At WCC3 (world Climate Conference 3) in Geneva, Switzerland in early September, a framework for climate information was discussed. One of the most talked-about and supported elements of this framework was that climate information should be more practical and useful for end users. A simple logical solution, assumed already in process. Not so.
The climate science realm is similar to any other academic discipline; Professors publish to build their credibility and prestige and the frequency of references makes a difference. There is nothing in this reward structure that recognises usefulness. That is, the needs of users.
Even statistics are a problem. Think about it yourself – what more do you actually get from statistics beyond being shocked? I would even say, statistics are to blame for the current avalanche of climate science information. Since “An Inconvenient Truth” people involved in climate change have passionately thrown statistics at audiences. The point you get from the movie’s statistical onslaught is that there is a huge problem. But beyond that you are limited. It is the same with climate information.
Concerning? Definitely. The urgency to provide more useful, understandable information is significant. The world is being hit by natural disasters at an increasing rate, with climate change increasingly linked as a cause. Vulnerable countries are working on adaptation and all are addressing mitigation. With the state of climate information as it is, we are at risk of forming decisions on the expertise of anecdotes, pressure groups and associations and the media. Basing decisions on such sources only is dangerous; these are after all ‘lay-people’ that cannot be expected to understand climate information fully and they are also influenced by their agendas, often leading to a subjective outcome. For climate science, objective information can be credibly sourced from scientists, and it is this group we must look to.
It is a curious dilemma, as many scientists argue that they should focus on what they do best and it is not their role to consider these issues. The responsibility will likely fall to “climate services” organisations, who act as the middle-ground between users and scientists. It would be their job to work closely with politicians, economists, businesses, farmers, councils, etc. to help them make decisions accordingly. Beyond consulting, it is being suggested they work on education, develop case-studies, tools and other resources, facilitate networking and develop partnerships. Sadly, these organisations seem a distant vision for the developing countries that need these services more urgently.
Not even the best-case practice organisation could say they were influencing the objectives and directions of climate scientists. This is the biggest challenge.
Article: by G-1Billion
(Image credit: US Government Climate Services)
