Current climate change

[Genava55]

The IPCC will release this Monday a new report from its Working Group I (the group working on the physical science review), so I think this should be a good opportunity to open a new thread and to talk about it (and about climate change more generally).

A few articles about the new report and the IPCC:

234 scientists read 14,000+ research papers to write the upcoming IPCC climate report – here’s what you need to know and why it’s a big deal https://theconversation.com/234-scientists-read-14-000-research-papers-to-write-the-upcoming-ipcc-climate-report-heres-what-you-need-to-know-and-why-its-a-big-deal-165587

Spoiler

234 scientists read 14,000+ research papers to write the upcoming IPCC climate report – here’s what you need to know and why it’s a big deal

This week, hundreds of scientists from around the world are finalizing a report that assesses the state of the global climate. It’s a big deal. The report is used by governments and industries everywhere to understand the threats ahead.

So who are these scientists, and what goes into this important assessment?

Get ready for some acronyms. We’re going to explore the upcoming IPCC report and some of the terms you’ll be hearing when it’s released on Aug. 9, 2021.

What is the IPCC?

IPCC stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It’s the United Nations’ climate-science-focused organization. It’s been around since 1988, and it has 195 member countries.

Every seven years or so, the IPCC releases a report – essentially a “state of the climate” – summarizing the most up-to-date, peer-reviewed research on the science of climate change, its effects and ways to adapt to and mitigate it.

The purpose of these reports is to provide everyone, particularly governing bodies, with the information they need to make important decisions regarding climate change. The IPCC essentially provides governments with a CliffsNotes version of thousands of papers published regarding the science, risks, and social and economic components of climate change.

There are two important things to understand:

1. The IPCC reports are nonpartisan. Every IPCC country can nominate scientists to participate in the report-writing process, and there is an intense and transparent review process.

2. The IPCC doesn’t tell governments what to do. Its goal is to provide the latest knowledge on climate change, its future risks and options for reducing the rate of warming.

Why is this report such a big deal?

The last big IPCC assessment was released in 2013. A lot can change in eight years.

Not only has computer speed and climate modeling greatly improved, but each year scientists understand more and more about Earth’s climate system and the ways specific regions and people around the globe are changing and vulnerable to climate change.

Where does the research come from?

The IPCC doesn’t conduct its own climate-science research. Instead, it summarizes everyone else’s. Think: ridiculously impressive research paper.

The upcoming report was authored by 234 scientists nominated by IPCC member governments around the world. These scientists are leading Earth and climate science experts.

This report – the first of four that make up the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report – looks at the physical science behind climate change and its impacts. It alone will contain over 14,000 citations to existing research. The scientists looked at all of the climate-science-related research published through Jan. 31, 2021.

These scientists, who are not compensated for their time and effort, volunteered to read those 14,000-plus papers so you don’t have to. Instead, you can read their shorter chapters on the scientific consensus on topics like extreme weather or regional changes in sea-level rise.

The IPCC is also transparent about its review process, and that process is extensive. Drafts of the report are shared with other scientists, as well as with governments, for comments. Before publication, the 234 authors will have had to address over 75,000 comments on their work.

Government input to these bigger reports, like the one being released on Aug. 9, 2021, is solely limited to commenting on report drafts. However, governments do have a much stronger say in the shorter summary for policymakers that accompanies these reports, as they have to agree by consensus and typically get into detailed negotiations on the wording.

Climate explained: how the IPCC reaches scientific consensus on climate change https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-how-the-ipcc-reaches-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-162600

Spoiler

When we say there’s a scientific consensus that human-produced greenhouse gases are causing climate change, what does that mean? What is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and what do they do?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides the world’s most authoritative scientific assessments on climate change. It provides policymakers with regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and risks, and options for cutting emissions and adapting to impacts we can no longer avoid.

The IPCC has already released five assessment reports and is currently completing its Sixth Assessment (AR6), with the release of the first part of the report, on the physical science of climate change, expected on August 9.

Each assessment cycle brings together scientists from around the world and many disciplines. The current cycle involves 721 scientists from 90 countries, in three working groups covering the physical science basis (WGI), impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (WGII) and mitigation of climate change (WGIII).

In each assessment round, the IPCC identifies where the scientific community agrees, where there are differences of opinion and where further research is needed.

IPCC reports are timed to inform international policy developments such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (First Assessment, 1990), the Kyoto Protocol (Second Assessment, 1995) and the Paris Agreement (Fifth Assessment, 2013-2014). The first AR6 report (WGI) will be released in August this year, and its approval meeting is set to take place virtually, for the first time in the IPCC’s 30-year history.

This will be followed by WGII and WGIII reports in February and March 2022, and the Synthesis Report in September 2022 — in time for the first UNFCCC Global Stocktake when countries will review progress towards the goal of the Paris Agreement to keep warming below 2℃.

During the AR6 cycle, the IPCC also published three special reports:

• on global warming of 1.5℃ (2018)

• on oceans and the cryosphere in a changing climate (2019)

• on climate change and land (2019).

How the IPCC reaches consensus

IPCC authors come from academia, industry, government and non-governmental organisations. All authors go through a rigorous selection process — they must be leading experts in their fields, with a strong publishing record and international reputation.

Author teams usually meet in person four times throughout the writing cycle. This is essential to enable (sometimes heated) discussion and exchange across cultures to build a truly global perspective. During the AR6 assessment cycle, lead author meetings (LAMs) for Working Group 1 were not disrupted by COVID-19, but the final WGII and WGIII meetings were held remotely, bringing challenges of different time zones, patchy internet access and more difficult communication.

The IPCC’s reports go through an extensive peer review process. Each chapter undergoes two rounds of scientific review and revision, first by expert reviewers and then by government representatives and experts.

This review process is among the most exhaustive for any scientific document — AR6 WGI alone generated 74,849 review comments from hundreds of reviewers, representing a range of disciplines and scientific perspectives. For comparison, a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal is reviewed by only two or three experts.

The role of governments

The term intergovernmental reflects the fact that IPCC reports are created on behalf of the 193 governments in the United Nations. The processes around the review and the agreement of the wording of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) make it difficult for governments to dismiss a report they have helped shape and approved during political negotiations.

Importantly, the involvement of governments happens at the review stage, so they are not able to dictate what goes into the reports. But they participate in the line-by-line review and revision of the SPM at a plenary session where every piece of text must be agreed on, word for word.

Acceptance in this context means that governments agree the documents are a comprehensive and balanced scientific review of the subject matter, not whether they like the content.

The role of government delegates in the plenary is to ensure their respective governments are satisfied with the assessment, and that the assessment is policy relevant without being policy prescriptive. Government representatives can try to influence the SPM wording to support their negotiating positions, but the other government representatives and experts in the session ensure the language adheres to the evidence.

Climate deniers claim IPCC reports are politically motivated and one-sided. But given the many stages at which experts from across the political and scientific spectrum are involved, this is difficult to defend. Authors are required to record all scientifically or technically valid perspectives, even if they cannot be reconciled with a consensus view, to represent each aspect of the scientific debate.

The role of the IPCC is pivotal in bringing the international science community together to assess the science, weighing up whether it is good science and should be considered as part of the body of evidence.

Isn't there a lot of disagreement among climate scientists about global warming? https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/isnt-there-lot-disagreement-among-climate-scientists-about-global-warming + https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Spoiler

No. By a large majority, climate scientists agree that average global temperature today is warmer than in pre-industrial times and that human activity is the most significant factor. 

Consensus of experts

The United States' foremost scientific agencies and organizations have recognized global warming as a human-caused problem that should be addressed. The U.S. Global Change Research Program has published a series of scientific reports documenting the causes and impacts of global climate change. NOAA, NASA, the National Science Foundation, the National Research Council, and the Environmental Protection Agency have all published reports and fact sheets stating that Earth is warming mainly due to the increase in human-produced heat-trapping gases.

On their climate home page, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicines says, "Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions," and that "Climate change is increasingly affecting people’s lives." 

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) issued this position statement: "Scientific evidence indicates that the leading cause of climate change in the most recent half century is the anthropogenic increase in the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO₂), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide." (Adopted April 15, 2019)

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) issued this position statement: "Human-induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate observed over the last 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Reaffirmed in November 2019)

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) What We Know site states: "Based on the evidence, about 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening."

Consensus of evidence

These scientific organizations have not issued statements in a void; they echo the findings of individual papers published in refereed scientific journals. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) maintains a database of over 8,500 peer-reviewed science journals, and multiple studies of this database show evidence of overwhelming agreement among climate scientists. In 2004, science historian Naomi Oreskes published the results of her examination of the ISI database in the journal Science. She reviewed 928 abstracts published between 1993 and 2003 related to human activities warming the Earth's surface, and stated, "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

This finding hasn't changed with time. In 2016, a review paper summarized the results of several independent studies on peer-reviewed research related to climate. The authors found results consistent with a 97-percent consensus that human activity is causing climate change.

Probably the most definitive assessments of global climate science come from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Founded by the United Nations in 1988, the IPCC releases periodic reports, and each major release includes three volumes: one on the science, one on impacts, and one on mitigation. Each volume is authored by a separate team of experts, who reviews, evaluates, and summarizes relevant research published since the prior report. Each IPCC report undergoes several iterations of expert and government review. The 2007 IPCC report, for instance, received some 90,000 comments, and each comment received an individual response.

The IPCC does not involve just a few scientists, or even just dozens of scientists. An IPCC factsheet explains: "Hundreds of leading experts in the different areas covered by IPCC reports volunteer their time and expertise as Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors to produce these assessments. Many hundreds more are involved in drafting specific contributions as Contributing Authors and commenting on chapters as Expert Reviewers."

Governments and climate experts across the globe nominate scientists for IPCC authorship, and the IPCC works to find a mix of authors, from developed and developing countries, among men and women, and among authors who are experienced with the IPCC and new to the process. Published in 2014, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) involved 831 experts selected from 3,598 nominations. In other words, the IPCC reports themselves are a comprehensive, consensus statement on the state climate science.

The report states:

The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since AR4 . Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, and in global mean sea level rise; and it is extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid- 20th century. In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.

About the IPCC itself:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change.

The IPCC provides regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation.

Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies. IPCC reports are also a key input into international climate change negotiations. The IPCC is an organization of governments that are members of the United Nations or WMO. The IPCC currently has 195 members. Thousands of people from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC. For the assessment reports, IPCC scientists volunteer their time to assess the thousands of scientific papers published each year to provide a comprehensive summary of what is known about the drivers of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and how adaptation and mitigation can reduce those risks. An open and transparent review by experts and governments around the world is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment and to reflect a diverse range of views and expertise. Through its assessments, the IPCC identifies the strength of scientific agreement in different areas and indicates where further research is needed. The IPCC does not conduct its own research.

Working Groups and Task Force

The IPCC is divided into three Working Groups and a Task Force. Working Group I deals with The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, Working Group II with Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and Working Group III with Mitigation of Climate Change. The main objective of the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories is to develop and refine a methodology for the calculation and reporting of national greenhouse gas emissions and removals. Alongside the Working Groups and the Task Force, other Task Groups may be established by the Panel for a set time period to consider a specific topic or question. One example is the decision at the 47th Session of the IPCC in Paris in March 2018 to establish a Task Group to improve gender balance and address gender-related issues within the IPCC.

Where to find the previous reports? Here:

https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/

 

If I can suggest you a good start, I recommend the first chapter of the Third Assessment Report (2007) - The Physical Science Basis (Working Group 1), it deals about the history of climate science and the discovery of the current issue (aka global warming):

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/

Direct link to the PDF of the chapter: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf

-----

A good introduction on the topic:

 

Edited August 7, 2021 by Genava55

[Freagarach]

I wonder how many travel hours, CPU power etc. were used to create such reports.

[Genava55]

21 minutes ago, Freagarach said:

I wonder how many travel hours, CPU power etc. were used to create such reports.

Shooting the messenger is a tempting fallacy, but most of the impact from an individual comes from its daily transportation, the energy-source for heating its home and what the individual eats regularly. Not taking a flight time-to-time nor using a computer.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Genava55

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

2 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Shooting the messenger is a tempting fallacy, but most of the impact from an individual comes from its daily transportation, the energy-source for heating its home and what the individual eats regularly. Not taking a flight time-to-time nor using a computer.

I know that climate progress does depend at least somewhat on individual choices, but we can't forget how the governments and industries play such a powerful role in our daily life choices. I think there are many ways in which corporations could lead change or be forced to change. For example, what if industries were required to make their packaging easily recycle-able? In the USA there is a bunch of "do your duty: recycle!" attitude about packaging waste. But in order to recycle the packaging you must practically disassemble the packaging, separating plastic from cardboard, which almost no-one does because it can take minutes. If packaging took 5-10 seconds to disassemble, then recycling would be way easier. Even better yet, there could be ways to make these companies financially responsible for the waste from packaging their consumers buy with the products.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

The report will tell us we are on track for a 'worst case' scenario and that we will not turn this around in time. The only thing we can possibly do is try to mitigate the worst effects. But in the end, what will happen is that the rich northern countries, specifically the richest people within those countries, will attempt to wall off the rest of the world's suffering while continuing their lavish lifestyles financed through rampant capitalism and resource depletion. Essentially, the ostrich sticks its head in the sand while the hyena of climate change eats it alive anus-first.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

7 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Even better yet, there could be ways to make these companies financially responsible for the waste from packaging their consumers buy with the products.

I agree this is the solution. Force capital to stop offloading their filth onto the heap of "externality." There are no "externalities" except on a capitalist's balance sheet. It's time to force it onto their balance sheet.

[smiley]

On the bright side, I will be underwater before the truly apocalyptic stuff goes down. Good luck, you will probably need it in 50 years if you don't end up dying in the resource wars first.

Edited August 7, 2021 by smiley

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 minute ago, smiley said:

On the bright side, I will be underwater before the truly apocalyptic stuff goes down. Good luck, you will probably need it in 50 years if you don't end up dying the resource wars first.

Indeed. Many of humanity's greatest cities will be inundated, but a 1% increase in carbon taxes is fought against tooth and nail. smh

[smiley]

2 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Indeed. Many of humanity's greatest cities will be inundated, but a 1% increase in carbon taxes is fought against tooth and nail. smh

Honestly, based on historical precedence, I think the most likely outcome would be that we just look the other way and when on the brink of extinction, we just accept more than half the population as collateral damage, geoengineer what's left to something livable and just carry on.

Couldn't deal with a virus, what hope is there for climate change. Especially when it's a case of slow boiling frogs.

I am almost curious to see it unfold. Personally, I am stoic enough to not worry about it, but interesting times ahead. I am lucky/unlucky to be born at the start of the millennia, so basically a front row ticket.

[LetswaveaBook]

If history teaches something, it is that we always hit the worst case scenario concerning climate change.

Something called committed warming makes me think we only see the tip of the iceberg. I think we keep following the worst case scenario for at least a decade. That's a decade of wasted potential.

[Genava55]

1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:

If history teaches something, it is that we always hit the worst case scenario concerning climate change.

Something called committed warming makes me think we only see the tip of the iceberg. I think we keep following the worst case scenario for at least a decade. That's a decade of wasted potential.

We are not exactly on the worst case scenario but it is still a bad outcome if we continue like this:

[Gurken Khan]

1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:

That's a decade of wasted potential.

The basics of climate change were known in the 60s/70s, so it's more half a century of wasted potential.

And all the money grabbing/corrupt people responsible for keeping destroying our planet will never be hold accountable.

[Freagarach]

12 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Shooting the messenger is a tempting fallacy

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it is all bogus. On the contrary! I'm trying my best to keep my footprint down. What I was mostly referring to was this passage

13 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Not only has computer speed and climate modeling greatly improved

and the flights taken. It is sad all this is needed instead of people just listening and taking action.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

Obviously in some countries where climate change is politically charged, it makes sense for governments to go after the "easiest" carbon cuts first, like renewable energy and electrification. If the two are pursued at the same time, the benefits of both are increased. Having a greater renewables percentage in electricity improves the environmental benefits of electric vehicles. Also, expanding electrification requires adding electric generation capacity to the grid, of which wind and solar are the cheapest.

In the debate about environmental benefits of electrification and renewables proposals, people often forget that electric things are quite frequently better than the gas powered things they replace. For example, my car has a 200 mile range and a 65 USD fuel tank, while a standard electric car with the same range can cost about 7 USD to fully charge. Also it is worth mentioning the pace at which transportation-sized batteries are improving, both in the power they can deliver, the time they charge, energy-density, composition of expensive/environmentally damaging materials.

[smiley]

8 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:

And all the money grabbing/corrupt people responsible for keeping destroying our planet will never be hold accountable.

This is part of the problem. You can't point to a boogeyman as the source of all evil when the point and purpose of it all stems from your demands and the incentive to fulfill it. Rampant consumerism demands more, and opportunists will cater to every demand. No one burns oil for the sake of burning oil and no one cuts down trees for the sake of cutting down trees.

Big oil was big oil because people want cars and lights. Why did Pennsylvania oil became a necessity in the first place and why did it become so big to the point of building entire nations from scratch.

Most green house emissions are done in the name of consumers. 15% of emissions causing climate change are solely due to our desire to eat meat. Don't get me wrong, I am personally part of the problem and will not go vegan to save the planet and I doubt most would do so. That same line of thinking dominates all corners of rampant consumerism.

But if it helps us sleep at night, sure, let's clear our hands off blame and point at someone else instead.

[Gurken Khan]

3 hours ago, smiley said:

You can't point to a boogeyman as the source of all evil when the point and purpose of it all stems from your demands and the incentive to fulfill it.

Of course there's not one source of all evil (assuming there isn't actually a cabal of lizards or whatever controlling everything). But it's not like there are no boogeymen. If companies know their business model is ruining the planet and still lobby, lie and bribe to keep it going, I consider that evil. The same is true for the politicians playing along, of course.

Our current Wirtschaftsminister (~Minister for Economic Affairs) has effectively shot down our domestic wind and solar industry while being very friendly towards the coal companies. With rampant corruption I'm sure he's not just an idiot but will profit from that financially.

[smiley]

I don't disagree with that. Just that those are symptoms and not the cause. I think that modern consumerism is by design unsustainable. Corruption and the like are just part of the race to the bottom.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

11 hours ago, smiley said:

This is part of the problem. You can't point to a boogeyman as the source of all evil when the point and purpose of it all stems from your demands and the incentive to fulfill it. Rampant consumerism demands more, and opportunists will cater to every demand. No one burns oil for the sake of burning oil and no one cuts down trees for the sake of cutting down trees.

There is no ethical consumption in a capitalist system. Consumers are trapped inside a system with no viable alternatives by design. Not everyone can afford to go off grid and build a house with mudbricks powered by solar panels, and if everyone did that would create its own problems. You'd just have the mud brick cartel strip mining the ground for dirt. You need systemic change. Telling everyone to recycle because strip mining the planet is a personal failing of consumers is just another way for industry to transform responsibility into an externality they can write off their balance sheets.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Political issue.

 

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/good-grub-why-we-might-be-eating-insects-soon/

 

 

[Genava55]

21 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Political issue.

Could you elaborate a little?

21 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

 

Did you forget the role of tides?

I mean there is a station a few kilometers from Carbis Bay and it is recording a sea level rise:

Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01490419.2015.1121175

Edited August 8, 2021 by Genava55

[Gurken Khan]

31 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

There is no ethical consumption in a capitalist system.

There are still better and worse choices, IMHO. I haven't eaten meat in decades, because I think this industrial production is brutal and harming animals, humans and nature alike (the series of BSE, swine fever, nicotine chickens and Creutzfeld-Jakob sheep made me think); I eat seafood only in small quantities and with a seal (like MSC, whatever that's worth, better than nothing I guess). I don't have an own car anymore, I don't buy throw-away clothes. I've never ordered from Amazon, because f that f'head. I'm paying a bit extra to not have energy from nuclear or coal plants. Guess I'm not saving the planet with that, but just like you, I'm at least trying to keep my footprint small.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, Genava55 said:

Could you elaborate a little?

Did you forget the role of tides?

I mean there is a station a few kilometers from Carbis Bay and it is recording a sea level rise:

Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01490419.2015.1121175

I'm not going to argue about paid propaganda in the name of science.

 

One of the main points is to reduce the consumption of meat.

I am speaking of course of the man-made one.

 

[Genava55]

Just now, Lion.Kanzen said:

I'm not going to argue about paid propaganda in the name of science.

I don't see where is the paid propaganda and I have a Master degree in Earth Sciences (I like history but I am actually not a historian formally).

[Lion.Kanzen]

the capitalist system will not cease to exist for the elite, I have already said that.

 

We vile mortals without money, we will have to live without meat and without oil.

 

"You will have nothing and you will be happy"-World Economic Forum.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, Genava55 said:

I don't see where is the paid propaganda and I have a Master degree in Earth Sciences (I like history but I am actually not a historian formally).

That's why I said the one created by humans, I don't remember what name it has.