Sandbox: Difference between revisions
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
The study asked over 11,000 volunteers in 24 countries (and in 17 different languages) to provide their interpretations of a the intended meaning and possible range of 8 sentences form the IPCC report that included the various phrases. For example, one sentence read: “It is '''very likely''' [emphasis added] that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent.” Only a small minority of the participants interpreted the probability of that statement consistent with IPCC guidelines (over 90 percent), and the vast majority interpreted the term to convey a probability in around 70 percent. | The study asked over 11,000 volunteers in 24 countries (and in 17 different languages) to provide their interpretations of a the intended meaning and possible range of 8 sentences form the IPCC report that included the various phrases. For example, one sentence read: “It is '''very likely''' [emphasis added] that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent.” Only a small minority of the participants interpreted the probability of that statement consistent with IPCC guidelines (over 90 percent), and the vast majority interpreted the term to convey a probability in around 70 percent. | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
Similar patterns were found with other phrases. When verbal descriptions were used without numerical ranges, readers tended to interpret the probabilities as being closer to 50 percent than | Similar patterns were found with other phrases. When verbal descriptions were used without numerical ranges, readers tended to interpret the probabilities as being closer to 50 percent than intended by the guidelines. | ||
==Reproducibility== | ==Reproducibility== | ||
Revision as of 16:48, 15 July 2014
Interpreting climate change probabilities
Bob Griffin sent a link to the following
The interpretation of IPCC probabilistic statements around the world
by David V. Budescu, et al, Nature Climate Change, 20 April 2014
which he describes as "an intriguing look at how folks in different cultures around the world interpret the verbal statements of uncertainty that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uses. They found that an alternative presentation format (verbal terms with numerical ranges) improves the correspondence between the IPCC guidelines and public interpretations. The alternative presentation format also produces more stable results across cultures. Of course, the implications here could go beyond reactions to the IPCC uncertainty statements."
Only the abstract is available to non subscribers, but you can read more about the study design in this Fordham University press release. As described there:
The study asked over 11,000 volunteers in 24 countries (and in 17 different languages) to provide their interpretations of a the intended meaning and possible range of 8 sentences form the IPCC report that included the various phrases. For example, one sentence read: “It is very likely [emphasis added] that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent.” Only a small minority of the participants interpreted the probability of that statement consistent with IPCC guidelines (over 90 percent), and the vast majority interpreted the term to convey a probability in around 70 percent.
Similar patterns were found with other phrases. When verbal descriptions were used without numerical ranges, readers tended to interpret the probabilities as being closer to 50 percent than intended by the guidelines.
Reproducibility
When studies are wrong: A coda
by George Johnson, New York Times, 7 March 2014
Submitted by Bill Peterson
Finding lost aircraft
Jeanne Albert sent a link to the following
How statisticians found Air France Flight 447 two years after it crashed into Atlantic
MIT Technology Review, 27 May 2014
How statisticians could help find that missing plane, by Carl Bialik, FiveThirtyEight, 17 March 2014