. "1 Introduction." Review of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program's Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2, "Best Practice Approaches for Characterizing, Communicating, and Incorporating Scientific Uncertainty in Climate Decision Making". Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Review of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program’s Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2, “Best Practice Approaches for Characterizing, Communicating, and Incorporating Scientific Uncertainty in Climate Decision Making”
Questions to be Addressed by CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2
According to guidance in the CCSP prospectus outlining the purpose of SAP 5.2, the report may be used as (i) a relatively sophisticated summary and assessment of the state-of-the-art understanding of the characteristics of uncertainty and the illumination of some potential approaches to decision making under such uncertainty, and (ii) decision analysis and social science-based guidelines for future CCSP assessment and decision-support activities and for researchers participating in broader assessment activities, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The key questions to be addressed by SAP 5.2 are:
How is uncertainty estimated and measured?
What are the sources and types of uncertainty that influence the way scientific information is communicated and understood by non-scientists?
Why is an enhanced understanding of uncertainty important for communicating and utilizing climate information?
What are some of the cognitive challenges in estimating uncertainty (e.g., the role of human judgment) and the relevance of these challenges to addressing climate?
How is uncertainty analyzed, and how can it be applied in analyses of adaptation options?
What are some effective methods for communicating uncertainty?
How can decision-makers consider and incorporate uncertainty?
What are considered to be the best practices for the incorporation and communication of uncertainty in scientific assessments?