Suchergebnisse

Macht es Sinn am 2°‐Ziel festzuhalten?" werde ich gefragt. Für den sozialen Prozess Wissenschaft hat dies Ziel eher negative Konsequenzen, weil es eine politische Steuerung "der" Klimawissenschaft aufbaut; "der" Politik erlaubt es, ein legitimes politisches Ziel zu formulieren.

Eine neue Studie führt Deutschland vor Augen, wie sich das Klima in der Republik bis 2100 verändern wird. Die Politik muss nun handeln, fordern die Forscher Hans von Storch und Nico Stehr - und verlangen, nicht nur über CO2-Reduzierung nachzudenken, sondern auch, sich für das Unvermeidliche zu rüsten.

Das weltweite Klima ändert sich – es wird wärmer, mit möglicherweise weit reichenden Konsequenzen. Diese Erkenntnis ist besonders durch den im Jahr 2007 veröffentlichten vierten Sachstandsbericht zum Klimawandel des Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) ins öffentliche Bewusstsein gerückt. Die globale Perspektive ist jedoch nicht ausreichend um Probleme auf regionaler Ebene einschätzen und Lösungen erarbeiten zu können. Regionale Klimaberichte sind daher dringend notwendig um den Bedingungen vor Ort Rechnung zu tragen und Entscheidungsträgern relevante Informationen an die Hand zu geben, denn Anpassungsstrategien müssen auf regionaler Ebene entwickelt werden (Visbeck 2008, von Storch, Meinke 2008). Ein regionaler Klimabericht für die Ostseeregion wurde zum ersten Mal in Form des BACC-Berichts erstellt ("BALTEX Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin"; www.baltex-research.eu/BACC/). Ziel des Berichts war die Zusammenfassung der in zahlreichen wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften, Institutsberichten und sonstigen wissenschaftlich seriösen Veröffentlichungen über den gesamten Ostseeraum und darüber hinaus versprengt vorlegenden Informationen zum Klimawandel in der Ostseeregion in einem überschaubaren Buch. 84 Experten aus 13 Ländern (darunter alle Ostseeanrainer) trugen mehr als 2000 Literaturverweise zusammen, darunter auch viele nicht englischsprachliche, die bisher international nicht oder nur eingeschränkt zur Verfügung standen. Besonderer Wert wurde bei der Abfassung des Berichts auf eine klare Darstellung des wissenschaftlichen Konsens gelegt, wo vorhanden. Bei nicht ausreichend geklärter Sachlage (d.h. wo die Expertenmeinungen auseinander gehen), wurde das auch klar dargestellt ("consensus on dissensus"). Ein externer Gutachterprozess gewährleistete die wissenschaftliche Qualität des Berichts; eine politische, finanzielle oder inhaltliche Einflussnahme (zum Beispiel von Industrie oder Interessenverbänden wie NGOs) auf den Bericht war ausgeschlossen.

Extreme Event Attribution has raised increasing attention in climate science in the last years. It means to judge the extent to which certain weather-related extreme events have changed due to human influences on climate with probabilistic statements. Extreme Event Attribution is often anticipated to spur more than just scientific ambition. It is able to provide answers to a commonly asked questions after extreme events, namely, 'can we blame it on climate change' and is assumed to support decision-making of various actors engaged in climate change mitigation and adaptation. More in-depth research is widely lacking about who these actors are; in which context they can make use of it; and what requirements they have, to be able to actually apply Extreme Event Attribution. We have therefore addressed these questions with two empirical case studies looking at regional decision-makers who deal with storm surge risks in the German Baltic Sea region and heat waves in the Greater Paris area. Stakeholder interviews and workshops reveal that fields of application and requirements are diverse, difficult to explicitly identify, and often clearly associated with stakeholders\' specific mandate, the hazard background, and the regional socio-economic setting. Among the considered stakeholders in the Baltic Sea region, Extreme Event Attribution is perceived to be most useful to awareness-raising, in particular for climate change mitigation. They emphasised the importance of receiving understandable information - and that, rather later, but with smaller uncertainties than faster, but with higher uncertainties. In the Paris case, we typically talked to people engaged in adaptation with expertise in terms of climate science, but narrowly defined mandates which is typical for the Paris-centred political system with highly specialised public experts. The interviewees claimed that Extreme Event Attribution is most useful to political leverage and public discourses. If novel information like this is not sorted out a priori, it needs ...

This article analyses differences in the attitudes related to climate change of young scholars in environmental science in Qingdao (China) and Hamburg (Germany). The main aim of the article is to evaluate the role of cultural differences for their explanation. We expect no significant differences in the attitudes related to the findings of climate research, since scientific principles are the joint basis of the scientific discourse wordwide. However, we expect that there are differences in the attitudes of the young scholars about the role of science, of the state and of the civil society for dealing with the challenge of climate change. We suggest that these can be explained with substantial cultural differences between both societies, with regard to the role of the state and the civil society for the solution of environmental problems. In order to evaluate these hypotheses, we have conducted a comparative survey among environmental science students in Qingdao (China) and Hamburg (Germany) about their attitudes towards climate change. The findings support our main hypotheses. The young scholars in Qingdao and Hamburg differ substantially in their views of the role of science in society and policymaking. Plausibly, these differences may mainly be explained with differences in the cultural ideas about the role of the state and of the civil society for the solution of environmental problems. Gradual differences in the share of young scholars who think that climate change has anthropogenic causes, may be explained with differences in the curriculum but also by cultural habits. This article makes a new contribution to the scientific debate by exploring the role of cultural differences for differences in the attitudes of young scholars in environmental science in connection with climate change and climate policy in different cultural contexts.

Coastal research deals with that part of the sea, which is significantly affected by the land, and the part of the land, which is significantly affected by the sea. Coasts are in most cases densely populated, and the activities of people are shaping and changing the land/seascape of the coast. Thus, coast encompasses the coastal sea, the coastal land, coastal flora and fauna, and people. Since peoples' economic and political preferences change and compete, the human impact on the coast changes is contested and subject to societal decision making processes. While some coastal research can help informing and constraining such decisions, many legitimate scientific efforts have little bearing on society. All decision making processes are political, so that scientific knowledge is not the dominant driver in such processes. Using cases from the Institute of Coastal Research of Helmholtz Zentrum Geesthacht, we describe some of these potentially useful parts of science, and discuss under which circumstances the potential usefulness transform into real utility. These cases do not span the full range of coastal science. Important issues are the recognition of alternative knowledge claims, the inevitableness of uncertainties and incompleteness of scientific analysis, the acceptance of the political nature of decisions and the ubiquitous presence of social values. Modesty, self-reflexivity and skepticism are needed on the side of science and an organized exchange with stakeholders and public through designated "border" services.

Auf Einladung des Deutschen Klima-Konsortiums (DKK) haben sich Wissenschaftler aus allen führenden deutschen Klimaforschungsinstituten seit November 2013 gemeinsam mit Experten aus Politik und Gesellschaft mit den Perspektiven der Klimaforschung für die nächsten zehn Jahre beschäftigt. Die Ergebnisse stellen einen Konsens der führenden Klimaforscher und Klimafolgenforscher Deutschlands dar und sind als DKK-Positionspapier "Perspektiven für die Klimaforschung 2015 bis 2025" von den DKK-Mitgliedern im Mai verabschiedet worden.