Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Usable climate science is adaptation science

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The author argues that in the present historical moment, the only climate science that is truly usable is that which is oriented towards adaptation, because current policies and politics are so far from what would be needed to avert dangerous climate change that scientific uncertainty is not a limiting factor on mitigation. The author considers what implications this might have for climate science and climate scientists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. Including some that have been recorded and made available as a podcast, see deep-convection.org.

  2. By “a piece of climate science” I refer to any of the typical outputs of working climate scientists: a new scientific result, a peer-reviewed article containing such results, or even a community assessment that summarizes the results of many such articles. A particularly relevant example is Sherwood et al. (2020), as per the discussion in section 2.

  3. A more complete treatment should consider the possibility that the science could be used for bad purposes rather than good ones, or more generally that the values of the users could be in conflict with those of the scientists. This is briefly mentioned by Parker and Lusk (2019) in their broader consideration of how to incorporate user values into climate services.

  4. I do not distinguish here between the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR). The ECS is relevant only on very long time scales, but even the TCR is most relevant after a few decades, time scales that are already long for most adaptation problems.

  5. https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1852727&HistoricalAwards=false

  6. Notwithstanding efforts towards some degree of global standardization, e.g., Olhoff et al. (2018). Incipient efforts to assess and price climate risks to financial portfolios could also be viewed as a form of adaptation, and one which should incorporate both global and local factors.

  7. I use the term “co-production” here in its simple sense, to describe collaboration between scientists and users in the generation of new knowledge. This meaning is common in the literature around climate services and other user-oriented sciences, but is distinct from the broader and more complex meaning found in the science and technology studies literature, e.g., Jasanoff (2004).

References

  • Agrawala S (1998) Structural and process history of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Clim Chang 39:621–642

  • Anguelovski I, Chu E, Carmin J (2014) Variations in approaches to urban climate adaptation: experiences and experimentation from the global south. Glob Environ Chang 27:156–167

  • Arnell NW, Lowe JA, Challinor AJ, Osborn TJ (2019) Global and regional impacts of climate change at different levels of global temperature increase. Clim Chang 155:377–391

  • Baker Z, Ekstrom JA, Meagher KD, Preston BL, Bedsworth (2020) The social structure of climate change research and practitioner engagement: evidence from California. Glob Environ Chang 63:102074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102074

  • Barry L (2020), Community science and the design of climate governance. Climatic Change, this volume, submitted

  • Beck S (2011) Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Reg Environ Change 11:297–306

  • Biagini B, Bierbaum R, Stults M, Dobardzic S, McNeeley SM (2014) A typology of adaptation actions: a global look at climate adaptation actions financed through the Global Environment Facility. Glob Environ Chang 25:97–108

  • Bocking S (2004) Nature’s experts: science, politics, and the environment. Rutgers University Press 298pp

  • Coen DR (2020) A brief history of usable climate science. Climatic Change, this volume, submitted

  • Cooke R, Wielicki BA, Young DF, Mlynczak MG (2014) Value of information for climate observing systems. Environ Syst Decis 34:98–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-013-9451-8

  • Dessai S, Hulme M, Lempert R, Pielke RA Jr (2009) Climate prediction: a limit to adaptation? In: Adger WN, Lorenzoni I, O’Brien KL (eds) Adapting to climate change: thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge University Press

  • Dilling L, Lemos MC (2011) Creating usable science: opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Glob Environ Chang 21:680–689

  • Durrant D (2015) The undead linear model of expertise. In: Heazle M, Kane J (eds) Policy legitimacy, science and political authority: knowledge and action in liberal democracies. Routledge, London, pp 17–37 Book 228pp

  • Epley N, Gilovitch T (2016) The mechanics of motivated reasoning. J Econ Perspect 30:133–140

  • Eyal G (2019) The crisis of expertise. Polity Press 190pp

  • Forster P, Huppmann D, Kriegler E, Mundaca L, Smith C, Rogelj J, Séférian R (2018) Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development supplementary material. In: V Masson-Delmotte, P Zhai, H-O Pörtner, D Roberts, J Skea, PR Shukla, A Pirani, W Moufouma-Okia, C Péan, R Pidcock, S Connors, JBR Matthews, Y Chen, X Zhou, MI Gomis, E Lonnoy, T Maycock, M Tignor, and T Waterfield (eds) Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Available from https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15

  • Hallegatte S (2009) Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Glob Environ Chang 19:240–247

  • Hope C (2015) The $10 trillion value of better information about the transient climate response. Philos Trans R Soc A 373:20140429. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0429

  • Howe (2014) Behind the curve: science and the politics of global warming. University of Washington Press 290pp

  • Hulme M, Mahony M (2010) Climate change: what do we know about the IPCC? Prog Phys Geogr 34:705–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133310373719

  • IPCC (2018) Special report: global warming of 1.5 C. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

  • Jasanoff S (2004) The idiom of co-production. In: Jasanoff S (ed) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social order. Routledge, pp 1–12

  • Jasanoff S, Wynne B (1998) Science and decisionmaking. Human choice and climate change. In: Rayner S, Malone EL (eds) Human choice and climate change 1: the societal framework. Batelle Press, Columbus, pp 1–87

  • Jézéquel A, Dépoues V, Guillemot H, Rajaud A, Trolliet M, Vrac M, Vanderlinden J, Yiou P (2020) Singular extreme events and their attribution to climate change: a climate service–centered analysis. Weather Clim Soc 12:89–101. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-19-0048.1

  • Kopp R (2020) Re-envisioning the land grant mission for the Anthropocene: public universities as hubs of planetary stewardship networks. Climatic Change, this volume, submitted

  • Lahsen M (2005) Technocracy, democracy, and U.S. climate politics: the need for demarcations. Sci Technol Hum Values 30:137–169

  • Lemos MC et al (2018) To co-produce or not to co-produce. Nat Sustain 1:722–724

  • Mori S, Shiogama H (2018) The value of knowledge accumulation on climate sensitivity uncertainty: comparison between perfect information, single stage and act then learn decisions. Sustain Sci 13:351–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0528-7

  • Olhoff A, Väänänen E, Dickson B (2018) Tracking adaptation progress at the global level: key issues and priorities. In: Zommers Z, Alverson K (eds) Resilience: the science of adaptation to climate change. Elsevier, pp 51–61

  • Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Press, New York

  • Owen G (2020) What makes climate change adaptation effective? A systematic review of the literature. Glob Environ Chang 62:102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102071

  • Parker WS, Lusk G (2019) Incorporating user values into climate services. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 100:643–650. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0325.1

  • Pearce W, Mahony M, Raman S (2018) Science advice for global challenges: learning from trade-offs in the IPCC. Environ Sci Policy 80:125–131

  • Pielke RA Jr (2007) The honest broker. Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Porter JJ, Dessai S (2017) Mini-me: why do climate scientists’ misunderstand users and their needs? Environ Sci Policy 77:9–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.004

  • Rogelj J, Shindell D, Jiang K, Fifita S, Forster P, Ginzburg V, Handa C, Kheshgi H, Kobayashi S, Kriegler E, Mundaca L, Séférian R, Vilariño MV (2018) Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner H-O, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla PR, Pirani A, Moufouma-Okia W, Péan C, Pidcock R, Connors S, Matthews JBR, Chen Y, Zhou X, Gomis MI, Lonnoy E, Maycock T, Tignor M, Waterfield T (eds) Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty

  • Sarewitz D (2010) World view: curing climate backlash. Nature 464:28

  • Schmidt GA (2015) What should climate scientists advocate for? Bull At Sci 71:70–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340214563677

  • Seneviratne SI, Donat MG, Pitman AJ, Knutti R, Wilby RL (2016) Allowable CO2 emissions based on regional and impact-related climate targets. Nature 529:477–483

  • Sherwood S et al (2020) An assessment of Earth’s climate sensitivity using multiple lines of evidence. Rev Geophys. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000678

  • Singer P (2015) The most good you can do. Yale University Press 272 pp

  • Solnit R (2018) Praise of indirect consequences. In: Call them by their true names. Haymarket Books, Chicago

  • Stokes L (2020) Short circuiting policy: interest groups and the Battle over clean energy and climate policy in the American states. Oxford University Press 336 pp

  • Swart R, Biesbroek R, Lourenço TC (2014) Science of adaptation to climate change and science for adaptation. Front Environ Sci 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2014.00029

  • Vardy M, Oppenheimer M, Dubash NK, O’Reilly J, Jamieson D (2017) The intergovernmental panel on climate change: challenges and opportunities. Annu Rev Environ Resour 42:55–75

  • Weinberg A (1972) Science and trans-science. Minerva 10:209–222

  • Wilby R, Dessai S (2010) Robust adaptation to climate change. Weather 65:180–185

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank Melanie Bieli, Deborah Coen, Amitav Ghosh, Joshua Howe, Frances Moore, and Noami Oreskes for discussions on aspects of this work, and Melanie Bieli, Deborah Coen, Robert Kopp, Elisabeth Lloyd, Frances Moore, and Tapio Schneider for insightful comments on drafts. This essay is loosely based on a talk given at several institutions in early 2020 in seminar series for climate scientists. I thank my hosts at Texas A&M, Caltech, Stanford, U.C. Berkeley, and Washington State U., Vancouver, for being willing to explore these ideas with me — particularly for doing so in settings usually reserved for the presentation of scientific research results — and all the participants in the 2019 Usable Climate Science and the Uses of History workshop for informing my perspective.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam H. Sobel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of a topical collection on “Critical and historical perspectives on usable climate science,” edited by Deborah R. Coen and Adam H. Sobel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sobel, A.H. Usable climate science is adaptation science. Climatic Change 166, 8 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03108-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03108-x

Keywords

Navigation