The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups

Mastrandrea, Michael D.; Mach, Katharine J.; Plattner, Gian‐Kasper; Edenhofer, Ottmar; Stocker, Thomas F.; Field, Christopher B.; Ebi, Kristie L.; Matschoss, Patrick

doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0178-6

Cited by 372 publications

(356 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

307

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Matrix depicting the relationship between data availability, similarity to modelled fjords and confidence level. Adapted from IPCC 5th Assessment Report (Mastrandrea et al, 2010).…”

Section: Constraining Estimates and Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using a modified confidence matrix (Fig. 3) following the protocols adopted in the IPPC 5th Assessment (Mastrandrea et al, 2010), we have semiquantitatively assigned a level of confidence to the C estimates from each fjord. The matrix uses the results from the k-means analysis and the availability of secondary data (Supplement) to assign a confidence level.…”

Section: Constraining Estimates and Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scotland's forgotten carbon: a national assessment of mid-latitude fjord sedimentary carbon stocks

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Fjords are recognised as hotspots for the burial and long-term storage of carbon (C) and potentially provide a significant climate regulation service over multiple timescales. Understanding the magnitude of marine sedimentary C stores and the processes which govern their development is fundamental to understanding the role of the coastal ocean in the global C cycle. In this study, we use the mid-latitude fjords of Scotland as a natural laboratory to further develop methods to quantify these marine sedimentary C stores on both the individual fjord and national scale. Targeted geophysical and geochemical analysis has allowed the quantification of sedimentary C stocks for a number of mid-latitude fjords and, coupled with upscaling techniques based on fjord classification, has generated the first full national sedimentary C inventory for a fjordic system. The sediments within these mid-latitude fjords hold 640.7 ± 46 Mt of C split between 295.6±52 and 345.1 ± 39 Mt of organic and inorganic C, respectively. When compared, these marine mid-latitude sedimentary C stores are of similar magnitude to their terrestrial equivalents, with the exception of the Scottish peatlands, which hold significantly more C. However, when areanormalised comparisons are made, these mid-latitude fjords are significantly more effective as C stores than their terrestrial counterparts, including Scottish peatlands. The C held within Scotland's coastal marine sediments has been largely overlooked as a significant component of the nation's natural capital; such coastal C stores are likely to be key to understanding and constraining improved global C budgets. Highlights-Scottish fjords are a more effective store of C than the terrestrial environment.-A total of 640.7 ± 46 Mt of C is stored in the sediment of Scotland's 111 fjords.-An estimated 31 139-40 615 t yr −1 of C is buried in the sediment of Scotland's fjords.-Fjord sediments are potentially the most effective store of C globally.

show abstract

“…Matrix depicting the relationship between data availability, similarity to modelled fjords and confidence level. Adapted from IPCC 5th Assessment Report (Mastrandrea et al, 2010).…”

Section: Constraining Estimates and Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Constraining Estimates and Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Scotland's forgotten carbon: a national assessment of mid-latitude fjord sedimentary carbon stocks

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The 17 th COP to the UNFCCC refer in their decisions to "aggregate emissions pathways consistent with having a likely chance of holding the increase in global average temperature below 2°C or 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels" (UNFCCC 2011). We pragmatically use the interpretation of "likely" as implying a probability of observing the target of at least 66 % as recommended in Mastrandrea et al (2010). We call this probability "safety" throughout the paper.…”

Section: Calibrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Operationalizing climate targets under learning: An application of cost-risk analysis

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) determines climate policies that reach a given climate target at minimum welfare losses. However, when applied to temperature targets under climate sensitivity uncertainty, decision-makers might be confronted with normatively unappealing negative expected values of future climate information or even infeasible solutions. To tackle these issues, Cost-Risk Analysis (CRA), that trades-off the costs for mitigating climate change against the risk of exceeding climate targets, has been proposed as an extension of CEA under uncertainty. Here we build on this proposition and develop an axiomatically sound CRA for the context of uncertainty and future learning. The main contributions of this paper are: (i) we show, that a risk-penalty function has to be non-concave to avoid counter-intuitive preferences, (ii) we introduce a universally applicable calibration of the cost-risk trade-off, and (iii) we implement the first application of CRA to a numerical integrated assessment model. We find that for a 2°-target in combination with a 66 % compliance level, the expected value of information in 2015 vs. 2075 is between 0.15 % and 0.66 % of consumption every year, and can reduce expected mitigation costs by about one third. (iv) Finally, we find that the relative importance of the economic over the risk-related contribution increases with the target probability of compliance. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article

show abstract

“…is therefore asked to provide a level of confidence with his/her answer provided ('low', 'medium', 'high'). Following Mastrandrea et al (2011), this level of confidence reflects a combination of the average robustness of pieces of evidence ('limited', 'medium', 'robust'), and the degree of agreement between pieces ('low', 'medium', 'high'). Module and higher-level scores that summarize the overall level of uncertainty are calculated parallel to, and by the same operations as, the scores above.…”

Section: Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Harmonia + and Pandora +: risk screening tools for potentially invasive plants, animals and their pathogens

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the large number of alien species that may potentially develop into invasives, there is a clear need for robust schemes that allow to screen species for such risks. The Harmonia ? framework presented here brings together 30 questions that refer to distinct components of invasion. Together, they cover the stages of introduction, establishment, spread, and multiple kinds of impacts, viz. referring to the health of the environment (including wild species), cultivated plants, domesticated animals and man. In a complete assessment, input is provided by choosing among predefined ordinal answers and by supplementing these with textual clarification. Uncertainty is covered by indicating levels of confidence. By converting answers into scores, which are then condensed into summary statistics, Harmonia ? allows for quantitative output on stage-specific and general risks. Test assessments on five species emerging in Belgium showed the perceived environmental risks of Procambarus clarkii to be highest (0.72), and that of Threskiornis aethiopicus to be lowest (0.13). Given the considerable parallels that exist between invasive alien species and emerging infectious diseases, we additionally created Pandora, which is a risk analysis scheme for pathogens and parasites. It consists of 13 key questions and has the same structure as Harmonia ? . Since diseases play a paramount role in biological invasions, results of Pandora assessments may feed into Harmonia ? through a slightly adapted, hostspecific version named Pandora ? . Harmonia ? , Pandora and Pandora ? may be used both for prioritization purposes and for underpinning detailed risk analyses, and can be consulted online through http://ias. biodiversity.be.

show abstract

The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups

Cited by 372 publications

References 9 publications

Scotland's forgotten carbon: a national assessment of mid-latitude fjord sedimentary carbon stocks

Scotland's forgotten carbon: a national assessment of mid-latitude fjord sedimentary carbon stocks

Operationalizing climate targets under learning: An application of cost-risk analysis

Harmonia + and Pandora +: risk screening tools for potentially invasive plants, animals and their pathogens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About