Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

A Constructive Scientific Methodology to Improve Climate Figures from IPCC

Lu Ying, Junxiu Tang, Tingying He, Jean-Daniel Fekete

TL;DR

This paper addresses the challenge of making IPCC figures more accessible without sacrificing scientific fidelity. It introduces a constructive methodology built around a four-stakeholder chain of trust (Improvers, Reviewers, IPCC Managers, Target Audience) and learning-objective–driven assessments to guide iterative figure improvements starting from official IPCC figures. A case study on Figure SPM.1 demonstrates measurable gains in audience understanding via a learning-objective–based evaluation and a GLMM analysis, while also detailing reproducibility hurdles and LO-derivation challenges in the absence of direct IPCC Manager input. The work highlights both practical pathways to transparent, auditable figure improvements and the broader applicability of this approach to science–policy communication beyond climate science.

Abstract

We propose a methodology to improve figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ensuring that all modifications remain scientifically rigorous. IPCC figures are notoriously difficult to understand, and although designers have proposed alternatives, these lack formal IPCC validation and can be dismissed by skeptics. To address this gap, our approach starts from official IPCC figures. We gather their associated learning objectives and devise tests to score a pool of figure readers to assess how well they learn the objectives.We define improvement as higher scores obtained by a comparable reader pool after viewing a revised figure, where all modifications undergo review to ensure scientific validity. This assessment gives freedom to designers, who can deviate from the original design while making sure the objectives are still met and improved. We demonstrate the methodology through a case study and describe unexpected challenges encountered during the process.

A Constructive Scientific Methodology to Improve Climate Figures from IPCC

TL;DR

This paper addresses the challenge of making IPCC figures more accessible without sacrificing scientific fidelity. It introduces a constructive methodology built around a four-stakeholder chain of trust (Improvers, Reviewers, IPCC Managers, Target Audience) and learning-objective–driven assessments to guide iterative figure improvements starting from official IPCC figures. A case study on Figure SPM.1 demonstrates measurable gains in audience understanding via a learning-objective–based evaluation and a GLMM analysis, while also detailing reproducibility hurdles and LO-derivation challenges in the absence of direct IPCC Manager input. The work highlights both practical pathways to transparent, auditable figure improvements and the broader applicability of this approach to science–policy communication beyond climate science.

Abstract

We propose a methodology to improve figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ensuring that all modifications remain scientifically rigorous. IPCC figures are notoriously difficult to understand, and although designers have proposed alternatives, these lack formal IPCC validation and can be dismissed by skeptics. To address this gap, our approach starts from official IPCC figures. We gather their associated learning objectives and devise tests to score a pool of figure readers to assess how well they learn the objectives.We define improvement as higher scores obtained by a comparable reader pool after viewing a revised figure, where all modifications undergo review to ensure scientific validity. This assessment gives freedom to designers, who can deviate from the original design while making sure the objectives are still met and improved. We demonstrate the methodology through a case study and describe unexpected challenges encountered during the process.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 34 sections, 1 equation, 7 figures.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Related Work
  3. Peer Review
  4. Visualization Linting and Improvement
  5. Visualization Assessment
  6. Replicability and Transparency in Visualization
  7. IPCC Process for Figures
  8. Methodology for Improving IPCC Figures
  9. Overview
  10. Setup and Initial State
  11. Iterations
  12. Iteration: Example
  13. Operations
  14. Implement Instructions
  15. Case Study
  16. ...and 19 more sections

Figures (7)

  • Figure 1: The methodology for improvement involves four stakeholders, with different colors indicating their respective responsibilities.
  • Figure 2: An example of an improvement in the IPCC report: (a) https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/chapter-6/figure-6-12 from IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Working Group 1, the Full Report, aimed at scientists © IPCC; (b) https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/technical-summary/figure-ts-15 from IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Working Group 1, the Technical Summary, aimed at policymakers © IPCC.
  • Figure 3: The https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-1 used in our case study: (a) the original version from the Summary for Policymakers report, and (b) the regenerated version created for our study. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-1 is from the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Working Group I © IPCC.
  • Figure 4: The overall accuracy of chart (a) and chart (b) in V0 and V1. The x-axis labels indicate question indices guided by learning objectives (LOs). Some questions involve multiple LOs, which we connect using "&". The bold underlined LOs indicate that V1 achieves higher accuracy than V0.
  • Figure 5: Our improvements to Figure SPM.1 are illustrated in (a)–(d); they highlight four directions. Each detailed modification is indicated by label (a) near elements or dashed arrows linking the text to the middle chart. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-1 is from the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Working Group I © IPCC.
  • ...and 2 more figures