how experts from different scientific disciplines who were authors of IPCC reports, interpret the uncertainty language recommended in the Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. This IPCC guidance note discusses how to use confidence levels to describe the quality of evidence and scientific agreement, as well likelihood terms to describe the probability intervals associated with climate variables. We find that (1) physical science experts were more familiar with the IPCC guidance note than other experts, and they followed it more often; (2) experts’ confidence levels increased more with perceptions of evidence than with agreement; (3) experts’ estimated probability intervals for climate variables were wider when likelihood terms were presented with “medium confidence” rather than with “high confidence” and when seen in context of IPCC sentences rather than out of context, and were only partly in agreement with the IPCC guidance note. Our findings inform recommendations for communications about scientific evidence, assessments, and related uncertainties. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Scientific assessments, such as those by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), inform policymakers and the public about the state of scientific evidence and related uncertainties. We studied how experts from different scientific disciplines who were authors of IPCC reports, interpret the uncertainty language recommended in the Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. This IPCC guidance note discusses how to use confidence levels to describe the quality of evidence and scientific agreement, as well likelihood terms to describe the probability intervals associated with climate variables. We find that (1) physical science experts were more familiar with the... (More)
Scientific assessments, such as those by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), inform policymakers and the public about the state of scientific evidence and related uncertainties. We studied how experts from different scientific disciplines who were authors of IPCC reports, interpret the uncertainty language recommended in the Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. This IPCC guidance note discusses how to use confidence levels to describe the quality of evidence and scientific agreement, as well likelihood terms to describe the probability intervals associated with climate variables. We find that (1) physical science experts were more familiar with the IPCC guidance note than other experts, and they followed it more often; (2) experts’ confidence levels increased more with perceptions of evidence than with agreement; (3) experts’ estimated probability intervals for climate variables were wider when likelihood terms were presented with “medium confidence” rather than with “high confidence” and when seen in context of IPCC sentences rather than out of context, and were only partly in agreement with the IPCC guidance note. Our findings inform recommendations for communications about scientific evidence, assessments, and related uncertainties. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Uncertainty, communication, confidence, probability, expert judgment, scientific assessment, IPCC, uncertainty, Communication, Confidence, Probability, Expert judgment, Scientific assessment, IPCC
in
Climatic Change
volume
173
article number
2
pages
18 pages
publisher
Springer
external identifiers
  • scopus:85133411661
ISSN
0165-0009
DOI
10.1007/s10584-022-03382-3
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
9283cc68-2c08-477e-a984-c0dbd9c71907
date added to LUP
2022-07-04 18:32:07
date last changed
2024-04-04 10:36:27
@article{9283cc68-2c08-477e-a984-c0dbd9c71907,
  abstract     = {{Scientific assessments, such as those by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), inform policymakers and the public about the state of scientific evidence and related uncertainties. We studied how experts from different scientific disciplines who were authors of IPCC reports, interpret the uncertainty language recommended in the Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. This IPCC guidance note discusses how to use confidence levels to describe the quality of evidence and scientific agreement, as well likelihood terms to describe the probability intervals associated with climate variables. We find that (1) physical science experts were more familiar with the IPCC guidance note than other experts, and they followed it more often; (2) experts’ confidence levels increased more with perceptions of evidence than with agreement; (3) experts’ estimated probability intervals for climate variables were wider when likelihood terms were presented with “medium confidence” rather than with “high confidence” and when seen in context of IPCC sentences rather than out of context, and were only partly in agreement with the IPCC guidance note. Our findings inform recommendations for communications about scientific evidence, assessments, and related uncertainties.}},
  author       = {{Kause, Astrid and De Bruin, Wändi Bruine and Persson, Johannes and Thorén, Henrik and Olsson, Lennart and Wallin, Annika and Dessai, Suraje and Vareman, Niklas}},
  issn         = {{0165-0009}},
  keywords     = {{Uncertainty; communication; confidence; probability; expert judgment; scientific assessment; IPCC; uncertainty; Communication; Confidence; Probability; Expert judgment; Scientific assessment; IPCC}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  month        = {{07}},
  publisher    = {{Springer}},
  series       = {{Climatic Change}},
  title        = {{Confidence levels and likelihood terms in IPCC reports : a survey of experts from different scientific disciplines}},
  url          = {{https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/files/121006307/Kause2022_Article_ConfidenceLevelsAndLikelihoodT.pdf}},
  doi          = {{10.1007/s10584-022-03382-3}},
  volume       = {{173}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}