Equity is more important for the social cost of methane than climate uncertainty.

The social cost of methane (SC-CH4) measures the economic loss of welfare caused by emitting one tonne of methane into the atmosphere. This valuation may in turn be used in cost-benefit analyses or to inform climate policies1-3. However, current SC-CH4 estimates have not included key scientific findings and observational constraints. Here we estimate the SC-CH4 by incorporating the recent upward revision of 25 per cent to calculations of the radiative forcing of methane4, combined with calibrated reduced-form global climate models and an ensemble of integrated assessment models (IAMs). Our multi-model mean estimate for the SC-CH4 is US$933 per tonne of CH4 (5-95 per cent range, US$471-1,570 per tonne of CH4) under a high-emissions scenario (Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5), a 22 per cent decrease compared to estimates based on the climate uncertainty framework used by the US federal government5. Our ninety-fifth percentile estimate is 51 per cent lower than the corresponding figure from the US framework. Under a low-emissions scenario (RCP 2.6), our multi-model mean decreases to US$710 per tonne of CH4. Tightened equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates paired with the effect of previously neglected relationships between uncertain parameters of the climate model lower these estimates. We also show that our SC-CH4 estimates are sensitive to model combinations; for example, within one IAM, different methane cycle sub-models can induce variations of approximately 20 per cent in the estimated SC-CH4. But switching IAMs can more than double the estimated SC-CH4. Extending our results to account for societal concerns about equity produces SC-CH4 estimates that differ by more than an order of magnitude between low- and high-income regions. Our central equity-weighted estimate for the USA increases to US$8,290 per tonne of CH4 whereas our estimate for sub-Saharan Africa decreases to US$134 per tonne of CH4.

Deep Uncertainties in Sea-Level Rise and Storm Surge Projections: Implications for Coastal Flood Risk Management.

Sea levels are rising in many areas around the world, posing risks to coastal communities and infrastructures. Strategies for managing these flood risks present decision challenges that require a combination of geophysical, economic, and infrastructure models. Previous studies have broken important new ground on the considerable tensions between the costs of upgrading infrastructure and the damages that could result from extreme flood events. However, many risk-based adaptation strategies remain silent on certain potentially important uncertainties, as well as the tradeoffs between competing objectives. Here, we implement and improve on a classic decision-analytical model (Van Dantzig 1956) to: (i) capture tradeoffs across conflicting stakeholder objectives, (ii) demonstrate the consequences of structural uncertainties in the sea-level rise and storm surge models, and (iii) identify the parametric uncertainties that most strongly influence each objective using global sensitivity analysis. We find that the flood adaptation model produces potentially myopic solutions when formulated using traditional mean-centric decision theory. Moving from a single-objective problem formulation to one with multiobjective tradeoffs dramatically expands the decision space, and highlights the need for compromise solutions to address stakeholder preferences. We find deep structural uncertainties that have large effects on the model outcome, with the storm surge parameters accounting for the greatest impacts. Global sensitivity analysis effectively identifies important parameter interactions that local methods overlook, and that could have critical implications for flood adaptation strategies.

Probabilistic projections of baseline twenty-first century CO2 emissions using a simple calibrated integrated assessment model.

Probabilistic projections of baseline (with no additional mitigation policies) future carbon emissions are important for sound climate risk assessments. Deep uncertainty surrounds many drivers of projected emissions. Here, we use a simple integrated assessment model, calibrated to century-scale data and expert assessments of baseline emissions, global economic growth, and population growth, to make probabilistic projections of carbon emissions through 2100. Under a variety of assumptions about fossil fuel resource levels and decarbonization rates, our projections largely agree with several emissions projections under current policy conditions. Our global sensitivity analysis identifies several key economic drivers of uncertainty in future emissions and shows important higher-level interactions between economic and technological parameters, while population uncertainties are less important. Our analysis also projects relatively low global economic growth rates over the remainder of the century. This illustrates the importance of additional research into economic growth dynamics for climate risk assessment, especially if pledged and future climate mitigation policies are weakened or have delayed implementations. These results showcase the power of using a simple, transparent, and calibrated model. While the simple model structure has several advantages, it also creates caveats for our results which are related to important areas for further research. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10584-021-03279-7.

Neglecting uncertainties biases house-elevation decisions to manage riverine flood risks.

Homeowners around the world elevate houses to manage flood risks. Deciding how high to elevate a house poses a nontrivial decision problem. The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recommends elevating existing houses to the Base Flood Elevation (the elevation of the 100-year flood) plus a freeboard. This recommendation neglects many uncertainties. Here we analyze a case-study of riverine flood risk management using a multi-objective robust decision-making framework in the face of deep uncertainties. While the quantitative results are location-specific, the approach and overall insights are generalizable. We find strong interactions between the economic, engineering, and Earth science uncertainties, illustrating the need for expanding on previous integrated analyses to further understand the nature and strength of these connections. Considering deep uncertainties surrounding flood hazards, the discount rate, the house lifetime, and the fragility can increase the economically optimal house elevation to values well above FEMA's recommendation.

Characterizing the deep uncertainties surrounding coastal flood hazard projections: A case study for Norfolk, VA.

Coastal planners and decision makers design risk management strategies based on hazard projections. However, projections can differ drastically. What causes this divergence and which projection(s) should a decision maker adopt to create plans and adaptation efforts for improving coastal resiliency? Using Norfolk, Virginia, as a case study, we start to address these questions by characterizing and quantifying the drivers of differences between published sea-level rise and storm surge projections, and how these differences can impact efforts to improve coastal resilience. We find that assumptions about the complex behavior of ice sheets are the primary drivers of flood hazard diversity. Adopting a single hazard projection neglects key uncertainties and can lead to overconfident projections and downwards biased hazard estimates. These results highlight key avenues to improve the usefulness of hazard projections to inform decision-making such as (i) representing complex ice sheet behavior, (ii) covering decision-relevant timescales beyond this century, (iii) resolving storm surges with a low chance of occurring (e.g., a 0.2% chance per year), (iv) considering that storm surge projections may deviate from the historical record, and (v) communicating the considerable deep uncertainty.

A multi-objective decision-making approach to the journal submission problem.

When researchers complete a manuscript, they need to choose a journal to which they will submit the study. This decision requires to navigate trade-offs between multiple objectives. One objective is to share the new knowledge as widely as possible. Citation counts can serve as a proxy to quantify this objective. A second objective is to minimize the time commitment put into sharing the research, which may be estimated by the total time from initial submission to final decision. A third objective is to minimize the number of rejections and resubmissions. Thus, researchers often consider the trade-offs between the objectives of (i) maximizing citations, (ii) minimizing time-to-decision, and (iii) minimizing the number of resubmissions. To complicate matters further, this is a decision with multiple, potentially conflicting, decision-maker rationalities. Co-authors might have different preferences, for example about publishing fast versus maximizing citations. These diverging preferences can lead to conflicting trade-offs between objectives. Here, we apply a multi-objective decision analytical framework to identify the Pareto-front between these objectives and determine the set of journal submission pathways that balance these objectives for three stages of a researcher's career. We find multiple strategies that researchers might pursue, depending on how they value minimizing risk and effort relative to maximizing citations. The sequences that maximize expected citations within each strategy are generally similar, regardless of time horizon. We find that the "conditional impact factor"-impact factor times acceptance rate-is a suitable heuristic method for ranking journals, to strike a balance between minimizing effort objectives and maximizing citation count. Finally, we examine potential co-author tension resulting from differing rationalities by mapping out each researcher's preferred Pareto front and identifying compromise submission strategies. The explicit representation of trade-offs, especially when multiple decision-makers (co-authors) have different preferences, facilitates negotiations and can support the decision process.