Climate Sense

[

] 222

isk

overnance

and

anagement

was to refine basic climate data into indices under the sector catego-

ries already described. In some cases, sectorial stakeholders did not

possess knowledge of crucial phenomena, while in other instances the

information needs exceeded the availability, or reliability, of climate

modelling results. However, these problems were successively over-

come, with the groups eventually defining 51 different indices. Some

were relatively simple, such as an index for ‘Frost Days’ (number of

days with a subzero temperature), while some were quite complex,

such as ‘Zero-Crossings’ (number of days when the temperature has

been both above and below zero degrees Centigrade).

Provision of climate index information

After defining the desired climate indices and deciding whether these

could be meaningfully produced, the data was prepared. The resulting

amount of informationwas vast and represented up to six regional climate

model scenarios for many periods. More than one scenario was used to

counter, as far as possible, the inherent uncertainty in climate scenarios,

which is due to future emission scenarios and climate sensitivity to such

forcing. The need to look at different periods arises from the different

relevant timescales, depending on the sector and stakeholder. Possible

timescales included the last so-called ‘climate normal period’ (1961-90),

the ongoing period (taken as 1991-2005) and successive 30-year periods

over the 21st Century (2011-2040, 2041-2070, 2071-2100).

Basic data was provided in the form of prepared maps, available

both online via a web-interface and on DVD. All in all, the total

number of maps made was well over 10,000, though a somewhat

smaller set was eventually used. However, for users wishing to

access more detailed information, additional provisions were made,

with extended results available via the Swedish Meteorological and

Hydrological Institute (SMHI) external website.

Outcome and outlook

The broader picture painted by the scenario analyses was one of slowly

changing conditions, towards a warmer and wetter regional climate.

This was identified by increases in ‘warm’ and/or ‘wet’ indices and

decreases in ‘cold’ and/or ‘dry’ indices. Crucially, indices on extreme

conditions – such as intensity of heavy precipitation, gust winds and

dry spell length – were also included.

It was important to provide transparent information

on the underlying climate model capacities. For example,

even though the simulation of mean temperature is

relatively insensitive to temperature biases in modelled

results, the same does not apply to measures that reflect

specific thresholds – such as the already mentioned

‘Zero-Crossings’. In addition the climate index concept

is yet to be evaluated scientifically. Nevertheless, it was

found that performed analyses did add significantly to

the climate information required for vulnerability analy-

ses. Perhaps most importantly, the indices served as a

starting point for stakeholders in thinking about vulnera-

bility to both present day climate variability and possible

future climate change, in terms that relate practically to

their sectorial responsibilities and activities.

The researcher and stakeholder dialogue was a vital

part of this achievement. In addition to leading to

refinements of the information, it produced insights for

both science providers on societal needs and stakehold-

ers on climate impacts, vulnerability and adaptation.

Climate indices are a useful means of providing

advanced climate data in an enhanced format. This is

true for scenario information, as well as for observed

data, where results can be organized into indicators, to

monitor impact-related conditions.

The main lessons learnt from the multi-sectorial

societal vulnerability analysis process were:

• The usefulness of the climate index concept with

regards to climate impact, vulnerability and, by

extension, adaptation

• The importance of involving stakeholders in the

process of specifying the indices

• The importance of managing the underlying and

refined data efficiently, as well as thoroughly

planning the ultimate provision of information

• The importance of creating new ways of using

climate data in society, especially in the face of a

changing climate, calling for conclusions and

decisions to be revisited in the face of fresh data

• The importance of being clear about the

different roles of: the scientist as provider of climate

information and expert advice on how to interpret

the information; and the stakeholder as a sectorial

expert and decision-maker.

Despite the evident benefits of the climate index concept,

it cannot address all the stakeholder questions and needs.

Continued development of the concept seems worth-

while. Also, climate indices do not replace the need for

impact research and applications in many of the sectors,

to provide even deeper knowledge support for decisions.

Typically, climate indices are a first step for assessing a

specific climatic vulnerability, which may be followed by

more sophisticated impact models. Nevertheless, there

needs to be a scientific and knowledge-based prepared-

ness of compiling additional tailored climate data. For

the society, parallel investments on training and raising

awareness would seem sensible activities.

Climate event in Sweden. The researcher-stakeholder dialogue is a crucial element

of climate events, ensuring that information is put to the best use in society

Image: Ingrid Gudmundsson, SMHI