1. Hans von Storch, 陈学恩 (Chen Xueen), Dennis Bray and Andreas Ullmann
A survey on opinions about climate change, climate policy and the concept of science - among young scientists in Qingdao and Hamburg (2015 and 2017)
Hans von Storch, 陈学恩 (Chen Xueen), Dennis Bray and Andreas Ullmann
中国海洋大学, 12 October 2017

2. To compare and analyze the attitudes of climate science of young scientists between China and Germany, we (陈学恩, Dennis Bray, Hans von Storch and Andreas Ullmann) planned and ran this survey - in 2015 at the Ocean University of China, in Qingdao, and in 2017 at the Climate-Center of Excellence at U of Hamburg
This survey is divided into 4 sections:
Section 1. 背景统计–了解你是谁
Demography – to learn a little bit about who our respondents are
Section 2. 气候问题–了解你对气候变化的看法
The Climate Issue – to get an idea of what our respondents think of climate change
Section 3. 气候模式– 了解你对通过计算机实现的气候模式的理解
Climate Models – to learn about our respondents’ understanding of climate models
Section 4. 科学本质 – 了解你本人对“科学”的定义
The Nature of Science – to learn about our respondents’ definition of science
Some of the questions were also used in a survey among international climate scientists in 2015/16, see
Bray, D., and H. von Storch, 2016: The Bray and von Storch 5th International Survey of Climate Scientists 2015/2016.  HZG Report 2016-2

3. Section 1. 背景统计–了解你是谁
Demography – to learn a little bit who our respondents are
I am – male / female
I am – master / PhD / other
My academic interests focus mainly on (i.e. climate modelling, impact analysis, adaptation, ecosystems …)?
The number of years I have been enrolled in this area of study is …

4. Some details on the differences
„International Bray & von Storch“ – online survey, last of a series of 5 surveys among climate scientists from all over the world at all career levels. 2015/16
Qingdao OUC/ environmental sciences – paper survey among 70% students (master, PhD) and 30% other academics – about 40% enrolled in first year, 75% in 1-3 years of they study; almost all Chinese, 2015
Hamburg, CLISAP / climate science – online survey among students (master, PhD); 27% in first year; 65% in first three years, 2016
No claim of representativity of results, neither in absolute numbers nor in differences.
All results, also concerning differences, have the character of hypotheses, which deserve independent further falsification.

5. Section 2. 气候问题–了解你对气候变化的看法
The Climate Issue – to get an idea of what our respondents think of climate change
How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?
How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?
How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?
Over the issue of climate change, the general public should be told to be unconcerned>very worried.
Today, the climate change issues is mostly a scientific / public/political issue?
Climate change discourse is driven by scientific findings / public/political sentiment?
Today, what would you rate as the most important task facing the climate science community?

9. Summary on Section 2, on the state of climate and climate science
Big majorities are convinced of the reality of a climate change, independent of the causes (natural or man made)
A somewhat smaller but nevertheless big majority supports the claim that most of the ongoing and future climate change is due to human forcing.
The results indicate strongly higher confidence among Hamburg students and international researchers compared to the group of Chinese students from OUC.
The is broad agreement on the seriousness of climate change, which is considered by most as a political issue and not a scientific issue.
Remarkably is the difference in the main task, which is attributed to science: in Qingdao it is mostly a classical scientific challenge, namely to disentangle causes and effects, while in Hamburg it is „the motivation of people to act“.

10. Section 3. 气候模式– 了解你对通过计算机实现的气候模式的理解
Climate Models – to learn about our respondents’ understanding of climate models
Climate models accurately simulate the climatic conditions for which they are calibrated?
How well do you think atmospheric models can deal with – hydrodynamics / radiation / clouds / precipitation?
The current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable estimate of the effects on climate of – turbulence / land surface processes / sea ice / greenhouse gases from anthropogenic sources?
To what degree do you think that, through the process of downscaling, it is possible to determine local climate change?
A description of the most probable outcome best defines a projection / prediction / other?
A description of a possible outcome best defines a projection / prediction / other?
From a scenario simulation prepared with climate models, scientists are more inclined to make a projection / prediction / other?

12. How well do you think atmospheric models an deal with …
Man values on the Likert scale, with 1 = very inadequate, and 7=very adequate
Survey
Bray & von Storch
2015/16
Qingdao OUC
2015
Hamburg CLISAP
2017
hydrodynamics
4,79
4,48
5,05
radiation
5,43
4,01
5,53
clouds
3,40
3,73
3,97
precipitation
3,77
4,11
4,29

13. To what degree do you think that, through the process of downscaling, it is possible to determine loal climate change?
(Likert scale: 1 = not at all, 7 = very much)
Summary part 3:
When assessing the performance of models, only rarely a „very adequate“ is selected – a common experience in all our surveys – „there is always room for improvement, even if we are very good“
The simulation of clouds and precipitation is not considered good (less than 4 –scale), but hydrodynamics and radiation are considered much better (more than 4)
The group of Hamburg students has more confidence in models than in other two samples.
The group of Qingdao students tends to give marks closer to the indifferent 4-level.
Downscaling – the group of Chinese students is more optimistic than the other two groups.
Survey
Sample mean
Bray & von Storch, 1996
4.57
Bray & von Storch, 2003
4.75
Bray & von Storch 2013
3.93
Bray & von Storch 2015/16
4.45
Qingdao OUC 2015
4.74
Hamburg CLISAP 2017
4.23

14. Section 4. 科学本质 – 了解你本人对“科学”的定义
The Nature of Science – to learn about our respondents’ definition of science
1993年，一位“科学教育”领域的英国教授在发表的文章中提到：
“--科学是连贯的，客观的，毫无疑问的，具有清晰边界的。
--科学对于日常生活中的实践活动至关重要。
--科学不因社会及公众机构的承诺而受到影响 。
--对于科学的接受由智能所决定。
--科学思想是衡量日常想法 正确性的标尺。”
In 1993, a D. Layton, a British Professor for “Science Education” published an article, in which he claimed:
- Science is coherent, objective, unproblematic and well-bounded.
- Science is central to decisions about practical action in everyday life .
Science is unencumbered by social and institutional commitments.
Uptake of science is determined by intellectual ability.
Scientific thought is the yardstick with which to measure the validity of everyday thinking.
According to Jerry Ravetz, this set of claims “until recently were sheer unquestionable common sense”. (J. Ravetz, 1988: The no-nonsense guide to science. New Internationalist, p. 130).
Additional questions in the Hamburg survey

15. How much do your think that the statement below is present social practice or should be social practice? (Layton‘s list)
Statement
Qingdao OUC
Hamburg CLISAP
Sample means of Likert-scale responses: 1 = not at all, 7= very much
reality
norm 
Science is coherent, objective, unproblematic and well-bounded.
4.18
5.01
0.83
4.42
5.71
1.29
Science is central to decisions about practical action in everyday life.
4.59
4.69
0.1
4.39
5.33
0.74
Science is unencumbered by social and institutional commitments
4.12
5.28
1.16
3.11
5.29
2.18
Uptake of science is determined by intellectual ability.
4.06
4.50
0.44
4.90
4.25
-0.65
Scientific thought is the yardstick with which to measure the validity of everyday thinking.
4.44
4.70
0.26
4.14
5.02
0.88

16. Summary Section 4
The Layton list of the “nature of science” is generally accepted as “kind of valid”, which would deserve more attention.
Science is seen as mostly objective (etc.), and a key for everyday decisions and thinking.
The difference between “is” and “should” is in almost all cases positive, only in one case negative, namely among the Hamburg students, who oppose the norm “Uptake of science should determined by intellectual ability”.
The largest difference of “is”/”should” is logged for “Science is/should unencumbered by social and institutional commitments”. In the Hamburg sample, the present state is considered “slightly encumbered”, while respondents would wish a considerably higher degree of independence of science (+2.18); in Qingdao, the present state is somehow indifferent on average (4.0) but is wanted to be somewhat higher (+0.50).
There seem to be no systematic differences on the Qingdao sample and in the Hamburg sample, even though in Hamburg there is a tendency for stronger endorsement of Layton’s norms.
Jerry Ravetz claim that this set of assertions “until recently were sheer unquestionable common sense”, seems confirm him, with the exception that this is still so and not only “until recently”.

17. In the Hamburg survey there were two additional questions, which are related to „Information sharing“. For China, the same questions were dealt with in a survey by Yang et al., 2014
Asked only in Hamburg: "I share climate change information with others.“ Please indicate the extent to which this statement applies to you.
Asked only in Hamburg: "People come to me for information about climate change.“ Please indicate the extent to which this statement applies to you.
Median
Hamburg CLISAP 2017
China Yang et al. 2014
1=not at all
7= very much
5.40
3.15
Median
Hamburg CLISAP 2017
China Yang et al. 2014
1=not at all
7= very much
3.90
2.59

18. Summay Section 5
There is a strong difference in the willingness to share information in the Hamburg sample and Chinese attitudes according to Yang et al (2014). In China, the willingness is rather limited, while in Hamburg respondents are considerably more open to sharing information. The difference amounts to 2.25 (out of a 7-point Likert scale).
In both cases, the frequency of being asked for information of climate change is limited, with a Hamburg median about 1.3 higher than in China. It is unknown who would ask for information about climate change - colleagues, media, public.

19. TAKE HOME – message
We have run surveys among Qingdao and Hamburg students, featuring a set of identical questions, which have also been used in a series of five „Bray and von Storch“ surveys among climate researches since 1996.
We do not claim that your results would be representative for Chinese or German students; however, we propose a number of hypotheses, which need independent confirmation.
There is high confidence among Hamburg that climate change is real, and that the driving case is anthropogenic; this confidence is considerably smaller in Qingdao. in Qingdao the dominant task of science is disentangling causes and effects, while in Hamburg it is „the motivation of people to act“.
The simulation of clouds and precipitation is not considered good, but hydrodynamics and radiation are considered much better. Hamburg students have more confidence in models than in the other two samples.
The norms of D. Layton about the “nature of science” are generally accepted to some extent, and are suggested to be more important, in particular so among the Hamburg students. According to these norms, science is “objective, not constrained by social and institutional commitments and a yardstick the validity of everyday thinking.”
Chinese scholars seem to be considerably less willing to share information than Hamburg students.