The impact of SciDAC on US climate change research and the IPCC AR4

This paper describes the Glory Mission Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor (APS) being built by Raytheon under contract to NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. Scheduled for launch in late 2008, the instrument is part of the US Climate Change Research Initiative to determine the global distribution of aerosols and clouds with sufficient accuracy and coverage to establish the aerosol effects on global climate change as well as begin a precise long-term aerosol record. The Glory APS is a polarimeter with nine solar reflectance spectral bands that measure the first three Stokes parameters vector components for a total of 27 unique measurements. In order to improve the reliability and accuracy of the measurements, additional 9 redundant measurements are made, yielding a total of 36 channels. The sensor is designed to acquire spatial, temporal, and spectral measurements simultaneously to minimize instrumental effects and provide extremely accurate Raw Data Records. The APS scans in the direction close to of the spacecraft velocity vector in order to acquire multi-angle samples for each retrieval location so that the Stokes parameters can be measured as functions of view angle.

Structural Change, Innovation and Growth in the Single EU Market.- Wage Dispersion in Germany and the US: Is There Compression from Below?.- The Performance Effects of Unions, Codetermination, and Employee Involvement: Comparing the United States and Germany (with an Addendum on the United Kingdom).- Ageing and Pension Reforms: Simulations and Policy Options.- Ageing and Global Capital Flows.- Effects of the Ageing Population on Capital Markets.- US Economic Outlook: Beyond the Credit Crunch.- Selected Innovation Factors: An International Comparison.- The Innovation Imperative and the Role of SBIR Innovation Awards.- Trips, Pharmaceutical Innovation and Access to Medicines.- The Knowledge Society.- Technological and Growth Dynamics in the New Member States of the European Union.- Benchmarking Innovation Performance on the Regional Level: Approach and Policy Implications of the European Innovation Scoreboard for Countries and Regions.- Energy Technology Policy in Europe.- US Climate Change Emissions Mitigation Policy: Energy Technology Push and Other US Policies.- EU-US International Relations: A Political Science Perspective.- Policy Issues and Fields of Cooperation.

During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. 1Section:ChooseTop of page1 <<BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Missile defense: The present administration is requesting more than $10 billion this year for development and deployment of a missile defense system. Many scientists say the system, given current and foreseeable technology, cannot be effective. What proof of effectiveness should be required before the system is fully deployed? Given the low-tech nature of terrorist attacks and the limited missile capabilities of North Korea and other hostile nations, does missile defense continue to be a wise investment? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1Bush <<Kerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryOur policy is to develop and deploy, at the earliest possible date, a weapons system that would defend the United States homeland against nuclear attack, including ballistic missile defenses drawing on the best technologies available. Early in my administration, I called for the examination of the full range of available technologies and basing modes for missile defenses that could protect the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies.The FY 2005 Defense Appropriations Act provides $10 billion that I requested for systems to defend against the threat from ballistic missiles. Later this year, the first components of America’s missile defense system will become operational, and we are on schedule for the next stages of the project. My administration will develop and deploy the technologies necessary to protect our people, fulfilling a pledge I made to the American people more than four years ago.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry <<2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryA missile defense that works is a wise investment, but one that pours money into defenses at the expense of other immediate national security needs is not. And that’s what this administration has done. Missile defense should be one element of a comprehensive national security strategy. But a single-minded focus on this technology and the threat it is designed to meet ignores the very real danger of terrorism and our greatest danger—terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.John Edwards and I will be committed to developing a missile defense system that works, is fully tested, and geared to the threats we face. But I will refocus our efforts on preventing the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and dramatically accelerating the security of nuclear weapons and material in Russia and around the world. We will not sit by, falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system, while these threats continue to fester.2Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2 <<BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Climate change: Virtually all reputable research in recent years has reinforced the scientific conclusion that global warming is a real and growing crisis caused, at least in part, by the burning of fossil fuels. Do you accept that scientific consensus? Under what circumstances would you regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2Bush <<Kerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryGlobal climate change is a serious long-term issue. In 2001, I asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to provide the most up-to-date information about the science of climate change. The academy found that considerable uncertainty remains about the effect of natural fluctuations on climate and the future effects climate change will have on our environment.My administration is now well along in implementing a comprehensive climate change strategy to advance the science, expand the use of transformational energy and carbon sequestration technologies, and mitigate the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and in partnership with other nations. I created the new US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) to refocus the federal government’s climate research programs, for which my 2005 budget seeks nearly $2 billion to fund research across the federal government. The NAS endorsed the CCSP strategic plan, noting that it “articulates a guiding vision, is appropriately ambitious, and is broad in scope.”I also committed the nation to a goal of reducing American greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years, which would prevent more than 500 million tons of carbon emissions through 2012. To help achieve this goal, I created the Climate Vision program in 2003 to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by energy-intensive industrial sectors. Participants in the Climate Vision program account for between 40 and 45% of US greenhouse gas emissions. I have strongly supported over $4 billion in tax incentives for renewable and energy-efficient technologies, including wind and solar energy and hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles. Also, in April 2003, my administration raised the fuel economy standards for light trucks and SUVs [sport utility vehicles] for the first time since 1996, saving 3.6 billion gallons of gasoline. And in my 2003 State of the Union [address], I announced a $1.7 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to accelerate research that could lead to hydrogen-powered, no-emission vehicles within a generation.Additionally, my administration is participating in robust international partnerships to promote clean, renewable, commercially available fusion energy and to construct the $1 billion FutureGen project, which will test the latest technologies to generate electricity, produce hydrogen, and sequester greenhouse gas emissions from coal. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry <<3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryI recognize the risk of climate change, and I have outlined a balanced set of programs that will have impact both in the near term and over the long term. My plan will also provide balanced support for technology that can increase the efficiency and cut greenhouse emissions in transportation systems, buildings, and industry that are attractive to consumers and US producers. Our programs will encourage the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol and renewable electric generation that produce little or no net greenhouse gases. I will expand the production tax credit for wind and biomass energy to cover the full array of renewable energy sources and increase Department of Energy (DOE) research into renewable energy sources and their applications. And I will propose an aggressive program of research, standards, and incentives to accelerate electric generation from renewable energy. Clean coal technology can play a critical role, given technology to cut carbon dioxide emissions.My plan would encourage energy efficiency with programs such as updated fuel efficiency standards, new tax incentives for automakers to build the new, more efficient automobiles of the future, and tax incentives for families to purchase more energy-efficient cars, trucks, and SUVs.3Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3 <<BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Science investment: There is concern in the science and economic communities that the US is losing its world leadership in the sciences, which they say bodes ill for future economic growth and global competitive-ness. To address that concern, should the US increase funding for basic science, and should the administration fully fund the 2001 bill, signed by the president, to double NSF’s budget? How would you reinvigorate science education for US-born students? What is the role of foreign scientists and students in the US scientific enterprise? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3Bush <<Kerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryIncluding my FY 2005 budget request, total federal R&D investment during the first term will have increased 44% to a record $132 billion in 2005. My FY 2005 budget request commits 13.5% of total discretionary outlays to R&D, the highest level in 37 years. In the context of the overall economy, federal R&D spending in the FY 2005 budget is the greatest share of GDP [gross domestic product] in over 10 years. Funding for basic research, the fuel for future technology development, is at an all-time high of $26.8 billion in FY 2005, a 26% increase over FY 2001. Funding for NSF during the four years of my administration has increased 30% over FY 2001 to $5.7 billion in FY 2005. NSF’s broad support for basic research, particularly at US academic institutions, provides not only a central source for discovery in many fields but also encourages and supports development of the next generation of scientists and engineers. Moreover, in fulfilling its mission, NSF has used its funding efficiently and effectively.As for the American scientific enterprise, it is important in this information and technological age that our students receive a first-rate science education, just as they receive quality instruction in reading, writing, and math. The federal government has no control over local curricula, and it is not my job to tell states and local boards of education what they should teach in the classroom. Nevertheless, the No Child Left Behind Act, one of my proudest legislative achievements this term, is improving our schools and, consequently, the teaching of science. NCLB requires, for the first time, assessments in science to give us better information about how our students are performing and how to improve instruction in science. I have also proposed creating the Presidential Math and Science Scholars Fund to provide $100 million in grants to low-income students who study math or science. This will ensure that America’s graduates have the training they need to compete for the best jobs of the 21st century.I also value the contributions that foreign scientists and students make to our nation’s scientific enterprise, while recognizing the importance of safeguarding our security. We will continue to welcome international students and scientists while implementing balanced measures to end abuses of the student visa system. My administration has already achieved several notable successes in reducing delays now being experienced by some visa seekers. We have increased security while speeding up the clearance process; approximately 1000 back-logged applications have already been cleared out.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry <<4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryFor three years, the Bush administration has squandered America’s leadership in the world, putting politics before science and doing nothing to create jobs while our workers fall further behind. The administration has proposed cuts for scientific research and grossly distorted and politicized science on issues from mercury pollution to stem-cell research. This approach not only limits the research that our scientists are doing today, it undermines important discoveries of tomorrow and threatens America’s critical edge in innovation. I will reverse this course by restoring America’s scientific leadership, helping find new cures, moderating healthcare costs, and developing new technologies that will create good jobs. I will boost support for the physical sciences and engineering by increasing research investments in agencies such as NSF, the National Institutes of Health, DOE, NIST, and NASA. This funding will help with the broad areas of science and technology that will provide the foundations for economic growth and prosperity in the 21st century.4Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4 <<BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Nuclear weapons: Does the US need to develop a new class of nuclear weapons to deal with the changing threats of the 21st century? Is there any circumstance in which you would support the resumption of nuclear testing? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4Bush <<Kerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryThe Nuclear Posture Review, released by my administration in January 2002, noted that the nation’s nuclear infrastructure had atrophied since the end of the cold war and that the evolving security environment requires a flexible and responsive weapons complex infrastructure. To that end, my FY 2005 budget reflects an increase over the 2004 enacted level in the weapons activities account, which encompasses the stockpile stewardship programs. There is no current need for testing due to the sophistication of computer modeling and other new technologies, but we must maintain the capability to test in case such testing becomes necessary in the future to ensure the safety and reliability of our defensive arsenal. We have not identified any need for developing new nuclear weapons. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry <<5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryNo, and a Kerry–Edwards administration will stop this administration’s program to develop a new class of nuclear weapons. This is a weapon we don’t need, and it undermines our ability to persuade other nations to forego development of these weapons.5Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5 Nuclear There is serious concern many that could or a nuclear in a US Do you the US is doing to and control of nuclear weapons and material both in the US and BushSection:ChooseTop of administration in has more to and control nuclear weapons and material than US weapons and are and both the Department of Defense and are to make more My administration has increased funding to weapons and material in the Union and has by years the schedule the administration for security in We are with Russia to end the production of and to weapons for of weapons. the my administration the to or and material We have already weapons material from several our in its for nuclear weapons. To against we the international in a global effort to account and of sources that could be used in such We activities in over 40 on this as well as with international the Energy the the and the of Defense we have dramatically our ability to that could be a threat to us and to our friends and my administration the billion initiative to support and nuclear safety in the This of the international is to a more of nation’s highest must be preventing from to nuclear weapons and the material to make We must in a global partnership with other nations to prevent the spread of these weapons. the Bush administration’s have in the have the we need to advance our security. September they have not nearly to and on the while the nuclear from and North Korea have Our security requires an immediate change of I have proposed a comprehensive strategy to of weapons and including an of programs to all nuclear weapons and within the and at research in the within four production of new material for nuclear weapons by a global on production of new of nuclear weapons and by development of the new generation of nuclear accelerating in US and nuclear and reducing of in nuclear weapons programs in hostile including by with North Korea to ensure the and of its nuclear weapons program and a global effort to prevent from the necessary to build nuclear weapons. international efforts to by and and as well as improving the security a presidential to prevent nuclear terrorism who will focus on a effort to all nuclear weapons and around the world and prevent a nuclear terrorist of Energy than of and have not in a comprehensive US energy policy. years into the future, what do you the US energy should How would you the US in that BushSection:ChooseTop of and energy is critical to America’s and homeland security. We will be more and more we are on foreign sources of energy. The of a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy has been one of my During my first in I proposed a national energy policy that would our energy production and systems, reduce our on foreign promote efficiency and increase domestic production from all of energy including renewable energy and continue to our economy and create new jobs. We will continue to with on the energy to the administration has nearly all of the more than in the comprehensive national energy policy that not as increasing reliability R&D to help prevent and the to its of million to provide energy security in case of of have proposed an program of research, and standards that would increase the efficiency of energy use and use of new energy sources that can ensure a and while reducing the risk of climate change. The program would be supported in by a billion energy security and from federal and gas the in by I have to around the and a of that can meet US needs both in the term and for in the Given the long time required to over energy investments such as of and trucks, industrial and we must a broad set of new technologies as as possible we have any of US energy use in the near term, many of the most control systems, and other technologies to improve the energy of buildings, and industrial that the US to reduce its on from the and I will set for fuels such as I will support research and incentives that will dramatically increase use of from wind and other renewable And I will encourage development of technology and nuclear generation with high standards for stewardship and of Nuclear recent by that nuclear is the best energy source to meet the US while protecting the renewable energy can be deployed on a Do you increasing the use of nuclear If what would you do with the BushSection:ChooseTop of support the further development of nuclear technologies as a clean, and to meet this nation’s future energy Nuclear for of our This which no pollution or greenhouse gas can play an expanding role in our energy future while the we with energy national energy policy several to encourage increased use of nuclear and to the that through the Nuclear my administration is with industry to the for an of a new US nuclear within the next years. through the the United States is with around the to develop a next generation of more and more nuclear that can also produce hydrogen and my administration has made a to the nuclear and the of a long-term at We are ahead with the of a to the Nuclear at the end of this administration is also committed to and in new technologies that will change the we generate I committed the United States to the international fusion energy as in is a important to test the of nuclear fusion as a source of and the of a nearly source of energy the that long-term of Nuclear can play an role in energy while reducing the risk of climate key such as nuclear nuclear and security must be John Edwards and I will ensure safety and science We George Bush’s plan to over the of a Kerry–Edwards administration will on science. John Edwards and I do not support as a nuclear and will that nuclear and transportation only on the of science and that to and the John Edwards and I will George Bush and to from a for an NAS study to is the as to long-term and or some other technology. an international to scientific for nuclear and nuclear from terrorist John Edwards and I will improve and security at nuclear In we will nuclear to to improve including measures to reduce to the an of National National Nuclear the national weapons continue to be with security spending and What would you to improve at the Does the current plan of the to the risk of the in the of the war on BushSection:ChooseTop of national are doing to deal with the threats of the 21st are a in our efforts to improve homeland are the source of technological and are helping the war on With their at the highest level in years, National National and National are also on the edge of defense research, protecting the nation’s infrastructure from terrorist attacks, and developing a that the of a nuclear This is we billion on weapons research and production in FY 2004 and I for billion for We must and security My administration has made effort to improve the the weapons do and one of efforts is that in all areas of central to the war on we can use our more and focus on his or of national play a critical role in our nuclear weapons stockpile and that our nation’s nuclear weapons are and The national also have an important role in preventing the spread of weapons of mass and in science for our nation’s have a of our nation’s but this record has been by and security at the has been John Edwards and I are committed to and and restoring the at these critical national of is being to the long-term of to the and Many scientists the will money from science How do you the importance of science exploration What is the funding between the BushSection:ChooseTop of I announced my for the future of America’s space exploration this will the of both and science will as to the and other vehicles continue to their and of to we have systems on and around a system and one on its to the for cannot be by the most or the most We need to and and for And only are of to the by space we our on the we are developing a new exploration to our This will be by and its first no than will to the as as and no than and use it as a for the We will with to the and for future will with the goal of and there for of Edwards and I will continue America’s long tradition of leadership in and space exploration as of a program to broad for this will not to programs such as the Bush administration’s Program that from in the with no or will in new programs to set by scientific in and other Our administration will on the of the scientific to the most for research and the most for these the of or are most to the 2004 American of

Questions of how and why the EU and the US are responding to climate change and what socio-political factors drive these choices remain underexplored. To better understand convergences and divergences in EU and US climate change strategies, this chapter examines five categories of factors that influence climate change law and policy-making in Europe and America, including: (1) systems of governance; (2) risk perception and notions of precaution; (3) the roles of media and civil society; (4) modes of capitalism; (5) notions of equity. The objective of this analysis is not to undertake an exhaustive review of each of these topics, all of which have generated a rich body of literature. Rather, the goal of this chapter is to outline how each of these fundamental factors shapes transatlantic climate debate and highlight points requiring further enquiry.

This paper argues different policy issue framings of climate change—ranging from security to energy, economics, humanitarian response, and health frames—play critical roles in altering policy outcomes. Specifically, we focus on the several windows of opportunity that altered the pathway of the US climate change debates from 1985 to 2017. Progressing from the underpinnings of issue framing literature and public policy discourse, we conduct content analysis of news articles, academic papers, policy documents and other archival evidence, to show why and when environmental framings shift, and to what effect. Our innovative models provide generalization of these trends and their implications for environmental agenda setting, complemented by a qualitative section that contextualizes impact as well as the feedback mechanisms of issue framing on environmental politics in the United States. The findings highlight the need for future case study analysis to trace the causal mechanisms between climate change framings and US policy outcomes.

This chapter presents an overview of climate change law in the United States, given the global impact of its domestic and international climate change policies. It traces the evolution of US climate change policy under different presidents, and discusses emerging programs under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Under the CAA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues emissions standards, and under the Energy Policy Conservation Act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. The chapter also describes the protection of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA directs the Fish and Wildlife Service to designate certain species as endangered or threatened; for marine species that task falls to the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Researchers have documented that observations of climate change impacts reported by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities coincide with scientific measurements of such impacts. However, insights from Indigenous and Local Knowledge are not yet completely included in international climate change research and policy fora. In this article, we compare observations of climate change impacts detected by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities from around the world and collected through a literature review (n=198 case studies), with climate scientists' opinions on the relevance of such information for climate change research. Scientists' opinions were collected through a web survey among climate change researchers from universities and research centres in Spain (n=191). In the survey, we asked about the need to collect local level data regarding 68 different groups of indicators of climate change impacts to improve the current knowledge, and about the feasibility of using Indigenous and local knowledge in climate change studies. Results show consensus on the need to continue collecting local level data from all groups of indicators to get a better understanding of climate change impacts, particularly on impacts on the biological system. However, while scientists of our study considered that Indigenous and local knowledge could mostly contribute to detect climate change impacts on the biological and socioeconomic systems, the literature review shows that information on impacts on these systems is rarely collected; researchers instead have mostly documented the impacts on the climatic and physical systems reported by Indigenous and local knowledge.

By growing awareness for and interest in climate change, media coverage enlarges the window of opportunity by which research can engage individuals and collectives in climate actions. However, we question whether the climate change research that gets mediatized is fit for this challenge. From a survey of the 51,230 scientific articles published in 2020 on climate change, we show that the news media preferentially publicizes research outputs found in multidisciplinary journals and journals perceived as top-tier. An in-depth analysis of the content of the top-100 mediatized papers, in comparison to a random subset, reveals that news media showcases a narrow and limited facet of climate change knowledge (i.e., natural science and health). News media selectivity reduces climate change research to the role of a sentinel and whistleblower for the large-scale, observed, or end-of-century consequences of climate change for natural Earth system components. The social, economic, technological, and energy aspects of climate change are curtailed through mediatization, as well as local and short-term scales of processes and solutions. Reviewing the social psychological mechanisms that underlie behavioral change, we challenge the current criteria used to judge newsworthiness and argue that the consequent mediatization of climate change research fails to breed real society engagement in actions. A transformative agenda for the mediatization of climate change research implies aligning newsworthiness with news effectiveness, i.e., addressing the extent to which communication is effective in presenting research that is likely to produce behavioral change.

This research note focuses on the current climate change research scenario and discusses primarily what is required in the present global climate change conditions. Most of the climate change research and models predict adverse future conditions that have to be faced by humanity, with less emphasis on mitigation measures. Moreover, research ends as reports on the shelves of scientists and researchers and as publications in journals. At this juncture the major focus should be on research that helps in reducing the impact rather than on analysing future scenarios of climate change using different models. The article raises several questions and suggestions regards climate change research and lays emphasis on what we really need from climate change researchers.

BackgroundThere are gaps in translating climate change research into public health action at the global level. Knowledge translation refers to the methods used to bridge the gap between knowledge and action. Given the significant impacts of climate change on health, it is essential to integrate climate research into health decision-making processes. This integration ensures that evidence effectively informs policies and practices at all levels, leading to more timely, equitable, and impactful public health responses.ObjectiveThis scoping review examines key approaches and identifies gaps in knowledge translation methods for integrating climate change research into public health decision-making.MethodsA systematic search of the literature was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus using a predefined search string to identify studies on climate change and health published between January 1, 2003, and March 1, 2024, with no geographic restrictions. Retrieved articles were screened and data extracted using Covidence software. Thematic analysis was performed in ATLAS.TI employing Braun and Clark’s six-step method. The identified knowledge translation approaches were categorized according to the Cochrane Knowledge Translation Framework.FindingsOur findings highlight five primary knowledge translation approaches: (1) monitoring the coverage of climate change and health across media, scientific literature, and government responses; (2) engaging citizens of all ages in participatory activities to address local climate challenges and co-develop policy solutions; (3) integrating knowledge generation, synthesis, and dissemination for effective communication; (4) emphasizing advocacy and education to foster collaborations and gain support from decision-makers; and (5) leveraging health impact assessment tools to guide decision-making related to climate change and health. Nonetheless, we did not find any primary studies on climate change research and knowledge translation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs).ConclusionThere is a need for primary studies on the knowledge translation of climate change research, especially in relation to adaptation, into meaningful public health actions that can inform decision-making and contribute to building climate-resilient health systems in LMICs.

This study presents a comprehensive overview of the evolving landscape of tourism and climate change research over the past decade by leveraging bibliometric analysis and a dataset sourced from the Scopus Database. The study scrutinised over 3400 English language articles. The analysis reveals a remarkable surge in publications, signifying the growing recognition of climate change’s multifaceted impact on tourism. However, a noteworthy geographical disparity emerges, with many regions remaining underrepresented in the literature, particularly in Africa and the Middle East. This oversight is concerning, given the vulnerability of these regions to climate change and their burgeoning tourism industries. The study also highlights the pivotal role of influential scholars, funding organisations, and publication outlets in shaping the research landscape. The European Commission and the National Natural Science Foundation of China are major funders. At the same time, journals like Sustainability and the Journal of Sustainable Tourism serve as prominent platforms for disseminating research findings. The analysis uncovers thematic trends, including the growing focus on climate change modelling and its implications for destination planning. However, research gaps persist, notably in sports tourism and climate resilience within the tourism sector. In conclusion, this study offers valuable insights into the current state of tourism and climate change research, pinpointing areas that demand increased attention and inclusivity. It is a valuable resource for scholars, policymakers, and stakeholders working towards a sustainable and resilient future for the global tourism industry in the face of climate change.

Managing the Transition to Climate Stabilization

This study uses an atmosphere‐ocean fully coupled climate model to investigate possible remote impacts of Asian carbonaceous aerosols on US climate change. We took a 21st century mitigation scenario as a reference, and carried out three sets of sensitivity experiments in which the prescribed carbonaceous aerosol concentrations over a selected Asian domain are increased by a factor of two, six, and ten respectively during the period of 2005–2024. The resulting enhancement of atmospheric solar absorption (only the direct effect of aerosols is included) over Asia induces tropospheric heating anomalies that force large‐scale circulation changes which, averaged over the twenty‐year period, add as much as an additional 0.4°C warming over the eastern US during winter and over most of the US during summer. Such remote impacts are confirmed by an atmosphere stand‐alone experiment with specified heating anomalies over Asia that represent the direct effect of the carbon aerosols.

Maps are essential in climate change research and policymaking, and are primary tools for communicating climate change information to the public. The consequences of cartographic design are potentially significant to understanding climate change and effectively informing policymakers. Yet, the cartographic design and quality of climate change maps have not been critically assessed nor systematically evaluated. We suggest that evaluating the quality of climate change maps is both timely and essential, and offer one approach as a demonstration. We use cartographic design principles to evaluate a ‘high visibility’ climate change map from the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Our specific goals are to demonstrate the need and value of cartographic critique, describe how such evaluation can be accomplished, and make a case for cartographers’ engagement with climate change scientists in mapping activities. We suggest a research and policy agenda for the cartographic evaluation and design of climate change maps.

Background: The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) have supported climate change and health-relevant research for decades. Through the years 2010 to 2020, annual NIH support for climate change and health research hovered around $10 million funded by 21 NIH components. The NIH Climate Change and Health Initiative, launched in 2021, is an NIH-wide effort to develop the first coordinated NIH plan for research on the impacts of climate change on human health. Methods: The Initiative created a core framework in 2021 that was informed by a month’s long planning and engagement process. Directors of seven Institutes and Centers at the NIH have joined together to create a strategic framework document that highlights the core focus areas of the work. The group released a Public Request for Information to gather input from community organizations and academic scientists and conducted a federal and international landscape assessment to map out organizations working in the space. Internally, NIH conducted a portfolio analysis of funded climate research from the past decade, engaged staff through workshops, and developed an internal data call for planned climate related programs. Results: The strategic framework will guide a community of practice comprising outstanding and committed scientists, trainees, and specialists. Key areas of interest outlined include: Health Effects Research, Health Equity, Intervention Research and Training and Capacity Building. The framework also identifies nine key areas of supporting science for climate change and health research. Conclusions: Climate change is impacting health and communities around the world but there remain many key research knowledge gaps. NIH’s role as a leading funder of biomedical and human health research can play an important role in coordinating research to better understand health impacts, health adaptation, and outcomes in communities impacted related to climate change. There is perhaps no greater opportunity for NIH to fulfill its mission than by providing global leadership in the response to the burgeoning climate change and health crisis. Key words: Climate change; public health; research