GeoLog

IPCC

GeoPolicy: Making a case for science at the United Nations

GeoPolicy: Making a case for science at the United Nations

This month’s GeoPolicy is a guest post by the International Council for Science (ICSU). Based in Paris, the organisation works at the science-policy interface on the international scale. Here, Heide Hackmann, Executive Director at ICSU, highlights key initiatives ensuring science is present within the United Nations (UN) and explains how ICSU and the scientific community can support these processes.

The past years were an extraordinary time for the UN, with key international agreements on disaster risk reduction, climate change, sustainable development and urbanization being concluded. The decisions taken in the last two years will shape global policy for decades. It was an exciting time for science, too – getting the Paris Agreement in place, for example, was after all a result of decades (centuries, actually) of research, and of science sounding the alarm on the effects of carbon emissions on the climate. Without the relentless work of the climate science community, the issue of climate change would never have received the political attention it needed, plunging humankind headlong into its dangerous consequences.

The UN policy cycle of the last two years started in 2015 with the Sustainable Development Goals and ended, in October 2016, with the New Urban Agenda, being agreed in Quito, Ecuador. Now is a good time to look back at some aspects of how and why science has been a part of the creation of these UN policy frameworks, and start a conversation about what its role could be in their implementation.

The idea that scientific progress should benefit society has been central to the mission of the International Council for Science (ICSU) since its foundation in 1931. Its membership consists of national scientific bodies (122 members, representing 142 countries), international scientific unions (31 members), as well as 22 associate members. Through its members the Council identifies major issues of importance to science and society and mobilizes scientists to address them. It facilitates interaction amongst scientists across all disciplines and from all countries and promotes the participation of all scientists—regardless of race, citizenship, language, political stance, or gender—in the international scientific endeavour.

A core part of the Council’s work relates to the provision of scientific input and advice to inform policy development. It has a long history in this arena, having for example in the 1950s catalyzed international climate research through its organization of the International Geophysical Year (IGY).  Following the IGY, ICSU encouraged the United Nations to include the climate change issue in policy development processes and in the 1970s convened key meetings that led to the creation of the World Climate Research Programme in 1980 and, eventually, to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. In 1992, ICSU was invited to coordinate the inputs of the international scientific community to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro and, again in 2002, to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg.

 

There is no one model of how to make science heard at the UN

All processes at the science-policy interface are different: Sometimes the Council has a formal role representing the scientific community at the UN. In other processes it is just one of many organizations creating pathways for communities of scientists to be heard. In yet other cases, ICSU plays a coordinating role, contributing to the architecture of international science advisory mechanisms and developing the scientific infrastructure underpinning UN policy processes. So each time we decide to engage in a new process, we have a close look at who is doing what in the space, and what the unique contribution of an international science council could be. Here are a couple of examples of what we thought were useful contributions:

In the process leading to the agreement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Council formally represented the international scientific community as part of the Major Group for Science and Technology (together with WFEO and ISSC), a stakeholder structure designed to provide civil society input into the intergovernmental negotiations. This typically involved coordinating written and oral inputs to the meetings of the UN working group involved in their creation to advocate for science-based decision- and policy-making.

The Council also published the only scientific review of the Sustainable Development Goals. Based on the work of more than 40 researchers from a range of fields across the natural and social sciences, it found that of the 169 targets beneath the 17 draft goals, just 29% are well defined and based on the latest scientific evidence, while 54% need more work and 17% are weak or non-essential. On its release, the report received widespread coverage in international media. Right now, the Council is working on finalizing a follow-up report that examines synergies and trade-offs between different goals, drawing attention to the need for mapping and characterising interactions between SDGs to avoid negative outcomes. Expect that report to be published in early 2017.

For the climate change process, the IPCC served as the obvious voice of science. However, as an intergovernmental body, its focus was not so much directed towards public outreach. This left a niche for another contribution by the Council to the UN negotiations. In the 18 months prior to the COP21 climate negotiations in Paris, December 2015, the Council operated the Road to Paris website, a stand-alone media product emerging from the scientific community. The site followed three major international policy processes that concluded in 2015: disaster risk reduction, sustainable development and climate change. Its content was designed to augment the existing media coverage of these processes from a scientific point of view. Just before COP21, a collection of the most read and most shared articles on the website was published in a magazine format. This involvement in the COP21 discussions culminated in the Council’s role at the conference itself, where it provided a focal point for scientists present to gather, network, discuss key scientific challenges and communicate to the media in the last days of the conference on the Paris Agreement.

At Habitat III, the UN’s conference on sustainable urbanization, we tried yet another approach. The stakeholder input for this process was organized in a much more bottom-up way, with no one organization being assigned formal representation of the science community. The input of the research community through what was called the “General Assembly of Partners” had a distinct impact on the outcome document. For example, in March of 2016, there was not a single mention of the word “health” in the draft of that document, yet by the time it was agreed in Quito, 25 mentions of “health” had appeared. Additionally, for Quito we teamed up with Future Earth and the University of Applied Sciences Potsdam to create a space called Habitat X Change. At the previous conferences, we had noticed that scientists were keen for an on-the-ground rallying point – for a physical space where scientists can meet, connect with one another and with stakeholders to exchange ideas, make the voice of science heard, and form new networks to work together in the future. Habitat X Change quickly became a natural focal point for scientists at the conference, providing a space for them to hold events, meet one another, showcase their research, or just have a coffee and talk. See our photos on Flickr to get an impression of how people at the conference filled it with life and meaning.

Overall, we found that there is a big interest in scientific input and opinion at these conferences. For example, at a spontaneously organized climate science press conference during the 2015 climate talks in Paris, more than 200 journalists crammed into the room, beleaguering the scientists with questions long after the conclusion of the press briefing. The voice of science is seen as more neutral and disinterested than those of the many activist groups jostling for attention around these processes.

 

The big frameworks are all in place – is science still needed now?

With the Paris Agreement in force, the world now has a legally binding agreement to limit dangerous climate change. The Sustainable Development Goals provide a roadmap to a more equitable, sustainable future. The New Urban Agenda tells us what the role of cities in all this will be. What then is the role for science in turning these political documents into realities on the ground?

One thing is to help deal with their complexity. Even before the SDGs were agreed, some started questioning them, saying that success in one goal might offset gains in others, if done the wrong way. Science can help make sense of these interactions and help policymakers avoid pitfalls. Making the New Urban Agenda a success requires efficient ways of linking knowledge production and policy-making, and closely linking the implementation of this Agenda with the SDGs. And the Paris Agreement prominently calls on the scientific community (represented by the IPCC) to identify pathways to limit global warming to 1.5° C.  There is a wealth of problems that need solutions from science in order to make these political agreements a success.

The scientific community also needs to help identify and fill critical knowledge gaps. Here, the Council’s research programmes are actively contributing to the implementation of the agreements. For example, the Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR) programme is helping to define minimum data standards for the indicators for the Sendai Agreement on disaster risk reduction. WCRP is bringing to the fore the remaining gaps in basic research on climate change. Future Earth is building scientific and stakeholder coalitions called Knowledge Action Networks around priority areas for these global agreements.

At the same time, the implementation phase of these frameworks poses challenges because it requires a cultural shift for science as it moves towards being a partner in co-creating the solutions needed by policymakers. It requires building long term frameworks to work at different scales, and importantly at the national level. This has implications for the kinds of organizations that are a central part of the Council’s core constituency: its broad base of national scientific academies. It also means engaging meaningfully with stakeholders to deliver the knowledge that is needed, and staying engaged during the implementation, not just the creation, of these frameworks.

Written by Heide Hackmann, Executive Director at the International Council for Science.

GeoPolicy: What’s next for the IPCC & how can early career scientists get involved? An interview with Valérie Masson-Delmotte

GeoPolicy: What’s next for the IPCC & how can early career scientists get involved? An interview with Valérie Masson-Delmotte

This month’s GeoPolicy post is an interview with the newly-appointed co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group 1 (WG1): Valérie Masson-Delmotte. Valérie is also a Principle Investigator at the Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, Paris. In this interview she discusses how she balances her two roles, what the IPCC has planned over the next few years, and what advice she has for Early Career Scientists (ECS) wanting to get involved. The interview was conducted during the European Geosciences Union General Assembly (17-22 April 2016) and the interviewer was EGU’s Science Policy Fellow, Sarah Connors.

 

Background, career path and newly appointed role

SC: Hello Valérie, thank you for meeting with me. Could you first start by introducing your professional background?

VMD: Of course. I was trained in fluid physics (undergraduate). I did a PhD thesis on past climate modelling. I had a very easy career path – I was very lucky. I was hired just one day after my PhD thesis, where I worked in an emerging laboratory (the Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement). I stayed there but I changed my collaborations and research topics throughout the years. I switched to providing new information on past climate using ice core drilling. I have also been working on present day monitoring, with a particular interest in water molecules, using the same techniques we use to look at ice cores.

I have changed my daily work a lot. Always working with international collaborations – immediately starting with European-scale projects at a time when there was a drive to strengthen international collaborations. That’s a big characteristic [of my research]. Usually the people who work closely in my field are not found in my institution! They are spread all around.

SC: You have now been appointed Co-Chair of the IPCC WG1. How does taking on this new responsibility change your day to day working life?

VMD: I am currently doing two jobs at the same time. My main issue is stopping what I have been doing previously but still keeping a ‘foot’ within research myself. I am supervising students and I have a research project that started last January – so I will continue to be part of that. It can be hard.

I have urgent commitments coming as a result of my role in the IPCC, especially at the start of this process. But I am very keen to not completely leave my research activity totally, because that is ‘myself’.

SC: Have you been involved with any previous IPCC reports?

VMD: I discovered the 2nd IPCC report when I was a PhD student and I found it so interesting and useful for broadening my views. I used the third one for my teaching and I was a leader for the 4th one and a co-lead author for the 5th. I am very familiar with the inside process of producing the scientific part of these reports. I was very unfamiliar with the other side of the work: the science policy interface. So that is what I am learning now.

SC: Are there any striking differences with how you communicate science between your role at the IPCC compared to your academic work?

I have to be a scientist within this new role. I was elected to be a representative of the scientific community along with my co-chair Panmao Zhai, and we really share 50:50 the responsibilities. We are supported by vice-chairs from various countries. It is very important to have a broad, global coverage [of scientists] and not be biased towards EU geography. We collectively feel we represent the scientific community.

When [policy] decisions are to be taken, they are taken by the panel*. We do not tell them what to do of course, we just put the scientific facts on the table: our emerging results, our scientific analysis and we stop there.

*appointed and elected representatives from 195 countries

SC: So you don’t extend into advocacy?

VMD: I would not do that.

 

The next steps for the IPCC

SC: What’s next for the IPCC?

VMD: Last week, the panel has decided to organise three special reports. One on the value of 1.5 degrees warming, as a result of the Paris agreement in the UNFCCC. This will be done for September 2018. The schedule is extremely tight, we will have a scoping meeting this summer and we are preparing everything related to that meeting now.

It is a real mix of opportunities and challenges.

The two other reports are on climate change and the oceans and cryosphere, and one on a number of land-surface issues, which is a high interest assessment in the policy world as it will cover issues like sustainable land management and food security. It will also consider both adaptation and mitigation – some of these issues are quite politically sensitive. The ocean and cryosphere report is not just assessing the physical sciences, it will cover sustainability in the oceans and acting to preserve ocean ecosystems.

SC: Are the three special reports going to be published before the main assessment report?

VMD: Probably – certainly the first one. The other two will be done in parallel, which is a very heavy work load! Especially for the Technical Support Unit that we have just started to set up. Maybe people are not aware but all the facilities for the IPCC rely on only a few persons. There is the IPCC secretariat in Geneva within the World Meteorological Organisation and co-sponsored by the United Nations Environment Programme. It’s a small structure facilitating and organising all the processes with the panel. Then for the working groups, each Government from the elected co-chairs sponsors a technical support unit, which is made up of 5-10 people. It’s a very small number for supporting the work of hundreds of authors and thousands of reviewers.

We still have open calls for some positions now, and other position will be advertised next year. So check the IPCC website.

SC: You mentioned an upcoming ‘scoping’ meeting, what exactly does this mean?

VMD: A scoping meeting involves 70-120 appointed scientists who have been selected for this committee through an open call process. Scientists are selected so that we have the right range of expertise, renewal, experience and regional representatives. The outcome of this scoping meeting will be to define an outline for these special reports. This means a structure for each chapter and the key items to be considered. This is then presented to the panel for approval, where they can suggestion changes. This is how the science-policy process is organised at the beginning of the cycle. We have to do that for each special reports as well as the main assessment report.

For the main assessment report, work starting next year. We will probably organise consultations as a pre-scoping pathway to understand what end-users, the scientific community, and what all the stakeholders expect, as a way of engaging early-on in the process. This is to make sure that the topics assessed are what everyone wants to know about. Taking this into account is important so that it addresses the concerns of end users and policy makers, not just what scientists think are important. Then we will follow up with a scoping meeting and nomination for authors.

SC: What’s your biggest hope to be achieved from the next assessment report?

VMD: I have several. Firstly, it has to be rock solid: no mistakes – that’s a challenge to achieve given the workload. Additionally, the report must focus more on the regional aspect: looking at scales from global to regional and what emerging factors are found. Also, we may try to engage with social scientists, making the WG1 report more interdisciplinary. There could be a number of issues where their input would be valuable. I also want to increase the number of authors from developing countries – that is also a strong priority. Finally, we are considering changing the structure of the reports. The previous reports were organised by observations, process studies and observations. We may consider organising it by processes rather than a more separatist method. Most climate science research is not limited to just one area (e.g. just observations) there is normally both observations and simulations are all used to try to answer a question. These are ongoing considerations at the moment.

I hope that world renowned scientists will be eager to join and partake in this process.

The report has only the quality of the assessments done by the authors, which is then improved thanks to the review process That is really a strong improvement. It’s like shaping something – you know when you do sculpture? You have the first draft but the review really gives it a nice shape!

 

Advice to Early Career Scientists (ECS)

SC: If you had to give some tips to ECS on how to better communicate their research to policy workers?

VMD: I would suggest to train with teenagers.

My own experience is that if you are able to explain your research to high school students then you are able to explain it to everyone.

You have to keep in mind that policy workers are not scientists. Many of them do not have a science background, some do and many of the advisors do, but policy makers usually don’t. So it is really important to practice and when you do practise with teenagers, when they don’t understand you, you get very quick feedback! It means no judgement on high school students or policy makers but that would be my advice.

SC: Do you have anything you’d like to say to the ECS who read this interview?

VMD: I would encourage them to join the IPCC process. There are many ways they can do this:

  • Write excellent papers that we have to cite as we only rely on published peer-review literature. New papers, new ideas, new methods, that’s critical! And these come from the ECS usually.
  • We are now considering having chapter scientists to support on technical aspects like managing references, figures etc. This happened in 2nd and 3rd assessment reports but it’s complicated as it is unpaid. I have a mind of making these a duet – one from a developed country and one from a developing country. Maybe this could be an interesting option but it’s not decided yet.
  • Become a contributing author. Each assessment must change two-thirds of the authors so there are opportunities for bright young scientists.
  • And finally reviewing the report! It’s more work for us but it’s a way to be involved and it’s a critical step in the process.

This interview was recorded during the 2016 European Geosciences Union General Assembly, where Valérie was an invited speaker for a session on the science policy interface. More information on this session can be found here.

For more information on the IPCC then check out their website.

 

GeoPolicy: How to communicate science to policy officials – tips and tricks from the experts

GeoPolicy: How to communicate science to policy officials – tips and tricks from the experts

The EGU General Assembly was bigger than ever this year. Over 16,500 people attended more than 500 sessions. Although many sessions featured policy-relevant science, the short course entitled ‘Working at the science policy interface‘ focused purely on the role of scientists within the policy landscape. For those of you that couldn’t attend, this month’s GeoPolicy post takes a closer look at what was discussed.

The short course consisted of three panellists; Katja Rosenbohm, Head of Communications at the European Environment Agency (EEA), Panos Panagos, Senior Research Scientist in the Land Resource Unit at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), and Valérie Masson-Delmotte, Head of the IPCC AR6 Working Group 1 (IPCC). Each speaker gave a short presentation, introducing their respective institutions  and how their work connects science to policy. The session concluded with questions taken from the audience. EGU Press Assistant, Hazel Gibson (@iamhazelgibson), live-tweeted the session and a Storify of the tweets can be found here.

 

Katja Rosenbohm & the EEA: assessing if the EU is achieving its policy goals 

The European Environment Agency (EEA) provides independent information on the environment to European and national level policy makers, as well as to the general public. Katja spoke of the EEA’s State of the Environment Reports which are published every 5 years. These reports give ‘a comprehensive assessment of the European environment’s state, trends and prospects, in a global context’ and include analysis of 11 global megatrends, 9 cross-country comparisons, and 25 European environmental briefings. These reports help the EU analyse whether current policy is achieving their desired goals.

The 2015 State of the Environment Report concludes with 4 key messages:

  • Policies have delivered substantial benefits for the environment, economy and people’s well-being; major challenges remain
  • Europe faces persistent and emerging challenges linked to production and consumption systems, and the rapidly changing global context
  • Achieving the 2050 vision requires system transitions, driven by more ambitious actions on policy, knowledge, investments and innovation
  • Doing so presents major opportunities to boost Europe’s economy and employment and put Europe at the frontier of science and innovation

A copy of Katja’s slides can be found here.

 

Panos Panagos & the JRC: the policy cycle & communicating your research

Panos introduced the JRC, the European Commission’s in-house research centre. The JRC has a near-unique position in which all its research directly provides scientific and technical support to policy. As a result, all research at the JRC tries to solve the societal challenges of our time, i.e. food security, energy resources, climate change, innovation and growth etc. Panos explained that scientific evidence can be used to assist policy at all stages of the ‘policy cycle’ (see figure below) but scientists must learn how to present their research so that policy officials can understand.

The Policy Cycle and where scientific evidence can be used. Slide taken from Panos Panagos' talk. Full presentation can be foudn here.

The Policy Cycle and where scientific evidence can be used. Slde taken from Panos Panagos’ talk. Full presentation can be found here.

Factors needed for scientific evidence to inform policy:

  • TRUST because if there is no trust, the evidence will be ignored
  • TIMING / RELEVANCE is vital and should be provided as early as possible in the policy cycle. The speed of scientific response after a specific event is crucial – evidence can be submitted too late, after a policy decision has been made.
  • FORM should not be a 500 page report. It should be concise. Policy makers do not have time to read long reports or interpret data.
  • FORMAT provide policymakers with concise, visual input so that they can quickly understand the main messages – graphs should have a maximum of 3 colours!
  • PRACTICE the science-policy relationship needs to move from being a formal, arms-length, linear relationship, to an iterative one where questions and answers are generated through co-creation by both scientists and policymakers

A copy of Panos’ slides can be found here where you can learn more about the JRC and the projects they have been involved with.

 

Valérie Masson-Delmotte & the IPCC: what’s next after COP21?

Valérie spoke of the IPCC and how these reports inform world leaders and policy officials about climate change. The IPCC is split into three Working Groups (WG):

  • WG1: understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change;
  • WG2: its potential impacts
  • WG3: options for adaptation and mitigation.

Last year, Valérie was appointed co-chair of the WG1 for the next set of IPCC reports (AR6) which will be published in 2022/3. In her talk, Valérie stressed that ‘the IPCC should be policy relevant but not policy proscriptive’. Scientists should not over-step their mark and become advocates of their research, they must remain unbiased and present their research professionally.

Scientists can indirectly assist policy by contributing to these IPCC reports; either through their academic papers or by becoming co-authors or editors. Three more-focused special reports will be published over the next few years. These are:

  • In the context of the Paris Agreement, special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways;
  • A special report on climate change and oceans and the cryosphere;
  • A special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems, considering challenges and opportunities both for adaptation and mitigation.

In addition a methodological report on greenhouse gas inventories has also be scheduled for early 2019.

If you can communicate your science to high school students, you are at the right level for policy makers!

When asked about how scientists should communicate their research to policy officials, Valérie suggested that scientists ‘practice’ communicating with teenagers. A 15 year old will quickly tell you if you are making sense or not and you will be able to clarify your meaning.

A copy of Valérie’s slides can be found here.

 

Discussions

The session concluded with a panel discussion and audience members were invited to ask questions. General themes encompassed science communication, science funding, and the division between science and politics.

A couple of the Q&As are listed below.

  • Is there a lack of knowledge in scientists about policy and how can we change that?

Yes but this can be reduced through the creation of networks and collaborations to encourage increasing participation from scientists to policy (bottom up communications). Perhaps an early career scientist and policy worker pairing scheme could help engagement soon rather than later?

  • Is there a fundamental problem with politicians being more accountable to financial interests than good science?

Politicians can use any excuse to get rid of something costly and research is expensive. It is the role of the scientist to explain the value of our research to stop this from happening.

Further discussions are covered in the Storify post created from this session. More general information about science policy can be found on the EGU policy resources website: http://www.egu.eu/policy/resources/

IPCC report ‘unprecedented changes’ in climate, urging policymakers to take action

“Human influence on the climate system is clear” was the key message from the report on the physical science of climate change from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“We have come a long way since the first IPCC report was published in 1990,” a statement reiterated throughout the press conference for the release of the report. The IPCC were keen to register the significance of the work and progress made in this report – an “assessment of a string of assessments from 1990,” according to Thomas Stocker, Co-Chair for Working Group I, reporting on the physical science basis of climate change. The fourth IPCC assessment published in 2007 was the first report to state that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

In the fifth report, this message is heightened. Since the 1950’s many of the changes observed and analysed in this report have been unprecedented including warming of the atmosphere and ocean, diminishing amounts of snow and ice, rising sea levels, and increases in the concentrations of greenhouse gases. With 259 lead authors citing 9200 papers in the report, two thirds of which have been published since 2007, the fifth assessment presents a strong message to policymakers across the world. Incredibly, this feat of scientific work has been approved and agreed upon by 110 governments across the world, with 1089 reviewers consisting of scientists, the public and governments from 55 of those countries offering a staggering 54,677 comments on the physical science basis report. Almost every word was commented on, disputed and discussed to come up with 18 headline messages – a first for the IPCC reports – that stated in simple language the report’s key outcomes.

“If you look at temperature, it is red” stated Stocker in a press conference, describing one of several key images from the IPCC policymaker summary.

Observed change in average surface temperature 1901-2012 from IPCC Working Group I summary for policymakers (SPM 28).

Observed change in average surface temperature 1901-2012 from IPCC Working Group I summary for policymakers (SPM 28).

This simple statement with clever wordplay not only elicits a global increase in surface temperature but also danger. Our planet is warming, and humans are the culprit. He goes on to say “…each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850…Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios.” RCP stands for representative concentration pathways, four greenhouse gas concentration trajectory models used by the IPCC in its fifth report.

“In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years.” For the fifth assessment the IPCC have gone to great lengths not only to ensure consistency and reliability in scientific data and consensus, but also to outline the key points from their summary for policymakers: the use of simple language to describe the data that does not include hype or headlines but instead simple scientific language.

The report also highlights the increase in global mean sea level rise, with a key headline stating “…the rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901–2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m”.

In each of the IPCC’s four RCPs it was clear that the higher the cumulative carbon emissions, the warmer it gets.

Cumulative total anthropogenic CO2 emissions from 1870 (GtCO2 ) from IPCC Working Group I summary for policymakers (SPM 36).

Cumulative total anthropogenic CO2 emissions from 1870 (GtCO2 ) from IPCC Working Group I summary for policymakers (SPM 36).

The summary for policymakers states “…cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond”, (above), “Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2.”

Dominique Raynaud, review editor of chapter five (on palaeoclimatology) of the report and officer on the EGU Climate: Past, Present and Future Division in an interview with the EGU Educational Fellow commented on the most important aspect of this report: “For the first time the scientific community has defined a set of 4 [RCP] scenarios which represent a range of 21st century climate policies. Only one scenario suggests that the global mean temperature change for the end of the 21st century will not exceed 2°C.”

Global average surface temperature change estimated from present to 2100 (°C), from IPCC Working Group I summary for policymakers (SPM 33).

Global average surface temperature change estimated from present to 2100 (°C), from IPCC Working Group I summary for policymakers (SPM 33).

Raynaud went on to say “With this scenario, we still have a hope to keep [to the] reasonable expected warming for this century…policymakers should obviously consider such a possibly.”

In some ways, the outcomes of this report are a repetition of what the public have already been hearing: humans are influencing climate change. But what is crucial to note about this 5th assessment report is the huge consensus among scientists, public and governments about this statement.

“This is not about ideology, this is not about self-interest” was a quote from Achim Steiner, the head of the UN’s environment programme, UNEP – a comment that will resonate with many through the ‘unequivocal’ status of the report’s conclusions – and a statement that Stocker echoed later “it threatens our planet, our only home,” clearly urging policymakers across the globe to take combined action on climate change.

By Jane Robb, EGU Educational Fellow

References:

IPCC Working Group I session report for 5th Assessment Report (summary for policymakers)

IPCC 5th Assessment Report (full)

IPCC 4th Assessment Report (full)