Cited by 2,732Climate variability and modelsClimate Change Policy and EconomicsClimate Change and Geoengineering

The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions.

Hawkins, Ed, Sutton, Rowan·2009·Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

Abstract

Faced by the realities of a changing climate, decision makers in a wide variety of organizations are increasingly seeking quantitative predictions of regional and local climate. An important issue for these decision makers, and for organizations that fund climate research, is what is the potential for climate science to deliver improvements—especially reductions in uncertainty—in such predictions? Uncertainty in climate predictions arises from three distinct sources: internal variability, model uncertainty, and scenario uncertainty. Using data from a suite of climate models, we separate and quantify these sources. For predictions of changes in surface air temperature on decadal timescales and regional spatial scales, we show that uncertainty for the next few decades is dominated by sources (model uncertainty and internal variability) that are potentially reducible through progress in climate science. Furthermore, we find that model uncertainty is of greater importance than internal variability. Our findings have implications for managing adaptation to a changing climate. Because the costs of adaptation are very large, and greater uncertainty about future climate is likely to be associated with more expensive adaptation, reducing uncertainty in climate predictions is potentially of enormous economic value. We highlight the need for much more work to compare (a) the cost of various degrees of adaptation, given current levels of uncertainty and (b) the cost of new investments in climate science to reduce current levels of uncertainty. Our study also highlights the importance of targeting climate science investments on the most promising opportunities to reduce prediction uncertainty.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1175/2009bams2607.1

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hawkins, E., & Sutton, R.
Affiliations
  • National Centre for Atmospheric Science (GB)
  • University of Reading (GB)
Corresponding author
Sutton, Rowan
Venue
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Published
2009-08
Volume
90
Issue
8
Pages
1095-1108
ISSN
  • 0003-0007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0477
OpenAlex
W1996653992
Cited by
2,732
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 191 · 2025: 192 · 2024: 230 · 2023: 210 · 2022: 219 · 2021: 251 · 2020: 206 · 2019: 151 · 2018: 153 · 2017: 168 · 2016: 138 · 2015: 155 · 2014: 148 · 2013: 110 · 2012: 104
FWCI
59.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (publishedVersion)
  • CentAUR (University of Reading) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council (ncas10009)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
Keywords
regional climate prediction, forecast uncertainty, natural climate variability, model uncertainty, scenario uncertainty, surface air temperature, decadal climate change, climate change adaptation, adaptation costs, uncertainty reduction

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