On the 8th of February 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published their 6th report on global warming; the report of Work Group II, to be precise.
The report concluded that global warming is indeed anthropogenic (man-made), that its consequences are drastically threatening the future of mankind, and that swift and decisive action needs to be taken in order to avert the worst.
The report was widely echoed in the media.
Who and what?
If you haven't read our previous article about the IPCC report 2021, let us remind you:
Who is IPCC?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed by both the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) in 1988.[1]
Its purpose is to assess the development of climate change and its understanding, as well as to provide strategies against global warming.
It consists primarily of volunteers from all walks of the scientific community (biologists, meteorologists, physicists, economists, social scientists etc.) accordingly organised into various working groups.
What do they do, and what do they not do?
The scientist volunteers gather, assess, and summarise the available scientific information regarding climate change. This information is then distilled into reports, including Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs).
The IPCC does not conduct its own research, it is a meta-research organisation.
What about the report?
As said above, this report is the report of Work Group II.
There are three Work Groups:
WG I deals with the fundamental, physical understanding of climate change (our article on the subject is available here).
WG II assesses the impacts of and the adaptions and vulnerabilities to climate change, and
WG III suggests and evaluates ways and measures of mitigating climate change and its effects.
The report of Work Group I was published in August last year, and the report of Work Group III is expected in August this year.
The report of WG I published last August concluded that the climate change we are experiencing is indeed anthropogenic (man-made).
Due to the Ukrainian war, the report of WG II published in February received lower media coverage than its predecessor.
Nonetheless, the UN Secretary-General described the findings of the report as "an atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership,"[2] and went on to say that "the facts are undeniable ... the world's biggest polluters are guilty of arson of our only home."[3]
It is important to realise that a return to a climatic situation as it was common in 1850 (the arbitrary point in time at which the industrialisation has begun) is impossible.
What is possible, even though it requires utmost efforts, is to limit increase in average temperature of the earth.
To convey the message, the development of the climate is assessed in different scenarios (i.e. different degrees of warming).
By way of an example:
Heatwaves have always occurred, and they have always caused damage.
Harvests have been ruined because it failed to rain.
When the average temperature on Earth increases, heatwaves not only become more frequent, they also become hotter, which in turn to increases the damage they cause.
In numerical terms, if the average temperature of the Earth increases by 1 degree, a 1-in-ten-years heatwave will occur 2.8 times as often as before and such a heatwave will be 1.2 °C hotter.
Should we reach a 4 °C increase in average global temperature, such heatwaves would 9.5 times more often, and they would be 5.1 °C hotter.
Put in admittedly simplistic terms: If we would allow Earth to become 4 °C hotter, we will get heat waves which are 5 times as damaging 10 times more often.
Similar trends are seen for other extreme weather phenomena such as droughts and heavy precipitation which result in flooding.
It is important to realise that setting the goal for a 1.5 °C increase does not reflect a scenario which could be seen as beneficial for the global ecosystem as such - it is merely a projected frequency of extreme weather events whose human and economic costs are seen as manageable (at least in developed countries).
What about the future?
The report of Work Group III is scheduled to be published later this year.
It will assess possibilities of mitigating climate change.
This will be followed by a report which summarised the findings of the three Work Groups.
This will then conclude the sixth assessment period of the IPCC.
The average assessment period is around six years; therefore, a seventh assessment period would end around 2028-29.
Information regarding a seventh assessment period is not yet available.
Do we actually need another assessment period and yet another set of reports? Has the current climate change not been conclusively proven as anthropogenic?
Yes, we do another assessment period and another set of reports!
The fact that the current climate change has been conclusively proven as anthropogenic does not mean that we do not need further work along the lines of all three work groups.
Of course, we still need more fundamental knowledge regarding our climate (WG I).
We need further and deeper assessment of the impacts of and the adaptions and vulnerabilities to climate change (WG II) because to be forewarned is to be forearmed.
And that we need to suggest and evaluate ways and measures of mitigating climate change and its effects (WG III) is a no-brainer.
If you would like to know more about climate change and what you could do about it, subscribe to our newsletter.
01) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change, last accessed 2022.03.05
02) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/28/ipcc-issues-bleakest-warning-yet-impacts-climate-breakdown/, last accessed 2022.03.05
03) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60525591/, last accessed 2022.03.05
Comments