Accounting for multiple sources of uncertainty in impact assessments: The example of the BRACE study

Abstract:

Assessing climate change impacts often requires the use of multiple scenarios, types of models, and data sources, leading to a large number of potential sources of uncertainty. For example, a single study might require a choice of a forcing scenario, climate model, bias correction and/or downscaling method, societal development scenario, model (typically several) for quantifying elements of societal development such as economic and population growth, biophysical model (such as for crop yields or hydrology), and societal impact model (e.g. economic or health model).

Some sources of uncertainty are reduced or eliminated by the framing of the question. For example, it may be useful to ask what an impact outcome would be conditional on a given societal development pathway, forcing scenario, or policy. However many sources of uncertainty remain, and it is rare for all or even most of these sources to be accounted for.

I use the example of a recent integrated project on the Benefits of Reduced Anthropogenic Climate changE (BRACE) to explore useful approaches to uncertainty across multiple components of an impact assessment. BRACE comprises 23 papers that assess the differences in impacts between two alternative climate futures: those associated with Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) 4.5 and 8.5. It quantifies difference in impacts in terms of extreme events, health, agriculture, tropical cyclones, and sea level rise. Methodologically, it includes climate modeling, statistical analysis, integrated assessment modeling, and sector-specific impact modeling. It employs alternative scenarios of both radiative forcing and societal development, but generally uses a single climate model (CESM), partially accounting for climate uncertainty by drawing heavily on large initial condition ensembles.

Strengths and weaknesses of the approach to uncertainty in BRACE are assessed. Options under consideration for improving the approach include the use of perturbed physics ensembles of CESM, employing results from multiple climate models, and combining the results from single impact models with statistical representations of uncertainty across multiple models. A key consideration is the relationship between the question being addressed and the uncertainty approach.