Many researches refer to the evidence of climate change, but up to this moment it seems that the impacts of climate change are not convincing enough or need more studies that made decision makers deal with the issue with uncertainty, what is the reason?
Hello Mohamed Awad Dadamouny,
I cannot answer your question directly, but I just wanted to let you know: I had heard of a recent statistical/matematical study, that calculated, that the chance of climate change being caused by humans is 99,9%. Probably you can find more information in this study on uncertainties etc.
As scientists we are obliged to speak with uncertainty because that is always present in our results. The problem between scientists comes at how highly we weight our type I and type II errors. Type I situation with climate change: We can't prove direct effects of climate change in specific areas and if we are wrong...earth gets progressively worse until we can prove these effects; type II type of situation: We start action and the earth gets better in those areas even if they weren't doomed...but still better. Problem with decision makes is that it is expensive to do this and difficult. That is why they put more weight on Type I error more => less action than we as scientists would like. At least that's my view and I know some of the fellow scientists I've talked to agree.
Does it make sense to assess uncertainty in climate change impact projections?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_it_make_sense_to_assess_uncertainty_in_climate_change_impact_projections
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change