Unexpected climate impacts on the Tibetan Plateau: Local and scientific knowledge in findings of delayed summer

Knowledge of climate change and its impacts can facilitate adaptation efforts. However, complex system dynamics, data scarcity, and heterogeneity often generate both contradictory findings and unexpected climate change impacts. Here we present local ecological knowledge of climate and ecological change in central Tibet to support the finding of delayed summer on the Tibetan Plateau, a finding that has been subject to vigorous, ongoing debate based on Western scientific data. Tibetans who actively herd on a daily basis and are located at higher elevations were most likely to notice changes in seasonality, reported as later start of summer and green-up, and as delayed and shortened livestock milking season. Local meteorological data, indigenous observations of higher snowlines and long-term animal number data suggest that a regional warming trend, rather than land use change, may underlie the delayed phenology trends. We demonstrate that local ecological knowledge can reveal counter-intuitive outcomes and help resolve apparent contradictions through its strengths in situations of high variability, ability to integrate over a range of variables and time scales, and operation outside of Western scientific logic. This suggests local knowledge does not exist to be confirmed or disproved by Western science, but rather can also advance Western science and help contribute to its debates. It is precisely points of apparent contradiction within and between knowledge systems that are most productive for more extensive inquiry. Future research on climate change, and climate adaptation policy-making, will benefit from careful, contextual dialog with local observations, focusing on observable biophysical phenomena that are affected by temperature and precipitation and that are important to livelihoods.     

Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: biased assimilation and attitude polarisation

‘Scepticism’ in public attitudes towards climate change is seen as a significant barrier to public engagement. In an experimental study, we measured participants’ scepticism about climate change before and after reading two newspaper editorials that made opposing claims about the reality and seriousness of climate change (designed to generate uncertainty). A well-established social psychological finding is that people with opposing attitudes often assimilate evidence in a way that is biased towards their existing attitudinal position, which may lead to attitude polarisation. We found that people who were less sceptical about climate change evaluated the convincingness and reliability of the editorials in a markedly different way to people who were more sceptical about climate change, demonstrating biased assimilation of the information. In both groups, attitudes towards climate change became significantly more sceptical after reading the editorials, but we observed no evidence of attitude polarisation—that is, the attitudes of these two groups did not diverge. The results are the first application of the well-established assimilation and polarisation paradigm to attitudes about climate change, with important implications for anticipating how uncertainty—in the form of conflicting information—may impact on public engagement with climate change.     

A quantitative analysis of the causes of the global climate change research distribution

During the last decades of growing scientific, political and public attention to global climate change, it has become increasingly clear that the present and projected impacts from climate change, and the ability adapt to the these changes, are not evenly distributed across the globe. This paper investigates whether the need for knowledge on climate changes in the most vulnerable regions of the world is met by the supply of knowledge measured by scientific research publications from the last decade. A quantitative analysis of more than 15,000 scientific publications from 197 countries investigates the distribution of climate change research and the potential causes of this distribution. More than 13 explanatory variables representing vulnerability, geographical, demographical, economical and institutional indicators are included in the analysis. The results show that the supply of climate change knowledge is biased toward richer countries, which are more stable and less corrupt, have higher school enrolment and expenditures on research and development, emit more carbon and are less vulnerable to climate change. Similarly, the production of knowledge, analyzed by author affiliations, is skewed away from the poorer, fragile and more vulnerable regions of the world. A quantitative keywords analysis of all publications shows that different knowledge domains and research themes dominate across regions, reflecting the divergent global concerns in relation to climate change. In general, research on climate change in more developed countries tend to focus on mitigation aspects, while in developing countries issues of adaptation and human or social impacts (droughts and diseases) dominate. Based on these findings, this paper discusses the gap between the supply of and need for climate change knowledge, the potential causes and constraints behind the imbalanced distribution of knowledge, and its implications for adaptation and policymaking.     

What will a new generation of world climate research and computing facilities bring to climate long-term predictions?

Based on issues recently raised on the future of climate science, I present here a critical discussion which embraces the crucial aspects of the communication between climate scientists and laypersons, of the role confusing statements may exert on possible advancements in climate research, and of scientific priorities in climate science. I start distinguishing between different applications of climate models and identifying confusing uses of the words ??prediction?? and ??projection?? in recent discussions on climate modeling. Numerical models like those used in climate simulations are not assimilable to truly theories, nor can obtained results be considered as truly experimental evidences. Hence, it is hard to envisage the feasibility of crucial experiments through climate models. Increasing model resolution and complexity, although undoubtedly helpful for many applications related to a deeper understanding of the complex climate system and to substantial improvement of short-term forecasts, is not destined to change this fundamental limitation, to tackle the impossibility of predicting prominent climate forcings and to facilitate result comparisons against observations. Finally, as an example describing possible alternative resource allocations, I propose to devote more energy to strengthen the observational part of climate research, to focus on midterm forecasts, and to implement a new employment policy for climate scientists. In particular, through an increased and truly global in situ and remote sensing climate observing network, crucial experiments could emerge to challenge the fundamental basis of the conjecture of a great anthropogenic climate change, which, as known, is largely based on high climate sensitivities simulated by numerical models.     

Adaptive and risk-based approaches to climate change and the management of uncertainty and institutional risk: The case of future flooding in England

This paper focuses on how scientific uncertainties about future peak flood flows and sea level rises are accounted for in long term strategic planning processes to adapt inland and coastal flood risk management in England to climate change. Combining key informant interviews (n = 18) with documentary analysis, it explores the institutional tensions between adaptive management approaches emphasising openness to uncertainty and to alternative policy options on the one hand and risk-based ones that close them down by transforming uncertainties into calculable risks whose management can be rationalized through cost-benefit analysis and nationally consistent, risk-based priority setting on the other hand. These alternative approaches to managing uncertainty about the first-order risks to society from future flooding are shaped by institutional concerns with managing the second-order, ‘institutional’ risks of criticism and blame arising from accountability for discharging those first-order risk management responsibilities. In the case of river flooding the poorly understood impacts of future climate change were represented with a simplistic adjustment to peak flow estimates, which proved robust in overcoming institutional resistance to making precautionary allowances for climate change in risk-based flood management, at least in part because its scientific limitations were acknowledged only partially. By contrast in the case of coastal flood risk management, greater scientific confidence led to successively more elaborate guidance on how to represent the science, which in turn led to inconsistency in implementation and increased the institutional risks involved in taking the uncertain effects of future sea level rise into account in adaptation planning and flood risk management. Comparative analysis of these two cases then informs some wider reflections about the tensions between adaptive and risk-based approaches, the role of institutional risk in climate change adaptation, and the importance of such institutional dynamics in shaping the framing uncertainties and policy responses to scientific knowledge about them.     

Overcoming skepticism with education: interacting influences of worldview and climate change knowledge on perceived climate change risk among adolescents

Though many climate literacy efforts attempt to communicate climate change as a risk, these strategies may be ineffective because among adults, worldview rather than scientific understanding largely drives climate change risk perceptions. Further, increased science literacy may polarize worldview-driven perceptions, making some climate literacy efforts ineffective among skeptics. Because worldviews are still forming in the teenage years, adolescents may represent a more receptive audience. This study examined how worldview and climate change knowledge related to acceptance of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and in turn, climate change risk perception among middle school students in North Carolina, USA (n?=?387). We found respondents with individualistic worldviews were 16.1 percentage points less likely to accept AGW than communitarian respondents at median knowledge levels, mirroring findings in similar studies among adults. The interaction between knowledge and worldview, however, was opposite from previous studies among adults, because increased climate change knowledge was positively related to acceptance of AGW among both groups, and had a stronger positive relationship among individualists. Though individualists were 24.1 percentage points less likely to accept AGW than communitarians at low levels (bottom decile) of climate change knowledge, there was no statistical difference in acceptance levels between individualists and communitarians at high levels of knowledge (top decile). Non-White and females also demonstrated higher levels of AGW acceptance and climate change risk perception, respectively. Thus, education efforts specific to climate change may counteract divisions based on worldviews among adolescents.     

Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy

In the past several decades, decision makers in the United States have increasingly called upon publicly funded science to provide “usable” information for policy making, whether in the case of acid rain, famine prevention or climate change policy. As demands for usability become more prevalent for publicly accountable scientific programs, there is a need to better understand opportunities and constraints to science use in order to inform policy design and implementation. Motivated by recent critique of the decision support function of the US Global Change Research Program, this paper seeks to address this issue by specifically examining the production and use of climate science. It reviews empirical evidence from the rich scholarship focused on climate science use, particularly seasonal climate forecasts, to identify factors that constrain or foster usability. It finds, first, that climate science usability is a function both of the context of potential use and of the process of scientific knowledge production itself. Second, nearly every case of successful use of climate knowledge involved some kind of iteration between knowledge producers and users. The paper argues that, rather than an automatic outcome of the call for the production of usable science, iterativity is the result of the action of specific actors and organizations who ‘own’ the task of building the conditions and mechanisms fostering its creation. Several different types of institutional arrangements can accomplish this task, depending on the needs and resources available. While not all of the factors that enhance usability of science for decision making are within the realm of the scientific enterprise itself, many do offer opportunities for improvement. Science policy mechanisms such as the level of flexibility afforded to research projects and the metrics used to evaluate the outcomes of research investment can be critical to providing the necessary foundation for iterativity and production of usable science to occur.     

Seasonal and Inter-Annual Climate Forecasting: The New Tool for Increasing Preparedness to Climate Variability and Change In Agricultural Planning And Operations

Climate variability and change affects individuals and societies. Within agricultural systems, seasonal climate forecasting can increase preparedness and lead to better social, economic and environmental outcomes. However, climate forecasting is not the panacea to all our problems in agriculture. Instead, it is one of many risk management tools that sometimes play an important role in decision-making. Understanding when, where and how to use this tool is a complex and multi-dimensional problem. To do this effectively, we suggest a participatory, cross-disciplinary research approach that brings together institutions (partnerships), disciplines (e.g., climate science, agricultural systems science, rural sociology and many other disciplines) and people (scientist, policy makers and direct beneficiaries) as equal partners to reap the benefits from climate knowledge. Climate science can provide insights into climatic processes, agricultural systems science can translate these insights into management options and rural sociology can help determine the options that are most feasible or desirable from a socio-economic perspective. Any scientific breakthroughs in climate forecasting capabilities are much more likely to have an immediate and positive impact if they are conducted and delivered within such a framework. While knowledge and understanding of the socio-economic circumstances is important and must be taken into account, the general approach of integrated systems science is generic and applicable in developed as well as in developing countries. Examples of decisions aided by simulation output ranges from tactical crop management options, commodity marketing to policy decisions about future land use. We also highlight the need to better understand temporal- and spatial-scale variability and argue that only a probabilistic approach to outcome dissemination should be considered. We demonstrated how knowledge of climatic variability (CV), can lead to better decisions in agriculture, regardless of geographical location and socio-economic conditions.     

Promiscuous corroboration and climate change translation: A case study from the Marshall Islands

Public knowledge of global warming depends on the translation of climate science from specialist communities to citizens, and from scientific language to the vernacular; yet, no two cultures or languages being perfectly commensurable, this process of translation necessarily entails a transformation of the climate change concept. I explore this transformation, and the unexpected consequences it spells for local acceptance and understanding of climate science, through a case study in the Marshall Islands, a low-lying nation endangered by sea level rise and other climate change impacts. Various framings of this threat have been communicated to Marshall Islanders via local media, NGO, and government outlets. ‘Climate’ is here translated as Marshallese mejatoto, the closest equivalent in this Austronesian language. Yet mejatoto refers not only to climate/weather but also to the environment or cosmos in general, including the social sphere, a result of the Marshallese conceptual conflation of ‘nature’ and ‘culture.’ As a result, locals point to processes as disparate, and un-‘climatic,’ as a solar eclipse, accelerating time, and weakening tradition as examples of, and evidence for, climate change. In a society already vigorously possessed of narratives of change, this ‘promiscuous corroboration’ makes the prediction of climate change extremely easy to trust. While this ‘mistranslation’ carries with it certain dangers, when viewed instead as a reinterpretation it is rife with opportunity. Climate change communicators both abroad and at home must therefore carefully consider the transformations introduced by various translations of ‘climate change,’ yet also appreciate ‘mistranslation’ for its ability to render concepts meaningful to local actors and to stimulate citizen–scientist dialogue.     

Global warming estimates,media expectations,and the asymmetry of scientific challenge

Mass media in the U.S. continue to suggest that scientific consensus estimates of global climate disruption, such as those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are “exaggerated” and overly pessimistic. By contrast, work on the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge (ASC) suggests that such consensus assessments are likely to understate climate disruptions. This paper offers an initial test of the competing expectations, making use of the tendency for science to be self-correcting, over time. Rather than relying in any way on the IPCC process, the paper draws evidence about emerging science from four newspapers that have been found in past work to be biased against reporting IPCC findings, consistently reporting instead that scientific findings are “in dispute.” The analysis considers two time periods — one during the time when the papers were found to be overstating challenges to then-prevailing scientific consensus, and the other focusing on 2008, after the IPCC and former Vice-President Gore shared the Nobel Prize for their work on climate disruption, and before opinion polls showed the U.S. public to be growing more skeptical toward climate science once again. During both periods, new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC perspective than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media. The findings indicate that supposed challenges to the scientific consensus on global warming need to be subjected to greater scrutiny, as well as showing that, if reporters wish to discuss “both sides” of the climate issue, the scientifically legitimate “other side” is that, if anything, global climate disruption may prove to be significantly worse than has been suggested in scientific consensus estimates to date.     

Climate change in news media across the globe: An automated analysis of issue attention and themes in climate change coverage in 10 countries (2006–2018)

Climate change poses a challenge to countries across the world, with news media being an important source of information on the issue. To understand how and how much news media cover climate change, this study compares coverage in ten countries from the Global North and the Global South between 2006 and 2018 (N = 71,674). Based on a panel analysis, we illustrate that news media attention varies across countries and is often associated with political, scientific, and (partly) societal focusing events. Based on an automated content analysis, we also find that news media do not only cover ecological changes or climate science, but that they focus predominantly on the societal dimension of climate change: They emphasize how humans are aware of, affected by, battle, or cause climate change. Overall, the study illustrates important differences between the Global North and the Global South. While countries from the Global North cover climate change more frequently, countries from the Global South focus more on its challenges and implications for society at large, i.e., the societal dimension of climate change.     

Assessing climate change vulnerability in the arctic using geographic information services in spatial data infrastructures

Timely knowing about climate change impacts is crucial to adequately plan and undertake adaptive measures and thus to effectively lower vulnerability. This requires gathering and integrating geographic information on exposure, local response mechanisms and stakeholders’ concerns. Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) are internet-based information systems that facilitate the exchange and use of distributed geographic information. This paper presents the application of SDI to climate change assessment by implementing a generic methodology for the quantification of vulnerability to climate change. The resulting integrated tool allows scientists, stakeholders and decision makers to communicate, assess and improve information about vulnerability to climate change. We show how emerging internet technologies and SDI in particular, make a new interactive approach of assessing vulnerability to climate change possible. Vulnerability was quantified based on an active stakeholder involvement by incorporating their varying perceptions, by allowing them to provide feedback and by supporting the acquisition of stakeholders’ knowledge. However, the application showed that to be effective, efforts to achieve and maintain interoperability between the various scientific disciplines should be kept integrated within mainstream IT developments.     

The appropriation of the climate change problem among road managers: fighting in the trenches of the real world

This paper investigates how transportation sector managers perceive and utilize climate science, and subsequently, how they appropriate the climate change problem. The analysis focuses on which devices they qualify as useful for translating between knowledge, policy and practice concluding with a discussion of what this suggests in the development of efficient climate adaptation strategies. The paper demonstrates that although transportation sector managers accept the findings of climate science knowledge presented to them, their understanding of the climate change problem and the range of qualifying anchoring devices used in the development of climate adaption strategies are differentiated according to where they are located in the institutional context. For transportation sector managers on the regional and district level, the climate problem is largely perceived through the occurrence of extreme weather rather than through climate science. However, this knowledge basis is not considered sufficient to support ‘knowing how to act’ and has resulted in waiting for the authorities to make standards and regulations that would translate climate change knowledge into methods of practice. We argue that the development of standards and regulations might be underestimated in relation to user demands in climate adaptation work that involves reconciling scientific information.     

Uncertainty, Complexity and Concepts of Good Science in Climate Change Modelling: Are GCMs the Best Tools?

In this paper we explore the dominant position of a particular style of scientific modelling in the provision of policy-relevant scientific knowledge on future climate change. We describe how the apical position of General Circulation Models (GCMs) appears to follow logically both from conventional understandings of scientific representation and the use of knowledge, so acquired, in decision-making. We argue, however, that both of these particular understandings are contestable. In addition to questioning their current policy-usefulness, we draw upon existing analyses of GCMs which discuss model trade-offs, errors, and the effects of parameterisations, to raise questions about the validity of the conception of complexity in conventional accounts. An alternative approach to modelling, incorporating concepts of uncertainty, is discussed, and an illustrative example given for the case of the global carbon cycle. In then addressing the question of how GCMs have come to occupy their dominant position, we argue that the development of global climate change science and global environmental management frameworks occurs concurrently and in a mutually supportive fashion, so uniting GCMs and environmental policy developments in certain industrialised nations and international organisations. The more basic questions about what kinds of commitments to theories of knowledge underpin different models of complexity as a normative principle of good science are concealed in this mutual reinforcement. Additionally, a rather technocratic policy orientation to climate change may be supported by such science, even though it involves political choices which deserve to be more widely debated.     

Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: Pathways, players, and partnerships

Vulnerability, adaptation and resilience are concepts that are finding increasing currency in several fields of research as well as in various policy and practitioner communities engaged in global environmental change science, climate change, sustainability science, disaster risk-reduction and famine interventions. As scientists and practitioners increasingly work together in this arena a number of questions are emerging: What is credible, salient and legitimate knowledge, how is this knowledge generated and how is it used in decision making? Drawing on important science in this field, and including a case study from southern Africa, we suggest an alternative mode of interaction to the usual one-way interaction between science and practice often used. In this alternative approach, different experts, risk-bearers, and local communities are involved and knowledge and practice is contested, co-produced and reflected upon. Despite some successes in the use and negotiation of such knowledge for ‘real’ world issues, a number of problems persist that require further investigation including the difficulties of developing consensus on the methodologies used by a range of stakeholders usually across a wide region (as the case study of southern Africa shows, particularly in determining and identifying vulnerable groups, sectors, and systems); slow delivery of products that could enhance resilience to change that reflects not only a lack of data, and need for scientific credibility, but also the time-consuming process of coming to a negotiated understanding in science–practice interactions and, finally, the need to clarify the role of ‘external’ agencies, stakeholders, and scientists at the outset of the dialogue process and subsequent interactions. Such factors, we argue, all hinder the use of vulnerability and resilience ‘knowledge’ that is being generated and will require much more detailed investigation by both producers and users of such knowledge.     

The ‘co’ in co-production of climate action: Challenging boundaries within and between science,policy and practice

Effective action taken against climate change must find ways to unite scientific and practice-based knowledges associated with the various stakeholders who see themselves as invested in the global delivery of climate governance. Political decision-makers, climate scientists and practitioners approach this challenge from what are often radically different perspectives and experiences. While considerable work has been done to develop the idea of ‘co-production’ in the development of climate action outputs, questions remain over how to best unite the contrasting epistemological traditions and norms associated with different stakeholders. Drawing on the existing literatures on climate action co-production and from translational perspectives on the science-policy interface, in this paper we develop the concept of ‘boundary agency’. Defining this as the agency ‘possessed’ when willing and able to translate between different epistemological communities invested in a similar policy and governance challenge such as climate change, we offer it as a useful means to reflect on participants’ understanding of the ‘co’ in co-production. This is in contrast to the more established (often academic-led) focus on what it is that is being produced by co-production processes. We draw from two complementary empirical studies, which explicitly encouraged i) engagement and ii) reflection on cross-boundary co-production between climate action stakeholders from different backgrounds. Reflecting on the two studies, we discuss the benefits of (and barriers to) encouraging more active and sustained engagement between climate action stakeholders so as to try to actively blur the boundaries between science and policy and, in doing so, invent new epistemological communities of practice.     

How qualitative approaches matter in climate and ocean change research: Uncovering contradictions about climate concern

There is growing acknowledgement of the need for both quantitative and qualitative methods to unravel complex human-environment interactions and inform a more advanced move towards global sustainability. Nonetheless, qualitative methods still play an understated role in climate and ocean change research. One important reason for this are continuing tendencies in the natural sciences to value ‘hard’ and value-free quantitative approaches over ‘soft’ and value-laden qualitative approaches. This paper argues that to overcome such methodological reservations, it is necessary to inform not only about the key characteristics of qualitative research but also – and this has received little attention – about the concrete empirical insights that can be gained from qualitative as opposed to quantitative data, despite sharing the same research focus.The environmental literature still lacks relevant examples from fieldwork that explain in detail how exactly decisive information is elicited from specific qualitative datasets, thereby illustrating how qualitative approaches matter. This paper seeks to help fill this gap by demonstrating to sceptical quantitative researchers the necessity and added value of integrating qualitative data in global environmental change research and highlighting impeding factors. This is done by presenting empirical findings about climate and ocean change adaptation in Norwegian coastal fisheries and elucidating how different qualitative interview techniques reveal that fishers who initially state that they do not worry about climate change actually do worry, and vice versa. Self-categorisation theory from social psychology is used to better explain such contradictory statements. Detecting salient but masked climate concern and understanding the reasons behind it are crucial for avoiding misleading conclusions and effectively tailoring adaptation strategies to the requirements of specific audiences.     

Do Regional Disparities in Research on Climate and Water Influence Adaptive Capacity?

As part of a long-term effort to both improve access to information on climate change and freshwater resources, and to understand the state of the science, we compiled an electronic bibliography of scientific literature in that area. We analyzed the distribution of information on climatic impacts on freshwater resources, with an emphasis on differences between developed and developing regions as well as differences in the types and focus of research carried out among regions. There has been more research overall in developed countries than in the developing world. Proportionally more of the available research on natural and human systems pertains to developed regions, while most of the analysis done in developing countries is limited to higher-level climatology and hydrology. We argue that scientific information and understanding are important elements of the ability to adapt to potential climatic changes. The distribution of the scientific literature in our database suggests that the types of science most directly relevant to adaptive capacity are skewed towards developed countries, which may exacerbate existing disparities in adaptive capacity, and ultimately worsen the consequences of climatic impacts in developing countries.     

Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical world

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been extraordinarily successful in the task of knowledge synthesis and risk assessment. However, the strong scientific consensus on the detection, attribution, and risks of climate change stands in stark contrast to widespread confusion, complacency and denial among policymakers and the public. Risk communication is now a major bottleneck preventing science from playing an appropriate role in climate policy. Here I argue that the ability of the IPCC to fulfill its mission can be enhanced through better understanding of the mental models of the audiences it seeks to reach, then altering the presentation and communication of results accordingly. Few policymakers are trained in science, and public understanding of basic facts about climate change is poor. But the problem is deeper. Our mental models lead to persistent errors and biases in complex dynamic systems like the climate and economy. Where the consequences of our actions spill out across space and time, our mental models have narrow boundaries and focus on the short term. Where the dynamics of complex systems are conditioned by multiple feedbacks, time delays, accumulations and nonlinearities, we have difficulty recognizing and understanding feedback processes, underestimate time delays, and do not understand basic principles of accumulation or how nonlinearities can create regime shifts. These problems arise not only among laypeople but also among highly educated elites with significant training in science. They arise not only in complex systems like the climate but also in familiar contexts such as filling a bathtub. Therefore they cannot be remedied merely by providing more information about the climate, but require different modes of communication, including experiential learning environments such as interactive simulations.     

The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments

This paper examines the use of interactive models of research in the US regional integrated scientific assessments (RISAS), using as a case study the climate assessment of the Southwest (CLIMAS). It focuses on three components of regional climate assessments: interdisciplinarity, interaction with stakeholders and production of usable knowledge, and on the role of three explanatory variables––the level of ‘fit’ between state of knowledge production and application, disciplinary and personal flexibility, and availability of resources—which affect the co-production of science and policy in the context of integrated assessments. It finds that although no single model can fulfill the multitude of goals of such assessments, it is in highly interactive models that the possibilities of higher levels of innovation and related social impact are most likely to occur.