Nearly 200 governments rely on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for scientific assessments of climate change. IPCC figures are important for conveying key findings, but can be difficult for policymakers and practitioners to understand. Best practices in graph design, summarized in the IPCC’s visual style guide, recommend conducting interviews with members of the target audience before finalizing figures. Therefore, we interviewed 20 policy makers and practitioners from different countries about three figures drafted for the second order draft of the summary for policymakers associated with IPCC’s Working Group III Sixth Assessment Report. Half were frequent users and half were occasional users of climate science, but similar comments emerged from both groups. The figures received a median rating of 3, on a scale from 1 (= not easy at all to understand) to 5 (= very easy to understand). Showing the caption did not always improve these ratings. Overall, two types of recommendations emerged. First, participants suggested focusing each figure on one key message for policymakers, and removing irrelevant details. For IPCC authors, this involves making hard choices about what to show in the figure and what to leave for the text. Additionally, participants suggested straightforward fixes such as using clear titles, labels, and captions that support the key message. Based on our findings, we present recommendations for the design of climate change figures, and examples of revised figures. These recommendations should be useful for the next round of IPCC reports, and for other organizations that communicate about climate science with policymakers and practitioners.
This content will become publicly available on December 1, 2025
- PAR ID:
- 10510125
- Publisher / Repository:
- Springer Nature
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Communications Earth & Environment
- Volume:
- 5
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 2662-4435
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
For each assessment cycle of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), researchers in the life sciences are called upon to provide evidence to policymakers planning for a changing future. This research increasingly relies on highly technical and complex outputs from climate models. The strengths and weaknesses of these data may not be fully appreciated beyond the climate modelling community; therefore, uninformed use of raw or preprocessed climate data could lead to overconfident or spurious conclusions. We provide an accessible introduction to climate model outputs that is intended to empower the life science community to robustly address questions about human and natural systems in a changing world.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Abstract Tree-ring chronologies underpin the majority of annually-resolved reconstructions of Common Era climate. However, they are derived using different datasets and techniques, the ramifications of which have hitherto been little explored. Here, we report the results of a double-blind experiment that yielded 15 Northern Hemisphere summer temperature reconstructions from a common network of regional tree-ring width datasets. Taken together as an ensemble, the Common Era reconstruction mean correlates with instrumental temperatures from 1794–2016 CE at 0.79 ( p < 0.001), reveals summer cooling in the years following large volcanic eruptions, and exhibits strong warming since the 1980s. Differing in their mean, variance, amplitude, sensitivity, and persistence, the ensemble members demonstrate the influence of subjectivity in the reconstruction process. We therefore recommend the routine use of ensemble reconstruction approaches to provide a more consensual picture of past climate variability.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Anthropogenic aerosol emissions are expected to change rapidly over the coming decades, driving strong, spatially complex trends in temperature, hydroclimate, and extreme events both near and far from emission sources. Under-resourced, highly populated regions often bear the brunt of aerosols’ climate and air quality effects, amplifying risk through heightened exposure and vulnerability. However, many policy-facing evaluations of near-term climate risk, including those in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report, underrepresent aerosols’ complex and regionally diverse climate effects, reducing them to a globally averaged offset to greenhouse gas warming. We argue that this constitutes a major missing element in society’s ability to prepare for future climate change. We outline a pathway towards progress and call for greater interaction between the aerosol research, impact modeling, scenario development, and risk assessment communities.
-
more » « less
Abstract There have been many scientific advances regarding future sea‐level projections, however it is unclear if these have been transferred to assessment reports used by stakeholders. Here, we present a first‐of‐its‐kind comprehensive analysis of regional sea‐level rise (SLR) assessments for the United States (U.S.). We identify variations in time horizons over which regions plan for SLR, with 25 projections from the U.S. Northeast and West that extend to 2150 or beyond, but no projections from the U.S. South beyond 2100. The majority of 2100 projections from the U.S. Northeast (77%) and West (83%) include ranges of future SLR, while 88% of projections from the U.S. South include only single estimates. At least 56% of U.S. communities in the database underestimate the upper end of future SLR compared to the regional projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report.
