Transcript Regionalkonferenz der Metropolregion Hamburg

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
1
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.
2
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.
3
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.
4
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.
5
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).
6
Climate research at
Institute of Coastal Research @ HZG
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 SchleswigHolstein, Hamburg and Lower Saxony) – Johannes Oelerich
3) Dialogue platform – “Norddeutsches Klimabüro” – Insa Meinke
4) CoastDat – data set on recent and possible future change in the regional
climate system – Ralf Weisse
5) Internet-based information systems: Klimaatlas and Klimamonitor - DWD
6) Regional Assessments of scientific knowledge about climate, climate change
and impact; Hamburg and Baltic Sea Region (BACC) --> Marcus
Reckermann.
7
A challenge: Different perceptions
among scientists and the public
Ratter, Philipp, von Storch, 2012: Between Hype and Decline – Recent Trends in Public Perception of
Climate Change, Environ. Sci. & Pol. 18 (2012) 3-8
Bray, D., 2010: The scientific consensus of climate change revisited. Env. Sci. Pol. 13: 340 – 350
8
Another challenge: Stakeholder do hardly interlink
directly with climate scientists
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.
Bray, 2011, pers. comm.
9
Two different construction of „climate change“
– scientific and cultural – which is more powerful?
Cultural: „Klimakatastrophe“
Temperature
Scientific: man-made change is real, can be mitigated
to some extent but not completely avoided
Lund and Stockholm
Storms
10
Consistency of recent regional change:
Baltic Sea Region
Observed CRU, EOBS (1982-2011)
Projected GS signal, A1B scenario
10 simulations (ENSEMBLES)
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.
Red bars – natural variability – for detection of a non-natural cause
Black bar – uncertainty of scenarios – for consistency of recent trend with cause described
in scenarios
11
Consistency of recent local change:
Storm surges in Hamburg
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.
von Storch, H. and K. Woth, 2008: Storm surges, perspectives
and options. Sustainability Science 3, 33-44
12
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
13
Determining social reality:
the confusion about „Projections and predictions“
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”.
Bray, D., and H. von Storch, 2009: 'Prediction' or 'Projection'?
The nomenclature of climate science. Sci. Comm. 30, 534-543
14