1. Scientific tools for public-science interaction
Hans von Storch
Institut für Küstenforschung, GKSS Forschungszentrum Geesthacht
clisap-Exzellenzzentrum, Klimacampus, Universität Hamburg
15 min‘s

2. Who is this? Hans von Storch (born 1949)
Director of Institute for Coastal Research, GKSS Research Center, near Hamburg,
Professor at the Meteorological Institute of Hamburg University
Works also with social and cultural scientists.

3. A few facts - 1
Climate change is a „constructed“ issue. People do not really 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.

4. 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
Lund and Stockholm
Stürme

5. A few facts - 2
Climate is changing on time scales of decades and centuries.
Presently climate is changing mainly because of elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
This change is best detectable in temperature and related quantities, and will become visible during this century also in other variables, in particular related to the water cycle.
Climate change has an impact on social life and ecosystem functioning.

6. Possible Reponses to Anthropogenic Climate Change
In the interacting environment-and-society system, we have two classes of options for response:
trying to avoid man-made changes („mitigation“) – this has different dimensions, namely avoiding elevated levels of GHG concentrations by reduced emissions; by intensified sinks; by geo-engineering the global albedo, or regional and local conditions.
adapting to man-made changes („adaptations“) of climate.
In principle, limiting the cause of anthropogenic climate change (i.e., reduction of emissions) is preferable over adaptation, but complete mitigation seems impossible so that the best strategy is to mitigate as much as affordable and to minimize negative consequences by adaptation.

7. A framework to think about response strategies
(Hasselmann, 1990)

8. Knowledge market
The science-.policy/public interaction is not an issue of „knowledge speaks to power“.
The problem is not that the public is stupid or uneducated.
The problem is that the scientific knowledge is confronted on the „explanation marked“ with other forms of knowledge (pre-scientific, outdated; traditional, morphed by different interests). Scientific knowledge does not necessarily “win” this competition.
The social process „science“ is influenced by these other knowledge forms.
Science can not be objective but should nevertheless strive to be so.

9. Is scientific knowledge driving the policy process?

10. Scientific needs
Analysis of cultural construct of climate change, including common exaggeration in the media.
Determination of response options on the local and regional scale: mainly adaptation but also regional and local mitigation.
Two-way interaction of stakeholders and climate knowledge brokers in „Klimabureaus“.
Analysis of consensus on relevant issues (climate consensus reports).
Description of recent and present changes.
Projection of possible future changes, which are dynamically consistent and possible („scenarios“).

11. Part I: Two-way science-stakeholder interaction in Climate Bureau

12. Northgerman Climate Bureau

13. Requests for talks Total number of talks since 2006: 84
Average number of presentations per months.
Jan March 2007: 1,0
March 2007-Feb. 2008: 4,2
March 2008-Oct. 2008: 2,4
Regional level: 58%
National level: 30%
International level: 12%

14. Frequently asked questions
Climate variations are normal, why is the recent warming not normal?
How can we talk about future climate if we are not able to forecast the weather of tomorrow?
When do we expect the next ice age?
Will the gulf stream slow down?
Is there already an accelerated sea level rise?
How much will sea level rise in future?
Are our dikes high enough?
Will Hamburg be flooded?
Are there any advantages in climate change?
What can we do?

15. Expected changes in temperature, precipitation and strong winds
Scenarios A2, B2, different models

16. Expected changes in temperature, precipitation and strong winds
Scenarios A2, B2, different models

17. Typical misunderstanding: “Climate change will make northern Germany uninhabitable”

18. Changing storm surge heights in Cuxhaven und Hamburg
Without subsidence or coastal engineering modifications of the river Elbe.

19. A mitigation option: reversing (part of) the urban warming by „regional geo-engineering“
Gill et al.,2007

20. Part II: Assessing scientifically legitimate knwoledge claims about regional climate change

21. climate consensus reports
Assessments about regional climate change - for the recent past (200 years), for present change and possible future change - consensus of what is scientifically documented for + Baltic Sea (BACC) – done + Hamburg region (underway) + North Sea (planned with AWI Bremerhaven) + Laptev Sea (planned with AWI Bremerhaven)

22. The Climate Change Assessment: Report for the Baltic Sea catchment - BACC
An effort to establish which scientifically legitimized knowledge about anthropogenic climate change is available for the Baltic Sea catchment.
Approximately 80 scientist from 10 countries have documented and assessed the published knowledge.
The assessment has been accepted by the inter- governmental HELCOM commission as a basis for its future deliberations.
In 2012 a second assessment report (BACC II) will be published.
45 min‘s

23. The BACC Project integrates available scientifically documented knowledge of historical, current and expected future climate change.
The unique feature of BACC is the combination of evidence on climate change and related impacts on marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems in the Baltic Sea basin (catchment and water body).
It is the first systematic scientific effort for assessing climate change in the Baltic Sea region.
The results have not been influenced by either political or special interests.

24. BACC, in short …
Presently a warming is going on in the Baltic Sea region, and will continue throughout the 21st century.
BACC considers it plausible that this warming is at least partly related to anthropogenic factors.
So far, and in the next few decades, the signal is limited to temperature and directly related variables, such as ice conditions.
Later, changes in the water cycle are expected to become obvious.
This regional warming will have a variety of effects on terrestrial and marine ecosystems – some predictable such as the changes in the phenology others so far hardly predictable.

25. Air-temperature
Note – time series has been „cleaned“; instrumental inhomogeneities and local effects (such as growing cities) have been taken out.

26. Terrestrial ecosystems
Mean rate of change (days/year) of date of leaf unfolding in birch,

27. Mean number of ice days in a present day simulation (top) and two scenarios of 2070-2100 (bottom)

28. Part III: Suitable data sets describing recent, ongoing and possible future regional climate change

29. Regional and local conditions – in the recent past and next century?
Simulation with barotropic model of Noth Sea
Globale development (NCEP)
Dynamical Downscaling REMO or CLM
Pegel St. Pauli
Cooperation with a variety of governmental agencies and with a number of private companies
Empirical Downscaling

30. Extreme wind speeds over sea – simulated and recorded
observed
These plots are the quantile-quantile diagrams (REMO & NCEP Vs Observations) for 10-m wind speed at 2 buoys station. The first one is an Atlantic offshore buoy (ZBGSO, located at
48.7N,12.40W), already assimilated by NCEP. The second one shows results from a Mediterranean buoy (ZATOS, located at 39.96N, 24.72E, Aegean Sea), whose data have NOT been previously assimilated by NCEP.

31. Piecewise linear trends
(Weisse et al. 2005)

32. Scenarios for 2085 A2 - CTL: changes in 99 %iles of wind speed ;
6 hourly, DJF; west wind sector selected
HIRHAM
RCAO
Scenarios for 2085
Woth, personal communication

33. www.coastdat.de The CoastDat data set:
Long (50 years) and high-resolution reconstructions of recent offshore and coastal conditions mainly in terms of wind, storms, waves, surges and currents and other variables in N Europe
Scenarios (100 years) of possible consistent futures of coastal and offshore conditions
extension – ecological variables, Baltic Sea, E Asia, Laptev Sea
Clients:
Governmental: various coastal agencies dealing with coastal defense and coastal traffic
Companies: assessments of risks (ship and offshore building and operations) and opportunities (wind energy)
General public / media: explanations of causes of change; perspectives and options of change
GKSS in Geesthacht

34. Final comment: science, policy and responsibility
(Geophysical, ecological) Science should not formulate policy, but prepare the factual basis for decision makers, who consider apart of geophysical and ecological facts also other, in particular normative arguments.
Climate change is real and mostly caused by human emissions. Society wants to avoid such a change; thus, reductions of emissions are needed („mitigation“).
Any conceivable mitigation policy will not lead to an ending or even reversal of global warming; thus the need for adaptation emerges.
Mitigation should be the main issue for policy at national and European level; adaptation should be chiefly considered on the regional and local level.

35. Epilog: The service of science
The debate about global warming has rightly become a political debate, which unfortunately spills over to science – where scientists act as “stealth advocates” for value-based agendas.
In the course of this process, the authority of science is eroding, as it becomes difficult to distinguish between scientific analysis from science and advice from NGOs or other value-driven social actors.
In this model, science gets the role of auxiliary troops for broader social movements.
To maintain the service provided by science to society – namely to provide “cold” knowledge which may help to sort out some aspects in an otherwise passionate and value-driven decision process – scientists should limit themselves to assessment of robust scientific knowledge and should avoid normative statements beyond their expertise. (They may do that if they act as citizens, of course.)
Politicization damages the social institution “science”.