Climate change and global risk

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Frame ◽  
Myles R. Allen
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Temperature Response ◽  
Scientific Uncertainty ◽  
Earth System ◽  
Global Risk ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Discussion ◽  
Global Mean Temperature ◽  
History Of

Climate change is among the most talked about and investigated global risks. No other environmental issue receives quite as much attention in the popular press, even though the impacts of pandemics and asteroid strikes, for instance, may be much more severe. Since the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report in 1990, significant progress has been made in terms of (1) establishing the reality of anthropogenic climate change and (2) understanding enough about the scale of the problem to establish that it warrants a public policy response. However, considerable scientific uncertainty remains. In particular scientists have been unable to narrow the range of the uncertainty in the global mean temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels, although we do have a better understanding of why this is the case. Advances in science have, in some ways, made us more uncertain, or at least aware of the uncertainties generated by previously unexamined processes. To a considerable extent these new processes, as well as familiar processes that will be stressed in new ways by the speed of twentyfirst century climate change, underpin recent heightened concerns about the possibility of catastrophic climate change. Discussion of ‘tipping points’ in the Earth system (for instance Kemp, 2005; Lenton, 2007) has raised awareness of the possibility that climate change might be considerably worse than we have previously thought, and that some of the worst impacts might be triggered well before they come to pass, essentially suggesting the alarming image of the current generation having lit the very long, slow-burning fuse on a climate bomb that will cause great devastation to future generations. Possible mechanisms through which such catastrophes could play out have been developed by scientists in the last 15 years, as a natural output of increased scientific interest in Earth system science and, in particular, further investigation of the deep history of climate. Although scientific discussion of such possibilities has usually been characteristically guarded and responsible, the same probably cannot be said for the public debate around such notions.

scholarly journals The Evolution of Communicating the Uncertainty of Climate Change to Policymakers: A Study of IPCC Synthesis Reports

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 2466
Author(s):  
Tomas Molina ◽  
Ernest Abadal
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Economic Systems ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Call To Action ◽  
The Public ◽  
Level Of Confidence ◽  
Ipcc Report ◽  
Degree Of Certainty ◽  
History Of ◽  
Tackle Climate Change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports on climate change have served to alert both the public and policymakers about the scope of the predicted changes and the effects they would have on natural and economic systems. The first IPCC report was published in 1990, since which time a further four have been produced. The aim of this study was to conduct a content analysis of the IPCC Summaries for Policymakers in order to determine the degree of certainty associated with the statements they contain. For each of the reports we analyzed all statements containing expressions indicating the corresponding level of confidence. The aggregated results show a shift over time towards higher certainty levels, implying a “Call to action” (from 32.8% of statements in IPCC2 to 70.2% in IPCC5). With regard to the international agreements drawn up to tackle climate change, the growing level of confidence expressed in the IPCC Summaries for Policymakers reports might have been a relevant factor in the history of decision making.

The Role of Science in Climate Change Lawmaking

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Scientific Organization ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Scientific Uncertainty ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Climate Change Negotiations ◽  
The Public ◽  
International Climate ◽  
International Climate Change

This chapter examines how international legal institutions foster cooperation in the presence of scientific uncertainty, especially in the area of international climate change law. It analyses the theory of epistemic institutions and applies it to the primary international scientific organization working on climate change issues, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC’s assessment reports play a major role in setting the terms of the public debate about climate change negotiations that takes place within the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Although independent of the UNFCCC, the IPCC’s work product is thus a key input into the UNFCCC’s efforts to negotiate international climate change rules. However, the IPCC’s credibility has been called into question due to a relative lack of participation by scientists from developing countries in the assessment process.

Memories and Expectations of Environmental Disaster: Some Lessons from the Marshall Islands

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Rudiak-Gould
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Marshall Islands ◽  
Environmental Disaster ◽  
The Public ◽  
History Of ◽  
Natural Protection ◽  
Human Habitation ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Public Imagination

The Republic of the Marshall Islands, an archipelago of low-lying coral atolls in eastern Micronesia, is one of four sovereign nations that may be rendered uninhabitable by climate change in the present century. It is not merely sea level rise which is expected to undermine life in these islands, but the synergy of multiple climatic threats (Barnett and Adger 2003). Rising oceans and increasingly frequent typhoons will exacerbate flooding at the same time that the islands’ natural protection—coral reefs—will die from warming waters and ocean acidification. Fresh water resources will be threatened by both droughts and salt contamination from flooding. Although the reaction of the coral atoll environment to climate change is uncertain, it is likely that the islands will no longer be able to support human habitation within fifty or a hundred years (Barnett and Adger 2003: 326)—quite possibly within the lifetimes of many Marshall Islanders living today. In the public imagination, climate change in vulnerable, remote locations is the intrusion of contamination into a formerly pristine environment, of danger into a once secure sanctuary, of change into a once static microcosm (see Lynas 2004: 81, 124). Archaeologists, of course, know better than this: every place has a history of environmental upheavals, and the Marshall Islands is no exception. Researchers agree that coral atolls are among the most precarious and marginal environments that humans have managed to inhabit (Weisler 1999; Yamaguchi et al. 2005: 27), existing only ‘on the margins of sustainability’ (Weisler 2001). The islands in fact only recently formed: while the reefs are tens of millions of years old, the islets that sit on them emerged from the sea only recently, probably around 2000 BP (Weisler et al. 2000: 194; Yamaguchi et al. 2005: 31–2), just before the first people arrived (Yamaguchi et al. 2005: 31–2). The new home that these early seafarers found was not so much an ancient safe haven as a fragile geological experiment—land whose very existence was tenuous long before humans were altering the global climate.

Science, Politics and Transnational Regulation: Regulatory Scientific Institutions and the Dilemmas of Hybrid Authority

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adi Ayal ◽  
Ronen Hareuveny ◽  
Oren Perez
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Optimal Design ◽  
Ionizing Radiation ◽  
Radiation Protection ◽  
Hybrid Structure ◽  
Political Authority ◽  
International Competition ◽  
Scientific Uncertainty ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Scientific Institutions

AbstractThe main objective of this article is to develop a better understanding of the structure of transnational regulatory scientific institutions (RSIs). We will argue that the hybrid political-legal-epistemic nature of RSIs creates a continual tension between their hierarchical and policy-driven structure and the paradigms of objectivity, parallelism and non-centralism that characterize science. The article examines the way in which RSIs cope with the challenge of maintaining their epistemic/political authority against the tensions generated by their hybrid structure. The article focuses on three institutions: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and the International Competition Network (ICN), and examines how this challenge manifests itself in the context of these three bodies. The article links the discussion of hybrid authority with the problem of scientific uncertainty. It concludes with a discussion of the optimal design of RSIs.

Communicating Climate Change across Workplace and Organizational Settings

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Dixon ◽  
Yanni Ma
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Complex Nature ◽  
Climate Change Communication ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
The Public ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Change Communication ◽  
Reduce Emissions

Addressing climate change requires attention to a variety of communication contexts. While attention has been paid to top-down approaches aimed at individual-level behavior and the beliefs of the public at large, organizations in both the for-profit and nonprofit sectors are increasingly recognized as integral players in solving the climate change challenges that we face today. For instance, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) characterize the commercial sector as having the highest potential to reduce emissions by 2020, suggesting that meaningful actions aimed at climate change mitigation must come from within organizations. However, the diverse nature of organizational communication poses challenges toward effective climate change communication. On the one hand, climate change communication can occur within organizations, where members’ individual behaviors and beliefs can have a significant impact on an organization’s energy consumption. On the other hand, organizations can communicate environmental issues directly to stakeholders and the public at large—though communication can be complicated by the fact that some organizations benefit from instilling doubt in the science of climate change. The complex nature of organizational-based climate change communication allows members of the for-profit and nonprofit sectors to play an important role in cultivating divergent views of climate change. Future research can help promulgate climate change-related awareness and action within organizational contexts.

scholarly journals An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design

2012 ◽  
Vol 93 (4) ◽  
pp. 485-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl E. Taylor ◽  
Ronald J. Stouffer ◽  
Gerald A. Meehl
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Experiment Design ◽  
Global Climate Models ◽  
Model Output ◽  
Earth System ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
System Models ◽  
Earth System Models

The fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) will produce a state-of-the- art multimodel dataset designed to advance our knowledge of climate variability and climate change. Researchers worldwide are analyzing the model output and will produce results likely to underlie the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unprecedented in scale and attracting interest from all major climate modeling groups, CMIP5 includes “long term” simulations of twentieth-century climate and projections for the twenty-first century and beyond. Conventional atmosphere–ocean global climate models and Earth system models of intermediate complexity are for the first time being joined by more recently developed Earth system models under an experiment design that allows both types of models to be compared to observations on an equal footing. Besides the longterm experiments, CMIP5 calls for an entirely new suite of “near term” simulations focusing on recent decades and the future to year 2035. These “decadal predictions” are initialized based on observations and will be used to explore the predictability of climate and to assess the forecast system's predictive skill. The CMIP5 experiment design also allows for participation of stand-alone atmospheric models and includes a variety of idealized experiments that will improve understanding of the range of model responses found in the more complex and realistic simulations. An exceptionally comprehensive set of model output is being collected and made freely available to researchers through an integrated but distributed data archive. For researchers unfamiliar with climate models, the limitations of the models and experiment design are described.

scholarly journals Look to Windward: The Michigan Environmental Protection Act and the Case for Atmospheric Trust Litigation in the Mitten State

2021 ◽  
pp. 275
Author(s):  
Jonathan Coumes
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
The United States ◽  
Natural World ◽  
Potential Relief ◽  
The Public ◽  
State Constitutions ◽  
History Of

Failure to address climate change or even slow the growth of carbon emissions has led to innovation in the methods activists are using to push decisionmakers away from disaster. In the United States, climate activists frustrated by decades of legislative and executive inaction have turned to the courts to force the hand of the state. In their most recent iteration, climate cases have focused on the public trust doctrine, the notion that governments hold their jurisdictions’ natural resources in trust for the public. Plaintiffs have argued that the atmosphere is part of the public trust and that governments have a duty to protect it. These types of lawsuits, known as Atmospheric Trust Litigation, have foundered on the shoals of courts wary of exceeding their powers, whether granted by Article III or state constitutions. The trouble in many cases, including Juliana v. United States, has been standing. Courts balk at declaring that any one actor has the power to affect climate change. Since they usually think one actor can’t fix the climate, redressability is out the window. Even if courts get past redressability, they believe the scale of any potential relief is just beyond the ability of a court to order. The number of lawsuits that have been filed suggests that that reasonable minds can differ, but most judges have found plaintiffs do not have standing before clearing the cases off their dockets. This Note contends that at least one state remains fertile ground for an atmospheric trust lawsuit. Michigan’s 1963 Constitution implies that the atmosphere is within the public trust, and the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, passed to carry out the state’s constitutional duties towards the natural world, does away with most, if not all, of the standing issues that have stymied climate cases across the nation. Motions, briefs, and equitable relief are not the only way to avoid the onset of what could be the greatest calamity in the history of humanity, but in Michigan, at least, Atmospheric Trust Litigation may well be what breaks and rolls back the carbon tide.

scholarly journals Reduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project Phase 1: introduction and evaluation of global-mean temperature response

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 5175-5190
Author(s):  
Zebedee R. J. Nicholls ◽  
Malte Meinshausen ◽  
Jared Lewis ◽  
Robert Gieseke ◽  
Dietmar Dommenget ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase 1 ◽  
Temperature Response ◽  
Earth System ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Radiative Forcings ◽  
Global Mean Temperature ◽  
Mean Temperature ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Reduced Complexity ◽  
Global Mean

Abstract. Reduced-complexity climate models (RCMs) are critical in the policy and decision making space, and are directly used within multiple Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports to complement the results of more comprehensive Earth system models. To date, evaluation of RCMs has been limited to a few independent studies. Here we introduce a systematic evaluation of RCMs in the form of the Reduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project (RCMIP). We expect RCMIP will extend over multiple phases, with Phase 1 being the first. In Phase 1, we focus on the RCMs' global-mean temperature responses, comparing them to observations, exploring the extent to which they emulate more complex models and considering how the relationship between temperature and cumulative emissions of CO2 varies across the RCMs. Our work uses experiments which mirror those found in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), which focuses on complex Earth system and atmosphere–ocean general circulation models. Using both scenario-based and idealised experiments, we examine RCMs' global-mean temperature response under a range of forcings. We find that the RCMs can all reproduce the approximately 1 ∘C of warming since pre-industrial times, with varying representations of natural variability, volcanic eruptions and aerosols. We also find that RCMs can emulate the global-mean temperature response of CMIP models to within a root-mean-square error of 0.2 ∘C over a range of experiments. Furthermore, we find that, for the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) and Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP)-based scenario pairs that share the same IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)-consistent stratospheric-adjusted radiative forcing, the RCMs indicate higher effective radiative forcings for the SSP-based scenarios and correspondingly higher temperatures when run with the same climate settings. In our idealised setup of RCMs with a climate sensitivity of 3 ∘C, the difference for the ssp585–rcp85 pair by 2100 is around 0.23∘C(±0.12 ∘C) due to a difference in effective radiative forcings between the two scenarios. Phase 1 demonstrates the utility of RCMIP's open-source infrastructure, paving the way for further phases of RCMIP to build on the research presented here and deepen our understanding of RCMs.

Climate Change Communication in Germany

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike S. Schäfer
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Political History ◽  
Climate Change Communication ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
The Public ◽  
Change Communication ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Media ◽  
Policy Agendas

Climate change communication has a long history in Germany, where the so-called “climate catastrophe” has received widespread public attention from the 1980s onwards. The article reviews climate change communication and the respective research in the country over the last decades. First, it provides a socio-political history of climate change communication in Germany. It shows how scientists were successful in setting the issue on the public and policy agendas early on, how politicians and the media emphasized the climate change threat, how corporations abstained from interventions into the debate and how skeptical voices, as a result, remained marginalized. Second, the article reviews scholarship on climate change communication in Germany. It shows how research on the issue has expanded since the mid-2000s, highlights major strands and results, as well as open questions and ongoing debates.

The Two Degrees Celsius Limit

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Shaw
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Acceptable Level ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Definitive Answer ◽  
A Value ◽  
The Social ◽  
History Of

International climate negotiations seek to limit warming to an average of two degrees Celsius (2°C). This objective is justified by the claim that scientists have identified two degrees of warming as the point at which climate change becomes dangerous. Climate scientists themselves maintain that while science can provide projections of possible impacts at different levels of warming, determining what constitutes an acceptable level of risk is not a matter to be decided by science alone, but is a value choice to be deliberated upon by societies as a whole. Hence, while climate science can inform debates about how much warming is too much, it cannot provide a definitive answer to that question. In order to fully understand how climate change came to be defined as a phenomenon with a single global dangerous limit of 2°C, it is necessary to incorporate insights from the social sciences. Political economy, culture, economics, sociology, geography, and social psychology have all played a role in defining what constitutes an acceptable level of climate risk. These perspectives can be applied through the framework of institutional analysis to examine reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other international organizations. This interdisciplinary approach offers the potential to provide a comprehensive history of how climate science has been interpreted in policy making. An interdisciplinary analysis is also essential in order to move beyond historical description to provide a narrative of considerable explanatory power. Such insights offer a valuable framework for considering current debates about whether or not it will be possible to limit warming to 2°C.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document