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

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Standard

Confidence levels and likelihood terms in IPCC reports : a survey of experts from different scientific disciplines. / Kause, Astrid; Bruine de Bruin, W.; Persson, Johannes et al.

In: Climatic Change, Vol. 173, No. 1-2, 2, 01.07.2022.

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Kause, A, Bruine de Bruin, W, Persson, J, Thorén, H, Olsson, L, Wallin, A, Dessai, S & Vareman, N 2022, 'Confidence levels and likelihood terms in IPCC reports: a survey of experts from different scientific disciplines', Climatic Change, vol. 173, no. 1-2, 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03382-3

APA

Kause, A., Bruine de Bruin, W., Persson, J., Thorén, H., Olsson, L., Wallin, A., Dessai, S., & Vareman, N. (2022). Confidence levels and likelihood terms in IPCC reports: a survey of experts from different scientific disciplines. Climatic Change, 173(1-2), [2]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03382-3

Vancouver

Kause A, Bruine de Bruin W, Persson J, Thorén H, Olsson L, Wallin A et al. Confidence levels and likelihood terms in IPCC reports: a survey of experts from different scientific disciplines. Climatic Change. 2022 Jul 1;173(1-2):2. doi: 10.1007/s10584-022-03382-3

Bibtex

@article{bbfa45d7768e4b14b72974927ed1bfb3,
title = "Confidence levels and likelihood terms in IPCC reports: a survey of experts from different scientific disciplines",
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{\textquoteright} confidence levels increased more with perceptions of evidence than with agreement; (3) experts{\textquoteright} 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.",
keywords = "Communication, Confidence, Expert judgment, IPCC, Probability, Scientific assessment, Uncertainty, Psychology",
author = "Astrid Kause and {Bruine de Bruin}, W. and Johannes Persson and H. Thor{\'e}n and L. Olsson and A. Wallin and S. Dessai and N. Vareman",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022, The Author(s).",
year = "2022",
month = jul,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10584-022-03382-3",
language = "English",
volume = "173",
journal = "Climatic Change",
issn = "0165-0009",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "1-2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Confidence levels and likelihood terms in IPCC reports

T2 - a survey of experts from different scientific disciplines

AU - Kause, Astrid

AU - Bruine de Bruin, W.

AU - Persson, Johannes

AU - Thorén, H.

AU - Olsson, L.

AU - Wallin, A.

AU - Dessai, S.

AU - Vareman, N.

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s).

PY - 2022/7/1

Y1 - 2022/7/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Communication

KW - Confidence

KW - Expert judgment

KW - IPCC

KW - Probability

KW - Scientific assessment

KW - Uncertainty

KW - Psychology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85133411661&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10584-022-03382-3

DO - 10.1007/s10584-022-03382-3

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:85133411661

VL - 173

JO - Climatic Change

JF - Climatic Change

SN - 0165-0009

IS - 1-2

M1 - 2

ER -

Documents

  • Download

    3.24 MB, PDF document

DOI