{"title":"Telling the boiling frog what he needs to know: why climate change risks should be plotted as probability over time","authors":"S. Sharpe","doi":"10.5194/GC-2-95-2019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Humanity's situation with respect to climate change is\nsometimes compared to that of a frog in a slowly boiling pot of water,\nmeaning that change will happen too gradually for us to appreciate the\nlikelihood of catastrophe and act before it is too late. I argue that the\nscientific community is not yet telling the boiling frog what he needs to\nknow. I use a review of the figures included in two reports of the\nIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to show that much of the climate\nscience communicated to policymakers is presented in the form of projections\nof what is most likely to occur, as a function of time (equivalent to the following statement: in 5 min time, the water you are sitting in will be 2 ∘C warmer). I\nargue from first principles that a more appropriate means of assessing and\ncommunicating the risks of climate change would be to produce assessments of\nthe likelihood of crossing non-arbitrary thresholds of impact, as a function\nof time (equivalent to the following statement: the probability of you being boiled to death will\nbe 1 % in 5 min time, rising to 100 % in 20 min time if\nyou do not jump out of the pot). This would be consistent with approaches to\nrisk assessment in fields such as insurance, engineering, and health and\nsafety. Importantly, it would ensure that decision makers are informed of the\nbiggest risks and hence of the strongest reasons to act. I suggest ways in\nwhich the science community could contribute to promoting this approach,\ntaking into account its inherent need for cross-disciplinary research and\nfor engagement with decision makers before the research is conducted\ninstead of afterwards.\n","PeriodicalId":52877,"journal":{"name":"Geoscience Communication","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geoscience Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/GC-2-95-2019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
Abstract. Humanity's situation with respect to climate change is
sometimes compared to that of a frog in a slowly boiling pot of water,
meaning that change will happen too gradually for us to appreciate the
likelihood of catastrophe and act before it is too late. I argue that the
scientific community is not yet telling the boiling frog what he needs to
know. I use a review of the figures included in two reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to show that much of the climate
science communicated to policymakers is presented in the form of projections
of what is most likely to occur, as a function of time (equivalent to the following statement: in 5 min time, the water you are sitting in will be 2 ∘C warmer). I
argue from first principles that a more appropriate means of assessing and
communicating the risks of climate change would be to produce assessments of
the likelihood of crossing non-arbitrary thresholds of impact, as a function
of time (equivalent to the following statement: the probability of you being boiled to death will
be 1 % in 5 min time, rising to 100 % in 20 min time if
you do not jump out of the pot). This would be consistent with approaches to
risk assessment in fields such as insurance, engineering, and health and
safety. Importantly, it would ensure that decision makers are informed of the
biggest risks and hence of the strongest reasons to act. I suggest ways in
which the science community could contribute to promoting this approach,
taking into account its inherent need for cross-disciplinary research and
for engagement with decision makers before the research is conducted
instead of afterwards.