Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 370

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving the contribution of climate model information to decision making: the value and demands of robust decision frameworks

Weaver, Christopher P., Lempert, Robert J., Brown, Casey, Hall, John A., Revell, David, Sarewitz, Daniel·2013·WIREs Climate Change

Abstract

In this paper, we review the need for, use of, and demands on climate modeling to support so‐called ‘robust’ decision frameworks, in the context of improving the contribution of climate information to effective decision making. Such frameworks seek to identify policy vulnerabilities under deep uncertainty about the future and propose strategies for minimizing regret in the event of broken assumptions. We argue that currently there is a severe underutilization of climate models as tools for supporting decision making, and that this is slowing progress in developing informed adaptation and mitigation responses to climate change. This underutilization stems from two root causes, about which there is a growing body of literature: one, a widespread, but limiting, conception that the usefulness of climate models in planning begins and ends with regional‐scale predictions of multidecadal climate change; two, the general failure so far to incorporate learning from the decision and social sciences into climate‐related decision support in key sectors. We further argue that addressing these root causes will require expanding the conception of climate models; not simply as prediction machines within ‘predict‐then‐act’ decision frameworks, but as scenario generators, sources of insight into complex system behavior, and aids to critical thinking within robust decision frameworks. Such a shift, however, would have implications for how users perceive and use information from climate models and, ultimately, the types of information they will demand from these models—and thus for the types of simulations and numerical experiments that will have the most value for informing decision making. WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:39–60. doi: 10.1002/wcc.202 This article is categorized under: Climate Models and Modeling > Knowledge Generation with Models Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Institutions for Adaptation

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/wcc.202

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 370

Metadata

Authors
Weaver, C. P., Lempert, R. J., Brown, C., Hall, J. A., Revell, D., & Sarewitz, D.
Venue
WIREs Climate Change
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-12-18
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
39-60
ISSN
  • 1757-7780 (ISSN-L)
  • 1757-7799
OpenAlex
W1659352704
Cited by
370
References
7
FWCI
16.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Improving the contribution of climate model information to decision making: the value and demands of robust decision frameworks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/wcc.202
The paper
Weaver, C. P., Lempert, R. J., Brown, C., Hall, J. A., Revell, D., & Sarewitz, D. (2013). Improving the contribution of climate model information to decision making: the value and demands of robust decision frameworks. WIREs Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.202

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.