Interdisciplinary collaboration in the development of IPCC report glossaries

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Matthews ◽  
Renee van Diemen ◽  
Nora Marie Weyer ◽  
Jesbin Baidya
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Interdisciplinary Collaboration ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Climate Impacts ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Ipcc Report ◽  
Climate Change Assessment ◽  
Synthesis Report

<p>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces assessment reports on climate change, spanning physical climate science, climate impacts and adaptation, and mitigation. These reports draw upon scientific, technical and socio-economic information and are produced by interdisciplinary and international author teams. The reports, including their glossaries, are used by diverse audiences across the natural and social sciences, policy and practice, and education. IPCC report glossaries are an invaluable resource in their own right, covering the domains of each report and providing rigorous definitions for terms that are oft-used in public discourse.</p><p><br>The IPCC is currently in its Sixth Assessment Cycle (AR6), for which it has already released three Special Reports, and is currently preparing three Working Group (WG) Reports and a Synthesis Report to be released in 2021/22. Since each report and report chapter is written by a different author team, ensuring consistency in approach and conclusions across and within each report represents a key challenge. An important contribution towards achieving consistency is the development of single definitions for terms to be used across several reports. To facilitate the development of such definitions, the IPCC Secretariat and Technical Support Units have created custom software for internal author use, termed the Collaborative Online Glossary System (COGS). In addition, a public portal for IPCC glossaries (https://apps.ipcc.ch/glossary/) has been developed, where AR5 and approved AR6 report glossaries are hosted and can be readily searched. Here we discuss these tools within the context of interdisciplinary collaboration in climate change assessment. We also highlight the benefits of having consistent definitions when working more broadly at the water-energy-land nexus.</p>

scholarly journals Climate sensitivity uncertainty: when is good news bad?

2015 ◽  
Vol 373 (2055) ◽  
pp. 20150092 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark C. Freeman ◽  
Gernot Wagner ◽  
Richard J. Zeckhauser
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Climate Sensitivity ◽  
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Bad News ◽  
Good News ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Best Estimate ◽  
Ipcc Report

Climate change is real and dangerous. Exactly how bad it will get, however, is uncertain. Uncertainty is particularly relevant for estimates of one of the key parameters: equilibrium climate sensitivity—how eventual temperatures will react as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations double. Despite significant advances in climate science and increased confidence in the accuracy of the range itself, the ‘likely’ range has been 1.5–4.5°C for over three decades. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) narrowed it to 2–4.5°C, only to reverse its decision in 2013, reinstating the prior range. In addition, the 2013 IPCC report removed prior mention of 3°C as the ‘best estimate’. We interpret the implications of the 2013 IPCC decision to lower the bottom of the range and excise a best estimate. Intuitively, it might seem that a lower bottom would be good news. Here we ask: when might apparently good news about climate sensitivity in fact be bad news in the sense that it lowers societal well-being? The lowered bottom value also implies higher uncertainty about the temperature increase, definitely bad news. Under reasonable assumptions, both the lowering of the lower bound and the removal of the ‘best estimate’ may well be bad news.

scholarly journals Controversy around climate change reports: a case study of Twitter responses to the 2019 IPCC report on land

2021 ◽  
Vol 167 (3-4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Sanford ◽  
James Painter ◽  
Taha Yasseri ◽  
Jamie Lorimer
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Text Analysis ◽  
English Language ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Minor Element ◽  
Meat Consumption ◽  
Special Report ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Ipcc Report

AbstractIn August 2019, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL), which generated extensive societal debate and interest in mainstream and social media. Using computational and conceptual text analysis, we examined more than 6,000 English-language posts on Twitter to establish the relative presence of different topics. Then, we assessed their levels of toxicity and sentiment polarity as an indication of contention and controversy. We find first that meat consumption and dietary options became one of the most discussed issues on Twitter in response to the IPCC report, even though it was a relatively minor element of the report; second, this new issue of controversy (meat and diet) had similar, high levels of toxicity to strongly contentious issues in previous IPCC reports (skepticism about climate science and the credibility of the IPCC). We suggest that this is in part a reflection of increasingly polarized narratives about meat and diet found in other areas of public discussion and of a movement away from criticism of climate science towards criticism of climate solutions. Finally, we discuss the possible implications of these findings for the work of the IPCC in anticipating responses to its reports and responding to them effectively.

scholarly journals Welcome to Hydrogen—A New International and Interdisciplinary Open Access Journal of Growing Interest in Our Society

Hydrogen ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-92
Author(s):  
George E. Marnellos ◽  
Thomas Klassen
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Ipcc Report

The 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report [...]

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.

Health, sustainability, and climate change

2013 ◽  
pp. 548-555
Author(s):  
David Pencheon ◽  
Sonia Roschnik ◽  
Paul Cosford
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Climate Change ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Diverse Group ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Carbon Reduction ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Good For

This chapter will help you understand the relationships between health, health care, sustainability, climate change, and carbon reduction, locally and globally. The specific objectives of the chapter are to help you make the case for action by showing how health, health care, sustainable development, and climate change are linked positively such that what is good for mitigating climate change is also good for health and health care today, translate science into policy and practice and help move research and action about climate science into policy and practice, and engage a wide range of stakeholders and appreciate that, as in much public health practice, appropriate action comes from involving a diverse group of people through genuine engagement.

scholarly journals Treatment of International Economic Trade in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 155-165
Author(s):  
Jackie Dawson ◽  
Jean Holloway ◽  
Nathan Debortoli ◽  
Elisabeth Gilmore
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Climate Impacts ◽  
Climate Mitigation ◽  
Economic Sectors ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Cascading Effects ◽  
Trade Offs

Abstract Purpose of the Review Climate change presents significant risks to the international trade and supply chain systems with potentially profound and cascading effects for the global economy. A robust international trade system may also be central to managing future climate risks. Here, we assess the treatment (or lack thereof) of trade in a selection of recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment and special reports using a quantitative text analysis. IPCC reports are considered the preeminent source of relevant climate change information and underpin international climate change negotiations. Study Findings Results show that international trade has not had substantial coverage in recent IPCC assessments. Relevant keywords associated with trade appear in very limited ways, generally in relation to the words “product” and “transport.” These keywords are often referring to emissions associated with transportation and the movement of food and global food systems. The influence of trade is given larger consideration with respect to the costs and trade-offs of climate mitigation policies, especially the interactions with food availability, that appear in Working Group III reports compared with the risks to trade from climate change impacts in Working Group II. Trade in relation to other economic sectors is largely absent as well as risks from potential climate-related trade disruption. There is almost no treatment of the potential impacts, risks, and adaptation strategies to manage the climate related-implications for international trade. Recommendations Given the importance of trade to economic growth, we recommend that additional attention be paid to trade and related economic issues in future IPCC assessment and special reports, specifically on the interactions of climate impacts and risks on trade and the potential for trade to moderate these risks. To achieve this, there must be efforts to increase the base of scientific literature focused on climate change and international trade as well as increased effort made among IPCC lead authors to review trade literature that may lie outside conventional climate change scholarship.

Making behavioral science integral to climate science and action

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
BARUCH FISCHHOFF
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Behavioral Science ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Behavioral Sciences ◽  
Quarter Century ◽  
Science And Policy ◽  
Climate Research ◽  
Quantitative Estimates

Abstract The behavioral sciences were there at the beginning of the systematic study of climate change. However, in the ensuing quarter century, they largely faded from view, during which time public discourse and policy evolved without them. That disengagement and the recent reengagement suggest lessons for the future role of the behavioral sciences in climate science and policy. Looking forward, the greatest promise lies in projects that make behavioral science integral to climate science by: (1) translating behavioral results into the quantitative estimates that climate analyses need; (2) making climate research more relevant to climate-related decisions; and (3) treating the analytical process as a behavioral enterprise, potentially subject to imperfection and improvement. Such collaborations could afford the behavioral sciences more central roles in setting climate-related policies, as well as implementing them. They require, and may motivate, changes in academic priorities.

scholarly journals Telling the boiling frog what he needs to know: why climate change risks should be plotted as probability over time

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Sharpe
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
First Principles ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Climate Change Risks ◽  
Science Community ◽  
Over Time

Abstract. Humanity's situation with respect to climate change is sometimes compared to that of a frog in a slowly boiling pot of water, meaning that change will happen too gradually for us to appreciate the likelihood of catastrophe and act before it is too late. I argue that the scientific community is not yet telling the boiling frog what he needs to know. I use a review of the figures included in two reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to show that much of the climate science communicated to policymakers is presented in the form of projections of what is most likely to occur, as a function of time (equivalent to the following statement: in 5 min time, the water you are sitting in will be 2 ∘C warmer). I argue from first principles that a more appropriate means of assessing and communicating the risks of climate change would be to produce assessments of the likelihood of crossing non-arbitrary thresholds of impact, as a function of time (equivalent to the following statement: the probability of you being boiled to death will be 1 % in 5 min time, rising to 100 % in 20 min time if you do not jump out of the pot). This would be consistent with approaches to risk assessment in fields such as insurance, engineering, and health and safety. Importantly, it would ensure that decision makers are informed of the biggest risks and hence of the strongest reasons to act. I suggest ways in which the science community could contribute to promoting this approach, taking into account its inherent need for cross-disciplinary research and for engagement with decision makers before the research is conducted instead of afterwards.

Communicating About Climate Change with Journalists and Media Producers

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Wihbey ◽  
Bud Ward
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Rhode Island ◽  
News Media ◽  
New York Times ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Massachusetts Institute Of Technology ◽  
Climate Change Communication ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Change Communication ◽  
The University

The relationship between scientific experts and news media producers around issues of climate change has been a complicated and often contentious one, as the slow-moving and complex story has frequently challenged, and clashed with, journalistic norms of newsworthiness, speed, and narrative compression. Even as climate scientists have become more concerned by their evidence-based findings involving projected risks, doubts and confusion over communications addressing those risks have increased. Scientists increasingly have been called upon to speak more clearly and forcefully to the public through news media about evidence and risks—and to do so in the face of rapidly changing news media norms that only complicate those communications. Professional science and environment journalists—whose ranks have been thinned steadily by media industry financial pressures—have meanwhile come under more scrutiny in terms of their understanding; accuracy; and, at times, perceived bias. A number of important organizations have recognized the need to educate and empower a broad range of scientists and journalists to be more effective at communicating about the complexities of climate science and about the societal and economic impacts of a warming climate. For example, organizations such as Climate Communication have been launched to support scientists in their dealings with media, while the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change itself has continued to focus on the communication of climate science. The Earth Journalism Network, Society of Environmental Journalists, Poynter Institute, and the International Center for Journalists have worked to build media capacity globally to cover climate change stories. Efforts at Stanford University, the University of Oxford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, and the University of Rhode Island sponsor programming and fellowships that in part help bolster journalism in this area. Through face-to-face workshops and online efforts, The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication has sought to link the media and science communities. Meanwhile, powerful, widely read sites and blogs such as “Dot Earth,” hosted by the New York Times, Climate Central, Real Climate, The Conversation, and Climate Progress have fostered professional dialogue, greater awareness of science, and called attention to reporting and communications issues. Journalists and scientists have had ongoing conversations as part of the regular publication and reporting processes, and professional conferences and events bring the two communities together. Issues that continue to animate these discussions include conveying the degree to which climate science can be said to be “settled” and how to address uncertainty. Through some of these capacity-building efforts, news media have become increasingly aware of audience dynamics including how citizens respond to pessimistic reports, or “doom and gloom,” versus solutions-oriented reports. Professional dialogue has also revolved around the ethical dimensions of conveying a story at the level of global importance. Still, with issues of climate change communication on display for more than two decades now, certain tensions and dynamics persist. Notably, journalists seek clarity from scientists, while climate change experts and advocates for and against taking climate action often continue to demand that journalists resist the temptation to oversimplify or hype the latest empirical findings, while at the same time urging that journalists do not underestimate potential climate risks.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document