Climate Servicing – Limits and Obstacles Hans von Storch Institute of Coastal Research, Helmholtz Zentrum Geesthacht, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

Regional Climate Service, 2006-2016 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. 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.

The goal was 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.

Regional Climate Service comprises … Analysis of cultural construct, including common exaggeration in the media. Determination of response options on the local and regional scale: mainly adaptation but also regional and local mitigation. Dialogue of stakeholders and climate knowledge brokers in „Klimabureaus“. 2. Analysis of consensus on relevant issues (climate consensus reports). 3. Description of recent and present changes. - Projection of possible future changes, which are dynamically consistent and possible („scenarios“) Poster by Insa Meinke et al.

The Standard Model: Teaching, educating … Knowledge Speaks to Power Global Environment and Society Model

Global Environment and Society Model Hasselmann, 1990 6

Global Environment and Society Model A „linear model“-framework of how to think about response strategies; similar to DSIPR (of EEA) The “Global Welfare Function” is a formula summarizing what “society” considers good and bad. It is an expression of preferences and values. Once the „Global Welfare Function“ is defined by „society“, an optimal climate policy can be calculated by experts. The main challenge is to determine, how the working of “society” affects the functioning of the environmental system (through emissions etc.); and how the environmental response impacts the “society”. The optimal policy, employing market and policy instruments, is that mixture which minimizes the total costs of adaptation and abatement (mitigation) The DSIPR-cycle according to Wim Salomons

Natural Sciences: Open issues Observed CRU (1982-2011) Projected GS signal, A1B scenario 10 simulations Many Global: Small scale variability in the ocean; clouds and radiation … Regional: Separation of natural variability and driven change [The observed temperature trends in the Baltic Sea region (1982-2011) 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.] Regional: (marine) ecosystem sensitivity to climate change (cf., BACC) Regional and local: Simultaneous change of environmental and socio-economic conditions [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 changing storms or sea level.] 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 Barkhordarian et aklll., 2015 von Storch, H. and K. Woth, 2008:

Obstacles 1: Alternative Explanations “IPCC”, skeptics, alarmists

Knowledge market There is a market of different explanations for climate variations, climate change and climate impact. The different explanations are competing in their significance for political and economic decisions. Only the scientific knowledge is constructed with the scientific method of critical analysis. Others are conditioned by cultural preferences and values, among them political and economic interests. Examples: skeptics, alarmists Scientific knowledge does not necessarily win the competition. When transferred into the public, scientific results (say: IPCC, BACC) are filtered by alternative explanations. Climate servicing must be aware of such transformative processes. Bray, 2011, pers. comm. Sources of knowledge of regional administrators at the German Baltic Sea coast 10

Construction of public knowledge 11

Obstacle 2 Post-normality Funtovicz and Ravetz

Post-normal conditions prevail, when Scientific knowledge is unavoidably uncertain; decisions are urgent; values are in dispute; stakes are high. Climate science operates in post-normal conditions. In post-normal conditions, a severe competition of knowledge claims takes place; interest-led parties attempt to include the scientific community in their strategy; claims are made that political strategies follow directly from scientific knowledge; political utility is often of greater significance than scientific methodology. Climate service is expected by some to support their political goals.

Limit 3 Snake Oil Sellers Should there be a certification of climate servicing?

Spatially detailed climate information, in particular about future developments of risks, are needed in almost all aspects of landscape, urban etc. planning. Provision of such information costs money, and stakeholders may want to limit the costs; they possibly want competitive edges. Thus private, secretive information providers fill a niche on the market. Some of these providers have an insufficient understanding of concepts like scenarios and projections vs. predictions; uncertainty, climate models etc.. In particular some are unable to explain why certain client requests (accuracy in terms of timing, spatial resolution and intensity) cannot be fulfilled. We need a certifying mechanism for climate servicing institutions and companies.

Take home Climate change is a „constructed“ issue. People hardly experience „climate change“. One construction is scientific, i.e. an „objective“ analysis of observations and interpretation by theories. The other construction is cultural, in particular maintained and transformed by the public media. The different constructions of knowledge about climate change compete in the public Climate science operates in a post-normal situation, which goes along with a tendency of politicizing science, and scientizing politics. Cultural science need to support climate science to deal with this challenge. Climate Science needs to offer “Climate Service”, which includes the establishment of a dialogue with the public (direct or via media) and stakeholders –recognizing the socio-cultural dynamics of the issue. Climate Servicing needs a certifying mechanism for allowing clients to avoid providers with insufficient understanding of the issues.