The Role of Type and Source of Uncertainty on the Processing of Climate Models Projections

• Published in: Frontiers in psychology Vol. 9; p. 403
• Main Authors: Benjamin, Daniel M, Budescu, David V
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland Frontiers Media S.A 27-03-2018
• Subjects: climate change; conflict; forecasting; global warming; imprecision; Psychology; sources of uncertainty; imprecision; ambiguity; global warming; forecasting; sources of uncertainty; vagueness; climate change; conflict
• ISSN: 1664-1078; 1664-1078
• DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00403

Scientists agree that the climate is changing due to human activities, but there is less agreement about the specific consequences and their timeline. Disagreement among climate projections is attributable to the complexity of climate models that differ in their structure, parameters, initial conditions, etc. We examine how different sources of uncertainty affect people's interpretation of, and reaction to, information about climate change by presenting participants forecasts from multiple experts. Participants viewed three types of sets of sea-level rise projections: (1) precise, but
; (2)
, but agreeing, and (3)
that were both conflicting and imprecise. They estimated the most likely sea-level rise, provided a range of possible values and rated the sets on several features - ambiguity, credibility, completeness, etc. In Study 1, everyone saw the same hybrid set. We found that participants were sensitive to uncertainty between sources, but not to uncertainty about which model was used. The impacts of conflict and imprecision were
and
. Estimates were closer to the experts' original projections, and sets were rated more favorably under imprecision. Estimates were least consistent with (narrower than) the experts in the hybrid condition, but participants rated the conflicting set least favorably. In Study 2, we investigated the hybrid case in more detail by creating several distinct interval sets that combine conflict and imprecision. Two factors drive perceptual differences:
- the structure of the forecast set (whether intersecting, nested, tangent, or disjoint) - and a
the balance of the set. Estimates were primarily driven by asymmetry, and preferences were primarily driven by overlap. Asymmetric sets were least consistent with the experts: estimated ranges were narrower, and estimates of the most likely value were shifted further below the set mean. Intersecting and nested sets were rated similarly to imprecision, and ratings of disjoint and tangent sets were rated like conflict. Our goal was to determine which underlying factors of information sets drive perceptions of uncertainty in consistent, predictable ways. The two studies lead us to conclude that perceptions of agreement require intersection and balance, and overly precise forecasts lead to greater perceptions of disagreement and a greater likelihood of the public discrediting and misinterpreting information.