Abstract
Understanding how precipitation may change in the future is important for guiding climate change adaptation. Climate models are the primary tools for providing information on future precipitation change, though communicating and interpreting results of different model simulations is challenging. Using an online survey, completed by producers and users of climate model information, we compare and evaluate interpretations of different approaches used to summarise and visualise future climate projections. Results reveal large differences in interpretations of precipitation change arising from choices made in summarising and visualising the data. Respondents interpret significantly smaller ranges of future precipitation change when provided with the multi-model ensemble mean or percentile information, which are commonly used to summarise climate model projections, compared to information about the full ensemble. The ensemble mean is found to be particularly misleading, even when used with information to show model agreement in the sign of change. We conclude that these approaches can lead to distorted interpretations which may impact on adaptation policy and decision-making. To help improve the interpretation and use of climate projections in decision-making, regular testing of visualisations and sustained engagement with target audiences is required to determine the most effective and appropriate visualisation approaches.
Highlights
How should we summarise and communicate the results of multi-model climate projections? Choices made in communicating climate projections to different audiences can impact the accessibility, relevance and scientific integrity of the information
Visualisations focus on southern Africa as this region was the focus of a previous study where respondents expressed willingness to participate in follow-on research (Daron et al 2015a), and it aligns with work in the Future Resilience of African CiTies And Lands (FRACTAL) project
For set 2, we find some differences in interpretation between visualisations using contours versus gridboxes
Summary
How should we summarise and communicate the results of multi-model climate projections? Choices made in communicating climate projections to different audiences can impact the accessibility, relevance and scientific integrity of the information. How should we summarise and communicate the results of multi-model climate projections? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has advanced methods to combine and communicate multimodel climate projections at global and regional scales (Knutti et al 2010). The working group 1 summary for policymakers of the IPCC fifth assessment report (AR5) combines results of over 30 GCMs into a single figure summarising future temperature and precipitation changes for the late twenty-first century (figure SPM., IPCC 2013a). Other regional and national initiatives use a range of approaches to communicate climate model projections, such as probability distributions and percentile information (e.g. UKCP181; EUCP2; Villafuerte et al 2019), as well as scenarios and storylines (e.g. Climate Change in Australia; Jack et al 2020). We evaluate approaches commonly used to summarise and communicate multi-model projections of future precipitation change. In Subsection 1.3, we detail the research questions addressed in this study
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
