Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern”

Abstract

Article 2 ͉ UNFCCC ͉ climate change impacts A rticle 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) commits signatory nations to stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that ''would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference (DAI) with the climate system.'' The UNFCCC also highlights 3 broad metrics with which decision-makers are to assess the pace of progress toward this goal: allow ''ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change,'' ensure that ''food production is not threatened,'' and enable ''economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.'' In an effort to provide some insight into impacts that might be considered DAI, authors of the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identified 5 ''reasons for concern'' (RFCs) in (1). Each RFC categorizes impacts of a similar type, providing a set of metrics reflecting severity of risk. Relationships between various impacts reflected in each RFC and increases in global mean temperature (GMT) were portrayed in what has come to be called the ''burning embers diagram''; the image was also included in the Summary for Policy Makers of the contribution of Working Group II to the TAR and highlighted in the Synthesis Report.In presenting the ''embers'' in the TAR, IPCC authors did not assess whether any single RFC was more important than any other; nor, as they noted, did they conclude what level of impact or what atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases would constitute DAI, a value judgment that would be policyprescriptive. The ''embers'' were designed primarily to communicate the associations of impacts with increases in GMT and facilitate examination of the underlying evidence for use by decision-makers contemplating responses to these concerns.The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) states that ''the 'reasons for concern' identified in the TAR remain a viable framework for assessing key vulnerabilities'' (2). In this article, we revise sensitivities of the RFCs to increases in GMT, based on our expert judgment about new findings in the growing literature since the publication of the TAR in 2001.* Furthermore, our judgments are supported by a more thorough understanding of the concept of vulnerability that has evolved over the past 8 years, † as well as a more careful articulation of the criteria by which any specific vulnerability can be labeled ''key,'' and thus contribute to a reason for concern (3). ‡ Section 1 defines and reviews the RFCs and ''burning embers'' figure as presented in the IPCC TAR. Section 2 presents the 1 To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: jsmith@stratusconsulting.com or shs@stanford.edu. *These judgments were vetted by 3 rounds of IPCC review and were approved in the Summary for Policymakers of both the AR4 Working Group 2 and Synthesis Reports by the IPCC Plenary. † Vulnerability to climate change is the degree to which geophysical, biological and socioeconomic systems are susceptible to and unable to cope with adve...

Effects of ocean acidification on immune responses of the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas

“…The absorption of CO 2 by the seawater results in a net increase in protons (H þ ) and a reduction in pH, which finally leads to ocean acidification (OA). Presently, the atmospheric global average level of CO 2 has reached 400 ppm, and is predicted to increase to 500e1000 ppm by the end of this century [2,3]. It is estimated that the pH of oceanic surface waters will decrease by 0.14e0.35 pH units by the year 2100 [2,4].…”

The Impact of First-Generation Biofuels on the Depletion of the Global Phosphorus Reserve

“…Several authors have argued that global temperature increases should not exceed 2°C (Leemans and Eickhout 2004;Smith et al 2009) to avoid significant impacts on agricultural production and ecosystems. A 3.5°C threshold has also been suggested (Schneider 2001).…”

Integrating population modeling into ecological risk assessment

“…Reasons for concern about stabilizing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that impact climate change are identified in the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Smith et al 2009). The risks after 1990 for each increase in temperature from 0 to 5 8C in global mean temperature are substantial: 1) risk to unique and threatened systems, 2) risk of extreme weather events, 3) distribution of impacts, 4) aggregate damages, and (5) risks of large-scale discontinuities (e.g., tipping points).…”

“…However, humankind is totally dependent on natural capital and the ecosystem services it provides, and, because Solomon et al (2009) make a persuasive case for climate change being irreversible, substantive measures are required immediately to protect and nurture them. The consequences of small global temperature increases discussed by Smith et al (2009) are not attractive at best and appalling at worst. Clearly, anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere must be reduced by 80% now because climate changes are already having very serious deleterious impacts in some parts of the world (e.g., Australia's ecological footprint is not changing, but its biocapacity is plummeting from the results of environmental changes [http:// www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/trends/ australia/]).…”