The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report’s Working Group II (AR5 WGII) issued their report today. I do agree with some of the opining characterizing the report as ‘alarmist’ – from the standpoint that I don’t think there is enough information presented simultaneously regarding opportunities for action. People don’t respond well to persistent negative messages. Would climate activists subject their children to daily messages of upcoming death, devastation, and the collapse of civilization? If not, then why do they think adults are any better at handling the same messaging?
That said, I believe that scientists settled the science years ago. I think it is highly unlikely scientists will identify anything fundamental to change that science in business as usual activities. What will change is the climate’s response to activities changed by policy. With new and updated policies, mitigation and adaptation will occur. Therefore, I spend as much or more time on policy discussion than science discussion, using the science as my foundation. As the picture on this blog emphasizes, I operate as a bridge between these two distinct sides of the problem. Scientists typically don’t understand policy processes (to the point they eschew social science findings and believe physical scientists should exclusively inform and decide policy), while policymakers continue to ask for more actionable information.
What follows is a summary of high-level results (Summary for Policymakers) from this new report. I want this post to serve as something I can point to repeatedly in the future for these results.
OBSERVED IMPACTS, VULNERABILITY, AND ADAPTATION IN A COMPLEX AND CHANGING WORLD
1. In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans.
2. In many regions, changing precipitation or melting snow and ice are altering hydrological systems, affecting water resources in terms of quantity and quality (medium confidence).
3. Many terrestrial, freshwater, and marine species have shifted their geographic ranges, seasonal activities, migration patterns, abundances, and species interactions in response to ongoing climate change (high confidence).
4. Negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts (high confidence).
5. At present the world-wide burden of human ill-health from climate change is relatively small compared with effects of other stressors and is not well quantified (small-medium confidence).
6. Differences in vulnerability and exposure arise from non-climatic factors and form multidimensional inequalities often produced by uneven development processes (very high confidence). These differences shape differential risks from climate change.
7. Impacts from recent climate-related extremes, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones, and wildfires, reveal significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to current climate variability (very high confidence).
8. Climate-related hazards exacerbate other stressors, often with negative outcomes for livelihoods, especially for people living in poverty (high confidence).
9. Violent conflict increases vulnerability to climate change (medium evidence).
Number 6 tells me that differential risk can be reduced by helping developing countries develop more quickly. They will bear the early and severe brunt of climate change effects despite contributing the smallest portion of anthropogenic climate change forcing. Despite this, most climate activists want to keep these countries in their current state by preventing them from industrializing.
Number 7 is relevant to the climate activist vs. Pielke Jr. brouhaha (which activists claim means very little to them at the same time they issue post after post and tweet after tweet regarding their personal opinion of Pielke). The IPCC states: “For countries at all levels of development, these impacts are consistent with a significant lack of preparedness for current climate variability in some sectors” (emphasis mine). What this tells me is human systems are vulnerable to today’s climate, which has a small fraction of human influence (read: overwhelmingly most influence is natural). The focus then should be on preparing for today’s climate variability as primary steps toward dealing with tomorrow’s variability. I don’t hear enough from today’s climate activists how today’s infrastructure can’t handle today’s climate variability. Most of what I hear deals with 2050 or 2100 – dates when most of us will be dead. Why not focus instead on today’s infrastructure, which we know are deficient? Indeed, this is exactly what the report suggests we do.
The Summary continues with Adaptation Experience:
1. Adaptation is becoming embedded in some planning exercises, with more limited implementation of responses (high confidence).
2. Adaptation experience is accumulating across regions in the public and private sector and within communities (high confidence). Governments at various levels are starting to develop adaptation plans and policies to integrate climate-change considerations into broader development plans.
It’s late in the <2C warming game for these adaptations to take place, but at least people are initiating them somewhere. Municipalities and collections thereof are the hotspot for climate adaptation and mitigation plans and policies. In the US, national policy is virtually nonexistent. My hope is that local policies grow in scale. We need to start evaluating plans and policies to inform additional locales as well as scale them up for larger governmental entities – how do they need to change for state and regional levels, for instance?
I’ll have more on this and related topics in the future as I continue to read through the report.