Abstract
This article focuses on the implications for the US National Climate Assessment (NCA) of diversifying information needs to support climate change risk management. It describes how the Third US National Climate Assessment (NCA3) evolved to begin to narrow the gap between information from climate and impact scientists and “intermediaries” (individuals who have expertise in climate science, communication, and decision-support processes)—who are sometimes collectively described as “producers” in this article—and the decision-making needs of a wide range of “users” (individuals involved in advising or making a wide range of policy and management decisions). One step in the evolution of the NCA3 included adding a chapter to assess decision-support tools and systems being used in climate-related decisions. Another involved efforts to improve characterization of the level of confidence of NCA3 authors in their findings to help decision-makers and their advisors differentiate well-established and more preliminary conclusions. This paper lays out an argument for increasing the role of the NCA in assessing decision-support systems in the Fourth Assessment (NCA4) and the Sustained Assessment. It also briefly reviews approaches and potential next steps related to characterizing uncertainty and communicating confidence intended to improve application of assessment findings by decision-makers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bazerman MH (2009) Barriers to acting in time on energy and strategies for overcoming them. Working paper 09-063. Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA, http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/09-063.pdf Accessed 29 April 2015
Bierbaum R, Lee A, Smith J et al (2014) Ch. 28: adaptation. In: Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Yohe GW (eds) Climate change impacts in the United States: the third National Climate Assessment. Global Change Research Program, U.S, pp 670–706. doi:10.7930/J07H1GGT
Budescu D, Por H-H et al (2012) Effective communication of uncertainty in the IPCC reports. Clim Chang 113(2):181–200
Buizer JL, Fleming P, Hays SL et al (2013) Report on preparing the nation for change: building a sustained National Climate Assessment process. National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee, Washington DC, http://downloads.globalchange.gov/nca/NCADAC/NCADAC_Sustained_Assessment_Special_Report_Sept2013.pdf Accessed 20 April 2015
Buizer JM, Dow K, Black ME et al (2015) Building a sustained climate assessment process. Clim Chang. doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1501-4
Eisenack K, Moser SC, Hoffmann E et al (2014) Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation. Nat Clim Chang 4:867–872
Ekstrom JA, Moser SC (2014) Identifying and overcoming barriers in urban adaptation efforts to climate change: case findings from the San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA. Urban Clim 9:54–74. doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2014.06.002
Gifford R (2011) The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol 66:290–302
Jacoby HD, Janetos AC, Birdsey R et al (2014) Ch. 27: Mitigation. In: Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Yohe GW (eds) Climate change impacts in the United States: the third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research, Program, pp 648–669. doi:10.7930/J0C8276J
Katz RW, Craigmile PF, Guttorp P et al (2013) Uncertainty analysis in climate change assessments. Nat Clim Chang 3(9):769–771
Lemos MC, Kirchhoff CJ et al (2012) Narrowing the climate information usability gap. Nat Clim Chang 2(11):789–794
Lempert R (2013) Scenarios that illuminate vulnerabilities and robust responses. Clim Chang 117(4):627–646
Liverman D, Raven P, Barstow D et al (2010) Informing an effective response to climate change. National Research Council, Washington, DC, 13:978-0-309-14594-7
Manning MR, Petit M (2003) A concept paper for the AR4 cross cutting theme: uncertainties and risk. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland, Geneva
Mastrandrea M, Field CB, Stocker TF et al (2011) The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups. Clim Chang 108(4):675–691
Meadow AM, Ferguson DB, et al. (2015) Moving toward the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge. Weather, Climate, and Society 7(2):179–191
Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Gary W, Yohe GW (eds) (2014) Climate change impacts in the United States: the third National Climate Assessment. Global Change Research Program, U.S. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2
Morgan MG, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York
Morgan G, Dowlatabadi H, Henrion M et al (2009) Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in decisionmaking, A report by the Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Report series SAP 5.2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington DC, https://data.globalchange.gov/report/ccsp-sap-5_2-2009 Accessed 2 April 2015
Moser SC, Ekstrom J (2010) A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc Nat Acad Sci 107(51):22026–22031. doi:10.1073/pnas.1007887107
Moser SC, Davidson MA (2015) The third national climate assessment’s coastal chapter: the making of an integrated assessment. Clim Chang. doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1512-1
Moss RH, Schneider SH (2000) Cross-cutting issues in the IPCC Third Assessment Report. In: Pachauri R, Taniguchi T (eds) Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: recommendations to lead authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute for IPCC, Tokyo, pp 33–52
Moss, RH, Yohe G (2011) Assessing and communicating confidence levels and uncertainties in the main conclusions of the NCA 2013 report: guidance for authors and contributors. National Climate Assessment Development and Advisory Committee (NCADAC), Washington, DC. Available at http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/NCADAC/pdf/nov_16/NCADAC_Mtg_Pres_Nov11_MelMossRichYoh_Final_111611_8b.pdf
Moss R, Scarlett PL, Kenney MA et al (2014) Ch. 26: Decision support: connecting science, risk perception, and decisions. In: Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Yohe GW (eds) Climate change impacts in the United States: the Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research, Program, pp 620–647. doi:10.7930/J0H12ZXG
Nature (2010) Validation required. Nature 463(7283):849
Parker AM, Srinivasan SV et al (2015) Evaluating simulation-derived scenarios for effective decision support. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 91:64–77
Petersen AC, Janssen PHM, van der Sluijs JP, et al. (2013) Guidance for uncertainty assessment and communication, 2nd edn. http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/PBL_2013_Guidance-for-uncertainty-assessment-and-communication_712.pdf Accessed 20 April 2015
Pidgeon N, Fischhoff B (2011) The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nat Clim Chang 1(1):35–41
Tebaldi C, Sanso B (2009) Joint projections of temperature and precipitation change from multiple climate models: a hierarchical Bayesian approach. J R Stat Soc A 172(Part 1):83–106
United States Government Accountability Office (2013) Climate change: future federal adaptation efforts could better support local infrastructure decision makers. Washington, DC. Report series GAO-13-242.
Wong-Parodi G, Fischhoff B et al (2014) A method to evaluate the usability of interactive climate change impact decision aids. Clim Chang 126(3–4):485–493
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The Joint Global Change Research Institute is part of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which is operated for DOE by Battelle Memorial Institute under contract DE-AC05-76RL01830, and the University of Maryland. The author gratefully acknowledges the University of Arizona, Center for Climate Adaptation Science and Solutions, for providing intellectual and financial support during a period of residence as a visiting scholar when the first draft of this article was prepared.
This article is part of a special issue on "The National Climate Assessment: Innovations in Science and Engagement" edited by Katharine Jacobs, Susanne Moser, and James Buizer.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moss, R.H. Assessing decision support systems and levels of confidence to narrow the climate information “usability gap”. Climatic Change 135, 143–155 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1549-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1549-1