COP21 climate negotiators' responses to climate model forecasts

Nature Climate Change

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 185-189

  Bosetti, Valentina ^a,b   Weber, Elke ^c   Berger, Loïc ^b,d   Budescu, David V ^e   Liu, Ning ^a,b   Tavoni, Massimo ^b,f  

^a BOCCONI UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^b FONDAZIONE ENI ENRICO MATTEI   (Italy)

^c PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d IESEG SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT   (France)

^e FORDHAM UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f POLITECNICO DI MILANO   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; CLIMATE MODELING; INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE; POLICY MAKING; VISUALIZATION; WEATHER FORECASTING;

FRANCE; ILE DE FRANCE; PARIS; VILLE DE PARIS;

EID: 85017473912     PISSN: 1758678X     EISSN: 17586798     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3208     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Budescu, D. V., Por, H.-H., Broomell, S. B. & Smithson, M. The interpretation of IPCC probabilistic statements around the world. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 508-512 (2014).
2. Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer, L. A. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
3. McMahon, R., Stauacher, M. & Knutti, R. The unseen uncertainties in climate change: reviewing comprehension of an IPCC scenario graph. Climatic Change 133, 141-154 (2015).
4. Patt, A. G. & Weber, E. U. Perceptions and communication strategies for the many uncertainties relevant for climate policy.Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 5, 219-232 (2014).
5. Riahi, K. et al. The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009 (2016).
6. Taylor, K. E., Stouer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485-498 (2011).
7. Abdellaoui, M., Baillon, A., Placido, L. & Wakker, P. P. The rich domain of uncertainty: source functions and their experimental implementation. Am. Econ. Rev. 101, 695-723 (2011).
8. Dieckmann, N. F., Peters, E. & Gregory, R. Seeing what you want to see: how imprecise uncertainty ranges enhance motivated cognition. Risk Anal. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/risa.12639 (2016).
9. Cooke, R. M. Messaging climate change uncertainty. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 8-10 (2015).
10. Pidgeon, N. & Fischho, B. The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 35-41 (2011).
11. Fischho, B. & Davis, A. L. Communicating scientific uncertainty. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 13664-13671 (2014).
12. Feller, W. An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications (JohnWiley, 1968).
13. Synthesis Report on the Aggregate Effect of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions FCCC/CP/2015/7 (UNFCCC, 2015); http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/07.pdf
14. Climate Scorecard (Climate Interactive, Accessed 12 December 2016); https://www.climateinteractive.org/programs/scoreboard
15. Budescu, D. V., Por, H.-H. & Broomell, S. B. Effective communication of uncertainty in the IPCC reports. Climatic Change 113, 181-200 (2011).
16. Bonaccio, S. & Dalal, R. S. Advice taking and decision-making: an integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 101, 127-151 (2006).
17. See, K. E., Morrison, E.W., Rothman, N. B. & Soll, J. B. The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 116, 272-285 (2011).
18. Tost, L. P., Gino, F. & Larrick, R. P. Power, competitiveness, and advice taking: Why the powerful don't listen. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 117, 53-65 (2012).
19. Knutti, R., Furrer, R., Tebaldi, C., Cermak, J. & Meehl, G. A. Challenges in combining projections from multiple climate models. J. Clim. 23, 2739-2758 (2010).
20. Prewitt, K. et al. Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy (National Academies, 2012).
21. Epley, N. & Gilovich, T. Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: di-erential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychol. Sci. 12, 391-396 (2001).
22. Kunreuther, H. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
23. Harrison, G.W. & List, J. A. Field experiments. J. Econ. Lit. 42, 1009-1055 (2004).
24. IPCC Climate Change: 2013 The Physical Science Basis (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
25. Zellner, A. An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 57, 348-368 (1962).
26. Tversky, A. & Koehler, D. J. Support theory: a nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychol. Rev. 101, 547-567 (1994).
27. Redelmeier, D. A., Koehler, D. J., Liberman, V. & Tversky, A. Probability judgment in medicine discounting unspecified possibilities. Med. Decis. Mak. 15, 227-230 (1995).
28. Fox, C. R. & Birke, R. Forecasting trial outcomes: lawyers assign higher probability to possibilities that are described in greater detail. Law Hum. Behav. 26, 159-173 (2002).
29. Fox, C. R., Rogers, B. A. & Tversky, A. Options traders exhibit subadditive decision weights. J. Risk Uncertain. 13, 5-17 (1996).
30. Fox, C. R. & Rottenstreich, Y. Partition priming in judgment under uncertainty. Psychol. Sci. 14, 195-200 (2003).