Report helps scientists communicate how global warming is worsening natural disasters

Extract from The Guardian

A new article helps scientists communicate how humans are intensifying extreme weather clearly and accurately

 Firefighters monitor a back burn near Mount Victoria in the Blue Mountains on October 21, 2013. The intense Australian summer heat was made 5 times more likely by human-caused global warming. Photograph: William West/AFP/Getty Images

John Abraham

Thursday 8 December 2016 22.00 AEDT

Climate scientists have done a great job winning the scientific arguments about climate change. To be clear about what I mean, we have done a very good job investigating whether or not the Earth’s climate is changing (it is), what is causing the change (humans), how much will it change in the future, and what will be the impacts. 

There are no longer any reputable scientists who disagree with the principle view of that human emissions will cause climate change that will lead to societal and human losses (they already are). So, I use the term “win” here not to indicate it was a battle of “us” versus “them”. Rather, I mean “win” in that we have faithfully followed the scientific method, explored alternative hypotheses, checked and rechecked our work, and have come to a truth that is unassailable. We’ve done our job.

In the past, that is where our job ended. I mean maybe we would help with a press release on a breaking study, do an interview. But only rarely.

Now, particularly with an issue like climate change, that has such an impact on peoples’ lives, scientists are being asked to go further. We are being asked to effectively communicate to the public why this matters, what will happen if we take action or not, and what some trade-offs are. This means we can be put in an uncomfortable position where we’re forced to advocate. Some of my colleagues are understandably skittish about advocacy and avoid it religiously. Others, like myself, will advocate on occasion but be very clear about when the scientist hat comes off and the advocate hat is put on. 

But regardless, scientists are tasked with communicating complex science in a short amount of time, to people with varied backgrounds. This is a really tough ask, especially when we are not trained at it.  Fortunately, we are getting help. The art of effective scientific communication is being shared with scientists to help us properly convey concepts.

A very recent publication by several communication experts has been published in the World Meteorological Organization Bulletin. The lead author, Susan Hassol and her co-authors weave together effective language and accurate science in an uncommonly profound way. The results are simple suggestions that the rest of us can use to be both true to facts as well as clear.

The article centers around the influence human-caused warming has had on natural disasters. We know that some disasters, such as coastal and flash floods, heat waves, heavy rainfall, and drought are increasing. But how do we talk about the human effect on such events? The authors remind us that heavy rainfall that can cause flooding has increased markedly because warm air holds more water. 

Regarding heat waves, the summer-long extreme heat of 2013 in Australia was made approximately 5 times more likely due to human-caused warming; and there are other examples reviewed. Now, this doesn’t mean that climate change was the sole cause of a particular event. And this is the fallback position of most scientists. Our hesitancy to highlight the role of human warming in individual events makes listeners think that the influence of climate change on extreme weather is smaller than it really is. 

It is more accurate to say that all weather events are now influenced by climate change. Some weather events are coming on stronger; they last longer, or are more severe. As a result, climate change is increasing the impact of these events. The authors reviewed various examples of extreme weather events for which attribution studies allow scientists to make meaningful statements about the role of human-caused climate change. 

Another point made in the paper is that with acute weather events, speed of reporting is key. We need to speak with as much clarity as possible while a weather event is still in the media. Fortunately, advances in scientific understanding are enabling us to make statements about the human influence on extreme events that can be conveyed through the media to the interested public. It is important to make these connections while events are still a matter of public interest.

The authors note three factors that enable confident conclusions about the influence of climate change on certain types of extreme weather. First, we need to have a strong understanding of the physical processes involved in the extreme weather event. Second, high-quality observations are needed so we can assess whether the type of event (such as flood, heat wave, drought, storm, etc.) is changing over time. Finally, climate models are necessary that can simulate the type of extreme weather event. 

So, as we move forward, we must ensure that these three items are maintained. For instance, if we neglect funding of observational equipment, we may no longer be able to conclude whether and how events are changing as the climate warms. 

This is a good, readable report. I would encourage not only scientists to read this, but also anyone else who regularly communicates climate change effects to an audience, whether receptive or hostile.