tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post3780831222935741895..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: From Projected Impacts to Risks and Adaptationeduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-83272827983726711882014-04-06T14:15:25.365+02:002014-04-06T14:15:25.365+02:00The second excerpt from WG2 represents the worst p...The second excerpt from WG2 represents the worst part of the way IPCC reports present uncertainties. <br /><br />I would say that it's trivially true that the probability of crossing multiple tipping points increases with temperature, but the significance of this increase is not known at all. It probability may remain low enough to be ignored or not. When crossing even one tipping point is so certain, how could we know anything more on multiple.<br />Pekka Pirilähttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04747229036782463233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-46149668524777574212014-04-06T13:10:36.722+02:002014-04-06T13:10:36.722+02:00There is indeed an interesting tension in the argu...There is indeed an interesting tension in the argument as the IPCC WG2 adopts a new framing, the framing in terms of risk, not uncertainty. Risk is manageable, and rests on knowledge of probabilities and size of damage. It appears that the size of potential costs has been lowered compared to the previous report but we still have incomplete knowledge of probabilities. In some cases there is 'high confidence' expressed (for example on p.12 of the report which lists 8 'key risks'), in other instances the language of uncertainty is still present, for example under the headline The Decision-making context:<br /><br />'Responding to climate-related risks involves decision-making in a changing world, with<br />continuing uncertainty about the severity and timing of climate-change impacts and with<br />limits to the effectiveness of adaptation.' <br /><br />Sometimes both frameworks are applied in a single sentence which leads to confusion:<br /><br />'The precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger tipping points (thresholds for abrupt and irreversible change) remain uncertain, but the risk associated with crossing multiple tipping points in the earth system or in interlinked human and natural systems increases with rising temperature (medium confidence).'<br /><br />In this example the word risk is used as a synonym for probability, but the statement is presented as one of medium confidence only, which means that even the postulated link between the probability of crossing multiple tipping points as a result of rising temperature is not widely accepted by the panel.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-46225896641277099742014-04-04T18:47:14.194+02:002014-04-04T18:47:14.194+02:00Reiner,
I know what it's 'called'. I ...Reiner, <br />I know what it's 'called'. I was talking about what it's 'about'.<br />RaffaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-51740857652531399822014-04-03T16:05:29.498+02:002014-04-03T16:05:29.498+02:00The communication of climate science is an interes...The communication of climate science is an interesting enterprise. We have sum total of published research, of which (some? most?) is evaluated by the IPCC. The IPCC then produces a long report, in three parts, plus a synthesis report.<br /><br />It also publishes Summaries for Policy Makers and Press releases, and supportive material in multimedia formats. The media, politicians, and interested groups and individuals then take up elements from this bulk of material. They select, interpret, and play up or tone down specific aspects or claims. Scientists also enter this debate, both from the inside (as IPCC-authors in various levels of responsibility) and from outside, either in support of the IPCC or critical of some aspects.<br /><br />It is not surprising then, that despite claims about an alleged consensus there is, at times, the impression that we are listening to a cacophony. Attempts at 'correcting' 'misrepresentations' of 'the science' are usually invoking the IPCC report, but this is not a monolithic text. <br /><br />What can one do to forestall such communication problems? You produce a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs). This has now been done with regard to the WG2 report. The question is: does it add another layer of complexity by selecting specific questions and spinning the answers, or is it really helpful in clarifying confusion/inconsistencies where they may exist?<br /><br /><a href="http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Volume-FAQs_FGD.pdf" rel="nofollow">Here is the WG2 FAQ</a>, 'largely hidden from view deep on the ipcc website' (Revkin)<br /><br />H/T Nico Stehr & Andy Revkin@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-86021940855234316232014-04-03T15:46:39.350+02:002014-04-03T15:46:39.350+02:00Raffa
the report of WG2 is called "Climate C...Raffa<br /><br />the report of WG2 is called "Climate Change 2014:Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability"@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-14314345533883214982014-04-03T07:48:25.513+02:002014-04-03T07:48:25.513+02:00Isn't this report about risk?
RaffaIsn't this report about risk?<br />RaffaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com