Science and technology are critical to addressing many of the world’s global problems, including vaccines that keep people alive and precision agriculture that feeds many people. But as the prerequisite diverges into climate and weather, hard science collides with what most people would label as common sense.

In small communities like the one I was brought up in, Georgia, common sense was, as you might say, a guiding philosophy of living. Things were believed to be true because of what parents, neighbors, and tradition taught. Common sense usually does–it will not advise us to take a metal golf club with us during a thunderstorm. But common sense is deceptive when it comes to complicated systems, such as the global climate.

That is why climate science communication has emerged as not only a specialization, but information sharing and signage have become a need of the hour. It is the connection between technical knowledge and an embodied experience that will make people understand, trust, and take up actions that positively influence their safety and the future.

What Makes Weather and Climate Different From Other Sciences?

Meteorology and climate science are unique among most science disciplines since everyone is exposed to them daily. Everybody checks the weather when they wake up. We sense heat, observe snow, and discuss storms.

In comparison, not many of us experience first-hand nuclear engineering or cardiology. Ordinary citizens do not see the necessity to disagree with cardiologists about the methods of heart surgery. However, scientists who are doing meteorology and climatology regularly feel countered by the adage, I have heard this before.

This familiarity adds up to a paradox. On the one hand, people are empowered to discuss the weather and climate since it is directly related to their lives. On the other hand, lived experience can cause overconfidence, with many assuming that they have a solid grasp of phenomena that are actually governed by sophisticated mathematics, physics, and global dynamics. Weather and climate are two fields of knowledge that everyone is generally attached to but has little or no understanding of.

How Do Hurricanes Highlight the Clash Between Expertise and Perception?

Hurricanes are a striking example of how predictions and simple logic may go in opposite directions. There is the case of Hurricane Erin, which gained strength in a short time in the Atlantic Ocean. All forecast models demonstrated that the storm is going to shift northeast and move to the sea.

Facts notwithstanding, there were numerous testimonies going on in social media that spoke to the contrary. Some asserted that the weather was too much to turn back and would definitely hit North Carolina. Some made other claims, claiming that strong storms travel wherever they wish to go, causing Erin to go straight. Some were even thinking at that time that Category 6 would soon occur, although no such grade exists in the Saffir-Simpson scale.

After all, Erin came to face the same way that he had predicted. The science was all right, but the common sense interpretations caught on as they were easy, emotional, and easy to digest. This is a testament to the dilemma facing climate science communication; everyone likes answers or explanations based on their intuitive understanding, even when they are false. Read another article on Space Exploration

What Are the Most Common Weather and Climate Misconceptions?

And over the years, I have seen the same crop of myths reappear again and again, illustrating just how difficult it can be to shake common sense reasoning to the point where it can be rejected. It is commonly supposed that that kind of lightning which people call heat-lightning and which one only hears and does not see, is occasioned by hot weather, whereas it is lightning felt in a storm which is at a distance so far that only reaches us the sound of the thunder. Someone else may claim that since the climate always changes, the changes that we experience today are normal, without realizing that these changes are some of the problems that we are creating as human beings. I usually illustrate this using something straightforward, such as: grass can grow on its own, but when it is fertilized, it grows differently.

Another common myth is that during the summer, there is always normal heat. Although one would expect warm temperatures during July and August, higher-than-average temperatures of 5-10 degrees present anomalous conditions that pose a threat to human health, a burden on infrastructure, and increase the likelihood of wildfires. Likewise, a lot of people believe that snowfall tells them that climate change is false. This misunderstanding is caused by confusing weather, which is of a short-term nature, and climate, which is of a long-term nature. I usually use this analogy when I explain to people that the weather is your mood, and climate is your personality.

Other explanations are equally persistent myths, too. Then there are the ones who insist that tornadoes do not strike cities, when in fact they do strike cities, it is just less frequent due to the relative size of the city. Some people have the assumption that deserts do not get cold, although this does not happen since there are no clouds, resulting in very cold nights. The problem is that even the imagination of forecasts is not correctly understood in many cases. When an audience hears a 20-percent risk of precipitation, they tend to interpret that as meaning there will be no precipitation, when in fact it means that precipitation in some form is somewhat likely to happen somewhere within the area of forecast.

All these beliefs reveal how plain common sense, although of good application in lay life, can conflict with scientific fact. They also emphasize that there is a dire necessity for clear and congruent science communications on climate change.

Why Is Simplicity Essential in Communicating Complex Science?

Science is not easy to understand, and neither is weather science. Forecast models depend on huge data, satellite readings, and formulas that can be beyond the capacity of the average citizen. The majority of people are not trained to interpret such technical data, hence are likely to depend on simpler explanations. That is also the reason why misinformation accelerates so fast.

The trick is to make simple light without oversimplifying. Effective communicators should get rid of jargon, draw close references through analogies, and use phrases that are short and memorable. As another example, when describing radiative forcing, it is usually more effective to state that a greenhouse gas traps heat in the air in much the same manner that a blanket keeps a person warm at night. These kinds of analogies recognize the science and yet keep it within reach of average people.

This kind of communication is what makes good climate science communication. It has helped to convert technical data into information that ordinary people can understand and work with.

How Does Trust Shape Public Understanding of Science?

Information, even when well expressed, will lack trust in it and thus fail as well. Individuals are likely to believe what fits their individual experience or cultural beliefs/values, or customs. That is why just presenting data is not often persuasive.

I experienced this first-hand when interviewing peanut farmers in Georgia. By sticking strictly to the debate about the cause of climate change, I would have just closed down the conversation. Rather than structure this in terms of the role and effects of banking on society, I decided to approach this in terms of resilience and preparation. Regardless of what you think caused it, hurricanes like this one will recur. Let’s concentrate here on the ways to prepare them.”

I established a foundation on which they could relate by paying attention to their viewpoint and concentrating on the areas of mutual concern. This is the nub of effective climate science communication- going out to the people where they are and building trust before expecting them to buy the science.

What Do Studies Reveal About Confidence in Scientists?

There is complexity in terms of the public trusting scientists. Globally, the amount of trust in scientists is rather high, and in America, 76 percent of the people have faith in scientists. But this number is less than it was before the pandemic. The deeper concerns are shown in the same surveys: the concern is that the Constitution is starting to be rewritten. More than half agreed that scientists are bad communicators, and that scientists are seen as superior or dismissive more than half of the time.

These results explain why it is important to be careful about the efficiency of communication style and accuracy. Knowledge by itself is not enough to achieve influence. When people think they are being lectured to, they disconnect. When they are respected and feel part of it, they listen.

How Can Scientists Improve Their Communication Strategies?

The beginning of the enhancement of communication is having a good knowledge of the target audience. The language that a meteorologist uses to communicate with farmers ought not to be the same language that he/she uses with policymakers or high school students. Every group also has its own individualized concerns, and communication takes its shape.

The second one is respect for lived experience. Even where what people see differs from what science indicates, the consideration of such observations brings about trust. Context is important as well. When there is extreme heat or a hurricane, putting that into a larger trend of climate will help people feel that this event is not an isolated one but part of a larger process.

It is necessary to focus on solutions, not only on problems. Individuals are more willing to embrace information when they understand how information can enable them to act, prepare, or even protect their communities. Storytelling is one more tool, which is very effective since it is easy to memorize stories and metaphors instead of statistics. Last but not least, communication has to be bidirectional. It is also important to listen to people and address their concerns as important as facilitating an explanation of the science to them.

How Can Media and Technology Support Climate Communication?

The emergence of digital media has changed the process of disseminating information. Misinformation is amplified by the use of social media, online videos, and podcasts, but it also opens new avenues of communication between the scientist and the people. The ability of podcasts and streamers to deliver a story in conversational styles enables scientists to share stories in conversational forms. Short-form videos less than one minute can make tricky topics easier to understand using visuals and analogies. Interactive apps assist individuals in the process of linking forecasts to actual decisions, e.g., whether and when to evacuate in the face of a storm; whether and when to conserve water in the face of a drought.

Coupled with strategic application, these tools will empower the communication of climate science by giving it a stronger foothold, as well as allowing it to compete with the vast amount of misinformation that is increasingly being spread online.

What Role Does Culture Play in Science Acceptance?

What have been identified as climate perceptions are created not just by the data, but by culture, politics, religion, and values. What rings in one community is meaningless in another. In another example, approaches based on stewardship and taking care of creation may be received by the faith-based communities more positively than methodologies that focus on resilience and crop protection, which are likely to be received better in farming communities.

It is important to identify such cultural contexts. Incorporating science into local knowledge and values this allows communicators to make their messages more influential and credible.

What Is the Path Forward for Scientists and Communities?

The path toward appropriate climate communication is the balance between the specialists and common sense. Researchers should strive to be objective and base their information on numerical evidence, at the same time being easy to talk to and unconditional. Societies have to be ready to combine the embodiment of experience with scientific knowledge.

This balance could be attained by stimulating the education of science that will help people to think critically, training the scientists in the art of communicating, providing even more opportunities to be able to communicate, and the focus on resilience approaches that reflect directly on the lives of people.

Communication about climate science is never entirely about making clear predictions or climate models. It is also about a developing form of relationships that will enable communities to prepare, adjust, and prosper in light of environmental change.

Final Thoughts

I have told the Congress and spoken in scientific forums, but I have shared boiled peanuts with farmers by the side of the road in Georgia. Both settings have given me something to learn about. One portrays competence, and the other portrays trust.

When science and common sense are embraced, then respected societies will exist. Communities can be harmed when they intersect. The question is how to sustain a future in which sound, familiar, and easy-to-act-on information guides decisions in a world wherein weather and climate touch every part of life.