IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pclm00/0000965.html

AI-assisted longitudinal comparison of scenario knowledge representation in IPCC synthesis reports

Author

Listed:
  • Thierry Warin
  • Christophe Bisson

Abstract

This paper examines how successive Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports represent scenario knowledge when they are queried through the same scenario-based questions. The purpose is not to test whether the reports predict the same future, because IPCC scenarios are conditional what-if explorations rather than forecasts. Instead, the paper asks how the evidentiary, causal, and uncertainty structure of the reports changes across assessment cycles. We analyze six synthesis reports from the First Assessment Report to the Sixth Assessment Report, using a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipeline and layered analytical prompts. Four theoretically selected pillars organize the comparison: mitigation-adaptation pathway divergence, emerging technologies and scale-up constraints, compound socio-economic risks and governance stress, and carbon dioxide removal feasibility with policy lock-in risks. The results show substantial continuity in the high-level logic of climate assessment: all reports treat delayed mitigation as increasing future risk and all reports caution that technological potential depends on policy, finance, infrastructure, and institutional conditions. The strongest change lies in representation. Early reports often rely on qualitative conditional reasoning; later reports increasingly use quantitative signposts, calibrated uncertainty language, integrated socio-economic pathways, and explicit treatment of limits to adaptation and net-zero pathways. For example, carbon dioxide removal is nearly absent as a policy-relevant pathway in the early assessments, appears in AR5 as a model-dependent negative-emissions assumption, and becomes in AR6 a necessary but limited component of net-zero pathways whose overuse can create mitigation-deterrence and lock-in risks. The paper contributes a replicable method for auditing longitudinal consistency in large assessment corpora and a substantive account of how IPCC scenario knowledge has moved from descriptive climate futures toward integrated, uncertainty-calibrated, and policy-conditioned knowledge representation.

Suggested Citation

  • Thierry Warin & Christophe Bisson, 2026. "AI-assisted longitudinal comparison of scenario knowledge representation in IPCC synthesis reports," PLOS Climate, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(7), pages 1-27, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pclm00:0000965
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pclm.0000965
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000965
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/climate/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000965&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000965?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pclm00:0000965. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: climate (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/climate .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.