Characterizing uncertainty in expert assessments: ozone depletion and the West Antarctic ice sheet

Large‐scale assessments have become an important vehicle for organizing, interpreting, and presenting scientific information relevant to environmental policy. At the same time, identifying and evaluating scientific uncertainty with respect to the very questions these assessments were designed to add...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change
Main Authors: Jessica O'Reilly, Keynyn Brysse, Michael Oppenheimer, Naomi Oreskes
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:unknown
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.135
id ftrepec:oai:RePEc:wly:wirecc:v:2:y:2011:i:5:p:728-743
record_format openpolar
spelling ftrepec:oai:RePEc:wly:wirecc:v:2:y:2011:i:5:p:728-743 2023-05-15T13:36:41+02:00 Characterizing uncertainty in expert assessments: ozone depletion and the West Antarctic ice sheet Jessica O'Reilly Keynyn Brysse Michael Oppenheimer Naomi Oreskes https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.135 unknown https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.135 article ftrepec https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.135 2020-12-04T13:31:18Z Large‐scale assessments have become an important vehicle for organizing, interpreting, and presenting scientific information relevant to environmental policy. At the same time, identifying and evaluating scientific uncertainty with respect to the very questions these assessments were designed to address has become more difficult, as ever more complex problems involving greater portions of the Earth system and longer timescales have emerged at the science–policy interface. In this article, we explore expert judgments about uncertainty in two recent cases: the assessment of stratospheric ozone depletion, and the assessment of the response of the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) to global warming. These assessments were fairly adept at characterizing one type of uncertainty in models (parameter uncertainty), but faced much greater difficulty in dealing with structural model uncertainty, sometimes entirely avoiding grappling with it. In the absence of viable models, innovative approaches were developed in the ozone case for consolidating information about highly uncertain future outcomes, whereas little such progress has been made thus far in the case of WAIS. Both cases illustrate the problem of expert disagreement, suggesting that future assessments need to develop improved approaches to representing internal conflicts of judgment, in order to produce a more complete evaluation of uncertainty. WIREs Clim Change 2011 2 728–743 DOI:10.1002/wcc.135 This article is categorized under: Integrated Assessment of Climate Change > Integrated Assessment by Expert Panels Article in Journal/Newspaper Antarc* Antarctic Ice Sheet RePEc (Research Papers in Economics) Antarctic West Antarctic Ice Sheet Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 2 5 728 743
institution Open Polar
collection RePEc (Research Papers in Economics)
op_collection_id ftrepec
language unknown
description Large‐scale assessments have become an important vehicle for organizing, interpreting, and presenting scientific information relevant to environmental policy. At the same time, identifying and evaluating scientific uncertainty with respect to the very questions these assessments were designed to address has become more difficult, as ever more complex problems involving greater portions of the Earth system and longer timescales have emerged at the science–policy interface. In this article, we explore expert judgments about uncertainty in two recent cases: the assessment of stratospheric ozone depletion, and the assessment of the response of the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) to global warming. These assessments were fairly adept at characterizing one type of uncertainty in models (parameter uncertainty), but faced much greater difficulty in dealing with structural model uncertainty, sometimes entirely avoiding grappling with it. In the absence of viable models, innovative approaches were developed in the ozone case for consolidating information about highly uncertain future outcomes, whereas little such progress has been made thus far in the case of WAIS. Both cases illustrate the problem of expert disagreement, suggesting that future assessments need to develop improved approaches to representing internal conflicts of judgment, in order to produce a more complete evaluation of uncertainty. WIREs Clim Change 2011 2 728–743 DOI:10.1002/wcc.135 This article is categorized under: Integrated Assessment of Climate Change > Integrated Assessment by Expert Panels
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Jessica O'Reilly
Keynyn Brysse
Michael Oppenheimer
Naomi Oreskes
spellingShingle Jessica O'Reilly
Keynyn Brysse
Michael Oppenheimer
Naomi Oreskes
Characterizing uncertainty in expert assessments: ozone depletion and the West Antarctic ice sheet
author_facet Jessica O'Reilly
Keynyn Brysse
Michael Oppenheimer
Naomi Oreskes
author_sort Jessica O'Reilly
title Characterizing uncertainty in expert assessments: ozone depletion and the West Antarctic ice sheet
title_short Characterizing uncertainty in expert assessments: ozone depletion and the West Antarctic ice sheet
title_full Characterizing uncertainty in expert assessments: ozone depletion and the West Antarctic ice sheet
title_fullStr Characterizing uncertainty in expert assessments: ozone depletion and the West Antarctic ice sheet
title_full_unstemmed Characterizing uncertainty in expert assessments: ozone depletion and the West Antarctic ice sheet
title_sort characterizing uncertainty in expert assessments: ozone depletion and the west antarctic ice sheet
url https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.135
geographic Antarctic
West Antarctic Ice Sheet
geographic_facet Antarctic
West Antarctic Ice Sheet
genre Antarc*
Antarctic
Ice Sheet
genre_facet Antarc*
Antarctic
Ice Sheet
op_relation https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.135
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.135
container_title Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change
container_volume 2
container_issue 5
container_start_page 728
op_container_end_page 743
_version_ 1766082357178138624