Keynote Speakers, Titles and Abstracts

 
Richard Allan, University of Reading

Title: The role of CMIP in climate research for policy support

Abstract: The availablity of a broad and consistent set of simulations covering past, present and future climate change as part of the ongoing Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) has been beneficial in constructing clear messages to policy makers and stakeholders. Combining with physical understanding and observations is also crucial in identifying robust responses and less certain aspects of climate change and variability. Examples dealing with the changing water cycle and the global warming "hiatus" will be discussed.

 

Chris Hope, University of Cambridge

Title: Why bother with Integrated Assessment Models?

Abstract: An Integrated Assessment Model (IAM) provides policy support that is not available in any other way. I describe PAGE09, a globallyrecognised IAM, and some of its policy-relevant outputs. I propose several potentially fruitful uses of the model in the policy process.

 

Kathryn Humphrey, Climate Change Committee

Title: The Climate Change Risk Assessment

Abstract: The CCRA forms the evidence base that Government uses to create its National Adaptation Programmes on a five yearly basis. CCRA1 was published in 2012. The Committee on Climate Change are producing CCRA2 for publication in July 2016. There are questions about how the report should deal with the issue of uncertainty across climate projections, impacts studies, socio-economic change and policy. How can we describe these uncertainties simply to a policy audience, and what guidance should we give on how policy makers should take them into account in forming the next national programmes for adaptation?

 

Andrew Jarvis, University of Lancaster

Title: So what do current climate decision frameworks look like from afar?

Abstract: TBC

 

Jason Lowe, UK Met Office

Title: What do policy makers want and how do we advise them?

Abstract: There are a range of ways in which climate information is useful to and can influence both mitigation and adaptation decisions and actions. However this must be balanced by a realism of the limits of influence. This talk will provide some examples of how climate science is influencing the mitigation debate, with particular focus the long term climate goal and the feasibility of emissions pathways.

 

David Sexton, UK Met Office

Title: The UK Climate projections (UKCP09 and UKCPnext) and their use in decision making

Abstract:  In June 2009, the latest set of UK Climate Projections, UKCP09, were published aimed at supporting adaptation planning. The main innovation was that the land projections were, for the first time, probabilistic in nature. Probability density functions (PDFs) were made available for several variables for three different SRES emission scenarios and  provided at 25km resolution for monthly and seasonal averages for ten overlapping 30-year periods in the 21st century. These PDFs were generated using a Bayesian framework and combined multiple lines of evidence from Met Office model experiments, simulations from other modelling centres, and constrained by the observed mean climate and recent global temperature trends.  This talk will briefly describe the UKCP09 PDFs, their strengths and limitations, and show how lessons learnt have influenced the plans for the next set of UK climate projections, UKCPnext. The talk will also discuss the role of UKCP09 in decision making.

 

Jim Smith, University of Warwick

Title: Integrating Science into Decision Support for Complex Systems

Abstract:  In this presentationwe will consider the challenges of building Bayesian Decision Support Systems that integrate diverse expert judgments together into a consistent picture of a developing crisis. These often need to be both dynamic and consist in senses we will define in the presentation. We argue that to be compelling such an integrating system needs to be based round an overarching agreed (often graphical) qualitative structure. This structure should then be embellished by evidence form the domain experts appropraite to each part of the system. We will explore when this is possible and when it is not. We show that recent advances in the development of causal hypotheses are intimately linked to systems that embody such mutual belief systems.