1

Developing science – stakeholder interactions at the Institute of Coastal

Research@HZG:

Hans von Storch

Institute of Coastal Research,

Helmholtz Zentrum Geesthacht, Germany

19 February 2015, visit GAO

2

1.        Why and how was this climate information system created and what needs was it designed to meet? Please provide a brief history.

The Institute of Coastal Research (IfK) of HZG was confronted with knowledge needs on the side of decision takers (administration, companies) and the regional public – concerning coastal climate issues (mostly storm surges, storms, waves). We noticed that our „clients“ did not understand our answers, and that we did not have the capacity to answer their questions.

The „system“ is a climate knowledge system.

• Knowledge is capacity to understand and act, not access to information.

• The science-policy/public interaction is not an issue of the linear model of demand & supply. The „empty vessel“-model of knowledge transfer is flawed.

• The problem is that the scientific knowledge is competing on an „explanation market“ with other forms of knowledge. Scientific(ally constructed) knowledge does not necessarily “win” this competition.

As a consequence, we built a cooperation with social scientists, set up the dialogue platform „Norddeutsches Klimabüro“ in 2006, established Mini-IPCC reports for mapping the available scientifically legitimate knowledge about regional climate, and developed suitable information provision systems.

3

2.        What are the system’s goals?

The goal is to establish a dialogue between regional stakeholders and research at the Institute of Coastal Research (and CliSAP)

- so that scientists understand what the knowledge and information needs on the side of stakeholders are – in particular the extent of how these needs are conditioned by alternative knowledge claims.

- so that stakeholders understand the limits and partly preliminary character of scientific understanding of climate change and impacts – in particular the issues of timing, uncertainty, multiple drivers, scientific claims making (by interest led social actors).

Thus, climate research shall be enabled to deal with practically relevant issues, while decision makers should recognize the limits and fragility of scientific understanding.

4

3.        How is the climate information system structured, including:a.        What are the roles and responsibilities of the organizations in the system? Has this changed over time?b.        How are the efforts of different organizations in the system coordinated? Has changed over time?

The system is foremost meant to build a dialogue between scientists at the Institute of Coastal Research (and CliSAP) and regional stakeholders (incl. public, media).

There are three more such regional Klimabüros in Germany at Helmholtz Centers (Bremerhaven, Karlsruhe, Leipzig), wo are building dialogues with different clients (from different regions and different sectors).

Additional organizations operate at national and even international levels, such as the Weather Service (DWD) and the Environmental administration (UBA) and the Climate Service Center (also at HZG) effort by the Ministry of Research and Technology. They adopt a top-down approach.

All groups interact informally; efforts to streamline the different efforts are underway, but difficult because of lack of theoretical underpinning.

5

6.        How is this climate information system funded?

The Norddeutsches Klimabüro is mainly financed through regular funds of the Institute of Coastal Research. Additional funding is from projects, in particular through the Climate Center of Excellence CLISAP at Hamburg University.

6

7.        What other options, if any, were considered when designing Germany’s climate information system and why was the existing structure chosen?

The Norddeutsches Klimabüro was set up at the Institute of Coastal Research in an ad-hoc manner, when the need for building a dialogue became clear. The basic ideas were published in 2008 in a nature geoscience article. Various scientific papers were prepared dealing with the conditions of such practice, including significant contributions to the IPCC report. Chapter 2, Foundations of Decision Making (AR5, WG II)

The Norddeutsches Klimabüro is the oldest such Climate Service organization in Germany; others were build later, or redefined (as in case of DWD).

7

1) Basic science on climate, climate change and impact in the coastal zone (coastal zone = part of the ocean significantly affected by land; part of the land significantly affected by the sea) – in particular with respect to regional sea level, storms and storm surges, wind statistics, currents, waves; coastal defense, wind energy.Regional oceanic and atmospheric modelling; statistical methods; detection and attribution of man-made climate change; alternative drivers for regional change; regional perception about identity, risks and perspectives.

2) Stakeholders: Shipbuilding and offshore industry; coastal defense and engineering/management (governmental administrations in Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburg and Lower Saxony) – Johannes Oelerich

3) Dialogue platform – “Norddeutsches Klimabüro” – Insa Meinke4) CoastDat – data set on recent and possible future change in the regional

climate system – Ralf Weisse5) Internet-based information systems: Klimaatlas and Klimamonitor - DWD6) Regional Assessments of scientific knowledge about climate, climate change

and impact; Hamburg and Baltic Sea Region (BACC) --> Marcus Reckermann.

Climate research at Institute of Coastal Research @ HZG

8

Ratter, Philipp, von Storch, 2012: Between Hype and Decline – Recent Trends in Public Perception of Climate Change, Environ. Sci. & Pol. 18 (2012) 3-8Bray, D., 2010: The scientific consensus of climate change revisited. Env. Sci. Pol. 13: 340 – 350

A challenge: Different perceptions among scientists and the public

9

Bray, 2011, pers. comm.

How strongly do you employ the following sources of information, for deciding about issues related to climate adaptation?

Regional administrators in German Baltic Sea coastal regions.

Another challenge: Stakeholder do hardly interlink directly with climate scientists

10

Lund and Stockholm

Two different construction of „climate change“ – scientific and cultural – which is more powerful?

Cultural: „Klimakatastrophe“

Scientific: man-made change is real, can be mitigated to some extent but not completely avoided

Storms

Tem

pera

ture

11

Observed and projected temperature trends (1982-2011)

The observed trends are beyond the range of natural variability. In DJA and MAM the change may be explained with GHG alone; in JJA and SON other causes are also needed.

Observed CRU, EOBS (1982-2011)

Consistency of recent regional change:Baltic Sea Region

Projected GS signal, A1B scenario 10 simulations (ENSEMBLES)

Red bars – natural variability – for detection of a non-natural causeBlack bar – uncertainty of scenarios – for consistency of recent trend with cause described in scenarios

12

Difference betwenn peak heights of storm surges in Cuxhaven and Hamburg

Main cause for recently elevated storm surges in Hamburg is the modification of the river Elbe – (coastal defense and shipping channel deepening) and less so because of changing storms or sea level.

Consistency of recent local change:Storm surges in Hamburg

von Storch, H. and K. Woth, 2008: Storm surges, perspectives and options. Sustainability Science 3, 33-44

13

Determining social reality:the Hamburg survey since 2008

Every spring since 2008, the survey the company FORSA is tasked to telephone-survey about 500 people in Hamburg about their opinions about climate and climate change.

Climate change is considered a relevant issue – when directly asked if so. Otherwise it is not a topic among the 10 most significant issues.

Attention and concern varies, without systematic changes.

Storm surges are

considered the most important risks in Hamburg.

Ratter, Phillip, ongoing work; Ratter, Philipp, von Storch, 2012: Between Hype and Decline – Recent Trends in Public Perception of Climate Change, Environ. Sci. & Pol. 18 (2012) 3-8

14

The IPCC provides the following operational definitions :

“A projection is a potential future evolution …” and “A climate prediction or climate forecast is the result of an attempt to produce an estimate of the actual evolution of the climate in the future …”

But in practice these terms are mixed up.

Bray and von Storch (2009) find that • about 29% of climate scientists call

“most probable developments” projections,

• while about 20% “possible developments” are labeled “predictions”.

Determining social reality:

the confusion about „Projections and predictions“

Bray, D., and H. von Storch, 2009: 'Prediction' or 'Projection'? The nomenclature of climate science. Sci. Comm. 30, 534-543