Literature DB >> 20616045

Expert judgments about transient climate response to alternative future trajectories of radiative forcing.

Kirsten Zickfeld1, M Granger Morgan, David J Frame, David W Keith.   

Abstract

There is uncertainty about the response of the climate system to future trajectories of radiative forcing. To quantify this uncertainty we conducted face-to-face interviews with 14 leading climate scientists, using formal methods of expert elicitation. We structured the interviews around three scenarios of radiative forcing stabilizing at different levels. All experts ranked "cloud radiative feedbacks" as contributing most to their uncertainty about future global mean temperature change, irrespective of the specified level of radiative forcing. The experts disagreed about the relative contribution of other physical processes to their uncertainty about future temperature change. For a forcing trajectory that stabilized at 7 Wm(-2) in 2200, 13 of the 14 experts judged the probability that the climate system would undergo, or be irrevocably committed to, a "basic state change" as > or =0.5. The width and median values of the probability distributions elicited from the different experts for future global mean temperature change under the specified forcing trajectories vary considerably. Even for a moderate increase in forcing by the year 2050, the medians of the elicited distributions of temperature change relative to 2000 range from 0.8-1.8 degrees C, and some of the interquartile ranges do not overlap. Ten of the 14 experts estimated that the probability that equilibrium climate sensitivity exceeds 4.5 degrees C is > 0.17, our interpretation of the upper limit of the "likely" range given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Finally, most experts anticipated that over the next 20 years research will be able to achieve only modest reductions in their degree of uncertainty.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20616045      PMCID: PMC2906595          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0908906107

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  5 in total

1.  Subjective judgments by climate experts.

Authors:  M G Morgan; D W Keith
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  1995-10-01       Impact factor: 9.028

2.  Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system.

Authors:  Timothy M Lenton; Hermann Held; Elmar Kriegler; Jim W Hall; Wolfgang Lucht; Stefan Rahmstorf; Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-02-07       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Imprecise probability assessment of tipping points in the climate system.

Authors:  Elmar Kriegler; Jim W Hall; Hermann Held; Richard Dawson; Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-03-16       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.

Authors:  A Tversky; D Kahneman
Journal:  Science       Date:  1974-09-27       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment.

Authors:  Richard H Moss; Jae A Edmonds; Kathy A Hibbard; Martin R Manning; Steven K Rose; Detlef P van Vuuren; Timothy R Carter; Seita Emori; Mikiko Kainuma; Tom Kram; Gerald A Meehl; John F B Mitchell; Nebojsa Nakicenovic; Keywan Riahi; Steven J Smith; Ronald J Stouffer; Allison M Thomson; John P Weyant; Thomas J Wilbanks
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-02-11       Impact factor: 49.962

  5 in total
  5 in total

1.  A simple remedy for overprecision in judgment.

Authors:  Uriel Haran; Don A Moore; Carey K Morewedge
Journal:  Judgm Decis Mak       Date:  2010-12

2.  Expert assessments of the cost of light water small modular reactors.

Authors:  Ahmed Abdulla; Inês Lima Azevedo; M Granger Morgan
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Informing Public Perceptions About Climate Change: A 'Mental Models' Approach.

Authors:  Gabrielle Wong-Parodi; Wändi Bruine de Bruin
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy.

Authors:  M Granger Morgan
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  The Role of Type and Source of Uncertainty on the Processing of Climate Models Projections.

Authors:  Daniel M Benjamin; David V Budescu
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-03-27
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.