Throughout the course “Uncertain 2 Degrees?” and especially during the role play sessions, the communication of science and its related uncertainties was often discussed. The recent flood in western Germany, particularly in North-Rhine Westphalia and Rhineland-Palestinate, and some parts of Bavaria, has once again pointed out the lack and confusion in the communication among German officials and the inhabitants of the regions. In this post I would like to look at two aspects of the communication in relation to the flood event. On the one hand I would like to address how poorly the threat was communicated to the people in potential risk areas, showing how important the early and clear communication of such events is, regardless of whether there is an uncertainty in the event happening as predicted. On the other hand, I would like to look at how the message that the catastrophe was not necessarily caused by climate change although it is much agreed on that it was, is being spread (Neubauer, Kesselrund and Rathcke).
The flood-event mid-July 2021 in North-Rhine Westphalia and Rhineland-Palestinate was “one of the deadliest natural catastrophes in Germany since the second world war” (Oswald and Löhe). Nine days before the flood-event, satellite data had shown that such a severe flood was coming, four days before the event, the European Flood Awareness System (EFAS) warned the governments at risk and 24 hours before the event exact locations of affected areas were known (Oswald and Löhe). However, the warning did not reach the affected citizens on time, but why? Yes, at the time of the event people have been warned through both sirens and warning apps, as well as the traditional media, but at that point it was too late to prepare and to evacuate. What came to my mind is, whether the reason for not clearly communicating the prediction of the flood 9 days in advance, when it had first been observed from satellite data, was because of the uncertainty of it happening. Could it be that the distrust in models and predictions lead to the government’s decision that, as there was a possibility that the predictions would turn out to be too catastrophic, it would not be worth to alarm citizens and evacuate the areas? Most of the material damage could probably not have been avoided but the amount of lives lost through the event could certainly have been reduced. Regardless of whether the decision not to alert the public earlier was due to uncertainties, I believe that this shows how important it is to consider when uncertainties should be communicated and when it is better not to. When there is the time and space to clearly explain possible uncertainties, while still highlighting the possible risks and implications of inaction, then I believe the full story should be told, but I also believe that there are scenarios where it is best to keep that side of the story to the experts. When time is limited and the consequences of inaction are potentially as catastrophic as in this example, communicating uncertainty would lead to confusion and doubt on whether to act. Therefore, I believe that one would be better off if the predicted event would be communicated as a certainty.
The second aspect, which I would like to shortly touch upon, is that there seems to be a disagreement on whether the flood and its dimension are really related to the climate crisis. Stefan Rahmsdorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research stated that “already more than 30 years ago, climate models predicted that days with little rain would become less while the number of extremely heavy rain days would increase” (Kesselrund and Rathcke). Furthermore, it is clearly known that due to an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the global average atmospheric air temperature is rising, and that warmer air can hold more water (Kesselrund and Rathcke), according to Luisa Neubauer in the TV show “Markus Lanz” on July 21st, 2021 on the German TV channel ZDF, “air can hold 7% more water per one degree of warming” (Neubauer). However, Stefan Rahmsdorf also says that it is not certain whether this effect on precipitation is really related to global warming (Kesselrund and Rathcke). With scientists making such statements of uncertainty to the public, we must not wonder why society does not see the need to act. Even if sometimes there is room for uncertainty, people should be made aware of how much such weather extremes could very well be due to global warming, and if there is time and space to tell the full story only then this should be done.
I am very much looking forward to hearing your opinions on this issue.
References:
Kesselrund, Martin and Julia Rathcke. “Wetter-Extreme Und Klimawandel: Ganz Eindeutig Ist Der Zusammenhang Nicht.” Aachener Zeitung, Aachener Zeitung, 15 July 2021, www.aachener-zeitung.de/nrw-region/ganz-eindeutig-ist-der-zusammenhang-nicht_aid-61403963?_ga=2.93342558.210662093.1626857983-2141086095.1626364984utm_source&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=share.
Neubauer, Luisa. “Markus Lanz”, ZDF (Zweite Deutsche Fernesehen), 21 July 2021
Oswald, Fabian and Löhe, Andreas. “Deutschland Wurde Präzise Gewarnt – Die Bürger Aber Nicht.” Der Tagesspiegel, 21 July 2021, www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/schwere-vorwuerfe-deutschland-wurde-praezise-gewarnt-die-buerger-aber-nicht/27433034.html.
Very nice post Luisa. I would like to question the first of your arguments. I think that the full story, including uncertainties, should be always told by science when coming to extreme weather events. In my opinion, the central and local governments are charged with the entire responsibility of managing the situation after the alert is given. They should be informed by science and decide if and when it is the case to evacuate; in these situations, there is not enough time for negotiations between science and policy and a “predict-then-act” approach is probably more than adequate. Hence, I see uncertainty in action, rather than uncertainty in predictions, as the cause for inadequate preparation for a natural catastrophe. In the case of recent floods in Germany, it may well be that the risk was understood early enough by policy, but the alerting system was either too slow or not assertive enough. Or maybe, were the alerting procedures not flexible enough to adapt to such an exceptional situation? I also think that the population should be educated or trained to this kind of events. Every time we see the images of a flood around the world, too many people are still close to the water streams or on the streets when the water level starts to be dangerous.
If several predictions of extreme events were given as certain and, in the end, they didn’t happen, or they happened with modest consequences, over time this would cause a diffuse distrust towards the community of meteorologists and climatologists, which is of course dangerous in view of future catastrophe warning. To overcome the distrust, we could not even claim to replace the scientific community with a better one (more accurate in predictions) since this is not how science works. On the contrary, if we assume that the responsibility of “what to do with uncertain predictions” is completely a matter of policy, the failure of a catastrophe management opens the possibility for policy itself to be rapidly improved, by replacing/fixing the mechanisms that didn’t work. But maybe I am too optimistic on this point.
Dear Giovanni, thank you for your comment. I do see your point and that it is the “right thing to do” to be completely honest about the uncertainties, especially if measures are being taken and then an event doesn’t happen. However, if there is a high certainty in an event happening I believe that communicating the uncertainty would leave too much room for inaction when action is required.
In regards to the recent flood event: I really wish I could know why the people have not been warned a week in advance (at a time where the uncertainty could also have been explained – if done the right way). It is always talked about how the problem was in the warning system, but this is only significant to the warning at the moment the heavy rain already started, the people could have been reached in so many ways days before and so many things could have been saved.
Some places in Europe have already started to adapt, such as The Netherlands who are much better prepared for flooding, but for Germany it was the first event of this kind to cause so much damage, and I hope that it gives enough incentive for improvement both in Germany and worldwide.