Post-Normal Science and the Global Climate Change Issue

Science has recently faced a new challenge in that it must now provide itsbest knowledge to support the urgent policy-making concerning, e.g., risks oftechnology, environmental pollution, or the climate change. However, thisknowledge unfortunately often can host high uncertainties as the naturalsystems are complex. How to proceed when the facts given by the scientists arediverging and uncertain, while the decision-making is urgent? Funtowicz andRavetz (1992, 1993) argue that in this case traditional `Normal' science(described by Kuhn (1970)) becomes inappropriate and that science shouldbecome `Post-Normal' in order to more effectively cope with these contemporaryproblems. The philosophy, or methodology, of Post-Normal Science is brieflyintroduced and its corelation with the climate change issue, specifically withthe compilation process and summary content of the Second Assessment Report(SAR) from the Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC, 1996a), is viewed. It seems that climate science around IPPCcan, to a relatively large extent, be characterized as `Post-Normal'.Moreover, results from some related studies indicate that the elements ofPost-Normal Science in the IPCC have enhanced the problem-solving in theclimate change issue.     

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.     

Stories from the IPCC: An essay on climate science in fourteen questions

Women’s experiences as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) authors, have been explored showing how gender, race, nationality, etc. increase barriers to participate in the production of climate science even for the best scientists. Recently, the IPCC Gender Task Force, conducted another survey exploring barriers to participation in the IPCC that included men as well as women. The Gender Task Force released a report on gendered barriers mostly focusing on quantitative responses. This paper presents a qualitative analysis of the fourteen open-ended questions in the survey. In addition to qualitative analysis, storytelling and the concept of feminist objectivity are useful approaches to convey the complicated web of responses of over 500 scientists about their experiences participating in the IPCC and in climate science more broadly. Gender, race and nationality continue to be barriers. I stress the connection between exclusions of underrepresented scientists in the IPCC with the persistent western belief that science is an objective and impartial practice. The paper brings attention to exclusionary structures that prevent participation in the IPCC and in science more broadly, but also provides stories of how these are resisted. These stories go beyond recognizing people as disadvantaged toward addressing the intersecting structures that exclude people from participating in science. As climate science becomes more diverse, and evidence points toward the benefit of diversity for superior science, understanding barriers and opportunities for scientists participating in multidisciplinary and international reports such as the IPCC becomes increasingly important. The stories provide a theoretical and methodological catalyst for international science institutions who seek to increase the influence and presence of underrepresented groups in science and produce superior science.     

Context and Early Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Climate change is a problem which is global both in terms of causes and consequences. The uncertainties are large and likely to persist. Meanwhile, the political and economic stakes of both action and inaction are much higher than those in other transboundary concerns such as acid rain and ozone depletion. The public policy impact of scientific opinions on climate change, therefore, not only depends upon what is being said, but also, who is advancing those conclusions and how they were arrived at. This was the rationale behind the setting up of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The paper examines the IPCC in the context of prior assessment efforts. It attempts to unravel the processes which caused the IPCC to be set up when it was and how it was, as opposed to different times and different forms.     

气候变化科学的最新认知

 政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）第一工作组于2007年2月2日发布的第四次评估报告明确指出,近100 a（1906-2005年）地球表面平均温度上升了0.74℃,近50 a的线性增温速率为0.13℃/10 a,1850年以来最暖的12个年份中有11个出现在近期的1995-2006年。全球变暖已经是不争的科学事实,报告认为人类活动是近50 a全球气候系统变暖的主要原因。 IPCC评估报告是国际科学界对气候变化问题最权威、最全面的认识,代表了目前全球气候变化研究的科学认识水平,是国际上制定相关政策的重要依据。     

IPCC气候变化自然科学认知的发展

过去20年来,随着观测手段的改善、气候模式的进步以及分析方法的提升,人类对气候变化事实、原因和未来趋势的认识水平不断深化,进一步确认全球气候系统变暖是毋庸置疑的,人类活动是20世纪中叶以来气候变暖的主要原因,未来气候系统仍将继续变暖。IPCC评估报告极大地促进了气候变化自然科学的进展,并为适应和减缓气候变化奠定了坚实的科学基础。     

未来气候变化科学研究的主要方向和挑战

2014年9月,IPCC联合世界气候研究计划（WCRP）,在瑞士伯尔尼大学召开了一次特别的研讨会,总结过去几年气候变化科学研究中所取得的经验教训。此次会议针对IPCC最新评估报告中的关键不确定性,梳理并总结了未来气候变化研究的主要科学方向和面临的主要挑战,讨论了如何与WCRP计划结合并解决这些问题,以期在未来更好地应对这些挑战。在此次会议上,与会专家提出,未来气候变化科学研究的重大挑战应包括如下8个主题。云、环流与气候敏感度;理解和预测极端天气气候事件;冰冻圈变化;区域气候信息;区域海平面上升及其对沿海地区的影响;水资源可利用量;生物地球化学、气溶胶和大气化学;理解年代际变化：归因与预测。这些主题涵盖了WCRP计划的六大挑战和其他被认为具有挑战性的主题。本文将在此次会议报告的基础上,对相关内容进行介绍,以供当前的气候变化工作参考。     

气候变化和水的最新科学认知

政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）于2008年4月8日正式通过了"气候变化和水"技术报告。该报告建立在IPCC 3个工作组第四次评估报告的基础上,客观、全面而审慎地评估了与水有关的气候变化以及对水的过去、现在和未来的认知。最重要的进展是：过去几十年观测到全球变暖已经与大尺度水文循环的大规模变化联系在一起;气候模型对21世纪的模拟结果一致显示出降水在高纬和部分热带地区将增加,而在部分亚热带和中低纬地区将减少的结果;预计到21世纪中期,河流年平均径流和水量可能会因为高纬和部分湿润热带地区的气候变化而增加,而在中低纬和干旱热带将可能减少;许多地方降水强度和变率的增加将使洪旱危险性上升;预计冰雪储藏的水的补给将在本世纪减少;预计较高的水温和极端变化,包括洪旱等,将影响水质并加剧水污染;对全球而言,气候变化对淡水系统负面影响将超过收益;预计由于气候变化导致的水量-水质变化将影响食物的产量、稳定性、流通和利用;气候变化影响现有水的基础设施的功能和运行,包括水电、防洪、排水、灌溉系统,同时影响到水的管理;目前的水管理措施不足以应对气候变化的影响;气候变化挑战"过去水文上的经验能得到未来的情况"的传统说法;为保障平水和干旱情况所设计的适应选择,必须综合需水和供水双方的战略;减缓措施可以降低升温对全球水资源的影响程度,进而减低适应的需求;水资源管理明显地影响到很多其他政策领域。     

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.     

IPCC 第五次评估报告关于适应气候变化与可持续发展的新认知

IPCC发布的《气候变化2014：影响、适应和脆弱性》进一步提升了国际社会对于适应气候变化和可持续发展的认识水平,主要表现在：适应气候变化的研究视角从自然生态脆弱性转向更为广泛的社会经济脆弱性及人类的响应能力;阐明了气候风险与社会发展的关系,明确了适应在气候灾害风险管理中的积极作用;提出了减少脆弱性和暴露度及增加气候恢复能力的有效适应原则;提出了适应极限的概念,指出这一概念对于适应气候变化的政策含义;提出了保障社会可持续发展的气候恢复能力路径;强调要注重适应与减缓的协同作用和综合效应,指出转型适应是应对气候变化影响的必要选择。报告认为,气候变化、影响、适应及社会经济过程不再是一个简单的单向线性关系,需要纳入统一的系统框架下予以认识和理解。     

Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments: An Evolution of Conceptual Thinking

Vulnerability is an emerging concept for climate science and policy. Over the past decade, efforts to assess vulnerability to climate change triggered a process of theory development and assessment practice, which is reflected in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This paper reviews the historical development of the conceptual ideas underpinning assessments of vulnerability to climate change. We distinguish climate impact assessment, first- and second-generation vulnerability assessment, and adaptation policy assessment. The different generations of assessments are described by means of a conceptual framework that defines key concepts of the assessment and their analytical relationships. The purpose of this conceptual framework is two-fold: first, to present a consistent visual glossary of the main concepts underlying the IPCC approach to vulnerability and its assessment; second, to show the evolution of vulnerability assessments. This evolution is characterized by the progressive inclusion of non-climatic determinants of vulnerability to climate change, including adaptive capacity, and the shift from estimating expected damages to attempting to reduce them. We hope that this paper improves the understanding of the main approaches to climate change vulnerability assessment and their evolution, not only within the climate change community but also among researchers from other scientific communities, who are sometimes puzzled by the unfamiliar use of technical terms in the context of climate change.     

将灾害风险管理和适应气候变化纳入可持续发展

IPCC发布的《管理极端事件和灾害风险,推进气候变化适应》特别报告(SREX)指出,极端事件和灾害的影响很大程度上取决于社会经济系统的风险暴露程度及其脆弱性特征。这意味着,不合理的发展过程将加剧灾害风险及其损失,另一方面,采取积极的减灾和适应行动,能够减小灾害风险并促进社会、经济、环境的可持续发展。SREX报告有助于启发决策者与社会公众,为充满不确定风险的未来进行合理规划,包括关注未来因人口和社会财富增长导致的暴露度和脆弱性增加,在国家和部门层面整合适应、减灾与发展政策,利用多种政策工具加强决策的科学性和灵活性,发挥不同主体在适应治理与灾害风险管理中的作用等等。     

Who participates in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and why: A quantitative assessment of the national representation of authors in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

This paper presents a quantitative analysis of international representation in the activities of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change using expert authorship counts by country in each of the four IPCC assessment reports (1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007). Overall, we find that 45% of countries, all Non-Annex 1, have never had authors participate in the IPCC process; on the other hand, European and North American experts are make up more than 75% of all authors (N = 4394). Generalized linear models using negative binomial regression were used to quantitatively estimate the effect of a number of socio-economic, environmental and procedural factors influencing country-level participation in the IPCC. Per capita gross domestic product, population, English-speaking status, and levels of tertiary education were all found to be statistically significant drivers of authorship counts. In particular, participation by authors from English-speaking Non-Annex 1 countries is 2.5 times greater than those that are non-English speaking. Regionally small island nations of Oceania were the most severely under-represented group. South American and Asian countries had fewer authors, and African countries had more authors than what might be expected on the basis of demographic and socio-economic data. These differences across nations partly reflect existing scientific capacity that will be slow to change. However, the on-going under-representation of developing country scientists in the IPCC, particularly in the assessment of climate science (WGI) and climate mitigation (WGIII) warrants greater efforts to close the capacity gap.     

Climate Change and Water Resources

Current perspectives on global climate change based on recent reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are presented. Impacts of a greenhouse warming that are likely to affect water planning and evaluation include changes in precipitation and runoff patterns, sea level rise, land use and population shifts following from these effects, and changes in water demands. Irrigation water demands are particularly sensitive to changes in precipitation, temperature, and carbon dioxide levels. Despite recent advances in climate change science, great uncertainty remains as to how and when climate will change and how these changes will affect the supply and demand for water at the river basin and watershed levels, which are of most interest to planners. To place the climate-induced uncertainties in perspective, the influence on the supply and demand for water of non-climate factors such as population, technology, economic conditions, social and political factors, and the values society places on alternative water uses are considered.     

自然气候变异与人为气候变化对径流影响研究进展

 在回顾IPCC于1990-2007年4次关于气候变化对径流影响的评估报告进展的基础上,将第一次与第二次评估报告归纳为第一代--以气候均值变化对径流影响及其适应为主要特征;第三次与第四次评估报告为第二代--突出人为气候变化与自然气候变异对径流影响及其适应问题,分析了常规的气候变化对水文水资源影响评估方法的发展过程及存在的问题。研究结果反映了年代际时间尺度的自然气候变异的影响,而未能考虑与极端事件发生频次和强度变化密切相联的日、季和年际尺度的气候变异的影响,从而低估了气候变暖对洪水、干旱以及农业灌溉需水的负面作用。在介绍国内外研究的基础上,为第五次IPCC评估报告提出了加强交叉学科综合研究的建议。     

自然气候变异与人为气候变化对径流影响研究进展

在回顾IPCC于1990-2007年4次关于气候变化对径流影响的评估报告进展的基础上,将第一次与第二次评估报告归纳为第一代--以气候均值变化对径流影响及其适应为主要特征;第三次与第四次评估报告为第二代--突出人为气候变化与自然气候变异对径流影响及其适应问题,分析了常规的气候变化对水文水资源影响评估方法的发展过程及存在的问题。研究结果反映了年代际时间尺度的自然气候变异的影响,而未能考虑与极端事件发生频次和强度变化密切相联的日、季和年际尺度的气候变异的影响,从而低估了气候变暖对洪水、干旱以及农业灌溉需水的负面作用。在介绍国内外研究的基础上,为第五次IPCC评估报告提出了加强交叉学科综合研究的建议。     

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.     

我们未来的气候:人类的干预有多大?

对有关气候变化的观测事实和可能原因的研究做了简要回顾和总结，对21世纪人类活动和自然因子对气候系统的可能影响做了扼要讨论。近20余年全球气候变化科学有明显的进步，但要对21世纪气候趋势做出可靠预测，还需要在过去气候演化历史和成因、全球碳循环、气候系统模式与模拟、土地利用和土地覆盖变化的影响以及气候系统的稳定性等方面开展深入研究，以便进一步减少科学上的不确定性。     

Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?

Over the past two decades, skeptics of the reality and significance of anthropogenic climate change have frequently accused climate scientists of “alarmism”: of over-interpreting or overreacting to evidence of human impacts on the climate system. However, the available evidence suggests that scientists have in fact been conservative in their projections of the impacts of climate change. In particular, we discuss recent studies showing that at least some of the key attributes of global warming from increased atmospheric greenhouse gases have been under-predicted, particularly in IPCC assessments of the physical science, by Working Group I. We also note the less frequent manifestation of over-prediction of key characteristics of climate in such assessments. We suggest, therefore, that scientists are biased not toward alarmism but rather the reverse: toward cautious estimates, where we define caution as erring on the side of less rather than more alarming predictions. We call this tendency “erring on the side of least drama (ESLD).” We explore some cases of ESLD at work, including predictions of Arctic ozone depletion and the possible disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet, and suggest some possible causes of this directional bias, including adherence to the scientific norms of restraint, objectivity, skepticism, rationality, dispassion, and moderation. We conclude with suggestions for further work to identify and explore ESLD.     

IPCC AR6 WGI报告的背景、 架构和方法

IPCC第六次评估报告（AR6）第一工作组报告（简称报告）中提供了对气候系统和气候变化的最新物理解释,整合了来自古气候和仪器观测的多项证据、过程理解以及全球和区域的气候模拟,记录了气候科学的最新进展。报告旨在提供有关过去气候如何变化的事实,揭示人类活动在这些变化中所起的作用,并根据不同社会经济路径的排放情景对未来气候进行了预估。这些结果对于政策制定者来说很重要。它有助于减缓气候变化、根据灾害管理框架制定区域适应计划以及开展即将到来的2023年全球综合评估。本文聚焦该报告的背景、架构和方法,并介绍当前气候变化评估的主要进展。结果显示,与以前的评估报告相比,AR6提供了更综合实用的信息和认识,更加强调了区域气候变化,以及更好地约束了气候敏感度的估计。该报告最重要的结论之一是人类活动对气候变化的影响已从科学认知演变为不争的事实。