This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
As climate scientists seek to deliver actionable science for adaptation planning, there are risks in using novel results to inform decision-making. Premature acceptance may lead to maladaptation, practitioner confusion, and “whiplash”. We propose that scientific claims should be considered actionable (i.e., sufficiently accepted to support near-term adaptation action) only after meeting a confidence threshold based on the strength of evidence as evaluated by a diverse group of scientific experts. We discuss an influential study that projected rapid sea-level rise from Antarctic ice-sheet retreat but in our view was not actionable. We recommend regular, transparent communications between scientists and practitioners to support the use of actionable science.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lipscomb et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: