Using expert elicitation to strengthen future regional climate information for climate services

Sam Grainger; Suraje Dessai; Joe Daron; Andrea Taylor; Yim Ling Siu

doi:10.1016/j.cliser.2021.100278

Using expert elicitation to strengthen future regional climate information for climate services

Sam Grainger
, Suraje Dessai
, Joe Daron
, Andrea Taylor
, Yim Ling Siu

Cabot Institute for the Environment

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article (Academic Journal) › peer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)

103 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Climate change knowledge can inform regional and local adaptation decisions. However, estimates of future climate are uncertain and methods for assessing uncertainties typically rely on the results of climate model simulations, which are constrained by the quality of assumptions used in model experiments and the limitations of available models. To strengthen scientific knowledge for climate services and climate change adaptation decisions, we explore the use of structured expert elicitation to assess future regional climate change. Using the Lower Yangtze region in China as a case study, we elicit judgements from six experts on future changes in temperature and precipitation as well as uncertainty sources, and compare it with climate model outputs from the Couple Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5). We find high consensus amongst experts that the Lower Yangtze region will be warmer in the coming decades, albeit with differences in the magnitude of change. There is less consensus about the direction and magnitude of future precipitation change. Compared with CMIP5 climate model outputs, experts provide similar or narrower uncertainty ranges for temperature change and very different uncertainty ranges for precipitation. Experts considered additional factors (e.g. model credibility, observations, theory and paleo-climatic evidence) and uncertainties not usually represented in conventional modelling approaches. We argue that, in context of regional climate information provision, expert-elicited judgements can characterise less predictable, or less explored, elements of the climate system and expert-elicited reasoning provides additional information and knowledge that is absent from modelling approaches. We discuss the value in bringing together multiple lines of evidence, arguing that expert elicited information can complement model information to strengthen regional climate change knowledge and help in building dialogue between climate experts and regional stakeholders, as part of a more complete climate service.

Original language	English
Article number	100278
Journal	Climate Services
Volume	26
Early online date	10 Mar 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2021.100278
Publication status	Published - 10 Mar 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This work was supported by the UK-China Research & Innovation Partnership Fund through the Met Office Climate Science for Service Partnership (CSSP) China as part of the Newton Fund ( 112459 ). SD acknowledges support from the U.K.’s Economic and Social Research Council ( ES/R009708/1 ) Centre for Climate Change, Economics and Policy (CCCEP). We thank all of our participants in China for contributing their time and insights. We thank the CSSP China Work Package five leaders Prof Chris Hewitt, Nicola Golding, and Prof Peiqun Zhang for their input, feedback, and support in this work; as well as all of those who facilitated this research in China. Thanks to Dr John Paul Gosling, Dr Lindsay Lee, Dr Cathryn Birch, Dr Luis Garcia-Carreras, Dr Juliane Schwendike, Dr Erich Fischer, Dr Andreas Fischer and Dr Amanda Maycock for their valuable input during protocol design and trialling. We also thank Dr Stacey New for producing Fig. 1 .

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 13 Climate Action

Keywords

Knowledge quality assessment
Climate change adaptation
Yangtze
China
Assessing climate uncertainties

Access to Document

10.1016/j.cliser.2021.100278Licence: CC BY

Full-text PDF (final published version)
This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Elsevier at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2021.100278 . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.
Final published version, 5.73 MBLicence: CC BY

Handle.net

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{3493ef2b42de4efa9408629d553b646f,

title = "Using expert elicitation to strengthen future regional climate information for climate services",

abstract = "Climate change knowledge can inform regional and local adaptation decisions. However, estimates of future climate are uncertain and methods for assessing uncertainties typically rely on the results of climate model simulations, which are constrained by the quality of assumptions used in model experiments and the limitations of available models. To strengthen scientific knowledge for climate services and climate change adaptation decisions, we explore the use of structured expert elicitation to assess future regional climate change. Using the Lower Yangtze region in China as a case study, we elicit judgements from six experts on future changes in temperature and precipitation as well as uncertainty sources, and compare it with climate model outputs from the Couple Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5). We find high consensus amongst experts that the Lower Yangtze region will be warmer in the coming decades, albeit with differences in the magnitude of change. There is less consensus about the direction and magnitude of future precipitation change. Compared with CMIP5 climate model outputs, experts provide similar or narrower uncertainty ranges for temperature change and very different uncertainty ranges for precipitation. Experts considered additional factors (e.g. model credibility, observations, theory and paleo-climatic evidence) and uncertainties not usually represented in conventional modelling approaches. We argue that, in context of regional climate information provision, expert-elicited judgements can characterise less predictable, or less explored, elements of the climate system and expert-elicited reasoning provides additional information and knowledge that is absent from modelling approaches. We discuss the value in bringing together multiple lines of evidence, arguing that expert elicited information can complement model information to strengthen regional climate change knowledge and help in building dialogue between climate experts and regional stakeholders, as part of a more complete climate service.",

keywords = "Knowledge quality assessment, Climate change adaptation, Yangtze, China, Assessing climate uncertainties",

author = "Sam Grainger and Suraje Dessai and Joe Daron and Andrea Taylor and Siu, \{Yim Ling\}",

note = "Funding Information: This work was supported by the UK-China Research \& Innovation Partnership Fund through the Met Office Climate Science for Service Partnership (CSSP) China as part of the Newton Fund ( 112459 ). SD acknowledges support from the U.K.{\textquoteright}s Economic and Social Research Council ( ES/R009708/1 ) Centre for Climate Change, Economics and Policy (CCCEP). We thank all of our participants in China for contributing their time and insights. We thank the CSSP China Work Package five leaders Prof Chris Hewitt, Nicola Golding, and Prof Peiqun Zhang for their input, feedback, and support in this work; as well as all of those who facilitated this research in China. Thanks to Dr John Paul Gosling, Dr Lindsay Lee, Dr Cathryn Birch, Dr Luis Garcia-Carreras, Dr Juliane Schwendike, Dr Erich Fischer, Dr Andreas Fischer and Dr Amanda Maycock for their valuable input during protocol design and trialling. We also thank Dr Stacey New for producing Fig. 1 . Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 The Authors",

year = "2022",

month = mar,

day = "10",

doi = "10.1016/j.cliser.2021.100278",

language = "English",

volume = "26",

journal = "Climate Services",

issn = "2405-8807",

publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Using expert elicitation to strengthen future regional climate information for climate services

AU - Grainger, Sam

AU - Dessai, Suraje

AU - Daron, Joe

AU - Taylor, Andrea

AU - Siu, Yim Ling

N1 - Funding Information: This work was supported by the UK-China Research & Innovation Partnership Fund through the Met Office Climate Science for Service Partnership (CSSP) China as part of the Newton Fund ( 112459 ). SD acknowledges support from the U.K.’s Economic and Social Research Council ( ES/R009708/1 ) Centre for Climate Change, Economics and Policy (CCCEP). We thank all of our participants in China for contributing their time and insights. We thank the CSSP China Work Package five leaders Prof Chris Hewitt, Nicola Golding, and Prof Peiqun Zhang for their input, feedback, and support in this work; as well as all of those who facilitated this research in China. Thanks to Dr John Paul Gosling, Dr Lindsay Lee, Dr Cathryn Birch, Dr Luis Garcia-Carreras, Dr Juliane Schwendike, Dr Erich Fischer, Dr Andreas Fischer and Dr Amanda Maycock for their valuable input during protocol design and trialling. We also thank Dr Stacey New for producing Fig. 1 . Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Authors

PY - 2022/3/10

Y1 - 2022/3/10

N2 - Climate change knowledge can inform regional and local adaptation decisions. However, estimates of future climate are uncertain and methods for assessing uncertainties typically rely on the results of climate model simulations, which are constrained by the quality of assumptions used in model experiments and the limitations of available models. To strengthen scientific knowledge for climate services and climate change adaptation decisions, we explore the use of structured expert elicitation to assess future regional climate change. Using the Lower Yangtze region in China as a case study, we elicit judgements from six experts on future changes in temperature and precipitation as well as uncertainty sources, and compare it with climate model outputs from the Couple Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5). We find high consensus amongst experts that the Lower Yangtze region will be warmer in the coming decades, albeit with differences in the magnitude of change. There is less consensus about the direction and magnitude of future precipitation change. Compared with CMIP5 climate model outputs, experts provide similar or narrower uncertainty ranges for temperature change and very different uncertainty ranges for precipitation. Experts considered additional factors (e.g. model credibility, observations, theory and paleo-climatic evidence) and uncertainties not usually represented in conventional modelling approaches. We argue that, in context of regional climate information provision, expert-elicited judgements can characterise less predictable, or less explored, elements of the climate system and expert-elicited reasoning provides additional information and knowledge that is absent from modelling approaches. We discuss the value in bringing together multiple lines of evidence, arguing that expert elicited information can complement model information to strengthen regional climate change knowledge and help in building dialogue between climate experts and regional stakeholders, as part of a more complete climate service.

AB - Climate change knowledge can inform regional and local adaptation decisions. However, estimates of future climate are uncertain and methods for assessing uncertainties typically rely on the results of climate model simulations, which are constrained by the quality of assumptions used in model experiments and the limitations of available models. To strengthen scientific knowledge for climate services and climate change adaptation decisions, we explore the use of structured expert elicitation to assess future regional climate change. Using the Lower Yangtze region in China as a case study, we elicit judgements from six experts on future changes in temperature and precipitation as well as uncertainty sources, and compare it with climate model outputs from the Couple Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5). We find high consensus amongst experts that the Lower Yangtze region will be warmer in the coming decades, albeit with differences in the magnitude of change. There is less consensus about the direction and magnitude of future precipitation change. Compared with CMIP5 climate model outputs, experts provide similar or narrower uncertainty ranges for temperature change and very different uncertainty ranges for precipitation. Experts considered additional factors (e.g. model credibility, observations, theory and paleo-climatic evidence) and uncertainties not usually represented in conventional modelling approaches. We argue that, in context of regional climate information provision, expert-elicited judgements can characterise less predictable, or less explored, elements of the climate system and expert-elicited reasoning provides additional information and knowledge that is absent from modelling approaches. We discuss the value in bringing together multiple lines of evidence, arguing that expert elicited information can complement model information to strengthen regional climate change knowledge and help in building dialogue between climate experts and regional stakeholders, as part of a more complete climate service.

KW - Knowledge quality assessment

KW - Climate change adaptation

KW - Yangtze

KW - China

KW - Assessing climate uncertainties

U2 - 10.1016/j.cliser.2021.100278

DO - 10.1016/j.cliser.2021.100278

M3 - Article (Academic Journal)

SN - 2405-8807

VL - 26

JO - Climate Services

JF - Climate Services

M1 - 100278

ER -

Using expert elicitation to strengthen future regional climate information for climate services

Abstract

Bibliographical note

UN SDGs

Keywords

Access to Document

Handle.net

Fingerprint

Cite this