pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.08049 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 📊 stat.AP

Quantifying Decarbonization Speed Across Climate Scenarios

Fangyuan Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📊 stat.AP
keywords decarbonization speedIAM scenariosclimate mitigationrepresentative concentration pathwaysscenario rankingbootstrap confidence intervalsintegrated assessment modelsmitigation policy summary
0
0 comments X

The pith

A new numerical metric quantifies decarbonization speed in 126 climate scenarios and produces rankings consistent with their concentration pathway targets.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper defines a straightforward numerical measure of how rapidly carbon emissions decline under each scenario. It applies this measure to a large collection of integrated assessment model outputs and demonstrates that the resulting orderings align with the scenarios' official representative concentration pathway labels. This alignment indicates the metric can condense complex, story-driven projections into a single value that still reflects the strength of the assumed mitigation policies. The analysis also supplies an empirical distribution of the speed values along with fitted parametric forms and bootstrap-derived confidence intervals for key statistics.

Core claim

The paper defines a simple numerical metric that measures the decarbonization speed implied by each IAM scenario. With this metric, the narrative based, high-dimensional time series scenario datasets can be ranked and compared in a transparent way. The ranking of IAM scenarios according to the decarbonization speed is consistent with their representative concentration pathway assumptions, showing that the decarbonization metric is a useful summary of a scenario's mitigation policy.

What carries the argument

A simple numerical metric that measures the decarbonization speed implied by each IAM scenario, reducing high-dimensional time-series projections to a single comparable value for ranking.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen numerical definition of decarbonization speed captures the intended policy intensity without being unduly sensitive to model-specific assumptions or data preprocessing choices in the 126 scenarios.

What would settle it

If re-ranking the same 126 scenarios with the metric produces an order that does not match their official representative concentration pathway labels, the claim that the metric usefully summarizes mitigation policy would not hold.

read the original abstract

In this work, we analyze 126 publicly available IAM climate scenarios modeled by six leading teams in climate science. We define a simple numerical metric that measures the decarbonization speed implied by each IAM scenario. With this metric, the narrative based, high-dimensional time series scenario datasets can be ranked and compared in a transparent way. We find that the ranking of IAM scenarios according to the decarbonization speed is consistent with their representative concentration pathway assumptions, showing that the decarbonization metric is a useful summary of a scenario's mitigation policy. We further construct an empirical distribution and a fitted parametric distribution of the decarbonization speed estimates. Key statistics such as mean, median and their confidence intervals by the bootstrap resample technique are also reported.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 126 IAM climate scenarios from six modeling teams. It defines a numerical decarbonization speed metric to rank and compare the scenarios, reports that this ranking is consistent with the scenarios' RCP labels, and constructs empirical plus parametric distributions of the metric values along with bootstrap-derived confidence intervals for the mean and median.

Significance. If the metric proves robust, the work offers a transparent, low-dimensional summary that could help policymakers and analysts compare mitigation intensity across complex, high-dimensional IAM outputs without needing to inspect full time-series trajectories. The bootstrap confidence intervals and parametric fit are positive elements for statistical transparency.

major comments (2)
  1. The explicit mathematical definition of the decarbonization speed metric, including any data exclusion or harmonization rules applied to the 126 scenarios, is not stated in the abstract and must be given with full precision in the Methods section so that readers can verify it does not interact with IAM-specific baseline or technology assumptions.
  2. Results section: the reported consistency between metric ranking and RCP labels is the central claim, yet no sensitivity analysis to alternative metric formulations, different preprocessing choices, or model-specific baselines is presented; without this, it remains possible that the alignment is partly driven by systematic differences among the six IAM teams rather than by the metric's ability to isolate mitigation policy intensity.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify in the text whether the parametric distribution fit was validated against overfitting (e.g., via cross-validation or information criteria) and report the fitted parameters explicitly.
  2. Add a table or figure that lists the six IAM teams, the number of scenarios contributed by each, and the RCP labels used for the consistency check.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have addressed each major comment below with revisions to improve the clarity of the metric definition and to provide additional robustness checks for the central results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The explicit mathematical definition of the decarbonization speed metric, including any data exclusion or harmonization rules applied to the 126 scenarios, is not stated in the abstract and must be given with full precision in the Methods section so that readers can verify it does not interact with IAM-specific baseline or technology assumptions.

    Authors: We agree that the full mathematical definition must be stated with precision in the Methods section. The abstract is a high-level summary and does not include equations, consistent with standard practice for such papers. In the revised manuscript, we have added the explicit formula for the decarbonization speed metric, together with complete details on the data exclusion rules, harmonization procedures applied across the 126 scenarios, and any baseline or technology assumptions. This allows readers to directly assess independence from IAM-specific features. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Results section: the reported consistency between metric ranking and RCP labels is the central claim, yet no sensitivity analysis to alternative metric formulations, different preprocessing choices, or model-specific baselines is presented; without this, it remains possible that the alignment is partly driven by systematic differences among the six IAM teams rather than by the metric's ability to isolate mitigation policy intensity.

    Authors: We acknowledge that sensitivity analyses would strengthen the central claim of consistency with RCP labels. The original manuscript demonstrates the ranking consistency across scenarios from six distinct modeling teams, which already provides some protection against team-specific effects due to the shared RCP framework. However, to directly address the concern, we have added sensitivity analyses in the revised Results section, including checks on alternative metric formulations (e.g., different reference periods and normalization approaches) and preprocessing variations. We also include a stratified analysis by modeling team and a discussion of potential baseline differences to isolate the metric's ability to capture mitigation intensity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper defines its decarbonization speed metric upfront as a simple numerical construct and applies it directly to 126 pre-existing IAM scenarios generated by independent modeling teams. The observed consistency between the resulting rankings and RCP labels is reported as an empirical outcome on external data, not derived by fitting parameters to those rankings or by any self-referential equation. Bootstrap confidence intervals and parametric distribution fitting are applied post hoc to the computed metric values and do not retroactively constrain the metric definition or the consistency claim. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes imported from prior author work appear in the derivation chain. The analysis remains self-contained against the external scenario corpus.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the 126 scenarios form a representative sample of IAM outputs and that the simple numerical metric faithfully encodes mitigation policy intensity. No free parameters are explicitly named in the abstract; standard statistical assumptions about bootstrap validity and distribution fitting are implicit.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The 126 IAM scenarios are sufficiently diverse and representative for ranking and distributional analysis
    Invoked when treating the collection as the basis for empirical distribution and consistency claims with RCP labels.
  • standard math Bootstrap resampling provides valid confidence intervals for the metric statistics
    Used for reporting mean, median, and intervals without further justification in abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5403 in / 1345 out tokens · 53868 ms · 2026-05-10T18:01:50.071651+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A multi model ensemble reveals net climate benefits from regenerative practices in us midwest croplands.Scientific Reports, 15(1):24881, 2025

    Bruno Basso, Tommaso Tadiello, Neville Millar, G Philip Robertson, Keith Paustian, Fidel S Maureira, Susana Albarenque, Brian Baer, Lydia Price, Prateek Sharma, et al. A multi model ensemble reveals net climate benefits from regenerative practices in us midwest croplands.Scientific Reports, 15(1):24881, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    The SSP4: A world of deepening inequality

    Katherine Calvin, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Leon Clarke, James Edmonds, Jiyong Eom, Corinne Hartin, Sonny Kim, Page Kyle, Robert Link, Richard Moss, Haewon McJeon, Pralit Patel, Steve Smith, Stephanie Waldhoff, and Marshall Wise. The SSP4: A world of deepening inequality. Global Environmental Change, 42:284–296, jan 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Verifi- cation of an ensemble prediction system against observations.Monthly Weather Review, 135(7):2688–2699, 2007

    Guillem Candille, C Cˆ ot´ e, PL Houtekamer, and Gerard Pellerin. Verifi- cation of an ensemble prediction system against observations.Monthly Weather Review, 135(7):2688–2699, 2007

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities?Climate policy, 4(2):107–128, 2004

    Suraje Dessai and Mike Hulme. Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities?Climate policy, 4(2):107–128, 2004

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1994

    Bradley Efron and Robert J Tibshirani.An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1994

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    McCollum, Michael Ober- steiner, Shonali Pachauri, Shilpa Rao, Erwin Schmid, Wolfgang Schoepp, and Keywan Riahi

    Oliver Fricko, Petr Havlik, Joeri Rogelj, Zbigniew Klimont, Mykola Gusti, Nils Johnson, Peter Kolp, Manfred Strubegger, Hugo Valin, Markus Amann, Tatiana Ermolieva, Nicklas Forsell, Mario Herrero, Chris Heyes, Georg Kindermann, Volker Krey, David L. McCollum, Michael Ober- steiner, Shonali Pachauri, Shilpa Rao, Erwin Schmid, Wolfgang Schoepp, and Keywan R...

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    SSP3: AIM implementation of shared socioeconomic pathways

    Shinichiro Fujimori, Tomoko Hasegawa, Toshihiko Masui, Kiyoshi Taka- hashi, Diego Silva Herran, Hancheng Dai, Yasuaki Hijioka, and Mikiko Kainuma. SSP3: AIM implementation of shared socioeconomic pathways. Global Environmental Change, 42:268–283, jan 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    M. J. Gidden, K. Riahi, S. J. Smith, S. Fujimori, G. Luderer, E. Kriegler, D. P. van Vuuren, M. van den Berg, L. Feng, D. Klein, K. Calvin, J. C. Doelman, S. Frank, O. Fricko, M. Harmsen, T. Hasegawa, P. Havlik, J. Hilaire, R. Hoesly, J. Horing, A. Popp, E. Stehfest, and K. Takahashi. Global emissions pathways under different socioeconomic scenarios for u...

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Imprecise probabilities of climate change: aggregation of fuzzy scenarios and model uncertainties

    Jim Hall, Guangtao Fu, and Jonathan Lawry. Imprecise probabilities of climate change: aggregation of fuzzy scenarios and model uncertainties. Climatic Change, 81(3):265–281, 2007

    work page 2007

  10. [10]

    Silvia Innocenti, Pascal Matte, Vincent Fortin, and Natacha Bernier. Analytical and residual bootstrap methods for parameter uncertainty assessment in tidal analysis with temporally correlated noise.Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 39(10):1457–1481, 2022

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Analysing the risk of climate change using an irrigation demand model.Climate research, 14(2):89–100, 2000

    Roger N Jones. Analysing the risk of climate change using an irrigation demand model.Climate research, 14(2):89–100, 2000

    work page 2000

  12. [12]

    Developing climate policy scenarios using elicitation

    Dherminder Kainth. Developing climate policy scenarios using elicitation. Available at SSRN 5112333, 2025

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Techniques for estimating uncertainty in climate change scenarios and impact studies.Climate research, 20(2):167–185, 2002

    Richard W Katz. Techniques for estimating uncertainty in climate change scenarios and impact studies.Climate research, 20(2):167–185, 2002

    work page 2002

  14. [14]

    On the appropriate and inappro- priate uses of probability distributions in climate projections and some alternatives.Climatic Change, 169:1–20, 2021

    Joel Katzav, Erica L Thompson, James Risbey, David A Stainforth, Seamus Bradley, and Mathias Frisch. On the appropriate and inappro- priate uses of probability distributions in climate projections and some alternatives.Climatic Change, 169:1–20, 2021

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Using input–output models to estimate sectoral effects of carbon tax policy: Applications of the ngfs scenarios

    David Kay and G Jason Jolley. Using input–output models to estimate sectoral effects of carbon tax policy: Applications of the ngfs scenarios. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 82(3):187–222, 2023

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    A review of uncertainties in global temperature projections over the twenty-first century.Journal of Climate, 21(11):2651–2663, 2008

    Reto Knutti, Myles R Allen, Pierre Friedlingstein, Jonathan M Gregory, Gabriele C Hegerl, Gerald A Meehl, Malte Meinshausen, James M Mur- phy, G-K Plattner, Sarah CB Raper, et al. A review of uncertainties in global temperature projections over the twenty-first century.Journal of Climate, 21(11):2651–2663, 2008

    work page 2008

  17. [17]

    Fossil-fueled development (SSP5): An energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century

    Elmar Kriegler, Nico Bauer, Alexander Popp, Florian Humpen ˜A¶der, Marian Leimbach, Jessica Strefler, Lavinia Baumstark, Benjamin Leon Bodirsky, J´ erˆ ome Hilaire, David Klein, Ioanna Mouratiadou, Isabelle Weindl, Christoph Bertram, Jan-Philipp Dietrich, Gunnar Luderer, Michaja Pehl, Robert Pietzcker, Franziska Piontek, Hermann Lotze- Campen, Anne Biewal...

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    Elmar Kriegler and Hermann Held. Utilizing belief functions for the esti- mation of future climate change.International journal of approximate Quantifying Decarbonization Speed Across Climate Scenarios25 reasoning, 39(2-3):185–209, 2005

    work page 2005

  19. [19]

    Robust strategies for abating climate change.Climatic Change, 45(3-4):387–401, 2000

    Robert J Lempert and Michael E Schlesinger. Robust strategies for abating climate change.Climatic Change, 45(3-4):387–401, 2000

    work page 2000

  20. [20]

    Using dempster–shafer theory to represent climate change uncertainties.Journal of Environmental Management, 49(1):73–93, 1997

    Wuben Ben Luo and Bill Caselton. Using dempster–shafer theory to represent climate change uncertainties.Journal of Environmental Management, 49(1):73–93, 1997

    work page 1997

  21. [21]

    Towards net- zero emissions in global residential heating and cooling: a global scenario analysis.Climatic Change, 178(4):1–22, 2025

    Alessio Mastrucci, Benigna Boza-Kiss, and Bas van Ruijven. Towards net- zero emissions in global residential heating and cooling: a global scenario analysis.Climatic Change, 178(4):1–22, 2025

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Subjective judgments by climate experts.Environmental Science & Technology, 29(10):468A–476A, 1995

    M Granger Morgan and David W Keith. Subjective judgments by climate experts.Environmental Science & Technology, 29(10):468A–476A, 1995

    work page 1995

  23. [23]

    Guidelines for constructing climate scenarios.Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 92(31):257–258, 2011

    Philip Mote, Levi Brekke, Philip B Duffy, and Ed Maurer. Guidelines for constructing climate scenarios.Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 92(31):257–258, 2011

    work page 2011

  24. [24]

    Trend analysis of climate time series: A review of methods.Earth-science reviews, 190:310–322, 2019

    Manfred Mudelsee. Trend analysis of climate time series: A review of methods.Earth-science reviews, 190:310–322, 2019

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    Representing uncertainty in climate change scenarios: a monte-carlo approach.Integrated assessment, 1(3):203–213, 2000

    Mark New and Mike Hulme. Representing uncertainty in climate change scenarios: a monte-carlo approach.Integrated assessment, 1(3):203–213, 2000

    work page 2000

  26. [26]

    Cali- brating large-ensemble european climate projections using observational data.Earth System Dynamics, 11(4):1033–1049, 2020

    Christopher H O’Reilly, Daniel J Befort, and Antje Weisheimer. Cali- brating large-ensemble european climate projections using observational data.Earth System Dynamics, 11(4):1033–1049, 2020

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Quan- tifying statistical uncertainty in the attribution of human influence on severe weather.Weather and climate extremes, 20:69–80, 2018

    Christopher J Paciorek, D´ aith´ ı A Stone, and Michael F Wehner. Quan- tifying statistical uncertainty in the attribution of human influence on severe weather.Weather and climate extremes, 20:69–80, 2018

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Probabilities will help us plan for climate change.Nature, 413(6853):249–249, 2001

    A Barrie Pittock, Roger N Jones, and Chris D Mitchell. Probabilities will help us plan for climate change.Nature, 413(6853):249–249, 2001

    work page 2001

  29. [29]

    Climloco1

    Valentin Portmann, Marie Chavent, and Didier Swingedouw. Climloco1. 0: Climate variable confidence interval of multivariate linear observational constraint.Geoscientific Model Development, 18(22):9015–9038, 2025

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    A probability and decision-model anal- ysis of a multimodel ensemble of climate change simulations.Journal of Climate, 14(15):3212–3226, 2001

    Jouni R¨ ais¨ anen and TN Palmer. A probability and decision-model anal- ysis of a multimodel ensemble of climate change simulations.Journal of Climate, 14(15):3212–3226, 2001

    work page 2001

  31. [31]

    Climate sce- narios with probabilities via maximum entropy and indirect elicitation

    Riccardo Rebonato, Lionel Melin, and Fangyuan Zhang. Climate sce- narios with probabilities via maximum entropy and indirect elicitation. 26Quantifying Decarbonization Speed Across Climate Scenarios Available at SSRN 5128228, 2025

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    van Vuuren, Elmar Kriegler, Jae Edmonds, Brian C

    Keywan Riahi, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Elmar Kriegler, Jae Edmonds, Brian C. O’Neill, Shinichiro Fujimori, Nico Bauer, Katherine Calvin, Rob Dellink, Oliver Fricko, Wolfgang Lutz, Alexander Popp, Jesus Crespo Cuaresma, Samir KC, Marian Leimbach, Leiwen Jiang, Tom Kram, Shilpa Rao, Johannes Emmerling, Kristie Ebi, Tomoko Hasegawa, Petr Havlik, Florian Humpen˜...

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    Joeri Rogelj, Alexander Popp, Katherine V. Calvin, Gunnar Lud- erer, Johannes Emmerling, David Gernaat, Shinichiro Fujimori, Jessica Strefler, Tomoko Hasegawa, Giacomo Marangoni, Volker Krey, Elmar Kriegler, Keywan Riahi, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Jonathan Doelman, Lau- rent Drouet, Jae Edmonds, Oliver Fricko, Mathijs Harmsen, Petr Havl´ ık, Florian Humpen ˜A...

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    What is’ dangerous’ climate change?Nature, 411(6833):17–19, 2001

    Stephen H Schneider. What is’ dangerous’ climate change?Nature, 411(6833):17–19, 2001

    work page 2001

  35. [35]

    Uncertainties in the ipcc tar: Recom- mendations to lead authors for more consistent assessment and reporting

    Stephen H Schneider and R Moss. Uncertainties in the ipcc tar: Recom- mendations to lead authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. Unpublished document, 1999

    work page 1999

  36. [36]

    Probabilistic skill in ensemble seasonal forecasts.Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 141(689):1085–1100, 2015

    Leonard A Smith, Hailiang Du, Emma B Suckling, and Falk Nieh¨ orster. Probabilistic skill in ensemble seasonal forecasts.Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 141(689):1085–1100, 2015

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    Calibrated ensemble forecasts using quantile regression forests and ensem- ble model output statistics.Monthly Weather Review, 144(6):2375–2393, 2016

    Maxime Taillardat, Olivier Mestre, Micha¨ el Zamo, and Philippe Naveau. Calibrated ensemble forecasts using quantile regression forests and ensem- ble model output statistics.Monthly Weather Review, 144(6):2375–2393, 2016

    work page 2016

  38. [38]

    Social cost of carbon estimates have increased over time

    Richard SJ Tol. Social cost of carbon estimates have increased over time. Nature climate change, 13(6):532–536, 2023

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Method uncertainty is essential for reliable confidence state- ments of precipitation projections.Journal of Climate, 34(3):1227–1240, 2021

    Peter Uhe, Dann Mitchell, Paul D Bates, Myles R Allen, Richard A Betts, Chris Huntingford, Andrew D King, Benjamin M Sanderson, and Hideo Quantifying Decarbonization Speed Across Climate Scenarios27 Shiogama. Method uncertainty is essential for reliable confidence state- ments of precipitation projections.Journal of Climate, 34(3):1227–1240, 2021

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    van Vuuren, Elke Stehfest, David E.H.J

    Detlef P. van Vuuren, Elke Stehfest, David E.H.J. Gernaat, Jonathan C. Doelman, Maarten van den Berg, Mathijs Harmsen, Harmen Sytze de Boer, Lex F. Bouwman, Vassilis Daioglou, Oreane Y. Edelenbosch, Bastien Girod, Tom Kram, Luis Lassaletta, Paul L. Lucas, Hans van Meijl, Christoph M˜A¼ller, Bas J. van Ruijven, Sietske van der Sluis, and Andrzej Tabeau. En...

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    Generalised block bootstrap and its use in meteorology.Advances in Statistical Climatology, Meteorology and Oceanography, 3(1):55–66, 2017

    L´ aszl´ o Varga and Andr´ as Zempl´ eni. Generalised block bootstrap and its use in meteorology.Advances in Statistical Climatology, Meteorology and Oceanography, 3(1):55–66, 2017

    work page 2017

  42. [42]

    The unconditional probability distribu- tions of future emissions and temperatures

    Frank Venmans and Ben Carr. The unconditional probability distribu- tions of future emissions and temperatures. 2022

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Uncertainty in emissions projections for climate models.Atmospheric environment, 36(22):3659–3670, 2002

    Mort D Webster, M Babiker, Monika Mayer, John M Reilly, Jochen Har- nisch, Robert Hyman, Marcus C Sarofim, and Chien Wang. Uncertainty in emissions projections for climate models.Atmospheric environment, 36(22):3659–3670, 2002

    work page 2002

  44. [44]

    Proposal for the development of climate scenarios.Climate research, 8(3):171–182, 1997

    Peter C Werner and F-W Gerstengarbe. Proposal for the development of climate scenarios.Climate research, 8(3):171–182, 1997

    work page 1997

  45. [45]

    Risk and uncertainties, analysis and eval- uation: Lessons for adaptation and integration.Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 4:319–329, 1999

    Gary Yohe and H Dowlatabadi. Risk and uncertainties, analysis and eval- uation: Lessons for adaptation and integration.Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 4:319–329, 1999

    work page 1999