Abstract
In order to respond to policy questions about the potential impacts of climate change it is usually necessary to assemble large quantities of evidence from a variety of sources. Influence diagrams provide a formal mechanism for structuring this evidence and representing its relationship with the climate-related question of interest. When populated with probabilistic measures of belief an influence diagram provides a graphical representation of uncertainty, which can help to synthesize complex and contentious arguments into a relatively simple, yet evidence-based, graphical output.
Following unusually damaging floods in October–November 2000 the UK government commissioned research with a view to establishing the extent to which the floods were a manifestation of hydrological climate change. By way of example application, influence diagrams have been used to represent the evidential reasoning and uncertainties in responding to this question. Three alternative approaches to the mathematization of uncertainty in influence diagrams are demonstrated and compared. In situations of information scarcity and imprecise expert judgements, methods based on interval probabilities have proved to be attractive. Interval probabilities can, it is argued, represent ambiguity and ignorance in a more satisfactory manner than the conventional Bayesian alternative. The analysis provides a quantified commentary on the uncertainties in the conclusion that the events of October–November 2000 were extreme, but cannot in themselves be attributed to climate change.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Allen, M.: 1999, ‘Do-it-yourself climate prediction’, Nature 401, 642.
Allen, M., Raper, S. and Mitchell, J.: 2001, ‘Uncertainty in the IPCC’s third assessment report’, Science 293, 430–433.
Baldwin, J. F.: 1986a, ‘Support logic programming’, Int. J. Intelligent Syst. 1, 73–204.
Baldwin, J. F.: 1986b, ‘Evidential support logic programming’, Fuzzy Sets Syst.24, 1–26.
Baldwin, J. F., Martin, T. P., and Pilsworth, B. W.: 1995, FRIL – Fuzzy and Evidential Reasoning in Artificial Intelligence, Research Studies Press, Taunton, MA.
BBC: 2000, ‘UK floods a climate alarm call’, BBC News, 21 November 2000: http:///news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1033458.htm (viewed 26/09/02).
Bell, D. E., Raiffa, H., and Tversky, A. (eds.): 1988, Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative and Prescriptive Interactions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
CEH: 2001, ‘To what degree can the October/November 2000 flood events be attributed to climate change?’, DEFRA FD2304 Technical Report, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford.
Chevé, M. and Congar, R.: 2003, ‘Managing environmental risks under scientific uncertainty and controversy’, Paper presented at the EARE 2003 conference, Bilbao, Spain.
Cooke, R. M.: 1991, Experts in Uncertainty, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cozman, F. G.: 2000, ‘Credal networks’, Artif. Intelligence J. 120, 199–233.
Curley, S. P. and Golden, J. I., ‘Using belief functions to represent degrees of belief’, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 58, 271–303.
Davis, J. P. and Hall, J. W.: 2003, ‘A software supported process for assembling evidence and handling uncertainty in decision-making’, Decis. Support Syst. 35(3), 415–433.
Ellsberg, D.: 1961, ‘Risk, ambiguity and Savage’s axioms’, Q. J. Econ. 75, 643–669.
Ferrell, W. R.: 1994, ‘Discrete subjective probabilities and decision analysis: Elicitation, calibration and combination’, in Wright, G. and Ayton, P. (eds.), Subjective Probability, Wiley, Chichester.
Ferson, S., Nelsen, R., Hajagos, J., Berleant, D., Zhang, J., Tucker, W. T., Ginzburg, L., and Oberkampf, W. L.: 2004, ‘Dependence in probabilistic modeling, Dempster-Shafer theory and probability bounds analysis’, Report SAND2004-xxxx, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Fertig, K. W. and Breese, J. S.: 1990, ‘Interval influence diagrams’, in Henrion, M., Shacter, R. D., Kanal, L. N. and Lemmer, J. F. (eds.), Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 5, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 149–161.
Gammerman, A. (ed.): 1995, Probabilistic Reasoning and Bayesian Belief Networks, Alfred Waller, Henley.
Genest, C. and Zidek, J. V.:1986, ‘Combining probability distributions: A critique and annotated bibliography’, Stat. Sci. 1(1), 114–148.
Gilboa, I.: 1987, ‘Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities’, J. Math. Econ. 16, 65–88.
Gilboa, I. and Schmeidler, D.: 1989, ‘Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior’, J. Math. Econ. 18, 141–153.
Gilks, W. R., Richardson, S., and Spiegelhalter, D. J. (eds.): 1996, Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice, Chapman & Hall, London.
Grüber, A. and Nakicenovic, N.: 2001, ‘Identifying dangers in uncertain climate’, Nature 412, 15.
Hall, J. W., Blockley, D. I., and Davis, J. P.:1998, ‘Uncertain inference using interval probability theory’, Int. J. Approx. Reason. 19(3–4), 247–264.
Hegerl, G. C., Hasselmann, K., Cubasch, U., Mitchell, J. F. B., Roeckner, E., Voss, R. and Waszkewitz, J.: 1997, ‘Multi-fingerprint detection and attribution analysis of greenhouse gas, greenhouse gas-plus-aerosol and solar forced climate change’, Clim. Dyn. 13(9), 613–634.
Henkind, S. J. and Harrison, M. C.: 1988, ‘An analysis of four uncertainty calculi’, Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. IEEE 18(5), 700–714.
Henrion, M.: 1988, ‘Propagating uncertainty in Bayesian Networks by Probabilistic Logic Sampling’, in Lemmer, J. F. and Kanal, L. N. (eds.), Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 2, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Henry, C. and Henry, M.: 2002, ‘Formalization and application of the precautionary principle’, Discussion paper 2002009, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES), Université Catholique de Louvain.
Howard, R. A. and Matheson, J.: 1981, ‘Influence Diagrams’, in The Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis, Vol. II, Strategic Decisions Group, Menlo Park, CA.
Institute of Hydrology: 1999, Flood Estimation Handbook, Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford.
Jensen, F. V.: 1996, An Introduction to Bayesian Networks, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Keynes, J. M.: 1921, A Treatise on Probability, MacMillan, London.
Krause, P. J. and Clark, D. A.: 1993, Representing Uncertain Knowledge: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Intellect Books, Oxford.
Kuikka, S. and Varis, O.: 1997, ‘Uncertainties of climatic change impacts in Finnish watersheds: A Bayesian network analysis of expert knowledge’, Boreal Environ. Res.2(1), 109–128.
Merkhoffer, M. W.: 1987, ‘Quantifying judgmental uncertainty: Methodology, experiences and insights’, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 17, 741–752.
Oliver, R. M. and Smith, J. Q. (eds.): 1990, Influence Diagrams, Belief Nets and Decision Analysis, Wiley, New York.
Pearl, J.: 1988, Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo.
Penning-Rowsell, E. C. and Chatterton, J. B.:2002, ‘Autumn 2000 floods in England and Wales assessment of national economic and financial losses’, Middlesex University Flood Hazard Research Centre.
Pittock, B. A., Jones, R. N. and Mitchell, C. D.: 2001, ‘Probabilities will help us plan for climate change’, Nature 413, 249.
Risbey, J. S., Kandlikar, M., and Karoly, D. J.: 2000, ‘A protocol to articulate and quantify uncertainties in climate change detection and attribution’, Clim. Res. 16, 61–78.
Risbey, J. and Kandlikar, M.: 2002, ‘Expert assessment of uncertainties in detection and attribution of climate change’, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 83, 1317–1326.
Savage, L. J.: 1954, The Foundations of Statistics, Wiley, New York.
Schmeidler, D.: 1989, ‘Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity’, Econometrica 45, 571–587.
Schneider, S. H.: 2001, ‘What is dangerous climate change?’, Nature 411, 17–19.
Schneider, S. H.: 2002, ‘Can we estimate the likelihood of climatic scenarios at 2100?’, Clim. Change 52, 441–451.
Sentz, K. and Ferson, S.: 2002, ‘Combination of evidence in Dempster-Shafer theory’, Report SAND2002-0835, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Shachter, R. D.: 1988, ‘Probabilistic inference and influence diagrams’, Oper. Res. 36(4), 589–604.
Shackley, S., Young, P., Parkinson, S., and Wynne, B.: 1998, ‘Uncertainty, complexity and concepts of good science in climate change modelling: Are GCMs the best tools?’, Clim. Change 38(2), 59–205.
Shafer, G.: 1976, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Shafer, G. and Pearl, J.: 1990, Readings in Uncertain Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo.
Spiegelhalter, D. J.: 1986, ‘A Statistical View of Uncertainty in Expert Systems’, in Kanal, L. N. and Lemmer, J. F. (eds.), Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, North-Holland, New York, pp. 17–48.
Stocker, T. F. and Schmittner, A.: 1997, ‘Influence of CO2 emission rates on the stability of the thermohaline circulation’, Nature 388, 862–865.
Stott, P. A., Tett, S. F. B., Jones, G. S., Allen, M. R., Ingram, W. J., and Mitchell, J. F. B.: 2001, ‘Attribution of twentieth century temperature change to natural and anthropogenic causes’, Clim. Dyn. 17(1), 1–21.
van Lenthe, J., Hendrickx, L., Biesiot, W., and Vlek, C.: 1997, ‘A decision-analytic approach to the integrated assessment of climate change’, Risk Decis. Policy 2(3), 213–234.
Walley, P.: 1991, Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities, Chapman & Hall, London.
Wallsten, T. S., Forsyth, B. H. and Budescu, D. V.: 1983, ‘Stability and coherence of health experts’, upper and lower subjective probabilities about dose-response functions’, Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 31, 277–302.
Wigley, T. M. L. and Raper, S. C. B.: 2001, ‘Interpretation of high projections for global-mean warming’, Science 293, 451–454.
Young, P., Parkinson, S., and Lees, M.: 1996, ‘Simplicity out of complexity in environmental modelling: Occam’s razor revisited’, J. Appl. Stat. 23(2–3), 165–210.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hall, J., Twyman, C. & Kay, A. Influence Diagrams for Representing Uncertainty in Climate-Related Propositions. Climatic Change 69, 343–365 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-005-2527-9
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-005-2527-9