Guest Blog: Communicating impacts and adaptation: Scientific guidelines
25/08/10 16:21
Many of us know from experience that opportunities arise at unlikely moments. “Never let a crisis go to waste,” was the famous line from Barak Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel. As the summer of 2010 dishes up one weather-related crisis 
after another, environmental-minded individuals and organizations around the globe may feel compelled and obligated to respond – both on the ground and in public statements about the genesis of these events. Is climate change to blame? In this season of extreme weather, we have an opportunity to solidify our messages and our standing as the conservation organization that can help policymakers and the public separate fact from fiction. But we must tread carefully.
How should we discuss climate change aspects of fires, floods, coral bleaching, tropical cyclone (hurricane and typhoon) activity, or the loss of glacial or ocean ice sheets? Many of the responses by various groups and journalists have been good, yet there have been repeated requests for guidance — and some serious missteps in the press. Therefore, this document offers recommendations on what to avoid saying, what to perhaps be cautious about, and guidance on what we can confidently contribute to discussions of climate- and climate change-related impacts.
1) Attribution of an event to climate change. Stating definitively that human-induced climate change “caused” a particular weather event is very difficult. The consensus by scientists is clear: DON’T DO IT! We should not be trying to attribute anything to human-induced climate change. There have been extreme events in the past and there will be extreme events in the future. The description of events as occurring “once in 100 years” or “once in 500 years” is actually a discussion of a probability. Climate change is changing these probabilities and will continue to change them. It is certainly possible (although rare) to have two “1 in 100 years” events in the same place in the same season. While a given extreme event MAY have some portion of it attributable to climate change, such attribution is VERY difficult and requires direct access to running the climate change models. There are scientific groups around the world developing methodologies to determine the potential “additional” impact of climate change on some events (e.g., 2003 European heat wave). In time we may see a paper or papers in the peer-reviewed literature discussing how likely particular events such as the fires in Russia or the floods in China and Pakistan may have been with and without human-induced climate change (and even then, this research will be presented in terms of probabilities). Only at such a time should you discuss the direct role of climate change in the event, not at the time of the event. This advice largely holds even for attributing longer-term observations to human-induced climate change. Our communications should be conservative and follow the scientific consensus about the source, trends and direction of these changes.
Key points: Do NOT attribute an event to climate change. Work with climate change scientists to nuance language around climate change, especially particular events. We can speak about how individuals are vulnerable to climate change, and people may report changes they are observing (e.g., Climate Witness). But unless there is a rigorous quantitative analysis, we should NOT be publicly attributing observations to climate change.
2) Climate change versus other causes. It is possible, even likely, that climate change may be playing a role in a particular extreme weather event. However, other factors may exacerbate the magnitude of the impact, and in some cases are even more important to highlight. We need to be careful that we are discussing the most direct link to the weather extreme and not to the impact itself. The extremes we are seeing are in precipitation, temperature, sea-surface temperature and hurricane/typhoon strength, rather than in the economic or ecological damage these events cause (e.g., drought, flood, fire); the former is the cause, the latter is an effect. We can discuss whether this is an extreme rainfall event, as we could use actual data and calculate the probabilities of such an event (not easy, but it can be done by many in the network if the data are available). However, whether a lot of rain leads to a flood, or increases the severity of a flood, can depend on many factors.
Example: Pakistan’s management of the Indus is widely viewed as unsustainable, ineffective and inequitable. From a communications perspective, weather extremes (now) and climate change (now and into the future) underscore the need for Pakistan to reform its water management practices. They are a reminder that if we cannot manage resources well now, the challenge will continue to increase in the near and long term. Likewise, while an extended period of hot, dry weather can easily contribute to the severity of fires, there are many other factors, like the source of ignition, fuel loads, wind and suppression capabilities, which all play a role in the severity of the damages. In the case of hurricanes/typhoons it is a question of where it hits, the level of preparedness and the number of people in harm’s way (or cost of structures if for insurance losses). Even drought can be measured in many different ways depending on the sort of impact one is looking at.
Key points: Care should be taken to discuss damages/impacts in the proper context. Separate the weather (e.g., rainfall) from the weather-related event (e.g., flood), and discuss how poor decisions now will make it difficult to adapt or respond to climate change in the future.
3) Promoting effective comms. So, what SHOULD we say? How should we pitch this? In most cases, the message depends on the purpose of the communication and the intended audience. We might want to be discussing vulnerability to future impacts or additional extreme events. We might want to be discussing preparedness. We should discuss the need for both mitigation and adaptation action. Each of these requires different approaches, but all should focus around what we know with some confidence, not what we wish we knew.
Some mix of the following “safe” messages should likely be contained in most of our communications around particular trends or events:
a) This event is consistent with the types of events that have been projected from human-induced climate change.
b) Continuing to put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will increase the severity and frequency of many extreme events; and, as we are observing, we are often ill-equipped and unprepared to cope with the extreme events we are experiencing now.
c) Poor human management of natural resources may have exacerbated the event.
d) Even if all human carbon emissions were stopped today, the earth’s climate would continue to change for decades to centuries. We must make adjustments in our management of natural resources to take into account current climate variability (extremes) and prepare for increasing amounts of climate change.
e) The local, regional and global expertise on these issues exists from practical and policy perspectives.
f) We know that there is a direct connection between greenhouse gas concentrations and the rise in average global temperature. If we put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we will experience more change in the long run, whereas if we reduce greenhouse gas emissions we will have to cope with less climate change. National and global agreements should set science-based targets that will minimize future impacts.
A very good primer on communicating weather events versus climate change was recently posted on the climate central website – “Why Can’t Scientists Say the Recent Extreme Weather Events Are ‘Proof’ of Climate Change?”
Their advice: “The point is that while it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask: “Was this event due to climate change?” it would more useful to ask a related question: “Are we putting ourselves at greater risk of experiencing this kind of event?” And to that scientists can answer with high confidence: yes!”
Note that this quote refers to the weather event per se, not the impact from climate change that has influenced the weather event. Even so, there are some impacts to which we might even have to be careful of saying this with high confidence at this juncture. The general scientific consensus (supported by observational evidence) is that we are seeing more extreme events with some regions seeing more extreme events than others. Most climate models project that we will see more extreme events. So, discussing an event as a proxy for future conditions might be acceptable (i.e., this is the type of thing we expect to be more common as the climate changes). This is certainly true for sea surface temperature. So, discussing the current bleaching in the Coral Triangle, for example, as being something we would expect to occur more frequently with warming is reasonably valid. Still, we should try and check even these sorts of more general statements against the literature to make sure they can be scientifically supported. This is where the communications, journalists, and science teams should be working more closely together.
The mere fact that our world population is growing means that regardless of climate change, more people will be put in harm’s way. With climate change we have to come to new, adaptive solutions to prevent exposing ourselves to these impacts and to reduce our vulnerability.
That’s why we could also be using these events to discuss vulnerability to climate change impacts — both now and in the future. If we are seeing these sorts of vulnerabilities now, how much worse might they become? We could discuss how reducing vulnerability to these sorts of events now (e.g., not living in the typical floodplain, being more than 1 m above mean high tide line) actually helps us be better prepared for the changes coming with climate change. In a few months’ time we could use this to bring in adaptation case studies, ClimatePrep.org, or other activities.
There are many ways we can properly communicate these issues to the press, donors, members, etc. We always must remember though that people’s lives and livelihoods are being drastically impacted and communications should show sensitivity to this issue.
Sincerely,
Lead author: Dr. Jeff Price, WWF-US
Dr. Bart (A.J.) Wickel, WWF-US
Dr. John Matthews, WWF-US, ClimateChangeWater.org
Nikolai Sindorf, WWF-US
Additional communications and journalist resources:
Yale Climate-Media Forum: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/index.php
Andrew Revkin, NY Times, on communicating extreme events: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/climate-extremes-beyond-loaded-dice/
RealClimate.org. A great source on plain-language climate science and impacts truth-squadding. Very responsive to posted questions.
ClimatePrep.org. Contributions derived from across the WWF network on adaptation projects and perspectives.
1) Attribution of an event to climate change. Stating definitively that human-induced climate change “caused” a particular weather event is very difficult. The consensus by scientists is clear: DON’T DO IT! We should not be trying to attribute anything to human-induced climate change. There have been extreme events in the past and there will be extreme events in the future. The description of events as occurring “once in 100 years” or “once in 500 years” is actually a discussion of a probability. Climate change is changing these probabilities and will continue to change them. It is certainly possible (although rare) to have two “1 in 100 years” events in the same place in the same season. While a given extreme event MAY have some portion of it attributable to climate change, such attribution is VERY difficult and requires direct access to running the climate change models. There are scientific groups around the world developing methodologies to determine the potential “additional” impact of climate change on some events (e.g., 2003 European heat wave). In time we may see a paper or papers in the peer-reviewed literature discussing how likely particular events such as the fires in Russia or the floods in China and Pakistan may have been with and without human-induced climate change (and even then, this research will be presented in terms of probabilities). Only at such a time should you discuss the direct role of climate change in the event, not at the time of the event. This advice largely holds even for attributing longer-term observations to human-induced climate change. Our communications should be conservative and follow the scientific consensus about the source, trends and direction of these changes.
Key points: Do NOT attribute an event to climate change. Work with climate change scientists to nuance language around climate change, especially particular events. We can speak about how individuals are vulnerable to climate change, and people may report changes they are observing (e.g., Climate Witness). But unless there is a rigorous quantitative analysis, we should NOT be publicly attributing observations to climate change.
2) Climate change versus other causes. It is possible, even likely, that climate change may be playing a role in a particular extreme weather event. However, other factors may exacerbate the magnitude of the impact, and in some cases are even more important to highlight. We need to be careful that we are discussing the most direct link to the weather extreme and not to the impact itself. The extremes we are seeing are in precipitation, temperature, sea-surface temperature and hurricane/typhoon strength, rather than in the economic or ecological damage these events cause (e.g., drought, flood, fire); the former is the cause, the latter is an effect. We can discuss whether this is an extreme rainfall event, as we could use actual data and calculate the probabilities of such an event (not easy, but it can be done by many in the network if the data are available). However, whether a lot of rain leads to a flood, or increases the severity of a flood, can depend on many factors.
Example: Pakistan’s management of the Indus is widely viewed as unsustainable, ineffective and inequitable. From a communications perspective, weather extremes (now) and climate change (now and into the future) underscore the need for Pakistan to reform its water management practices. They are a reminder that if we cannot manage resources well now, the challenge will continue to increase in the near and long term. Likewise, while an extended period of hot, dry weather can easily contribute to the severity of fires, there are many other factors, like the source of ignition, fuel loads, wind and suppression capabilities, which all play a role in the severity of the damages. In the case of hurricanes/typhoons it is a question of where it hits, the level of preparedness and the number of people in harm’s way (or cost of structures if for insurance losses). Even drought can be measured in many different ways depending on the sort of impact one is looking at.
Key points: Care should be taken to discuss damages/impacts in the proper context. Separate the weather (e.g., rainfall) from the weather-related event (e.g., flood), and discuss how poor decisions now will make it difficult to adapt or respond to climate change in the future.
3) Promoting effective comms. So, what SHOULD we say? How should we pitch this? In most cases, the message depends on the purpose of the communication and the intended audience. We might want to be discussing vulnerability to future impacts or additional extreme events. We might want to be discussing preparedness. We should discuss the need for both mitigation and adaptation action. Each of these requires different approaches, but all should focus around what we know with some confidence, not what we wish we knew.
Some mix of the following “safe” messages should likely be contained in most of our communications around particular trends or events:
a) This event is consistent with the types of events that have been projected from human-induced climate change.
b) Continuing to put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will increase the severity and frequency of many extreme events; and, as we are observing, we are often ill-equipped and unprepared to cope with the extreme events we are experiencing now.
c) Poor human management of natural resources may have exacerbated the event.
d) Even if all human carbon emissions were stopped today, the earth’s climate would continue to change for decades to centuries. We must make adjustments in our management of natural resources to take into account current climate variability (extremes) and prepare for increasing amounts of climate change.
e) The local, regional and global expertise on these issues exists from practical and policy perspectives.
f) We know that there is a direct connection between greenhouse gas concentrations and the rise in average global temperature. If we put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we will experience more change in the long run, whereas if we reduce greenhouse gas emissions we will have to cope with less climate change. National and global agreements should set science-based targets that will minimize future impacts.
A very good primer on communicating weather events versus climate change was recently posted on the climate central website – “Why Can’t Scientists Say the Recent Extreme Weather Events Are ‘Proof’ of Climate Change?”
Their advice: “The point is that while it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask: “Was this event due to climate change?” it would more useful to ask a related question: “Are we putting ourselves at greater risk of experiencing this kind of event?” And to that scientists can answer with high confidence: yes!”
Note that this quote refers to the weather event per se, not the impact from climate change that has influenced the weather event. Even so, there are some impacts to which we might even have to be careful of saying this with high confidence at this juncture. The general scientific consensus (supported by observational evidence) is that we are seeing more extreme events with some regions seeing more extreme events than others. Most climate models project that we will see more extreme events. So, discussing an event as a proxy for future conditions might be acceptable (i.e., this is the type of thing we expect to be more common as the climate changes). This is certainly true for sea surface temperature. So, discussing the current bleaching in the Coral Triangle, for example, as being something we would expect to occur more frequently with warming is reasonably valid. Still, we should try and check even these sorts of more general statements against the literature to make sure they can be scientifically supported. This is where the communications, journalists, and science teams should be working more closely together.
The mere fact that our world population is growing means that regardless of climate change, more people will be put in harm’s way. With climate change we have to come to new, adaptive solutions to prevent exposing ourselves to these impacts and to reduce our vulnerability.
That’s why we could also be using these events to discuss vulnerability to climate change impacts — both now and in the future. If we are seeing these sorts of vulnerabilities now, how much worse might they become? We could discuss how reducing vulnerability to these sorts of events now (e.g., not living in the typical floodplain, being more than 1 m above mean high tide line) actually helps us be better prepared for the changes coming with climate change. In a few months’ time we could use this to bring in adaptation case studies, ClimatePrep.org, or other activities.
There are many ways we can properly communicate these issues to the press, donors, members, etc. We always must remember though that people’s lives and livelihoods are being drastically impacted and communications should show sensitivity to this issue.
Sincerely,
Lead author: Dr. Jeff Price, WWF-US
Dr. Bart (A.J.) Wickel, WWF-US
Dr. John Matthews, WWF-US, ClimateChangeWater.org
Nikolai Sindorf, WWF-US
Additional communications and journalist resources:
Yale Climate-Media Forum: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/index.php
Andrew Revkin, NY Times, on communicating extreme events: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/climate-extremes-beyond-loaded-dice/
RealClimate.org. A great source on plain-language climate science and impacts truth-squadding. Very responsive to posted questions.
ClimatePrep.org. Contributions derived from across the WWF network on adaptation projects and perspectives.
blog comments powered by Disqus
