English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The uncertainties in scientific studies for climate risk management can be investigated at three levels of complexity: “ABC”. The most sophisticated involves “Analyzing” the full range of uncertainty with large multi-model ensemble experiments. The simplest is about “Bounding” the uncertainty by defining only the upper and lower limits of the likely outcomes. The intermediate approach, “Crystallizing” the uncertainty, distills the full range to improve the computational efficiency of the “Analyze” approach. Modelers typically dictate the study design, with decision-makers then facing difficulties when interpreting the results of ensemble experiments. We assert that to make science more relevant to decision-making, we must begin by considering the applications of scientific outputs in facilitating decision-making pathways, particularly when managing extreme events. This requires working with practitioners from outset, thereby adding “D” for “Decision-centric” to the ABC framework.

Navigating Cascades of Uncertainty — As Easy as ABC? Not Quite…