• Page 37, first paragraph: What are these uncertainties? Are they non-scientific?

  • Page 38, Line 8: Please choose a word other than “smart” (wise?). In this context, this adjective could be interpreted as condescending.

  • Page 38, line 25: This may not be strictly true (the notion that research reduces uncertainty is not an assumption of classical decision analysis). Program managers may assume that research has an expected positive value, but in fact research does not necessarily reduce uncertainty. What about reversely identifying research needs via meta-analysis of existing problems?

  • Page 38, Lines 35-36 Take this to its logical conclusion: When exactly should the data collection end and a decision be made? Consider that adaptive management may provide a sensible framework to answer this question.

  • References to consider: (Gregory, et al. 2006; Arvai, et al. 2006)

Some Simple Guidance for Researchers

This chapter contains a number of excellent suggestions from the authors about practical suggestions for dealing with uncertainty. The committee understands that following these suggestions would substantially improve the representation of uncertainty in the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) product; however, as a final chapter for the document it does not provide the types of summing up and recommendations that would also be helpful for all the users of the document. In some cases, conclusions are drawn that may not be entirely supported or even discussed elsewhere in the document, and thus may not be entirely clear to users who are not well conversant in all types of uncertainty evaluations. The committee recommends that the authors ensure that all conclusions provided in the revision are supported by material discussed elsewhere in the SAP document, and that statements of opinion be clearly identified as such. In terms of providing a summary of “best practices,” the chapter provides a brief summary of professional advice for those involved in writing assessments, but it does not elucidate a range of best practices for all of the audiences set forth in the document prospectus. As stated in the Summary of this review, the committee believes that this would require a significantly expanded SAP, or the production of a companion Product. Finally, the committee disagrees with the recommendation to adopt the terminology/ranges shown in the figure at the bottom of page 41. This disagreement is not based upon a specific objection to the assignment of particular qualitative words to a particular range of probabilities, but rather on the substantial amount of overlap and ambiguity among the categories. The committee suggests that in a revised version of this figure, the

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement