BALTEX
Baltic Sea Experiment
World Climate Research Programme / Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment
WCRP
GEWEX
SurBACC 2010
A survey of the perspectives
of climate scientists concerning
climate change and climate science
in the Baltic Sea basin
Dennis Bray
International BALTEX Secretariat Publication
ISSN 1681-6471
International BALTEX Secretariat
ISSN 1681-6471
Publication No. 48
October 2010
SurBACC 2010
A survey of the perspectives
of climate scientists concerning
climate change and climate science
in the Baltic Sea basin
Dennis Bray
2
SurBACC 2010
SurBACC 2010
3
Contents
Page
Contents .................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Foreword ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Rationale for the survey .......................................................................................................................................... 6
The survey sample .................................................................................................................................................. 6
Summary of results ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Appendix A. Full descriptive results.................................................................................................................... 13
Definitions............................................................................................................................................................. 13
Section 1. Assessment of Baltic climate scientist´s perceptions on the general state of climate science.............. 14
Section 1. a Demographics .................................................................................................................... 14
Section 1. b General aspects of the climate change issue ...................................................................... 16
Section 1. c The abilities of models ....................................................................................................... 18
Section 1. d Assessment of the needs of the science.............................................................................. 24
Section 1. e Changes and impacts in the Baltic Sea region ................................................................... 27
Section 1. f Climate change and sea level rise ....................................................................................... 31
Section 1. g The future........................................................................................................................... 35
Section 1. h Mitigation and adaptation .................................................................................................. 38
Section 1. i The state of the science....................................................................................................... 43
Section 2. Assessment of the BACC Report: ‘Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin’ .......... 55
Section 2. a Participation and awareness ............................................................................................... 55
Section 2. b Assessment of results......................................................................................................... 59
Section 2. c Significance........................................................................................................................ 73
Section 3. Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 75
Previous related surveys (chronologically) ........................................................................................................... 78
References............................................................................................................................................................. 79
International BALTEX Secretariat Publication Series.......................................................................................... 80
Author´s address:
Dr. Dennis Bray
Institute for Coastal Research
GKSS Research Centre Geesthacht
Max-Planck-Str. 1
D- 21502 Geesthacht, Germany
4
SurBACC 2010
Foreword
An assessment report about the then available scientific knowledge of climate change and its
impacts in the Baltic Sea basin (hydrologically defined as the catchment basin draining into
the Baltic Sea) was published as a Springer book in January 2008 (BACC Author Team,
2008). The assessment is an example for a type of reports helping to put global climate
change (as portrayed e.g. by the IPCC reports) into a regional perspective which local
stakeholders and politicians can relate to. The so called BACC (BALTEX Assessment of
Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin) report was compiled by a consortium of 84
scientists from 13 countries around the Baltic Sea and covers various disciplines related to
climate research and ecological impacts. The book is divided in chapters on past and current
climate change, on projected future anthropogenic climate change, and on observed and
projected impacts on terrestrial and marine ecosystems of the Baltic Sea basin. It aims to
bring together consolidated (published) knowledge which has broad consensus in the
scientific community. Efforts were made to minimize the inclusion of claims by vested
interests and authors’ personal opinions. The way how this was attempted was by installing an
author team rather than one guru writing the assessment, and secondly, to strictly keep to the
rule not to ignore scientifically legitimate findings which are not mainstream.
The publication of the BACC report was taken as point of departure for a detailed survey on
how climate scientists in the Baltic Sea region perceive the state of their own science, both on
the global and on the regional scale. This kind of survey has been done with the global
climate research community earlier (see page 78). The main difference of this survey to
earlier similar surveys is the regional target group: climate scientists and scientists working in
climate relevant research fields in the Baltic Sea basin. For this survey, the BALTEX
community was used, and the reception of the BACC report was of particular interest in this
report.
This survey was done in February and March 2010 after the so-called “climategate” incident,
which had an impact on the global climate science community and its public perception.
Whether the somewhat more critical perception on various aspects of climate research by the
regional researchers is related to post-climategate irritation or just to a more self-critical
attitude of Northern European researchers, cannot be determined at this time.
The survey showed that the vast majority of regional climate researchers in the Baltic Sea
region consider the BACC report a worthwhile effort to be done. As climate science is a
rapidly advancing research field, a new BACC report is currently in preparation and is
expected to be available as a book in 2014.
Marcus Reckermann
Hans von Storch
International BALTEX Secretariat, Head
GKSS Research Centre Geesthacht, Germany
Institute for Coastal Research, Director
GKSS Research Centre Geesthacht, Germany
SurBACC 2010
5
Abstract
The survey is an assessment of the perceptions of Baltic Sea region climate scientists. It was
conducted with two goals in mind: the first, Baltic Sea region climate scientists’ perceptions
of the climate change issues in general, the second an assessment of the levels of satisfaction
with the BACC Report ‘Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin’ (BACC
Author Team, 2008). On the issue of climate change in general, it is clear that a majority of
the survey participants agree that climate change, be it of anthropogenic causes or otherwise,
is occurring now. There is not so much certainty though as to attribution, i.e. natural versus
anthropogenic causes. Many details were asked concerning aspects of climate modelling and
responses are widely varied, both for climate models and for ocean models. The
understanding of physical processes and the availability of data were assessed and, as would
be expected in the course of any science, there is a reasonable level of agreement among the
respondents that there is considerable room for improvement. There were mixed responses
concerning the level of threat from both climate and sea level rise in the Baltic region, with
climate change seen as a slightly higher threat, and no catastrophic scenarios were foreseen
for the next 10 years at least.
The second section of the survey was for the purpose of the assessment of a comprehensive
report on the state of climate change science as it pertains to the Baltic Region. Here, the level
of satisfaction with production and content of the report are quite favourable with claims that
the report is significant for the advancement of climate change assessments for the Baltic
region but somewhat less significant for the advancements of regional sea level assessments.
On nearly all accounts, the estimates of change (changes to surface air temperature, changes
in extreme events, etc.) are claimed to be reflected fairly well in the report. A large majority
of respondents concluded that a second BACC Report would be a worthy and significant
contribution some time in the future.
6
SurBACC 2010
Rationale for the survey
Scientific agreement (or consensus) is not usually as simple a single yes-no response.
Surveys such as SurBACC 2010 attempt to look at the details of agreement and disagreement
of scientists’ perceptions, the details of agreement on the strengths and weaknesses in the
science, of scientific needs, of scientific problem issues and of knowledge gaps in the science.
As such, there is potential to provide insights for decision makers, funding allocation and
even for the practice of scientists themselves.
Of course, it is not easy to design a perfect set of questions, and hindsight is a wonderful
thing. For the most part, however, the questions employed in this survey have been tried,
tested and improved over a number of years with a number of surveys (see p. 78) and have
resulted in a number of peer reviewed publications. The questions are designed in an attempt
to make them meaningful to the entire sample of scientists employed in the survey and as
such might, at times, appear somewhat naive to within specialist debates. For example,
questions concerning models need to be understandable by the users of the models, and the
users might encompass scientists working on impact through to model developers.
Given the limitations of a single survey of a number of science specialties and a range of
disciplinary interests, the survey attempted to address two research interests. The first interest
was the perceptions of Baltic climate science related scientists concerning the issue of climate
change. The second goal of the survey was to assess the acceptance of the BACC Report
(Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea basin), which ‘was created to assemble,
integrate and assess available knowledge of past, current, and expected future climate change
and its impacts on ecosystems in the Baltic Sea basin.’ (BACC Author Team, 2008).
The survey sample
The survey sample consisted of the BALTEX mailing list, not a probability sample of all
scientists focusing on the Baltic Sea Basin. The survey was conducted using e-mail invitations
containing a brief explanation and a web link to the survey. The e-mail invitation was first
distributed on 5 February 2010, and a reminder was distributed on 26 February 2010. The
survey was closed on 31 March 2010.
In all, 706 valid e-mail addresses were sent to potential respondents. Six respondents replied
that he or she felt unqualified to answer the survey (i.e. did not work in science).
Consequently, the number of potential respondents receiving the invitation to participate in
the survey was 700. The total number of responses was 134, a response rate of approximately
19%.
Concerning the response rate of 19%, Hamilton (web site accessed 12.02.2010) produced a
white paper that analyzed 199 surveys. The total response rate of these surveys, calculated
using the total number of surveys sent out and the total number of responses was 13.35%. He
also noted that large invitations lists, i.e. >1000, tend to be associated with lower individual
response rates.
However, Viser et al. (1996) showed that surveys with lower response rates (near 20%)
tended to produce more accurate results than surveys with higher response rates, although, it
is doubtful that this could be generalized to all surveys. In as much, Holbrook et al. (2007)
concluded that a low response rate does not necessarily equate to a lower level of accuracy
but simply indicates a risk of lower accuracy.
SurBACC 2010
7
Harris Interactive, a well established organization specializing in web-based surveys, used a
convenience sample of 70,932 California residents in a survey of attitudes towards healthcare.
As with the survey of scientists (Bray and von Storch 2010) an e-mail was sent to potential
respondents with a link to a web survey, and non-respondents received one reminder e-mail.
The response rate for the Harris Interactive survey was 2% (Schonlau et al. 2002)
Consequently the sampling method and the response for the surveys of climate scientists do
not appear distinct from other such undertakings.
Summary of results
The complete results are presented in Appendix A.
As distinguished by nationality, the two largest groups of participants came from Sweden
(25%) and Germany (23%). Approximately 10% of the sample reported coming from ‘other,
non-Baltic’ countries. As for the nature of the work undertaken by the respondents, 28.4%
were involved with ‘past and present climate change’ 23.9% with ‘projections of future
anthropogenic climate change’, 6% with ‘sea level change’, 17.9% with ‘climate related
marine ecosystem change’, 11.9% with ‘climate related change in terrestrial and/or freshwater
ecosystems’ (categories reflect the chapter structure in the BACC report), and 23.9% reported
‘other’ than the categories outlined in the BACC report.
The survey began with some simple questions about the perspective of climate change in
general. Response options to questions were given as a range with 1 being ‘no agreement at
all’ and 7 being ‘agree very much’. Approximately 58% of the respondents agree ‘very much’
that climate change, be it caused by anthropogenic causes or natural variability, is indeed
occurring now1. Some 19% agreed very much that climate change is, or will be, the result of
anthropogenic causes2. Approximately 1% and 3%, respectively, expressed the opinion that
climate change is not happening and should it happen, it will not be the result of
anthropogenic causes. As to whether climate change poses a serious threat on global
proportions, approximately 25% said ‘very much’ and 2% said ‘not at all’3. The means for
‘climate change occurring’, (mean = 6.23 - on a 7 point scale) and ‘climate change a result of
anthropogenic causes’ (mean = 4.73), seems to suggest that the majority of scientists in the
survey would agree that climate change is occurring but there is much less confidence that it
is the results of human behaviours. Whatever the perception of attribution, some 58%
consider climate change to be a significant threat. However, when asked ‘How much do you
agree that climate science has remained objective science and uninfluenced by personal
values or politics’ only 4% answered ‘very much’ and with a mean value of 4, it seems that
1
A broader global sample of climate scientists were surveyed in 2008 (CliSci 2008; Bray and von Storch 2010).
In this survey, from 375 responses from 35 countries, 67% of the climate scientists who responded were ‘very
much’ convinced that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now. The number of
BALTEX involved scientists appears to be slightly less than the responses from a larger global climate science
community.
2
Concerning attribution, 34.5% of a global sample of climate scientists in the CliSci 2008 survey was ‘very
much’ convinced that most of recent and near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic
causes, a stark contrast to the 19% of the BALTEX sample.
3
34.6% of a global sample of scientists in the CliSci 2008 survey reported that climate change ‘very much’
poses a serious and dangerous threat to humanity, some 10% more than the reported by the BALTEX sample.
8
SurBACC 2010
among the BALTEX scientists there is some concern about the infusion of values into
science4.
The perception of global climate models
SurBACC also attempted to assess the perceptions of Baltic climate scientists pertaining to
the state of climate science in general. Abilities of global climate models were assessed
according to the ability to deal with hydrodynamics, radiation, atmospheric vapour, clouds,
precipitation, atmospheric convection and greenhouse gases. These results are presented in
Figure 1.
How well do you think global atmospheric model can deal with
valid cases = 93
mean = 4.82
C.I. 99% = 4.39 - 5.24
Std. Dev. = 1.59
SurBACC 2010
Baltic Sea region
hydrodynamics
CliSci 2008 (global)
n = 366
valid cases = 89
mean = 5.22
C.I. 99% = 4.92 - 5.53
Std. Dev. = 1.13
SurBACC 2010
Baltic Sea region
radiation
CliSci 2008 (global)
n = 364
valid cases = 92
mean = 4.49
C.I. 99% = 4.17 - 4.81
Std. Dev. = 1.18
SurBACC 2010
Baltic Sea region
atmospheric vapour
CliSci 2008 (global)
n = 365
valid cases = 92
mean = 3.71
C.I. 99% = 3.37 - 4.06
Std. Dev. = 1.31
SurBACC 2010
Baltic Sea region
clouds
CliSci 2008 (global)
n = 364
valid cases = 97
mean = 3.90
C.I. 99% = 3.53 - 4.26
Std. Dev. = 1.40
SurBACC 2010
Baltic Sea region
precipitation
CliSci 2008 (global)
n = 366
valid cases = 91
mean = 3.96
C.I. 99% = 3.58 - 4.33
Std. Dev. = 1.40
SurBACC 2010
Baltic Sea region
atmospheric convection
CliSci 2008 (global)
n = 366
valid cases = 97
mean = 5.04
C.I. 99% = 4.71 - 5.37
Std. Dev. = 1.25
SurBACC 2010
Baltic Sea region
green house gases
CliSci 2008 (global)*
not at all 1
(CliSci: very nadequate)
n = 368
2
3
4
5
6
7
very well
(CliSci: very adequate)
Figure 1. Global Atmospheric Models: State of climate science. * In the CliSci 2008 survey, scientists were
asked to agree or disagree with the statement: “The current state of scientific knowledge is developed well
enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of green house gases emitted from anthropogenic
sources. 1= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree.
4
This appears to be somewhat consistent with the sample of the larger global climate science community: In
CliSci 2008, 2.6% of respondents reported ‘not at all’ as the response to being asked ‘How much do you think
the direction of research in the climate change sciences has been influenced by external politics in the last 10
years?’ (mean 2.98: 1= very much; 7 = not at all). In response to a separate question ‘To what degree do you
think climate science has remained a value neutral science?’, 4.3% responded ‘a great deal’ and 5.2% responded
‘not at all’ The mean of the responses we 3.96, very similar to the response from the BALTEX sample.
9
SurBACC 2010
In all cases of assessing the abilities of global climate models, the scientists of the BALTEX
community show somewhat more faith in the abilities of global models, with the exception of
green house gases, which is the same in both cases. However, given that the global survey
was conducted in 2008 and the BALTEX survey in 2010, the differences indicated in Figure 1
might simply reflect a perceived improvement of the abilities of global models over time.
Figure 2 asks for the performance of global ocean models.
How well do global ocean model deal with
valid cases = 80
mean = 5.01
C.I. 99% = 4.71 - 5.31
Std. Dev. = 1.05
SurBACC 2010
Baltic Sea region
heat transport in ocean
CliSci 2008 (global)
n= 359
valid cases = 81
mean = 5.10
C.I. 99% = 4.76
Std. Dev. = 1.20
SurBACC 2010
Baltic Sea region
hydrodynamics
CliSci 2008 (global)
n = 358
SurBACC 2010
Baltic Sea region
oceanic convection
valid cases = 78
mean = 4.19
C.I. 99% = 3.79 - 4.59
Std. Dev. = 1.37
CliSci 2008 (global)
n = 359
not at all 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(CliSci: very nadequate)
very well
(CliSci: very adequate)
Figure 2. Global Ocean Models: State of climate science
Similar patterns of perceptions seem to persist when assessing ocean models; that is, the
Baltic region sample of scientists tend to express more faith in the models than does the
global sample of scientists.
The perception of regional climate models
The respondents were then asked how well they felt the science could address change at a
regional level. These results are presented in Figure 3.
How much do you think that through the process of downscaling and regional
modelling it is now possible to determine patterns of
valid cases = 107
mean = 4.5
C.I. 99% = 4.26 - 4.75
Std. Dev. = 1.30
valid cases = 97
mean = 4.03
C.I. 99% = 3.74 - 4.32
Std. Dev. = 1.45
Climate change for the
Baltic Sea region
Sea-level change for the
Baltic Sea region
not at all 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
very well
Figure 3. Regional climate modelling
As Figure 3 demonstrates, the responses from the BALTEX scientific community suggest that
there is slightly more faith in determining patterns of climate change than there is in patterns
of sea-level change for the Baltic region. More details of concerning theoretical understanding
and data availability for regional climate change and sea level assessments are given in the
Appendix.
10
SurBACC 2010
The perception of climate change impacts
While the perceived state of the science is of some importance to decision makers, the
scientific perceptions of how change might translate into impacts is of more significance to
this group. To this end, the BALTEX climate scientists were asked explicitly about the threat
of climate and sea-level change. These results are presented in Figures 4 to 6.
How convinced are you that climate change or sea-level rise poses a very serious threat
to the Baltic sea region in which you live?
valid cases =
mean =
C.I. 99% =
Std. Dev. =
valid cases =
mean =
C.I. 99% =
Std. Dev. =
climate change
sea-level rise
not at all 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
very much
Figure 4. The potential threat: Climate change
If we do not do anything towards adaptation or mitigation to climate change
valid cases = 100
mean = 2.35
C.I. 99% = 2.01 - 2.69
Std. Dev. = 1.33
valid cases = 99
mean = 3.95
C.I. 99% = 3.54 - 4.36
Std. Dev. = 1.59
the potential for catastrophe
in 10 years
the potential for catastrophe
in 50 years
none 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
very high
Figure 5. The potential for catastrophe: Climate change
If we do not do anything towards adaptation or mitigation to sea-level rise
valid cases = 98
mean = 2.38
C.I. 99% = 2.00 - 2.75
Std. Dev. = 1.44
valid cases = 95
mean = 3.86
C.I. 99% = 3.43 - 4.30
Std. Dev. = 1.17
the potential for catastrophe
in 10 years
the potential for catastrophe
in 50 years
none 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
very high
Figure 6. The potential for catastrophe: Sea level rise
While scientists perceived the threat level to be of some significance, it appears the threat
could not be so easily translated as potential for catastrophe in the near future. The scientists
foresaw very little chance of catastrophe within the next ten years and only a marginal
potential for catastrophe resulting from climate change and/or sea level rise in the next 50
years.
The perception of the BACC report
The second section of the survey was designed to assess Baltic scientists’ satisfaction with the
BACC report. 78 of 105 respondents claimed to be aware of the BACC report. Of those 78
scientists, 26 were contributing authors and an additional 21 claimed they were consulted for
input (but were not authors). Respondents were reasonably satisfied with the process of the
selection of authors for the BACC report and less satisfied concerning the representation of
11
SurBACC 2010
differing areas of expertise, with some claims that the BACC report tended to favour certain
areas of expertise.
How would you rate the process of selection of the authors of the BACC Report?
not fair at all
very fair
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
How well do you feel your area of expertise is represented in the BACC Report?
very well
not at all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
In your opinion, The BACC Report is
incomplete
complete
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Un your opinion, the presentation of the material in the BACC Report
favours certain areas
well balanced
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Of how much use is the BACC Report for the advancement of regional climate change assessments for the
Baltic Sea region?
no use
great use
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Of how much use is the BACC Report for the advancement of regional sea level assessments for the Baltic
Sea region?
no use
great use
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Figure 7. Satisfaction with BACC report
Nonetheless, there was a considerable level of agreement that the BACC report was of use for
the advancement of regional climate change and sea level assessments. A majority of
respondents claimed not to know if the BACC report accurately reflected a number of subspecialties of climate change related issues. This of course could be expected as scientists are
not experts in all scientific areas. Of those claiming knowledge of scientific specialties, in
most cases there was a reasonable level of agreement that this or that sub-specialty was
accurately reflected. One exception concerned future changes to marine ecosystems which felt
the BACC report tended to somewhat underestimate projections of future changes. In
summary, a large majority of the respondents felt that the BACC report was a significant
contribution to the Baltic climate science community and thought the authoring of a second
report would be a good idea. Overall indicators of satisfaction are shown in Figure 7.
Detailed measures of satisfaction are presented in Appendix A.
12
SurBACC 2010
SurBACC 2010
13
Appendix A. Full descriptive results
Definitions
With the exception of the two demographic variables in section one that consist of pie-charts,
all results are presented as:
Histograms: Histograms include the respondents who answered the question as ‘don’t know’.
The histograms are presented as percentage of respondents.
Box plots: Box plots were chosen as a mode of presentations as they illustrate the median,
spread and data values, providing a visual assessment of the degree of consensus. Lowest and
highest values are indicated by ‘whiskers’ extending from the boxes. The boxes contain the
50% of total values falling between the 25th and 75th percentile, meaning that 50% of the cases
have values within the box, 25% have values larger than the upper boundary and 25% have
values less than the lower boundary. The length of the box indicates how much spread there is
in the data values within the middle 50 percentile. If, for example, one box is much longer
than another then the data values in the longer box have more variability. The length of the
box is considered to suggest scientific consensus and the location of the box to represent
scientific assessment. The median is in the middle of the box only if the distribution is
symmetric. If the median line is closer to the left of the box than to the right of the box the
data are skewed in that direction, meaning that there are more cases towards that end of the
distribution. If the median is closer to the right of the box then tail of the distribution is
towards those values.
Descriptive statistics: Number of statistical valid cases, mean values, standard deviations and
other statistical information.
14
SurBACC 2010
Section 1. Assessment of Baltic climate scientist´s perceptions on the general
state of climate science
Section 1. a Demographics
Question 1. The institute in which you work is located in which country?
Country
Belarus
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Russia
Sweden
other non-Baltic
Total
Missing Cases = 3
Response Percent = 97.8 %
Number
3
7
13
9
31
5
5
16
6
25
14
134
Percent
2.2 %
5.2 %
9.7 %
6.7 %
23.1 %
3.7 %
3.7 %
11.9 %
4.5 %
18.7 %
10.4 %
100.0 %
15
SurBACC 2010
Question 2. We would like to know which academic area best describes your work. The
following headings are taken from the BACC 'Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea
Basin' Report. Which of these headings best describes what you do?
Number
Past and current climate change
38
Projections of future anthropogenic climate change
16
Climate related change in terrestrial and/or freshwater ecosystems
16
Climate related marine ecosystem change
24
Climate change and sea level rise
8
Other
32
Total
134
Missing Cases = 3
Response Percent = 97.8 %
Percent
28.4 %
11.9 %
11.9 %
17.9 %
6.0 %
23.9 %
100.0 %
16
SurBACC 2010
Section 1. b General aspects of the climate change issue
3a. How much do you agree that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?
Valid Cases = 124 Missing Cases = 13
Response Percent = 90.5%
58.06
60
Percent
40
17.74
20
13.71
4.839
don't know
Q3a
very much
6
5
2.419
4
3
2
not at all
.8065 .8065 1.613
Valid Cases = 121
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 6.23
Median = 7
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.38
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.17
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.11
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 6.02 6.44
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 5.96 6.51
1
0
2
3
Q3a
4
5
6
7
3b. How much do you agree that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of
anthropogenic causes?
Valid Cases = 123 Missing Cases = 14
Response Percent = 89.8%
25
23.58
19.51
20
17.89
15
10.57
10
6.504
5
don't know
6
very much
Q3b
5
4
3
2.439
2
not at all
3.252
Percent
16.26
Valid Cases = 120
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.73
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.94
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.71
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.16
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.43 5.04
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.33 5.14
0
1
2
3
Q3b
4
5
6
7
17
SurBACC 2010
3c. How much do you agree that climate change poses a very serious threat on global proportions?
Valid Cases = 123 Missing Cases = 14
Response Percent = 89.8%
40
33.33
30
20
14.63
8.943
10
5.691 5.691
very much
6
5
4
3
2
Q3c
don't know
4.065
2.439
not at all
Percent
25.2
Valid Cases = 118
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 5.38
Median = 6
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.55
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.60
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 5.09 5.67
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 5.00 5.76
1
0
2
3
Q3c
4
5
6
7
3d. How much do you agree that climate science has remained objective science and uninfluenced by personal
values or politics?
Valid Cases = 122 Missing Cases = 15
Response Percent = 89.1%
21.31 21.31
20
17.21
10
8.197
5
4.098
Percent
15
13.11
12.3
Valid Cases = 119
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.10
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.92
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.71
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.16
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.79 4.41
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.70 4.50
don't know
6
very much
Q3d
5
4
3
2
not at all
2.459
0
1
2
3
Q3d
4
5
6
7
18
SurBACC 2010
Section 1. c The abilities of models
4a. When talking about GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS, how well do you think ATMOSPHERIC models can deal
with hydrodynamics?
Valid Cases = 113 Missing Cases = 24
Response Percent = 82.5%
25
18.58
17.7
20
15
12.39
11.5
7.965
10
7.965
Percent
23.01
5
Q4a
don't know
very well
6
5
4
3
2
not at all
.885
Valid Cases = 93
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.82
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.52
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.59
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.16
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.49 5.14
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.39 5.24
1
0
2
3
Q4a
4
5
6
7
4b. When talking about GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS, how well do you think ATMOSPHERIC models can deal
with radiation?
Valid Cases = 115 Missing Cases = 22
Response Percent = 83.9%
29.57
30
22.61
21.74
Percent
20
11.3
9.565
10
Valid Cases = 89
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 5.22
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.27
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.13
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.12
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.99 5.46
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.92 5.53
3.478
very well
don't know
Q4b
6
5
4
3
2
not at all
1.739
0
1
2
3
Q4b
4
5
6
7
19
SurBACC 2010
4c. When talking about GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS, how well do you think ATMOSPHERIC models can deal
with atmospheric vapour?
Valid Cases = 115 Missing Cases = 22
Response Percent = 83.9%
Valid Cases = 92
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.49
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.40
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.18
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.12
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.25 4.73
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.17 4.81
30
28.7
21.74
20
Percent
20
13.04
10
8.696
Q4c
don't know
6
5
4
3
2
not at all
very well
4.348
3.478
1
0
2
Q4c
4
3
5
6
7
4d. When talking about GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS, how well do you think ATMOSPHERIC models
can deal with the influence of clouds?
Valid Cases = 114 Missing Cases = 23
Response Percent = 83.2%
24.56
25
20
17.54 17.54
14.91
15
10
6.14
5
Percent
17.54
Valid Cases = 92
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.71
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.73
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.31
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.13
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean =
3.45 - 3.97
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean =
3.37 - 4.06
very well
don't know
Q4d
6
5
4
3
2
not at all
1.754
0
1
2
3
Q4d
4
5
6
7
20
SurBACC 2010
4e. When talking about GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS, how well do you think ATMOSPHERIC models
can deal with precipitation?
Valid Cases = 114 Missing Cases = 23
Response Percent = 83.2%
25.44
25
20
17.54
14.91
14.04
15
10
Percent
16.67
7.018
Q4e
5
don't know
very well
6
5
4
3
2
not at all
4.386
Valid Cases = 97
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.90
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.97
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.40
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.14
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean =
3.62 - 4.18
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean =
3.53 - 4.26
1
0
2
3
Q4e
4
5
6
7
4f. When talking about GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS, how well do you think ATMOSPHERIC models
can deal with atmospheric convection?
Valid Cases = 115 Missing Cases = 22
Response Percent = 83.9%
20.87
20.87
20
17.39
16.52
11.3
10
8.696
5
don't know
6
5
3
2
4
Q4f
very well
2.609
1.739
not at all
Percent
15
Valid Cases = 91
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.96
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.95
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.40
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean =
3.67 - 4.24
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean =
3.58 - 4.33
0
1
2
3
Q4f
4
5
6
7
21
SurBACC 2010
4g. When talking about GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS, how well do you think ATMOSPHERIC models
can deal with anthropogenic greenhouse gases?
Valid Cases = 115 Missing Cases = 22
Response Percent = 83.9%
26.09
25.22
25
20
18.26
15
10
7.826
3.478
Percent
15.65
5
2.609
Q4g
don't know
very well
6
5
4
3
2
not at all
.8696
Valid Cases = 97
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 5.04
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.56
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.25
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.13
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean =
4.79 - 5.29
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean =
4.71 - 5.37
1
0
2
Q4g
4
3
5
6
7
5a. When talking about GLOBAL OCEAN MODELS, how well do you think OCEAN models can deal with heat
transport in the ocean?
Valid Cases = 114 Missing Cases = 23
Response Percent = 83.2%
29.82
29.82
30
Percent
20
15.79
14.04
10
5.263
4.386
very well
don't know
Q5a
6
5
4
3
2
not at all
.8772
0
Valid Cases = 80
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 5.01
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.10
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.05
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.12
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.78 5.24
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.71 5.31
1
2
3
Q5a
4
5
6
7
22
SurBACC 2010
5b. When talking about GLOBAL OCEAN MODELS, how well do you think OCEAN models can deal with
hydrodynamics?
Valid Cases = 114 Missing Cases = 23
Response Percent = 83.2%
28.95 30
22.81
21.93
Percent
20
11.4
10
7.018
6.14
Valid Cases = 81
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 5.10
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.44
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.20
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.13
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.84 5.36
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.76 5.44
Q5b
don't know
very well
6
5
4
3
2
not at all
1.754
1
0
2
3
Q5b
4
5
6
7
5c. When talking about GLOBAL OCEAN MODELS, how well do you think OCEAN models can deal with oceanic
convection?
Valid Cases = 114 Missing Cases = 23
Response Percent = 83.2%
31.58
30
21.05
13.16
11.4
Percent
20
12.28
10
7.895
don't know
6
5
3
2
4
Q5c
very well
1.754
.8772
not at all
Valid Cases = 78
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.19
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.87
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.37
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.89 4.50
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.79 4.59
0
1
2
3
Q5c
4
5
6
7
23
SurBACC 2010
6. How much do you think that through the process of downscaling and regional modeling it is now possible to
determine patterns of climate change for the Baltic Sea region?
Valid Cases = 115 Missing Cases = 22
Response Percent = 83.9%
31.3
30
19.13
20
Percent
17.39
14.78
6.957
6.087
10
Valid Cases = 107
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.50
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.69
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.30
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.13
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.26 4.75
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.18 4.83
3.478
don't know
Q6
very much
6
5
4
3
2
not at all
.8696
1
0
2
3
Q6
4
5
6
7
7. How much do you think that through the process of downscaling and regional modeling it is now possible to
determine patterns of sea level change for the Baltic Sea region?
Valid Cases = 114 Missing Cases = 23
Response Percent = 83.2%
25
23.68
21.05
14.91
14.04
13.16
15
10
7.895
5
3.509
Percent
20
Valid Cases = 97
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.03
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.09
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.45
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.74 4.32
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.65 4.41
don't know
6
very much
Q7
5
4
3
2
not at all
1.754
0
1
2
3
Q7
4
5
6
7
24
SurBACC 2010
Section 1. d Assessment of the needs of the science
8a. Concerning the current state of climate science, data availability for climate change analysis is
Valid Cases = 112 Missing Cases = 25
Response Percent = 81.8%
31.25
26.79
20
13.39
8.929
7.143
10
don't know
6
5
4
3
2
very adequate
4.464 4.464
3.571
very inadequate
Percent
30
0
Valid Cases = 107
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.25
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.85
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.36
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.13
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.99 4.51
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.91 4.59
1
2
3
Q8a
4
5
6
7
Q8a
8b. Concerning the current state of climate science, data availability for sea level rise analysis is
Valid Cases = 112 Missing Cases = 25
Response Percent = 81.8%
22.32
25
20.54
13.39
15
12.5
10
8.036
5
3.571
Q8b
don't know
very adequate
6
5
4
3
2
very inadequate
.8929
0
Percent
20
18.75
Valid Cases = 87
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.31
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.94
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.39
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.02 4.60
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.93 4.69
1
2
3
Q8b
4
5
6
7
25
SurBACC 2010
8c. Concerning the current state of climate science, the state of theoretical understanding of climate change
phenomena is
Valid Cases = 112 Missing Cases = 25
Response Percent = 81.8%
30
28.57
22.32 22.32
Percent
20
8.036
7.143
4.464
10
5.357
don't know
very adequate
6
5
4
3
2
very inadequate
1.786
0
Valid Cases = 106
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.31
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.84
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.35
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.13
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.05 4.57
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.97 4.65
1
2
3
Q8c
4
5
6
7
Q8c
8d. Concerning the current state of climate science, current analytical methods are
Valid Cases = 112 Missing Cases = 25
Response Percent = 81.8%
31.25
30
20
17.86
11.61
8.036 10
2.679
Q8d
don't know
very adequate
6
5
4
1.786
3
2
very inadequate
.8929
0
Percent
25.89
Valid Cases = 103
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.57
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.31
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.14
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.11
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.35 4.79
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.28 4.86
1
2
3
Q8d
4
5
6
7
26
SurBACC 2010
8e. concerning the current state of climate science, the state of theoretical understanding of sea level change is
Valid Cases = 112 Missing Cases = 25
Response Percent = 81.8%
25
25
20.54
15.18
14.29
15
10
Q8e
don't know
very adequate
6
5
4
3
2
very inadequate
5
3.571
2.679
0
Percent
20
18.75
Valid Cases = 89
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.51
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.57
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.25
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.13
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.25 4.77
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.16 4.85
1
2
3
Q8e
4
5
6
7
27
SurBACC 2010
Section 1. e Changes and impacts in the Baltic Sea region
9a. To what degree is it possible to explicitly state patterns of change in the Baltic Sea region concerning regional
climate change?
Valid Cases = 110 Missing Cases = 27
Response Percent = 80.3%
40
33.64
18.18
20
18.18
14.55
Percent
30
8.182 10
3.636
don't know
Q9a
very much
6
5
4
1.818
3
2
not at all
1.818
Valid Cases = 101
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.52
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.57
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.25
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.12
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.28 4.77
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.20 4.85
1
0
2
3
Q9a
4
5
6
7
9b. To what degree is it possible to explicitly state patterns of change in the Baltic Sea region concerning regional
sea level rise?
Valid Cases = 109 Missing Cases = 28
Response Percent = 79.6%
21.1
20.18
18.35
20
17.43
15.6
10
5.505
5
don't know
6
very much
Q9b
5
4
3
.9174
2
not at all
.9174
Percent
15
Valid Cases = 92
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.30
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.66
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.29
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.13
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.04 4.57
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.96 4.65
0
1
2
3
Q9b
4
5
6
7
28
SurBACC 2010
10a. To what degree is it possible to explicitly state regional CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS in the Baltic Sea region
for terrestrial ecological systems?
Valid Cases = 111 Missing Cases = 26
Response Percent = 81.0%
25
23.42
20.72
20.72
20
15
10
8.108
Percent
16.22
7.207
5
don't know
Q10a
very much
6
5
4
3
1.802
2
not at all
1.802
Valid Cases = 93
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.98
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.63
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.28
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.13
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.72 4.24
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.64 4.32
1
0
2
3
Q10a
4
5
6
7
10b. To what degree is it possible to explicitly state regional CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS in the Baltic Sea region
for marine ecological systems?
Valid Cases = 109 Missing Cases = 28
Response Percent = 79.6%
25
22.94
19.27 20
15.6
15.6
15
10
7.339
5
don't know
6
very much
Q10b
5
4
3
2
not at all
2.752
0
Percent
16.51
Valid Cases = 88
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 6
Mean = 3.67
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.79
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.34
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.14
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.39 3.95
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.30 4.04
1
2
3
Q10b
4
5
6
7
29
SurBACC 2010
10c. To what degree is it possible to explicitly state regional CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS in the Baltic Sea region
for socio-economic systems?
Valid Cases = 109 Missing Cases = 28
Response Percent = 79.6%
24.77
25
19.27
20
17.43
15
11.93
10
Percent
16.51
6.422
5
2.752
Q10c
don't know
very much
6
5
4
3
2
not at all
.9174
Valid Cases = 91
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.25
Median = 3
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.75
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.32
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.14
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 2.98 3.52
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 2.90 3.61
1
0
2
3
Q10c
4
5
6
7
11a. To what degree is it possible to explicitly state regional SEA LEVEL CHANGE IMPACTS in the Baltic Sea
region for marine ecological systems?
Valid Cases = 109 Missing Cases = 2
Response Percent = 79.6%
22.94
20.18
25
20
15
11.01
10
8.257
5
don't know
6
very much
Q11a
5
4
3
1.835
2
not at all
1.835
Percent
16.51
17.43
Valid Cases = 84
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.89
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.93
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.39
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.60 4.19
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.50 4.28
0
1
2
3
Q11a
4
5
6
7
30
SurBACC 2010
11b. To what degree is it possible to explicitly state regional SEA LEVEL CHANGE IMPACTS in the Baltic Sea
region for socio-economic systems?
Valid Cases = 109 Missing Cases = 28
Response Percent = 79.6%
25
23.85
22.02
20
14.68
15
12.84
10
5.505
5
3.67
don't know
6
very much
Q11b
5
4
3
2
not at all
.9174
0
Percent
16.51
Valid Cases = 85
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.59
Median = 3
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.82
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.35
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.30 3.87
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.21 3.96
1
2
3
Q11b
4
5
6
7
31
SurBACC 2010
Section 1. f Climate change and sea level rise
12. How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious threat to the Baltic Sea region in which you
live?
Valid Cases = 108 Missing Cases = 29
Response Percent = 78.8%
24.07
25
19.44
20
15
12.04
10.19
10
8.333
Percent
16.67
5.556
don't know
Q12
very much
6
5
4
3
2
not at all
3.704 5
Valid Cases = 104
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.32
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.96
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.72
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.17
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.99 4.65
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.88 4.75
1
0
2
3
Q12
4
5
6
7
13. How convinced are you that the Baltic Sea region in which you live is beginning to experience the more gradual
impacts of climate change, anthropogenic or otherwise
Valid Cases = 108 Missing Cases = 29
Response Percent = 78.8%
30
28.7
23.15
12.04
Percent
20
12.96
10.19
5.556
10
4.63
Valid Cases = 103
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.83
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.35
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.53
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.54 5.13
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.45 5.22
don't know
6
very much
Q13
5
4
3
2
not at all
2.778
0
1
2
3
Q13
4
5
6
7
32
SurBACC 2010
14. How convinced are you that sea level rise poses a very serious threat to the Baltic Sea region in which you live?
Valid Cases = 108 Missing Cases = 29
Response Percent = 78.8%
19.44
16.67
14.81
15
11.11
10
7.407
Percent
17.59
20
6.481 6.481
Q14
don't know
very much
6
5
4
3
2
not at all
5
Valid Cases = 101
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.99
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 3.29
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.81
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.18
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.64 4.34
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.53 4.45
1
0
2
3
Q14
4
5
6
7
15. .How convinced are you that the Baltic region in which you live is beginning to experience the more general
impacts of sea level rise?
Valid Cases = 96 Missing Cases = 41
Response Percent = 70.1%
17.71
14.58 14.58
14.58 15
10
5
don't know
very much
Q15
6
5
4
3
2
not at all
4.167
0
Percent
15.63
20
18.75
Valid Cases = 82
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.26
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.39
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.55
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.17
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.92 4.59
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.82 4.70
1
2
3
Q15
4
5
6
7
33
SurBACC 2010
16. Over the issue of Baltic regional climate change, the general public should be told to be
Valid Cases = 107 Missing Cases = 30
Response Percent = 78.1%
39.25
40
21.5
20
17.76
Percent
30
11.21
10
don't know
very worried
6
5
4
3
1.869 .9346
2
unconcerned
2.804
4.673
Valid Cases = 106
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.52
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.59
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.26
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.12
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.28 4.76
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.20 4.83
0
1
2
3
Q16
4
5
6
7
Q16
17. Over the issue of Baltic regional sea level rise, the general public should be told to be
Valid Cases = 106 Missing Cases = 31
Response Percent = 77.4%
40
34.91
20.75
20
15.09
12.26
10
6.604
5.66
3.774
Percent
30
Valid Cases = 100
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.33
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.78
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.33
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.13
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.07 4.59
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.99 4.67
Q17
don't know
very worried
6
5
4
3
2
unconcerned
.9434
0
1
2
3
Q17
4
5
6
7
34
SurBACC 2010
18. How much can we attribute climate related damages in the last 20 years in the Baltic region to climate change?
20.56
20
15
16.82
13.0812.1513.08
9.346
7.477
5.607
there have been no related changes
don't know
very much
6
5
4
3
2
not at all
1.869
10
5
Percent
Valid Cases = 107 Missing Cases = 30
Response Percent = 78.1%
0
Valid Cases = 83
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.49
Median = 3
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.74
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.66
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.18
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.14 3.85
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.03 3.96
1
2
3
Q18
4
5
6
7
Q18
19. How much can we attribute coastal related damages in the last 20 years in the Baltic region to sea level rise?
14.95
14.95
11.21
10.28
5.607
2.804
Q19
don't know
very much
6
5
4
3
2
not at all
9.346
25
20
15
6.542 10
5
0
there have been no related changes
24.3
Percent
Valid Cases = 107 Missing Cases = 30
Response Percent = 78.1%
Valid Cases = 74
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.46
Median = 3.50
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.83
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.68
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.20
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.08 3.84
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 2.96 3.96
1
2
3
Q19
4
5
6
7
35
SurBACC 2010
Section 1. g The future
20a. If we do not do anything towards adaptation or mitigation to climate change, the potential for catastrophe in
the Baltic Sea region for the next 10 years is
Valid Cases = 106 Missing Cases = 31
Response Percent = 77.4%
30.19
29.25
30
20
Percent
16.04
12.26
10
5.66
4.717
Q20a
1
don't know
very high
6
5
4
3
2
none
.9434 .9434
Valid Cases = 100
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 2.35
Median = 2
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.77
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.33
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.13
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 2.09 2.61
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 2.01 2.69
2
3
Q20a
4
5
6
7
0
20b. If we do not do anything towards adaptation or mitigation to climate change, the potential for catastrophe in
the Baltic Sea region for the next 50 years is
Valid Cases = 107 Missing Cases = 30
Response Percent = 78.1%
25.23
25
15
13.08
10.28
10
7.477
4.673
3.738
5
Percent
20
17.76 17.76
Valid Cases = 99
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.95
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.52
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.59
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.16
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.64 4.26
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.54 4.36
very high
don't know
Q20b
6
5
4
3
2
none
1
0
2
3
Q20b
4
5
6
7
36
SurBACC 2010
21a. If we do not do anything towards adaptation or mitigation to sea level change, the potential for catastrophe in
the Baltic Sea region for the next 10 years is
Valid Cases = 106 Missing Cases = 31
Response Percent = 77.4%
40
33.02
30
20
15.09 15.09
Percent
23.58
7.547 10
Valid Cases = 98
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 2.38
Median = 2
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.07
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.44
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 2.09 2.66
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 2.00 2.75
Q21a
1
don't know
very high
6
5
4
3
2
none
1.887 1.887 1.887
2
3
Q21a
4
5
6
7
0
21b. If we do not do anything towards adaptation or mitigation to sea level change, the potential for catastrophe in
the Baltic Sea region for the next 50 years is
Valid Cases = 106 Missing Cases = 31
Response Percent = 77.4%
24.53
20
17.92
15
11.32
10.38
10
7.547
5.66
5.66
5
Percent
16.98
25
Valid Cases = 95
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.86
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.72
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.65
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.17
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.53 4.19
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.43 4.30
very high
don't know
Q21b
6
5
4
3
2
none
1
0
2
3
Q21b
4
5
6
7
37
SurBACC 2010
22. The potential that climate change might have some positive effects for the Baltic region is
Valid Cases = 106 Missing Cases = 31
Response Percent = 77.4%
22.64
25
21.7
14.15
15
12.26
10.38
10
7.547
6.604
4.717
5
Percent
20
Valid Cases = 99
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.21
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.52
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.59
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.16
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.90 4.52
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.80 4.62
very high
6
don't know
Q22
5
4
3
2
none
1
0
2
3
Q22
4
5
6
7
38
SurBACC 2010
Section 1. h Mitigation and adaptation
23. For the Baltic Sea region, the best approach to resolving the problems related to climate change is
Valid Cases = 105 Missing Cases = 32
Response Percent = 76.6%
40
37.14
16.19
19.05
20
8.571
10
don't know
adaptation
6
5
50% mit 50% adapt
4.762
3
2
mitigation
.9524 1.905
11.43
Percent
30
0
Valid Cases = 93
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.77
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.57
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.25
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.13
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.52 5.03
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.44 5.11
1
2
3
Q23
4
5
6
7
Q23
24. The best approach to adaptation to anthropogenic climate change should be based on
Valid Cases = 105 Missing Cases = 32
Response Percent = 76.6%
25.71
24.76
25
20
15
10.48
3.81
9.524
4.762
10
5
Q24
don't know
enforced regulation
6
5
50% vol 50% enf
3
2
voluntary actions
.9524
0
Percent
20
Valid Cases = 95
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.97
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.80
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.34
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.14
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.70 5.24
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.61 5.32
1
2
3
Q24
4
5
6
7
39
SurBACC 2010
25. In making policy decisions about adaptation to climate change, priority should be given to
Valid Cases = 105 Missing Cases = 32
Response Percent = 76.6%
29.52
19.05
30
19.05
scientific expertise
6
5
50% ind/comm 50% science expertise
3
2
don't know
4.762 10
.9524 .9524
industry and commerce
20
Percent
25.71
0
Valid Cases = 100
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 5.37
Median = 6
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.51
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.23
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.12
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 5.13 5.61
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 5.05 5.69
1
2
3
Q25
4
5
6
7
Q25
26. In making policy decisions about adaptation to climate change, priority should be given to
Valid Cases = 104 Missing Cases = 33
Response Percent = 75.9%
40
37.5
20.19
19.23
20
15.38
10
Q26
don't know
scientific expertise
6
5
50% pol 50% science
3
2
political
.9615 .9615
2.885
2.885
0
Percent
30
Valid Cases = 101
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 5.50
Median = 6
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.47
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.21
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.12
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 5.26 5.73
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 5.18 5.81
1
2
3
Q26
4
5
6
7
40
SurBACC 2010
27. In making policy decisions about adaptation to climate change, priority should be given to
Valid Cases = 105 Missing Cases = 32
Response Percent = 76.6%
40
35.24
19.05
20
14.29
enforced regulation
6
5
50% pub opin 50% science
don't know
3.81
2.857
3
2
public opinion
.9524 .9524
Percent
30
22.86
10
0
Valid Cases = 101
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 5.49
Median = 6
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.45
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.21
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.12
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 5.25 5.72
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 5.18 5.79
1
2
3
Q27
4
5
6
7
Q27
28. The best approach to mitigation of anthropogenic climate change would be based on
Valid Cases = 104 Missing Cases = 33
Response Percent = 75.9%
28.85
30
20.19
20
8.654
4.808
Q28
don't know
enforced regulation
6
5
vol act 50% enforced reg
3
1.923
2
voluntary action
1.923
6.731 10
0
Percent
26.92
Valid Cases = 97
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 5.00
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.79
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.34
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.14
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.73 5.27
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.65 5.35
1
2
3
Q28
4
5
6
7
41
SurBACC 2010
29. In making policy decisions about mitigation of climate change, priority should be given to
Valid Cases = 103 Missing Cases = 34
Response Percent = 75.2%
40
33.98
15.53
20
13.59
5.825
4.854
don't know
scientific expertise
6
5
50%ind com 50% science
3
2
industry comm
.9709 .9709
Percent
30
24.27
10
0
Valid Cases = 98
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 5.29
Median = 5.50
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.53
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.24
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.12
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 5.04 5.53
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.96 5.61
1
2
3
Q29
4
5
6
7
Q29
30. In making policy decisions about mitigation of climate change, priority should be given to
Valid Cases = 104 Missing Cases = 33
Response Percent = 75.9%
40
34.62
scientific expertise
6
5
50%pol opin 50% science
Q30
don't know
5.769 10
4.808
3
2
political opinion
.9615 1.923
20
13.46
11.54
0
Percent
30
26.92
Valid Cases = 98
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 5.33
Median = 6
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.52
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.23
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.12
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 5.08 5.57
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 5.01 5.65
1
2
3
Q30
4
5
6
7
42
SurBACC 2010
31. In making policy decisions about mitigation of climate change, priority should be given to
Valid Cases = 104 Missing Cases = 33
Response Percent = 75.9%
40
34.62
19.23
18.27
14.42
scientific expertise
6
5
50%pub opin 50% science
don't know
5.769 10
5.769
3
2
public opinion
1.923
20
Percent
30
0
Valid Cases = 98
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 5.42
Median = 6
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.57
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.25
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.13
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 5.17 5.67
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 5.09 5.74
1
2
3
Q31
4
5
6
7
Q31
32. Given our current state of knowledge, regional climate change should be considered a
Valid Cases = 104
Missing Cases = 33
Response Percent = 75.9%
30
27.88
20
18.27
Percent
16.35
13.46
10.58
10
Q32
don't know
scientific issue
6
5
4
4.808
3
4.808
2
political issue
3.846
Valid Cases = 99
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.63
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.46
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.57
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.16
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.32 4.94
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.22 5.03
0
1
2
3
Q32
4
5
6
7
43
SurBACC 2010
Section 1. i The state of the science
33a. The current state of knowledge of climate in the Baltic Sea region is developed well enough to allow for a
reasonable assessment of the changes resulting from regional atmospheric circulation
Valid Cases = 104 Missing Cases = 33
Response Percent = 75.9%
20.19
20
15.38
9.615
15
10
Percent
21.15 21.15
5.769
5.769
5
don't know
strongly agree
6
5
4
3
2
strongly disagree
.9615
0
Valid Cases = 88
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.65
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.91
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.38
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.36 4.94
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.27 5.03
1
2
3
Q33a
4
5
6
7
Q33a
33b. The current state of knowledge of climate in the Baltic Sea region is developed well enough to allow for a
reasonable assessment of the changes resulting from surface air temperature
Valid Cases = 104 Missing Cases = 33
Response Percent = 75.9%
40
37.5
30
20
11.54
10
Q33b
don't know
strongly agree
6
5
4
3.846
3
2
strongly disagree
.9615 1.923
9.615 9.615
0
Percent
25
Valid Cases = 94
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 5.31
Median = 6
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.42
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.19
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.12
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 5.07 5.55
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.99 5.62
1
2
3
Q33b
4
5
6
7
44
SurBACC 2010
33c. The current state of knowledge of climate in the Baltic Sea region is developed well enough to allow for a
reasonable assessment of the changes resulting from precipitation
Valid Cases = 104 Missing Cases = 33
Response Percent = 75.9%
25
23.08 23.08
15
11.54
9.615
8.654
5
don't know
6
5
4
3
2
strongly disagree
strongly agree
3.846
2.885
10
Percent
20
17.31
0
Valid Cases = 94
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.16
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.01
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.42
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.87 4.45
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.78 4.54
1
2
3
Q33c
4
5
6
7
Q33c
33d. The current state of knowledge of climate in the Baltic Sea region is developed well enough to allow for a
reasonable assessment of the changes resulting from cloud meteorology
Valid Cases = 104 Missing Cases = 33
Response Percent = 75.9%
22.12
22.12
19.23
20
14.42
10.58
10
6.731
5
3.846
Q33d
don't know
strongly agree
6
5
4
3
2
strongly disagree
.9615
0
Percent
15
Valid Cases = 81
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.54
Median = 3
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.88
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.37
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.24 3.84
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.15 3.94
1
2
3
Q33d
4
5
6
7
45
SurBACC 2010
33e. The current state of knowledge of climate in the Baltic Sea region is developed well enough to allow for a
reasonable assessment of the changes resulting from extreme events
Valid Cases = 104 Missing Cases = 33
Response Percent = 75.9%
30
26.92
13.46
15.38
10.58
8.654
10
don't know
3.846
strongly agree
6
5
4
3
2
5.769
strongly disagree
Percent
20
15.38
0
Valid Cases = 93
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.67
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.38
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.54
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.16
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.35 3.98
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.26 4.08
1
2
3
Q33e
4
5
6
7
Q33e
33f. The current state of knowledge of climate in the Baltic Sea region is developed well enough to allow for a
reasonable assessment of the changes resulting from water regimes
Valid Cases = 104 Missing Cases = 33
Response Percent = 75.9%
40
33.65
16.35
15.38
10.58
9.615 8.654
10
don't know
6
5
3
2
4
Q33f
strongly agree
3.846
1.923
strongly disagree
20
0
Percent
30
Valid Cases = 87
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.17
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.87
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.37
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.89 4.46
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.80 4.55
1
2
3
Q33f
4
5
6
7
46
SurBACC 2010
33g. The current state of knowledge of climate in the Baltic Sea region is developed well enough to allow for a
reasonable assessment of the changes resulting from ice regimes
Valid Cases = 103 Missing Cases = 34
Response Percent = 75.2%
25
23.3
21.36
20.39
20
15
10.68
10
5
2
4.854
2.913
0
Percent
15.53
don't know
strongly agree
6
5
4
3
strongly disagree
.9709
Valid Cases = 82
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.62
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.65
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.28
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.14
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.34 4.90
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.26 4.99
1
2
3
Q33g
4
5
6
7
Q33g
33h. The current state of knowledge of climate in the Baltic Sea region is developed well enough to allow for a
reasonable assessment of the changes resulting from snow cover
Valid Cases = 103 Missing Cases = 34
Response Percent = 75.2%
30
28.16
25.24
6.796
12.62
10
7.767
don't know
6
5
3
2
4
Q33h
strongly agree
2.913
1.942
strongly disagree
Percent
20
14.56
0
Valid Cases = 90
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.44
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.71
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.31
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.14
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.17 4.71
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.09 4.80
1
2
3
Q33h
4
5
6
7
47
SurBACC 2010
33i. The current state of knowledge of climate in the Baltic Sea region is developed well enough to allow for a
reasonable assessment of the changes resulting from sea level
Valid Cases = 103 Missing Cases = 34
Response Percent = 75.2%
25
23.3
19.42 19.42
20
15
10.68
10
7.767
5
don't know
strongly agree
6
5
4
3
1.942
2
strongly disagree
1.942
Percent
15.53
0
Valid Cases = 87
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.47
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.04
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.43
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.17 4.77
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.08 4.87
1
2
3
Q33i
4
5
6
7
Q33i
33j. The current state of knowledge of climate in the Baltic Sea region is developed well enough to allow for a
reasonable assessment of the changes resulting from sea ice
Valid Cases = 102 Missing Cases = 35
Response Percent = 74.5%
25.49
25
21.57
15
10.78
11.76
10
6.863
3.922
5
Q33j
don't know
strongly agree
6
5
4
3
2
strongly disagree
.9804
0
Percent
18.63 20
Valid Cases = 83
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.65
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.99
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.41
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.35 4.95
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.25 5.05
1
2
3
Q33j
4
5
6
7
48
SurBACC 2010
33k. The current state of knowledge of climate in the Baltic Sea region is developed well enough to allow for a
reasonable assessment of the changes resulting from coastal erosion
Valid Cases = 103 Missing Cases = 34
Response Percent = 75.2%
25
20.39
19.42
15
12.62
10
8.738
8.738
3.883
5
don't know
strongly agree
6
5
4
3
2.913
2
strongly disagree
20
Percent
23.3
0
Valid Cases = 82
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.05
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.07
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.44
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.16
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.74 4.36
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.64 4.46
1
2
3
Q33k
4
5
6
7
Q33k
33l. The current state of knowledge of climate in the Baltic Sea region is developed well enough to allow for a
reasonable assessment of the changes resulting from wind waves
Valid Cases = 104 Missing Cases = 3
Response Percent = 75.9%
25
20.19
17.31
18.27
20
15
9.615
5
don't know
6
5
3
2
4
Q33l
strongly agree
1.923
.9615
strongly disagree
10
8.654
0
Percent
23.08
Valid Cases = 83
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.08
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.76
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.33
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.80 4.37
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.71 4.46
1
2
3
Q33l
4
5
6
7
49
SurBACC 2010
34a. How would YOU rate the ability of Baltic regional climate models to reproduce temperature observation?
Valid Cases = 104 Missing Cases = 33
Response Percent = 75.9%
40
34.62
20
Percent
30
27.88
11.54
8.654 9.615
10
3.846
Valid Cases = 92
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 5.04
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.47
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.21
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.13
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.80 5.29
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.72 5.37
3.846
don't know
Q34a
very good
6
5
4
3
2
very poor
1
2
3
Q34a
4
5
6
7
0
34b. How would YOU rate the ability of Baltic regional climate models to reproduce precipitation observation?
Valid Cases = 104 Missing Cases = 33
Response Percent = 75.9%
25
24.04
22.12
20
15
13.46
11.54
10
8.654
5
2.885
1
don't know
very good
Q34b
6
5
4
3
2
very poor
.9615
Percent
16.35
Valid Cases = 92
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.76
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.79
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.34
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.14
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.49 4.03
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.40 4.12
0
2
3
Q34b
4
5
6
7
50
SurBACC 2010
34c. How would YOU rate the ability of Baltic regional climate models to reproduce temperature values for the next
ten years?
Valid Cases = 104 Missing Cases = 33
Response Percent = 75.9
25
23.08
20.19
14.42
15
12.5
11.54
8.654
10
7.692
Percent
20
5
Valid Cases = 91
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.98
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.62
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.62
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.17
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.65 4.31
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.54 4.42
1.923
don't know
Q34c
very good
6
5
4
3
2
very poor
1
2
3
Q34c
4
5
6
7
0
34d. How would YOU rate the ability of Baltic regional climate models to reproduce temperature values for the next
50 years?
Valid Cases = 103 Missing Cases = 34
Response Percent = 75.2%
19.42
20
16.5
15.53
14.56
15
10.68
9.709
10
5
1
don't know
very good
Q34d
6
5
4
3
2
very poor
.9709
Percent
12.62
Valid Cases = 87
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.54
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.60
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.61
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.17
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.20 3.88
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.10 3.99
0
2
3
Q34b
4
5
6
7
51
SurBACC 2010
34e. How would YOU rate the ability of Baltic regional climate models to reproduce precipitation for the next 10
years?
Valid Cases = 103 Missing Cases = 34
Response Percent = 75.2%
25
22.33
19.42
20
12.62
12.62
15
10.68
10
2.913
Percent
17.48
5
Valid Cases = 90
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.17
Median = 3
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.14
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.46
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 2.86 3.47
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 2.77 3.56
1.942
don't know
Q34e
very good
6
5
4
3
2
very poor
1
2
3
Q34e
4
5
6
7
0
34f. How would YOU rate the ability of Baltic regional climate models to reproduce precipitation for the next 50
years?
Valid Cases = 104 Missing Cases = 33
Response Percent = 75.9%
22.12
19.23
20
18.27
15.38
10
7.692
5
2.885
1
don't know
6
very good
Q34f
5
4
3
2
very poor
.9615
Percent
15
13.46
Valid Cases = 88
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 2.77
Median = 3
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.15
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.47
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.16
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 2.47 3.08
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 2.37 3.18
0
2
3
Q34f
4
5
6
7
52
SurBACC 2010
34g. How would YOU rate the ability of Baltic regional climate models to reproduce sea level for the next 10 years?
Valid Cases = 104 Missing Cases = 33
Response Percent = 75.9%
20.19
12.5
13.46
14.42
15
10
Percent
14.42 14.42
20
6.731
5
3.846
Valid Cases = 83
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.93
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.92
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.71
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.19
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.56 4.30
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.44 4.41
don't know
Q34g
very good
6
5
4
3
2
very poor
1
2
3
Q34g
4
5
6
7
0
34h. How would YOU rate the ability of Baltic regional climate models to reproduce sea level for the next 50 years?
Valid Cases = 104 Missing Cases = 33
Response Percent = 75.9%
21.15
20
17.31 17.31
14.42
15
10.58
10
5.769
5
1
don't know
very good
Q34h
6
5
4
3
2
very poor
.9615
Percent
12.5
Valid Cases = 82
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.40
Median = 3
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.44
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.56
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.17
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.06 3.74
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 2.96 3.85
0
2
3
Q34h
4
5
6
7
53
SurBACC 2010
34i. How would YOU rate the ability of Baltic regional climate models to reproduce extreme events for the next 1o
years?
Valid Cases = 103 Missing Cases = 34
Response Percent = 75.2%
23.3
25
22.33
13.59 15
12.62
10
4.854
2.913
Percent
20
18.45
5
Valid Cases = 89
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 2.99
Median = 3
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.17
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.47
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.16
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 2.68 3.29
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 2.59 3.39
1.942
don't know
Q34i
very good
6
5
4
3
2
very poor
1
2
3
Q34i
4
5
6
7
0
34j. How would YOU rate the ability of Baltic regional climate models to reproduce extreme events for the next 50
years?
Valid Cases = 103 Missing Cases = 34
Response Percent = 75.2%
25
23.3
21.36
19.42
20
15
10
5
.9709
1
don't know
6
1.942
very good
Q34j
5
4
3
2
very poor
2.913
Percent
15.53
14.56
Valid Cases = 87
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 2.57
Median = 2
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.83
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.35
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.14
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 2.29 2.86
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 2.20 2.95
0
2
3
Q34j
4
5
6
7
54
SurBACC 2010
55
SurBACC 2010
Section 2. Assessment of the BACC Report:
‘Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin’
Section 2. a Participation and awareness
35. Are you aware of the BACC Report ‘Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea basin?’
Number
Percent
yes
78
74.3 %
no
27
25.7 %
Total
105
100.0 %
Missing Cases = 32
Response Percent = 76.6 %
The following set of responses refer only to the answers of the 78 who responded that they are aware of the
BACC report.
36. Did you contribute to the BACC report as an author?
yes
no
Total
Missing Cases = 60
Response Percent = 56.2 %
Number
26
51
77
37. Were you consulted for input (other than as an author) into the BACC Report?
Number
yes
21
no
57
Total
78
Missing Cases = 59
Response Percent = 56.9 %
Percent
33.8 %
66.2 %
100.0 %
Percent
26.9 %
73.1 %
100.0 %
38. Did you contribute to the design (what should and should not be included) of the BACC Report?
Number
Percent
yes
13
16.7 %
no
65
83.3 %
Total
78
100.0 %
Missing Cases = 59
Response Percent = 56.9 %
39. Do you think enough scientists were consulted for the construction of the report?
Number
yes
47
no
27
Total
74
Missing Cases = 63
Response Percent = 54.0 %
Percent
63.5 %
36.5 %
100.0 %
56
SurBACC 2010
40. How would rate the process of selection of the authors of the BACC report?
Valid Cases = 77 Missing Cases = 1
Response Percent = 98.7%
40
34.62
30
20
Percent
25.64
11.54
8.974
8.974
10
5.128
3.846
Valid Cases = 51
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 5.06
Median = 6
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.46
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.57
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.22
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.63 5.49
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.49 5.62
don't know
very fair
6
5
4
3
2
not fair at all
1.282
0
1
2
3
Q40
4
5
6
7
Q40
41. How well do you feel your area of expertise is represented in the BACC Report?
Valid Cases = 76 Missing Cases = 2
Response Percent = 97.4%
25.97
25
20
18.18
15
10.39 10.39
9.091
7.792
5
very well
6
don't know
Q41
5
4
3
2
2.597
not at all
10
0
Percent
15.58
Valid Cases = 69
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.70
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.74
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.66
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.20
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.30 5.09
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.18 5.21
1
2
3
Q41
4
5
6
7
57
SurBACC 2010
42. In your opinion, the BACC report is
Valid Cases = 76 Missing Cases = 2
Response Percent = 97.4%
40
36.36
30
20
10.39
9.091 9.091
Percent
24.68
10
5.195
3.896
Valid Cases = 69
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.90
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.65
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.29
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.60 5.20
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.50 5.30
don't know
complete
6
5
4
3
2
incomplete
1.299
0
1
2
3
Q42
4
5
6
7
Q42
43. In your opinion, the presentation of the material in the BACC report
Valid Cases = 76 Missing Cases = 2
Response Percent = 97.4%
20.78
20
18.18
14.29
14.29 15
10
5.195
5.195
5
Q43
don't know
well balanced
6
5
4
3
2
favours certain areas
2.597
0
Percent
19.48
Valid Cases = 66
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.44
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.31
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.52
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.19
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.07 4.81
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.96 4.92
1
2
3
Q43
4
5
6
7
58
SurBACC 2010
44. Of how much use is the BACC report for the advancement of regional climate change assessments for the Baltic
Sea regions?
Valid Cases = 76 Missing Cases = 2
Response Percent = 97.4%
31.17
30
22.08
19.48
Percent
20
10.39
9.091 10
6.494
Q44
don't know
great use
6
5
4
1
3
2
no use
1.299
Valid Cases = 70
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 5.37
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.51
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.23
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 5.08 5.66
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.99 5.75
2
3
Q44
4
5
6
7
0
45. Of how much use is the BACC report for the advancement of regional sea lever assessments for the Baltic Sea
regions?
Valid Cases = 75 Missing Cases = 3
Response Percent = 96.2%
23.68 25
19.74
15
10.53
11.84
11.84
10.53
10.53
10
5
great use
6
don't know
Q45
5
4
3
1
2
no use
1.316
Percent
20
Valid Cases = 58
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.50
Median = 5
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.78
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.67
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.22
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 4.07 4.93
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.94 5.06
0
2
3
Q45
4
5
6
7
59
SurBACC 2010
Section 2. b Assessment of results
46a. In YOUR opinion, the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate
the magnitude of future changes to atmospheric circulation?
Valid Cases = 74 Missing Cases = 4
Response Percent = 94.9%
52
50
30.67
30
20
8
don't know
over estimate
5
accurately reflect
3
2
under estimate
10
2.667
6
4
2.667
Percent
40
0
Valid Cases = 36
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 6
Mean = 3.92
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 0.71
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 0.84
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.14
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.64 4.19
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.56 4.28
1
2
3
Q46a
4
5
6
7
Q46a
46b. In YOUR opinion, the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate
the magnitude of future changes to surface air temperature?
Valid Cases = 74 Missing Cases = 4
Response Percent = 94.9%
44
40
34.67
20
10.67
10
6.667
Q46b
don't know
1.333
over estimate
6
5
accurately reflect
3
2
under estimate
2.667
0
Percent
30
Valid Cases = 42
Minimum = 3
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.24
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 0.67
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 0.82
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.13
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.99 4.49
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.91 4.56
1
2
3
Q46b
4
5
6
7
60
SurBACC 2010
46c. In YOUR opinion, the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate
the magnitude of future changes to precipitation?
Valid Cases = 75 Missing Cases = 3
Response Percent = 96.2%
52.63
50
30
23.68
20
10
don't know
1.316
6
accurately reflect
5
5.263 3.947
over estimate
7.895
3
2
under estimate
5.263
Percent
40
0
Valid Cases = 36
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.97
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.34
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.16
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.19
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.59 4.35
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.48 4.47
1
2
3
Q46c
4
5
6
7
Q46c
46d. In YOUR opinion, the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate
the magnitude of future changes to clouds?
Valid Cases = 74 Missing Cases = 4
Response Percent = 94.9%
80
65.33
40
20
13.33
Q46d
don't know
over estimate
6
5
accurately reflect
2.667 2.667
3
2
under estimate
5.333
10.67
0
Percent
60
Valid Cases = 26
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 6
Mean = 3.62
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.21
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.10
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.22
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.19 4.04
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.06 4.17
1
2
3
Q46d
4
5
6
7
61
SurBACC 2010
46e. In YOUR opinion, the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate
the magnitude of future changes to extreme events?
Valid Cases = 74 Missing Cases = 4
Response Percent = 94.9%
61.33
40
20
13.33 13.33
6.667
don't know
over estimate
6
accurately reflect
5
1.333
3
2
4
under estimate
Percent
60
0
Valid Cases = 29
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.90
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.81
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.35
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.25
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.41 4.39
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.25 4.54
1
2
3
Q46e
4
5
6
7
Q46e
46f. In YOUR opinion, the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate
the magnitude of future changes to the water regime?
Valid Cases = 73 Missing Cases = 5
Response Percent = 93.6%
59.46
60
Percent
40
21.62
20
8.108
6.757
Q46f
don't know
over estimate
6
5
accurately reflect
1.351
3
2
under estimate
2.703
0
Valid Cases = 30
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 6
Mean = 3.90
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 0.78
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 0.88
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.16
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.58 4.22
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.48 4.32
1
2
3
Q46f
4
5
6
7
62
SurBACC 2010
46g. In YOUR opinion, the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate
the magnitude of future changes to the ice regime?
Valid Cases = 72 Missing Cases = 6
Response Percent = 92.3%
57.53 60
Percent
40
30.14
20
don't know
4.11
over estimate
accurately reflect
5
2.74
6
4.11
3
2
under estimate
1.37
0
Valid Cases = 31
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 6
Mean = 4.10
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 0.69
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 0.83
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.80 4.39
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.71 4.48
1
2
3
Q46g
4
5
6
7
Q46g
46h. In YOUR opinion, the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate
the magnitude of future changes to hydrographic characteristics?
Valid Cases = 74 Missing Cases = 4
Response Percent = 94.9%
60
60
Percent
40
21.33
20
Q46h
don't know
2.667 1.333
over estimate
accurately reflect
3
2
under estimate
5
4
6
8
2.667
0
Valid Cases = 30
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.00
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.17
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.08
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.20
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.61 4.39
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.49 4.51
1
2
3
Q46h
4
5
6
7
63
SurBACC 2010
46i. In YOUR opinion, the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate
the magnitude of future changes to snow cover?
Valid Cases = 74 Missing Cases = 4
Response Percent = 94.9%
53.33
60
Percent
40
32
20
don't know
accurately reflect
over estimate
1.333
6
5.333
5
5.333
3
2
under estimate
2.667
0
Valid Cases = 35
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 6
Mean = 3.94
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 0.58
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 0.76
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.13
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.69 4.20
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.61 4.28
1
2
3
Q46i
4
5
6
7
Q46i
46j. In YOUR opinion, the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate
the magnitude of future changes to sea level?
Valid Cases = 74 Missing Cases = 4
Response Percent = 94.9%
53.33
60
Percent
40
26.67
20
don't know
5.333
over estimate
3
2
under estimate
accurately reflect
Q46j
5
4
1.333 1.333
6
8
0
Valid Cases = 35
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 6
Mean = 4.00
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.12
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.06
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.18
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.65 4.35
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.54 4.46
1
2
3
Q46j
4
5
6
7
64
SurBACC 2010
46k. In YOUR opinion, the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate
the magnitude of future changes to sea ice?
Valid Cases = 74 Missing Cases = 4
Response Percent = 94.9%
56
60
Percent
40
29.33
20
don't know
5
accurately reflect
3
2
under estimate
2.667
over estimate
4
6
6.667
1.333
0
Valid Cases = 33
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 6
Mean = 4.00
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 0.63
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 0.79
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.14
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.73 4.27
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.65 4.35
1
2
3
Q46k
4
5
6
7
Q46k
46l. In YOUR opinion, the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate
the magnitude of future changes to coastal erosion?
Valid Cases = 74 Missing Cases = 4
Response Percent = 94.9%
61.33
40
Q46l
1.333
don't know
6
accurately reflect
3
2
5
5.333 5.333
2.667
under estimate
20
13.33
over estimate
10.67
0
Percent
60
Valid Cases = 29
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.10
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.60
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.26
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.23
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.64 4.56
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.50 4.71
1
2
3
Q46l
4
5
6
7
65
SurBACC 2010
46m. In YOUR opinion, the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate
the magnitude of future changes to wind waves?
Valid Cases = 74 Missing Cases = 4
Response Percent = 94.9%
64
40
17.33
don't know
6
accurately reflect
3
2
2.667
5
5.333
1.333
under estimate
20
over estimate
9.333
Percent
60
0
Valid Cases = 27
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 6
Mean = 3.96
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 0.88
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 0.94
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.18
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.61 4.32
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.50 4.43
1
2
3
Q46m
4
5
6
7
Q46m
46n. In YOUR opinion, the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate
the magnitude of future changes to terrestrial and fresh water ecological systems?
Valid Cases = 74 Missing Cases = 4
Response Percent = 94.9%
60
60
Percent
40
20
10.67 12
don't know
over estimate
2.667 1.333
6
3
accurately reflect
Q46n
5
5.333
5.333
2
under estimate
2.667
0
Valid Cases = 30
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.63
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 2.03
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.43
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.26
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.12 4.14
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 2.96 4.30
1
2
3
Q46n
4
5
6
7
66
SurBACC 2010
46o. In YOUR opinion, the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate
the magnitude of future changes to marine ecological systems?
Valid Cases = 74 Missing Cases = 4
Response Percent = 94.9%
58.67 60
Percent
40
20
20
9.333
4
over estimate
don't know
1.333
6
accurately reflect
5
1.333
3
2
under estimate
2.667 2.667
0
Valid Cases = 31
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.77
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.78
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.33
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.24
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.30 4.24
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.16 4.39
1
2
3
Q46o
4
5
6
7
Q46o
47a. Does the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate the results of
projections from global climate models?
Valid Cases = 72 Missing Cases = 6
Response Percent = 92.3%
43.84
41.1
40
20
Q47a
10
don't know
1.37
over estimate
2.74
6
accurately reflect
5
5.479
2.74
3
2
under estimate
2.74
0
Percent
30
Valid Cases = 43
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.12
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 0.72
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 0.85
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.13
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.86 4.37
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.78 4.45
1
2
3
Q47a
4
5
6
7
67
SurBACC 2010
47b. Does the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate the results of
projections from statistical down scaling?
Valid Cases = 73 Missing Cases = 5
Response Percent = 93.6%
52.7
50
28.38
30
20
8.108
don't know
over estimate
6
5
accurately reflect
3
2
under estimate
10
2.703 4.054 1.351
2.703
Percent
40
0
Valid Cases = 35
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.03
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.09
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.04
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.18
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.68 4.37
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.57 4.48
1
2
3
Q47b
4
5
6
7
Q47b
47c. Does the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate the results of
projections from regional climate models
Valid Cases = 73 Missing Cases = 5
Response Percent = 93.6%
43.24
41.89
40
20
10
Q47c
don't know
2.703
6
accurately reflect
3
2
under estimate
1.351
5
4.054
over estimate
6.757
0
Percent
30
Valid Cases = 42
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.05
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 0.73
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 0.85
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.13
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.79 4.31
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.71 4.39
1
2
3
Q47c
4
5
6
7
68
SurBACC 2010
47d. Does the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate the results of
projections of future climate variability?
Valid Cases = 73 Missing Cases = 5
Response Percent = 93.6%
51.35
50
30
22.97
20
14.86
Percent
40
10
don't know
over estimate
6
accurately reflect
3
2
under estimate
5
2.703 1.351 2.703
1.351 2.703
0
Valid Cases = 36
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.78
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.43
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.20
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.20
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.39 4.17
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.26 4.29
1
2
3
Q47d
4
5
6
7
Q47d
47e. Does the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate the results of
projections of future extreme events?
Valid Cases = 72 Missing Cases = 6
Response Percent = 92.3%
57.53 60
Percent
40
20
13.7 15.07
Q47e
don't know
1.37
over estimate
1.37
6
5
accurately reflect
5.479
3
2
under estimate
5.479
0
Valid Cases = 31
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.71
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.35
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.16
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.21
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.30 4.12
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.17 4.25
1
2
3
Q47e
4
5
6
7
69
SurBACC 2010
47f. Does the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate the results of
projections of future hydrological change?
Valid Cases = 73 Missing Cases = 5
Response Percent = 93.6%
54.05
60
Percent
40
24.32
20
don't know
over estimate
6
1.351 2.703
5
6.757
accurately reflect
6.757
3
2
under estimate
4.054
0
Valid Cases = 34
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.06
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.33
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.15
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.20
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.67 4.45
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.55 4.57
1
2
3
Q47f
4
5
6
7
Q47f
47g. Does the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate the results of
projections of future sea level?
Valid Cases = 72 Missing Cases = 6
Response Percent = 92.3%
55.56 60
Percent
40
20.83
8.333
don't know
1.389
over estimate
3
2
under estimate
accurately reflect
Q47g
6
4.167 2.778
1.389
5
5.556
20
0
Valid Cases = 32
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.78
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.60
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.26
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.22
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.34 4.22
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.21 4.36
1
2
3
Q47g
4
5
6
7
70
SurBACC 2010
47h. Does the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate the results of
projections of future changes to terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems?
Valid Cases = 73 Missing Cases = 5
Response Percent = 93.6%
64.86
40
20
14.86
don't know
over estimate
2.703
6
5
5.405
accurately reflect
3
2
under estimate
5.405 6.757
Percent
60
0
Valid Cases = 26
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.88
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.71
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.31
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.26
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.38 4.39
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.22 4.54
1
2
3
Q47h
4
5
6
7
Q47h
47i. Does the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate the results of
projections of future changes to marine ecosystems?
Valid Cases = 73 Missing Cases = 5
Response Percent = 93.6%
59.46
60
Percent
40
20
12.16
Q47i
don't know
1.351 2.703
over estimate
5
accurately reflect
4.054
3
2
under estimate
5.405
6
14.86
0
Valid Cases = 30
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.73
Median = 3.50
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.72
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.31
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.24
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.26 4.20
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.12 4.35
1
2
3
Q47i
4
5
6
7
71
SurBACC 2010
48a. Does the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate the impacts of
temperature?
Valid Cases = 73 Missing Cases = 5
Response Percent = 93.6%
44.59
41.89
50
30
20
10
6.757
don't know
over estimate
5
accurately reflect
3
2
6
2.703 1.351
1.351 1.351
under estimate
Percent
40
0
Valid Cases = 41
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 4.22
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 0.63
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 0.79
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.12
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.98 4.46
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.90 4.54
1
2
3
Q48a
4
5
6
7
Q48a
48b. Does the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate the impacts of
precipitation?
Valid Cases = 73 Missing Cases = 5
Response Percent = 93.6%
51.35
50
30
25.68
20
13.51
Q48b
don't know
over estimate
6
5
accurately reflect
3
2
1.351
under estimate
10
4.054 2.703
1.351
0
Percent
40
Valid Cases = 36
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 7
Mean = 3.94
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 0.97
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 0.98
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.16
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.62 4.27
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.52 4.37
1
2
3
Q48b
4
5
6
7
72
SurBACC 2010
48c. Does the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate the impacts of
sea level rise?
Valid Cases = 72 Missing Cases = 6
Response Percent = 92.3%
57.53 60
Percent
40
21.92
20
don't know
5
accurately reflect
3
2
under estimate
4.11
over estimate
6.849
1.37
6
8.219
0
Valid Cases = 31
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 6
Mean = 4.06
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.06
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.03
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.19
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.70 4.43
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.59 4.54
1
2
3
Q48c
4
5
6
7
Q48c
48d. Does the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate the impacts of
extreme events?
Valid Cases = 73 Missing Cases = 5
Response Percent = 93.6%
63.51
40
20
12.16
Q48d
don't know
over estimate
6.757
6
5
4.054
accurately reflect
3
2
under estimate
6.757 6.757
0
Percent
60
Valid Cases = 27
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 6
Mean = 3.93
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.84
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.36
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.26
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.41 4.44
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.25 4.60
1
2
3
Q48d
4
5
6
7
73
SurBACC 2010
48e. Does the BACC Report tends to under estimate, accurately reflect (a value of 4) or overestimate the impacts of
coastal erosion?
Valid Cases = 73 Missing Cases = 5
Response Percent = 93.6%
62.16
40
10.81
6.757
don't know
over estimate
6
5
accurately reflect
1.351
3
2
4.054
under estimate
20
14.86
0
Percent
60
Valid Cases = 28
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 6
Mean = 3.75
Median = 4
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.01
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.00
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.19
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.38 4.12
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 3.26 4.24
1
2
3
Q48e
4
5
6
Q48e
Section 2. c Significance
49. In your opinion, is the BACC report a significant contribution to the Baltic science community?
yes
no
don't know
Total
Number
66
1
7
74
Percent
89.2 %
1.4 %
9.5 %
100.0 %
Missing Cases = 4
Response Percent = 94.9 %
50. Would you recommend the BACC report to other interested persons as being a comprehensive report
on the issue of climate change in the Baltic Sea basin?
yes
no
don't know
Total
Missing Cases = 4
Response Percent = 94.9 %
Number
65
2
7
74
Percent
87.8 %
2.7 %
9.5 %
100.0 %
7
74
SurBACC 2010
51. Do you think a second BACC report on climate and climate change in the Baltic Sea region sometime
in the future would be a good idea?
Number
1
2
0
3
4
22
38
4
74
not at all
2
3
4
5
6
very much so
don't know
Total
Percent
1.4 %
2.7 %
0.0 %
4.1 %
5.4 %
29.7 %
51.4 %
5.4 %
100.0 %
Missing Cases = 4
Response Percent = 94.9 %
51. Do you think a second BACC Report on climate and climate change in the Baltic Sea region sometime in the
future would be a good idea?
Valid Cases = 74 Missing Cases = 4
Response Percent = 94.9%
52
50
29.33
30
20
Q51
don't know
very much so
6
5
3
2
not at all
5.333
5.333
4
4
1.333 2.667
10
Percent
40
Valid Cases = 71
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 7
Mean = 6.23
Median = 7
Variance (Unbiased) = 1.55
Standard Deviation (Unbiased) = 1.24
Standard Error Of The Mean = 0.15
95 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 5.94 6.51
99 Percent Confidence Interval Around The Mean = 5.85 6.61
0
1
2
3
Q51
4
5
6
7
SurBACC 2010
75
Section 3. Comments
All comments are verbatim.
52. Please comments on aspects that you think would improve a subsequent BACC report, i.e. the
inclusion of other research areas, the process by which it was produced, etc. etc.
1.
impact of climate change on urban environment, agriculture, water accessibility
2.
I think that some reflection of the role of the Baltic in a larger context would be an appreciated add on
to a future report
3.
More attention should be paid to cloudiness and its trends.
4.
The chapter on biology was not comprehensive, and the group of authors was perhaps not all that well
put together, and thus did not reflect the actual knowledge of the potential effects of climate change on
the biota and habitats of the Baltic Sea.
5.
acidification, biogeochemical cycles, socio-economical issues, erosion
6.
urban areas, sea level; broader inclusion of marine ecology community
7.
The BALTEX report covers only short aspects of the very early scientific problems which lead to the
development of BALTEX. These were at all related to the climate of the entire BALTEX area and is
reproduced by any reliable model.
8.
More efforts needed for creation progress in adaptation measures in terrestrial freshwater and costal
ecosystems as far in socioeconomic processes.
9.
In light of some of the recent issues/debate related to the IPCC AR4 report it would be good to have a
transparent review process so that revisions can be traced at a later stage. Sea level changes and
impacts thereof should be more comprehensively covered.
10. Probably more detailed research on water viscosity and bubble mediated dissipation of wave energy in
the southern Baltic Sea costal waters would improve our knowledge on the coastal erosion.
11. Impact on ecosystems (terrestrial, freshwater and marine) should be more comprehensive in future
12. stronger focus on the sea-level issue
13. The climate change impact on the biogeochemical processes should be more represented in the BACC
report
14. I think that a next report should be more comprehensive on sea level rise. This could include new
assessments of the global sea levels as well.
15. geobiochemical cycles and deposition of matter from non- Baltic regions
16. Much more information is needed on the impact of climate change on marine ecological systems for the
next report. It could also be useful to cooperate with European components of Arctic climate and
cryosphere work, where there is an overlap in the Fennoscandian area. See, e.g., the current AMAP
project SWIPA on Climate Change and the Arctic Cryosphere: www.amap.no/swipa. It could also be
very useful to add a chapter on the socio-economic implications of climate change to provide a further
basis for the development of public policy and the public understanding of the implications of climate
change. This is attempted in the SWIPA project.
17. Effects on marine ecosystems and socio-economy should hopefully be better included
76
SurBACC 2010
18. Regional climate change in the Baltic region (and mostly anywhere else) is currently not possible to
project. This mainly due to changes are small and uncertainties much larger. The BACC report did not
left room for a discussion of the methods and hence this general question. This makes the projection
section rather technical and non-scientific and has lead to widespread misunderstandings about the
nature of projections in related communities. To make another assessment valuable, such a discussion
need to be performed open in the result!
19. Technical measures to combat climate change, new solutions for integrated management for adaption in
urban planning
20. the potential role of landscape changes and changes in vegetation cover will fundamentally change the
evapotranspiration patterns and hydrology on land; as long as we do not take these into account the
future prognostics on freshwater inputs and salinity distributions in the Baltic are incomplete and
misleading!
21. Perhaps it could benefit from an even clearer division according to, e.g., 1. scientific background
(including observations), 2. scenarios including terrestrial, limnic and marine ecosystem models (if
available socioeconomic etc...), 3. non-quantitative scenarios, i.e., statements of impacts in areas where
general response is known but not to the degree that quantitative modeling is available. 4. Adaptation
22. We would need the better net of measuring points, both, for meteorology and for sea level.
53. General Comments.
1.
A stronger effort towards visibility of the BACC report should be pursued
2.
I must admit that I haven't read the report - it's lying on my desk together with 100 other papers &
reports. A change in the global mean values is less noisy and easier to attribute to AGW than
local/regional climate change. some questions were therefore unclear.
3.
Some questions may easily generate biased results: e.g., the probability of regional 'catastrophe' is in my
opinion zero, as I compare to what I think may happen elsewhere. I did not consider decreasing chances
of skating and skiing catastrophic, but was tempted... Some of the answers you collect may reflect
values rather than scientific understanding
4.
It is difficult to see the value of this questionnaire!
5.
Climate change is a matter of global GHG emissions. Small regions -- such as e.g. the Baltic Region -have a negligible contribution to the emissions. Therefore adaptation (not mitigation) is an issue to be
researched at a regional scale.
6.
Most likely there will be a need for an updated version as models get better, and even unexpected
events can be simulated somehow (cf the ongoing winter!).
7.
Some of the questions were strange. There is a disparity between (now I don't remember the exact
wording) 'will climate change cause a catastrophe' and 'will climate change have advantages'. Even
though climate change will probably not be a catastrophe for this particular area (so a larger chance of
advantages than a catastrophe), this does not necessarily imply that the advantages will outweigh the
disadvantages.
8.
You emphasize too much the human impact not distinguishing between local effects and global effects.
9.
The current climate over the Baltic sea does not change. This means that the questions from 23 to 43 are
meaningless.
10. Several of the questions, in particular in the earlier part, were value judgments that could be answered
using two references; as a scientist, 'how good/bad (whatever) is X in a scientific sense', and 'is X
good/bad (whatever) to be used in a judicial way to provide reasonable decision support or otherwise
information to non-experts regarding possible/likely future scenarios
SurBACC 2010
77
11. I consider BACC report as very important scientific background for proactive management of Baltic
basin climate change.
12. Some of the questions in this survey are very difficult to answer on a precise scale as the answers can be
at one end of the scale for some aspects and at the other end of the scale for others
13. The uncertainty of the climate models and models in general should more addressed and told to the
decision makers, politicians, public!
14. I would most relevant to focus not only on knowledge about the present and future, but also on 1) HOW
to apply this knowledge, and to actually counteract the ongoing change (mitigation + adaptation +
innovation) - And thereby 2) recognize / understand the key role the regional and local governments are
playing when it comes to action.
15. The BACC report was a groundbreaking work on climate change in the Baltic area and should be
followed up as scientific understanding progresses.
16. Guess the climate change issue is overestimated in general. We need to focus more on the near future
and need to build systems for that. The long term changes are not an issue for adaptation now for the
current generation of policy makers. Hence monitoring present day and project near future conditions is
of more interest.
17. I am wondering about the 'fairness' to become author in the BACC book; wasn't it so that a lead author
simply picked potential co-authors? This is OK for me but this has nothing to do with fairness, only
with excellence.
18. I found it difficult to understand some of the questions
19. This survey is based on personal opinions. I generally make fun about newspapers tendency towards
voting on climate change issues. It is more relevant to ask experts on what we are sure about, what we
think we know, what we anticipate etc. Since I am only an expert on statistics and decision-support
many of my assessments of actual impacts must rely on my peer experts within each field
78
SurBACC 2010
Previous related surveys (chronologically)
Bray, Dennis and Hans von Storch: CliSci 1996: The perspectives of climate scientists on global
climate change: A survey of opinions (mailout - 5 countries); descriptive results available as
‘Perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change’ GKSS Report GKSS 2007/11.
Available online as PDF file at
http://www.gkss.de/imperia/md/content/gkss/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/berichte/
gkss_berichte_2007/gkss_2007_11.pdf
Bray, Dennis and Carsten Krueck, 2000: Wie schätzt die deutsche Exekutive die Gefahr eines globalen
Klimawandels ein? Eine Meinungsumfrage zum Rikomanagement in der Umweltpolitik. (a
survey of German government – mailout); Report available as ‚Wie schätzt die deutsche
Exekutive die Gefahr eines globalen Klimawandels ein? Eine Meinungsumfrage zum
Risikomanagement in der Umweltpolitik’ GKSS Report GKSS 2000/6. Available by request to
GKSS Forschungszentrum, Bibliothek, D-21502, Geesthacht, Germany; and ‚Speaking truth to
power revisited: Science, policy and climate change’ GKSS Report GKSS 2000/32. Available
by request to GKSS Forschungs-zentrum, Bibliothek, D-21502, Geesthacht, Germany
Bray, Dennis and Hans von Storch: CliSci 2003: The perspectives of climate scientists on global
climate change: A survey of opinions (on line - 27 countries); descriptive results available as
‘Perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change’ GKSS Report GKSS 2007/11.
Available online as PDF file at
http://www.gkss.de/imperia/md/content/gkss/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/berichte/
gkss_berichte_2007/gkss_2007_11.pdf
Bray, Dennis and Ho Chin: CliSci 2005, Taiwan: 《氣候科學家對於全球氣候變遷的觀點》問卷
(Taiwanese only); (translation: The perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change:
A survey of opinions).
Bray, Dennis, Nico Stelljes, Iris Grossmann and Sönke Rau, 2006: Perspektiven für deutsche
Küstenregionen aus der Sicht regionaler Interessenvertreter (a survey of German coastal region
statekholders concerning coastal issues – mailout); ‘Perspektiven für deutsche Kuestenregionen
aus Sicht von Verwaltung und regionalen Interessenvertretern’ GKSS Report GKSS 2007/19.
Available online as PDF file at
http://www.gkss.de/imperia/md/content/gkss/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/berichte/
gkss_berichte_2007/gkss_2007_19.pdf
Bray, Dennis and Hans von Storch: CliSci 2008: The perspectives of climate scientists on global
climate change: A survey of opinions (on line - 35 countries); descriptive results available as
‘CliSci 2008: A survey of the perspectives of climate scientists concerning climate science and
climate change.’ GKSS Report GKSS 2010/9.
Available online as PDF file at
http://www.gkss.de/imperia/md/content/gkss/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/berichte/
gkss_berichte_2010/gkss_2010_9.pdf
Bray, Dennis and Nadja Frerichs, 2009: EnvSci. Eine empirische Umfrage zur Kommunikation des
Klimawandels (a survey of scientists in German environmental research centres – online).
Available as ‚Nadja Frerichs, ‘Communicating climate change: An empirical study of the ways
scientists communicate climate change’., Diplomarbeit im Studiengang Umweltwissenschaften,
2009, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, Germany
SurBACC 2010
79
References
BACC Author Team (2008). Assessment of climate change for the Baltic Sea basin. Regional Climate
Studies, Springer. 474pp.
Bray, Dennis and Hans von Storch (2010): CliSci 2008: The perspectives of climate scientists on
global climate change: A survey of opinions (on line - 35 countries); descriptive results available
as ‘CliSci 2008: A survey of the perspectives of climate scientists concerning climate science
and climate change.’ GKSS Report GKSS 2010/9.
Available online as PDF file at
http://www.gkss.de/imperia/md/content/gkss/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/berichte/
gkss_berichte_2010/gkss_2010_9.pdf
Hamilton, Michael Braun. Online survey response rates and times. Background and guidance for
industry. Available online as PDF file at
http://www.supersurvey.com/papers/supersurvey_white_paper_response_rates.pdf, (accessed
12.02.2010)
Holbrook, Allyson, Jon Krosnick and Alison Pfent (2007) The causes and consequences of response
rates in surveys by the new media and government contractor survey research firms. In:
Advances in telephone survey methodology. Ed. James M. Lepkowski, N. Clyde Tucker, J.
Michale Brick, Edith D. DeLeeuw, Lilli Japec, Paul J. Lavrakas, Michael W. Link and Roberta
L. Sangster. Wiley, New York
Schonlau, Matthias, Ronald D. Fricker and Mark N. Elliot (2002) Conducting research surveys via
email and the web. Rand, pp.64-66
Viser, Penny S., Jon A. Krosnick, Jesse Marquette and Michael Curtin (1996) Mail surveys for
election forecasting? An evaluation of the Columbian dispatch poll. Public Opinion Quarterly
60: 181-227.
80
SurBACC 2010
International BALTEX Secretariat Publication Series
ISSN 1681-6471
No. 1: Minutes of First Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at
GKSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, 16-17 May, 1994. August
1994.
No. 2: Baltic Sea Experiment BALTEX – Initial Implementation Plan, 84 pages.
March 1995.
No. 3: First Study Conference on BALTEX, Visby, Sweden, August 28 – September
1, 1995. Conference Proceedings. Editor: A. Omstedt, SMHI Norrköping,
Sweden, 190 pages. August 1995.
No. 4: Minutes of Second Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at
Finnish Institute of Marine Research in Helsinki, Finland, 25-27 January, 1995.
October 1995.
No. 5: Minutes of Third Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at
Strand Hotel in Visby, Sweden, September 2, 1995. March 1996.
No. 6: BALTEX Radar Research – A Plan for Future Action, 46 pages. October 1996.
No. 7: Minutes of Fourth Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at
Institute of Oceanology PAS in Sopot, Poland, 3-5 June, 1996. February 1997.
No. 8: Hydrological, Oceanic and Atmospheric Experience from BALTEX. Extended
Abstracts of the XXII EGS Assembly, Vienna, Austria, 21-25 April, 1997.
Editors: M. Alestalo and H.-J. Isemer, 172 pages. August 1997.
No. 9: The Main BALTEX Experiment 1999-2001 – BRIDGE. Strategic Plan, 78
pages. October 1997.
No. 10: Minutes of Fifth Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at
Latvian Hydro-meteorological Agency in Riga, Latvia, 14-16 April, 1997.
January 1998.
No. 11: Second Study Conference on BALTEX, Juliusruh, Island of Rügen, Germany,
25-29 May 1998. Conference Proceedings. Editors: E. Raschke and H.-J.
Isemer, 251 pages. May 1998.
No. 12: Minutes of 7th Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at Hotel
Aquamaris in Juliusruh, Island of Rügen, Germany, 26 May 1998. November
1998.
No. 13: Minutes of 6th Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at Danish
Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark, 2-4 March 1998. January
1999.
No. 14: BALTEX – BASIS Data Report 1998. Editor: Jouko Launiainen, 96 pages.
March 1999.
No. 15: Minutes of 8th Meeting of the Science Steering Group held at Stockholm
University in Stockholm, Sweden, 8-10 December 1998. May 1999
No. 16: Minutes of 9th Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at
Finnish Meteorological Institute in Helsinki, Finland, 19-20 May 1999. July
1999.
SurBACC 2010
No. 17: Parameterization of surface fluxes, atmospheric planetary boundary layer and
ocean mixed layer turbulence for BRIDGE – What can we learn from field
experiments? Editor: Nils Gustafsson. April 2000.
No. 18: Minutes of 10th Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held in
Warsaw, Poland, 7-9 February 2000. April 2000.
No. 19: BALTEX-BASIS: Final Report, Editors: Jouko Launiainen and Timo Vihma.
May 2001.
No. 20: Third Study Conference on BALTEX, Mariehamn, Island of Åland, Finland,
2-6 July 2001, Conference Proceedings. Editor: Jens Meywerk, 264 pages. July
2001.
No. 21: Minutes of 11th Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at MaxPlanck-Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, 13-14 November
2000. July 2001.
No. 22: Minutes of 12th Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at Royal
Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, The Netherlands, 12-14
November 2001. April 2002.
No. 23: Minutes of 13th Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at
Estonian Business School (EBS), Centre for Baltic Studies, Tallinn, Estonia,
17-19 June 2002. September 2002.
No. 24: The eight BALTIMOS Field Experiments 1998-2001. Field Reports and
Examples of Measurements. Editors: Burghard Brümmer, Gerd Müller, David
Schröder, Amélie Kirchgäßner, Jouko Launiainen, Timo Vihma. 138 pages.
April 2003,.
No. 25: Minutes of 14th Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at Lund
University, Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystems Analysis,
Lund, Sweden, 18 - 20 November 2002. May 2003.
No. 26: CLIWA-NET: BALTEX BRIDGE Cloud Liquid Water Network. Final
Report. Editors: Susanne Crewell, Clemens Simmer, Arnout Feijt, Erik van
Meijgaard, 53 pages. July 2003.
No. 27: Minutes of 15th Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at Risø
National Laboratory, Wind Energy Department, Roskilde, Denmark, 8 - 10
September 2003. January 2004.
No. 28: Science Plan for BALTEX Phase II 2003 – 2012. February 2004, 43 pages.
No. 29: Fourth Study Conference on BALTEX, Gudhjem, Bornholm, Denmark,
24 - 28 May 2004, Conference Proceedings. Editor: Hans-Jörg Isemer,
189 pages. May 2004.
No. 30: Minutes of 16th Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at
Gudhjem Bibliotek, Gudhjem, Bornholm, Denmark, 23 May 2004. October
2004.
No. 31: BALTEX Phase I 1993-2002 – State of the Art Report. Editors: Daniela Jacob
and Anders Omstedt, 181 pages, October 2005.
No. 32: Minutes of 17th Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at
Poznan, Poland, 24 – 26 November 2004. November 2005.
No. 33: Minutes of 18th Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at
Meteorological Observatory Lindenberg – Richard Aßmann Observatory,
Germany, 18 – 20 October 2005. February 2006.
81
82
SurBACC 2010
No. 34: BALTEX Phase II 2003 – 2012 Science Framework and Implementation
Strategy, 95 pages. April 2006.
No. 35: BALTEX Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin. Summary.
Editors: The BACC lead author group, 26 pages. June 2006.
No. 36: Minutes of 19th Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at
Ågrenska Villan of Göteborg University Sweden, 23 – 24 May 2006. October
2006.
No. 37: Minutes of 20th Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at St.
Petersburg, Russia, 6 – 7 December 2006. March 2007.
No. 38: Fifth Study Conference on BALTEX, Kuressaare, Saaremaa, Estonia,
4 - 8 June 2007. Conference Proceedings. Editor: Hans-Jörg Isemer, 209
pages. May 2007.
No. 39: Minutes of 21st Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at
Kuressaare, Saaremaa, Estonia, 3 June 2007. September 2007.
No. 40: Minutes of 22nd Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at
SMHI, Norrköping, Sweden, 23-25 January 2008. May 2008.
No. 41: 2nd International Lund RCM Workshop: 21st Challenges in Regional-scale
Climate Modelling. Lund University, 4-8 May 2009. Workshop Proceedings.
Editors: Burkhardt Rockel, Lars Bärring and Marcus Reckermann. 292 pages,
April 2009.
No. 42: International Conference on Climate Change – The environmental and socioeconomic response in the southern Baltic region. University of Szczecin, 2528 May 2009. Conference Proceedings. Editors: Andrzej Witkowski, Jan Harff
and Hans-Jörg Isemer. 140 pages, May 2009.
No. 43: Minutes of 23rd Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland, 12 - 14 January 2009. July
2009.
No. 44: BALTEX Phase II 2003 – 2012 Revised Objectives. A Summary Amendment
to the BALTEX Phase II Science Framework and Implementation Plan.
23 pages. November 2009.
No. 45: Minutes of 24th Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at the
University of Riga, Riga, Latvia, 16 - 18 November 2009. March 2010.
No. 46: Sixth Study Conference on BALTEX, Miedzyzdroje, Wolin, Poland,
14 - 18 June 2010. Conference Proceedings. Editor: Marcus Reckermann and
Hans-Jörg Isemer, 182 pages. June 2010.
No. 47: Minutes of 25th Meeting of the BALTEX Science Steering Group held at the
Hotel Amber Baltic, Międzyzdroje, Poland, 13 June 2010. September 2010.
No. 48: SurBACC 2010. A survey of the perspectives of climate scientists concerning
climate change and climate science in the Baltic Sea basin. Author: Dennis
Bray. 82 pages, October 2010.
Copies are available upon request from the International BALTEX Secretariat.