The task of the office is to not only reaching out for public and stakeholders, but also for allowing them to integrate the state of science in their understanding and decisions. As a border activity, the office monitors not only the feed-back into science, assumed and actual demands and needs for decision processes but also of competing knowledge claims, misunderstanding and other

hindrances for communication. For doing so, direct interaction is needed, which may help overcoming mutual misunderstanding and divergent language but may lead to sustainable communication. Setting up anonymous data-portals, even with suitable Q&A sections, is insufficient. About find more once a week the regional climate office is selleck contributing

to a public dialog event. Many individual requests are answered and interviews are given to the media. From these activities information demands of different stakeholder groups are localized to develop decision relevant information products which may serve a broader group with similar information needs. Crucial aspects of this transformation are besides using an understandable language, reducing the knowledge of complex phenomena to substantial aspects. At the same time the whole range of plausible conclusions derived from the scientific insights has to be communicated. Following the concept of the honest broker (Pielke, 2007) societal processes are in this way supported in arriving at societally preferred decisions. One challenge of this stakeholder dialog is the dynamic of scientific knowledge, its limitation and uncertainty resulting from the methods and instruments used

as well as the role and interest of the individual researcher. This diverse scientific knowledge is widely scattered, and scientific agreement is hardly Oxymatrine documented especially on regional and local scales. Hence, important instruments are assessments of the scientifically legitimate knowledge about the regional coastal state, its change, its risks and societal role. The results are regional knowledge assessment reports, mimicking to some extent the IPCC documents. Two such regional assessment reports have been published so far, one for the Baltic Sea Region (BACC, 2008) and one for the metropolitan region of Hamburg (von Storch et al., 2010). Another one on the North Sea Region as well as a second version of the Baltic report is presently in the concluding phase. For the Baltic Sea report, a “stakeholder” summary (Reckermann et al., 2008) has been assembled. The Hamburg assessment has been updated after three years on a web-platform.5 All regional assessments procedures are repeated after a couple of years.