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

Clicks: 402
ID: 84980
2018
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #47 of 510 articles by views in Frontiers in psychology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 510 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
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.
Reference Key
benjamin2018thefrontiers Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Benjamin, Daniel M;Budescu, David V;
Journal Frontiers in psychology
Year 2018
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00403
URL
Keywords
climate change conflict global warming ambiguity forecasting imprecision sources of uncertainty vagueness

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.