Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change Authors Research Articles

Improving figures for climate change communications: Insights from interviews with international policymakers and practitioners

Nearly 200 governments rely on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for scientific assessments of climate change. IPCC figures are important for conveying key findings, but can be difficult for policymakers and practitioners to understand. Best practices in graph design, summarized in the IPCC’s visual style guide, recommend conducting interviews with members of the target audience before finalizing figures. Therefore, we interviewed 20 policy makers and practitioners from different countries about three figures drafted for the second order draft of the summary for policymakers associated with IPCC’s Working Group III Sixth Assessment Report. Half were frequent users and half were occasional users of climate science, but similar comments emerged from both groups. The figures received a median rating of 3, on a scale from 1 (= not easy at all to understand) to 5 (= very easy to understand). Showing the caption did not always improve these ratings. Overall, two types of recommendations emerged. First, participants suggested focusing each figure on one key message for policymakers, and removing irrelevant details. For IPCC authors, this involves making hard choices about what to show in the figure and what to leave for the text. Additionally, participants suggested straightforward fixes such as using clear titles, labels, and captions that support the key message. Based on our findings, we present recommendations for the design of climate change figures, and examples of revised figures. These recommendations should be useful for the next round of IPCC reports, and for other organizations that communicate about climate science with policymakers and practitioners.

From “Loss and Damage” to “Losses and Damages”: Orthographies of Climate Change Loss and Damage in the IPCC

Abstract Political conflict over climate change loss and damage (L&D) has made it difficult for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to engage with the topic in its entirety, especially in the intergovernmentally agreed Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs). The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), however, saw the inclusion of the term “losses and damages” in SPMs for the first time. Drawing on evidence from twenty-eight interviews with IPCC authors, reviewers, and L&D experts as well as an analysis of IPCC materials, this article traces the representation of L&D in the IPCC. I suggest that the clarification of different L&D orthographies (“Loss and Damage,” “loss and damage,” and “losses and damages”) through the IPCC Glossary in 2018 paved the way for L&D wording to be consensually approved in multiple AR6 SPMs. Discussing the implications of orthographic choice, I show how L&D orthographies are appraised differently by individuals, depending on their position in the L&D science–policy discourse. Building on insights from science and technology studies and international relations scholarship, I contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the role of language and spelling in reaching consensus at the climate science–policy interface.

Co-developing the IPCC frequently asked questions as an effective science communication tool

In its Sixth Assessment Report Cycle (AR6), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) aims to strengthen the communication of its products. As the only mandatory part of IPCC reports specifically targeting a lay audience, the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) provide an opportunity for broader communication of key IPCC topics. AR6 has released three Special Reports that include FAQs, varying in number and structure, as well as the approach taken to develop them. Using these Special Report FAQs, in this essay, we take stock of current efforts to co-develop IPCC FAQs and provide recommendations to strengthen the impact of these highly useful yet currently under-utilised resources. Building on evidence from a user survey, text analysis and social media statistics, we find that bringing together IPCC authors and communication specialists to jointly develop the text and graphics increases the accessibility and usefulness of the FAQs. Efforts made for informative visuals additionally increase their impact on social media. To maximise the potential and impact of the IPCC FAQs, we recommend involving communication experts from the beginning of the drafting process to share responsibility, which requires sufficient resources to be allocated to the FAQs. We also suggest developing common FAQ guidelines across Working Groups so future assessment reports can ensure all FAQs are an effective and useful tool for IPCC communication.We also hope that other scientific institutions and projects that wish to summarise scientific content for diverse audiences can benefit from our lessons learned.

Science for implementation: the roles, experiences, and perceptions of practitioners involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

In the climate change arena, the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), while not policy prescriptive, are important for informing international negotiations and the decisions of policy and practice communities. Since 2015, when the Paris Agreement was adopted, there has been an increasing demand for climate action and calls for the inclusion of a broader base of stakeholders in global assessments. We use publicly available information on IPCC authors, and the results of a survey (n = 29) and interviews (n = 17) with authors who apply science in practice (practitioners), to examine their roles, experiences, and challenges in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment. The results show that while practitioners form only a very small proportion of authors, they contribute real-world experience, including the translation of academic language into meaningful messages for decision-makers. Although familiar with working at the interface of science and practice, study participants described barriers to their participation and shared several recommendations for improving the relevance, uptake, and timeliness of IPCC assessments, and practitioner participation. Our findings indicate that IPCC assessments provide an evidence base to support action on climate change, and due to their skill set, practitioners are often able to make contributions that allow for greater accessibility by decision-makers.Graphical

The sixth major IPCC assessment report and its implications: 15 September 2021

The sixth major <scp>IPCC</scp> assessment report and its implications: 15 September 2021

Co-designing engaging and accessible data visualisations: a case study of the IPCC reports

Creating scientifically rigorous and user-friendly data visualisations can play a critical role in making complex information more accessible to wider audiences and supporting informed decision-making. ‘Co-design’ encapsulates a way of approaching data visualisation that ensures a deep and shared understanding between those creating the visuals (e.g. information designers, content experts, cognitive scientists) and the audience/users. This essay describes co-designing data visualisations with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A multidisciplinary design team made up of information designers and cognitive and social scientists worked closely with IPCC authors and staff to develop data visualisations for the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C and the Special Report on Climate Change and Land. In this essay, the authors consider the three crucial elements that underpin a successful co-design process—practical tools and a flexible method; cognitive science and psychology to better understand the needs of users; and the importance of trust and leadership. The authors reflect on the application of the co-design approach in an IPCC context, noting specific challenges and including recommendations for future IPCC reports. The mutual learning experience of the special reports indicates a shift towards a design culture within parts of the IPCC that recognises the value of telling a compelling visual story while retaining scientific integrity—an approach that has been retained for the Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report.

Evaluating effective public engagement: local stories from a global network of IPCC scientists

An integral part of the communications strategy for Working Group I (WGI) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to support its authors, in all geographical regions, to engage a diverse range of audiences with climate change. Building upon a Communications Handbook for IPCC authors and a bespoke photo library, both produced by Climate Outreach for WGI in 2018 ahead of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C, this paper describes the findings of a global survey that gathered practical examples of efforts by WGI authors to engage non-specialist audiences around the world with climate change. A total of 107 survey responses from 44 countries were evaluated against a theoretical framework outlining key principles of effective public engagement drawn from the social science literature. Ideas for how climate scientists can enhance their communication efforts are discussed, illustrated with case studies drawn from the survey responses showing WGI authors using creative techniques to engage people with climate change, including in Senegal, Argentina, India, the Bahamas and Indonesia. This is followed by guidance for the IPCC on developing communications strategies in a way that gives climate scientists confidence to communicate their work and promotes evidence-based techniques. By critically reflecting on the communication practices within the IPCC’s global author network, the paper provides insights and recommendations on how to continue to strengthen the connection between the theory and practice of climate science communication.

Confident, likely, or both? The implementation of the uncertainty language framework in IPCC special reports

The uncertainty language framework used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is designed to encourage the consistent characterization and communication of uncertainty between chapters, working groups, and reports. However, the framework has not been updated since 2010, despite criticism that it was applied inconsistently in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and that the distinctions between the framework’s three language scales remain unclear. This article presents a mixed-methods analysis of the application and underlying interpretation of the uncertainty language framework by IPCC authors in the three special reports published since AR5. First, I present an analysis of uncertainty language term usage in three recent special reports: Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15), Climate Change and Land (SRCCL), and The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC). The language usage analysis highlights how many of the trends identified in previous reports—like the significant increase in the use of confidence terms—have carried forward into the special reports. These observed trends, along with ongoing debates in the literature on how to interpret the framework’s three language scales, inform an analysis of IPCC author experiences interpreting and implementing the framework. This discussion is informed by interviews with IPCC authors. Lastly, I propose several recommendations for clarifying the IPCC uncertainty language framework to address persistent sources of confusion highlighted by the authors.

Communication of IPCC visuals: IPCC authors\u2019 views and assessments of visual complexity

Scientific figures, i.e. visuals such as graphs and diagrams, are an important component of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that support communication and policy-making. It is therefore imperative that figures are robust representations of the science and are accessible to target audiences. We interviewed IPCC authors (n = 18) to understand the development of figures in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Working Group 1 (WG1) Summary for Policy-Makers (SPM). Authors expressed the view that the need to maintain scientific accuracy constrained making figures more accessible, with the consequence that figures retained complexity and often required specialists to explain the figures to others. Using sort tasks with IPCC authors and with a group of non-specialists (undergraduate students; n = 38), we found that IPCC authors generally had good awareness of which figures non-specialists perceived as being most difficult to understand. Further, by evaluating the visual complexity of the AR5 WG1 SPM figures using a computational measure, we found that greater visual complexity (i.e. high quantity of information, use of multiple colours and densely packed visual elements) is associated with greater perceived comprehension difficulty. Developing and integrating computational approaches to assess figures alongside user testing could help inform how to overcome visual complexity while maintaining scientific rigour and so enhance communication of IPCC figures and scientific visuals.

The scientific veneer of IPCC visuals

While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is continuously improving its communication, visualisation has taken a back seat to more pressing issues. The consequence is a set of IPCC imagery where our understanding of perception remains empirically unchallenged. The visual design (defined in this study as the method, technique, and style used to create a visual) directly affects perception and yet, we know very little about how people intuitively respond to visuals depicting climate science. This study examines the perception of four images from the IPCC summary report for policymakers and two open sourced infographics. Using a group-administered study we found the visual design to have a significant impact on a novice readers ability to associate relevant words with an image. While the visuals part of the summary for policymakers educed a sense of confidence, a well-designed infographic left readers feeling less confident. The veneer of legitimacy associated with IPCC visuals is because they look scientific, whereas infographic images were found to look less serious. We acknowledge the accessibility of an infographic but urge IPCC authors to use it with caution, as any negative impact on scientific credibility is an unwanted feature in IPCC communication.

The language of denial: text analysis reveals differences in language use between climate change proponents and skeptics

We used text analyzers to compare the language used in two recently published reports on the physical science of climate change: one authored by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the other by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC; a group of prominent skeptics, typically with prior scientific training, organized by the Heartland Institute). Although both reports represent summaries of empirical research within the same scientific discipline, our language analyses revealed consistent and substantial differences between them. Most notably, the IPCC authors used more cautious (as opposed to certain) language than the NIPCC authors. This finding (among others) indicates that, contrary to that which is commonly claimed by skeptics, IPCC authors were actually more conservative in terms of language style than their NIPCC counterparts. The political controversy over climate change may cause proponents’ language to be conservative (for fear of being attacked) and opponents’ language to be aggressive (to more effectively attack). This has clear implications for the science communication of climate research.

The rapid disintegration of projections: The West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

How and why did the scientific consensus about sea level rise due to the disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), expressed in the third Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment, disintegrate on the road to the fourth? Using ethnographic interviews and analysis of IPCC documents, we trace the abrupt disintegration of the WAIS consensus. First, we provide a brief historical overview of scientific assessments of the WAIS. Second, we provide a detailed case study of the decision not to provide a WAIS prediction in the Fourth Assessment Report. Third, we discuss the implications of this outcome for the general issue of scientists and policymakers working in assessment organizations to make projections. IPCC authors were less certain about potential WAIS futures than in previous assessment reports in part because of new information, but also because of the outcome of cultural processes within the IPCC, including how people were selected for and worked together within their writing groups. It became too difficult for IPCC assessors to project the range of possible futures for WAIS due to shifts in scientific knowledge as well as in the institutions that facilitated the interpretations of this knowledge.

Terrestrial full carbon account for Russia: revised uncertainty estimates and their role in a bottom-up/top-down accounting exercise

Our research addresses the need to close the gap between bottom-up and top-down accounting of net atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Russia is sufficiently large to be resolved in a bottom-up/top-down accounting exercise, as well as being a signatory state of the Kyoto Protocol. We resolve Russia’s atmospheric CO2 balance (1988–1992) in terms of four major land-use/cover units and eight bioclimatic zones. On the basis of our results we conclude that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) must revise its carbon balance for northern Asia. We find a less optimistic, although more realistic, bottom-up versus top-down match for northern Asia than the IPCC authors. Nonetheless, in spite of the larger uncertainties involved, our research shows that (1) there is indeed an added value in linking bottom-up and top-down carbon accounting because our dual-constrained regional carbon balance is incomparably more rigorous; and that (2) the need persists for more atmospheric measurements, including atmospheric inversion experiments, over Russia.

Research on climate change and health: looking ahead

Next year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will start its Fifth Assessment Report. The role of the IPCC is to evaluate the peer reviewed literature on current and future impacts of anthropogenic climate change and synthesise the findings for governments. The IPCC has three working groups. Working Group I (WGI) addresses the climate science including an assessment of observed warming due to human activities and projections of future warming and regional climate change. Working Group II assesses the scientific evidence for impacts, adaptation and vulnerability—in all regions, in all ecosystems, for all outcomes, for all population groups. Working Group III evaluates the evidence with respect to options for mitigation (reducing carbon emissions and enhancing carbon sinks). The IPCC authors only include peer-reviewed articles published since the last assessment and have a strict policy regarding the use of grey literature. Public health science contributed to WGII (Confalonieri et al. 2007) and WGIII (Barker et al. 2007) in the Fourth Assessment report. It is likely that public health research will make an even more important contribution to the next Assessment—but only if the appropriate research studies have been undertaken. The IPCC assessments are scientific assessments and the IPCC process prohibits including any policy prescriptive statements. Global scientific assessments are becoming more common (we now have the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development). The IPCC was the first of its kind and represents a fantastic and unique achievement to science and policy (and world peace). Scientific rigour is maintained across diverse research disciplines and from observational studies to modelled projections. The IPCC has its origins in the physical sciences—as it started with the climate system. As the input from social scientists is increasing—in recognition of the complex social and economic determinants of vulnerability to climate change—the IPCC authors will increasingly face familiar issues regarding the synthesis and evaluation of qualitative and quantitative social research. Fortunately, public health has some established methods for reviewing and evaluating research results. These now need to be applied to the climate–health research questions. The IPCC will require many comprehensive and systematic reviews—to demonstrate a causal role of climate for a relevant health outcome and to quantify the attributable fraction. Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of adaptation measures (interventions) are also needed. As yet, few systematic reviews are conducted in the sphere of environment and health. In effect, climate change–health research is suffering from the legacy of reductionism in the health sciences and its clinical bias. Too few researchers are working on the environmental determinants of disease, even for major climate-sensitive causes of death such as malaria and malnutrition. The climate change research agenda is moving forward. An expert meeting organised by WHO last year identified the following research needs (WHO 2009): This paper belongs to the special issue ‘‘Climate changes health’’.

Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern”

Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [United Nations (1992) http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf. Accessed February 9, 2009] commits signatory nations to stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that "would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference (DAI) with the climate system." In an effort to provide some insight into impacts of climate change that might be considered DAI, authors of the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identified 5 "reasons for concern" (RFCs). Relationships between various impacts reflected in each RFC and increases in global mean temperature (GMT) were portrayed in what has come to be called the "burning embers diagram." In presenting the "embers" in the TAR, IPCC authors did not assess whether any single RFC was more important than any other; nor did they conclude what level of impacts or what atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases would constitute DAI, a value judgment that would be policy prescriptive. Here, we describe revisions of the sensitivities of the RFCs to increases in GMT and a more thorough understanding of the concept of vulnerability that has evolved over the past 8 years. This is based on our expert judgment about new findings in the growing literature since the publication of the TAR in 2001, including literature that was assessed in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), as well as additional research published since AR4. Compared with results reported in the TAR, smaller increases in GMT are now estimated to lead to significant or substantial consequences in the framework of the 5 "reasons for concern."

Uncertainty and the IPCC. An editorial comment

In this issue, Swart et al. (2009) provide a useful review of how uncertainty has been treated in the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and how this treatment has evolved over time. They also recommend a series of improvements for future IPCC assessments, with which I am substantially in agreement. In this essay, I will emphasize three points on how to communicate uncertainty through the IPCC process. The first point is with regard to the treatment of uncertainty within Working Group IIII (WG III). Swart et al. highlight the relatively sparse description of uncertainties in WG III relative to that of WG I and II. While I do not disagree, I would argue that part of the solution is for the community to produce more instances of rigorous analysis of uncertainty for their respective models and projections. The primary role of the IPCC is not to perform new analyses, but to summarize the literature. Thus, if there are only few uncertainty analyses of emissions or mitigation cost projections, no guidance to IPCC authors will compensate. Examples of formal uncertainty analyses do exist (e.g., Webster et al. 2008; Manne and Richels 1994; Nordhaus and Yohe 1983; Nordhaus and Popp 1997; Reilly et al. 1987; Scott et al. 1999), but have been relatively rare compared to the number of analyses that neglect uncertainty. Formal uncertainty analysis of socio-economic models is difficult and costly, in part for the reasons outlined by Swart et al. Nevertheless, the community at large is responsible for providing the basis of future assessments. The second point that I wish to echo from Swart et al. is that the supposed distinction between seemingly objective physical science uncertainties and the more readily apparent subjectivity of social science uncertainties is less clear than many would like to believe. Clearly, the issue of intentionality (i.e., free will among the

Scientist Quits IPCC Panel Over Comments

An ugly spat has broken out among contributors to the world's leading scientific report on climate change. Chris Landsea, a hurricane expert with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Miami, announced last week that he is resigning as a contributor to the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because a leading co-author had “politicized” the process with pronouncements about the impact of global warming on last year's tumultuous hurricane season. The tussle began last October when Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, took part in a media phone call organized by Harvard scientists on last year's spate of hurricanes. Trenberth, who was introduced as the lead author of a chapter on climate observations for the IPCC's 2007 report, noted that warming sea temperatures and rising sea levels caused by global warming are “changing” conditions for hurricanes and warned that the 2004 hurricanes “may well be a harbinger of the future.” His widely reported comments upset Landsea, who notes that IPCC has concluded that no such link can yet be made. Landsea threatened to resign unless IPCC leaders reprimanded or removed Trenberth. On 16 January, Landsea stepped down, saying in an e-mail to colleagues that Trenberth's actions have made it “very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively” on hurricanes. In an e-mail to Science , IPCC Secretary-General R. K. Pachauri repeated what he had told Landsea: “In their own individual rights, [IPCC authors] are free to express their views on any subject, including various aspects of climate change.” Trenberth told Science that “it's ridiculous to suggest I [was] representing the IPCC”; his role as an author was mentioned during the October event merely as “part of my credentials.” He also defended his view that changing sea conditions could be contributing to greater hurricane intensity. That position is “plausible,” says hurricane expert Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But hurricane activity varies so much from decade to decade that “not a single person in my field thinks you can see the signal.”