In the next slide you answer «Not at all, but
deep uncertainty changes the environment for making robust decisions, relative to optimal decision making».
Not at all, but
deep uncertainty changes the environment for making robust decisions, relative to optimal decision making.
Not exact matches
«In an interview with the Observer, Ed Davey describes a «Tea Party tendency» among Conservative MPs who question climate
change and green investment as «perverse», and says it is creating
deep uncertainty for an industry that could do much to help lift the country out of the economic doldrums.»
Their discussions have been driven largely by the release of a World Bank working paper, «Investment decision making under
deep uncertainty — application to climate
change.»
My goal in creating the image (a larger version is here) was to distinguish elements in the science pointing to greenhouse - driven climate
change that are clearcut from those surrounded by
deep and enduring
uncertainty.
While persistent and
deep uncertainty surrounds the most important potential impacts from and responses to greenhouse - driven global warming (see David Roberts, Michael Levi and this list of reviewed research for more), the long - term picture of a profoundly
changed Earth is clear.
Your piece makes the important point that, on vital questions, there's enduring
deep uncertainty behind the «97 Percent of Climate Scientists Agree» headlines and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change report summary language.
c) The
uncertainties in the ocean heat uptake may be underestimated by Levitus, and there are additional
uncertainties regarding the role of
deep ocean heat uptake (Meehl et al. 2011 Nature Climate
Change).
See the World Bank paper on «Investment Decision Making under
Deep Uncertainty — Application to Climate
Change.»
Instead, they discuss new ways of playing around with the aerosol judge factor needed to explain why 20th - century warming is about half of the warming expected for increased in GHGs; and then expand their list of fudge factors to include smaller volcanos, stratospheric water vapor (published with no estimate of
uncertainty for the predicted
change in Ts), transfer of heat to the
deeper ocean (where
changes in heat content are hard to accurately measure), etc..
Good judgment requires recognizing that climate
change is characterized by conditions of
deep uncertainty.
Deep moist atmospheric convection controls the development of major weather systems like hurricanes, drives the global transport of energy within the climate system and strongly influences the
uncertainty of projected climate
change.
by Judith Curry The impact of climate
change looms large as a
deep uncertainty with global consequences.
And this:» Good judgment requires recognizing that climate
change is characterized by conditions of
deep uncertainty.»
Assuming that climate
change and other
deep uncertainties can not be eliminated over the short term (and probably even over the longer term), it then summarizes existing decision - making methodologies that are able to deal with climate - related
uncertainty, namely cost - benefit analysis under
uncertainty, cost - benefit analysis with real options, robust decision making, and climate informed decision analysis.
While persistent and
deep uncertainty surrounds the most important potential impacts from and responses to greenhouse - driven global warming, the long - term picture of a profoundly
changed Earth is clear.
The original question: While persistent and
deep uncertainty surrounds the most important potential impacts from and responses to greenhouse - driven global warming, the long - term picture of a profoundly
changed Earth is clear.
The World Bank has a new white paper entitled: Investment decision making under
deep uncertainty — application to climate
change.
Robert Lempert characterizes the decision making environment surrounding climate
change as one of
deep uncertainty, owing to long time horizons, substantial
uncertainty in our understanding of the climate system, and the potential for surprises.
Optimal decision making strategies are arguably a mismatch for the climate
change problem owing to the
deep uncertainty surrounding climate sensitivity, among other sources of
uncertainty.
Does the
deep uncertainty characterization mean that we should not act on the threat of climate
change?
In your interesting presentation you ask «Does the
deep uncertainty characterization mean that we should not act on the threat of climate
change» (slide 5).
Rather, it both offers a tool for exploring the sea level implications of polar ice sheets» complex physical responses to global warming and highlights the
deep uncertainty that characterizes sea level
change in a high - emissions future.
However, the
uncertainty in the reconstructed sea level is tens of metres and the
uncertainty in the Mg / Ca temperature is sufficient to encompass the result from our δ18O prescription, which has comparable contributions of ice volume
change and
deep ocean temperature
change at the Late Eocene glaciation of Antarctica.
Even just acknowledging more openly the incredible magnitude of the
deep structural
uncertainties that are involved in climate -
change analysis — and explaining better to policymakers that the artificial crispness conveyed by conventional IAM - based CBAs [Integrated Assessment Model — Cost Benefit Analyses] here is especially and unusually misleading compared with more ordinary non-climate-
change CBA situations — might go a long way toward elevating the level of public discourse concerning what to do about global warming.
Even in the ARGO era (2003 --RRB-, the error bars and
uncertainty ranges for our educated guesses (that's what they are) about
deep ocean heat are 10 times greater (and more) than the suggested temperature
changes (hundredths of a degree) themselves.
Combining her
deep intuitive abilities with her Harvard - trained brain, Carolyn specializes in helping individuals navigate
change and
uncertainty by tapping into their own inner brilliance and emotional resilience.