Understanding and responding to danger from climate change: the role of key risks in the IPCC AR5

The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) identifies key risks in a changing climate to inform judgments about danger from climate change and to empower responses. In this article, we introduce the innovations and implications of its approach, which extends analysis across sectors and regions, and consider relevance for future research and assessment. Across key risks in the AR5, we analyze the changing risk levels and potential for risk reduction over the next few decades, an era with some further committed warming, and in the second half of the 21st century and beyond, a longer-term era of climate options determined by the ambition of global mitigation. The key risk assessment underpins the IPCC’s conclusion that increasing magnitudes of warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts. Here, we emphasize central challenges in understanding and communicating risks. These features include the importance of complex interactions in shaping risks, the need for rigorous expert judgment in evaluating risks, and the centrality of values, perceptions, and goals in determining both risks and responses

Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

This Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) has been jointly coordinated by Working Groups I (WGI) and II (WGII) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The report focuses on the relationship between climate change and extreme weather and climate events, the impacts of such events, and the strategies to manage the associated risks. The IPCC was jointly established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), in particular to assess in a comprehensive, objective, and transparent manner all the relevant scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information to contribute in understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, the potential impacts, and the adaptation and mitigation options. Beginning in 1990, the IPCC has produced a series of Assessment Reports, Special Reports, Technical Papers, methodologies, and other key documents which have since become the standard references for policymakers and scientists.This Special Report, in particular, contributes to frame the challenge of dealing with extreme weather and climate events as an issue in decisionmaking under uncertainty, analyzing response in the context of risk management. The report consists of nine chapters, covering risk management; observed and projected changes in extreme weather and climate events; exposure and vulnerability to as well as losses resulting from such events; adaptation options from the local to the international scale; the role of sustainable development in modulating risks; and insights from specific case studies

The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: A common approach across the working groups

Evaluation and communication of the relative degree of certainty in assessment findings are key cross-cutting issues for the three Working Groups of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A goal for the Fifth Assessment Report, which is currently under development, is the application of a common framework with associated calibrated uncertainty language that can be used to characterize findings of the assessment process. A guidance note for authors of the Fifth Assessment Report has been developed that describes this common approach and language, building upon the guidance employed in past Assessment Reports. Here, we introduce the main features of this guidance note, with a focus on how it has been designed for use by author teams. We also provide perspectives on considerations and challenges relevant to the application of this guidance in the contribution of each Working Group to the Fifth Assessment Report. Despite the wide spectrum of disciplines encompassed by the three Working Groups, we expect that the framework of the new uncertainties guidance will enable consistent communication of the degree of certainty in their policy-relevant assessment findings

Climate change 2014 : impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability

Current and future climate-related drivers of risk for small islands during the 21st century include sea level rise (SLR), tropical and extratropical cyclones, increasing air and sea surface temperatures, and changing rainfall patterns (high confidence; robust evidence, high agreement). Current impacts associated with these changes confirm findings reported on small islands from the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) and previous IPCC assessments. The future risks associated with these drivers include loss of adaptive capacity and ecosystem services critical to lives and livelihoods in small islands.peer-reviewe

Exploring the sensitivity of coastal inundation modelling to DEM vertical error

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. As sea level is projected to rise throughout the twenty-first century due to climate change, there is a need to ensure that sea level rise (SLR) models accurately and defensibly represent future flood inundation levels to allow for effective coastal zone management. Digital elevation models (DEMs) are integral to SLR modelling, but are subject to error, including in their vertical resolution. Error in DEMs leads to uncertainty in the output of SLR inundation models, which if not considered, may result in poor coastal management decisions. However, DEM error is not usually described in detail by DEM suppliers; commonly only the RMSE is reported. This research explores the impact of stated vertical error in delineating zones of inundation in two locations along the Devon, United Kingdom, coastline (Exe and Otter Estuaries). We explore the consequences of needing to make assumptions about the distribution of error in the absence of detailed error data using a 1 m, publically available composite DEM with a maximum RMSE of 0.15 m, typical of recent LiDAR-derived DEMs. We compare uncertainty using two methods (i) the NOAA inundation uncertainty mapping method which assumes a normal distribution of error and (ii) a hydrologically correct bathtub method where the DEM is uniformly perturbed between the upper and lower bounds of a 95% linear error in 500 Monte Carlo Simulations (HBM+MCS). The NOAA method produced a broader zone of uncertainty (an increase of 134.9% on the HBM+MCS method), which is particularly evident in the flatter topography of the upper estuaries. The HBM+MCS method generates a narrower band of uncertainty for these flatter areas, but very similar extents where shorelines are steeper. The differences in inundation extents produced by the methods relate to a number of underpinning assumptions, and particularly, how the stated RMSE is interpreted and used to represent error in a practical sense. Unlike the NOAA method, the HBM+MCS model is computationally intensive, depending on the areas under consideration and the number of iterations. We therefore used the HBM+ MCS method to derive a regression relationship between elevation and inundation probability for the Exe Estuary. We then apply this to the adjacent Otter Estuary and show that it can defensibly reproduce zones of inundation uncertainty, avoiding the computationally intensive step of the HBM+MCS. The equation-derived zone of uncertainty was 112.1% larger than the HBM+MCS method, compared to the NOAA method which produced an uncertain area 423.9% larger. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages and requires value judgements to be made. Their use underscores the need for transparency in assumptions and communications of outputs. We urge DEM publishers to move beyond provision of a generalised RMSE and provide more detailed estimates of spatial error and complete metadata, including locations of ground control points and associated land cover

Search for dark matter produced in association with bottom or top quarks in √s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector

A search for weakly interacting massive particle dark matter produced in association with bottom or top quarks is presented. Final states containing third-generation quarks and miss- ing transverse momentum are considered. The analysis uses 36.1 fb−1 of proton–proton collision data recorded by the ATLAS experiment at √s = 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016. No significant excess of events above the estimated backgrounds is observed. The results are in- terpreted in the framework of simplified models of spin-0 dark-matter mediators. For colour- neutral spin-0 mediators produced in association with top quarks and decaying into a pair of dark-matter particles, mediator masses below 50 GeV are excluded assuming a dark-matter candidate mass of 1 GeV and unitary couplings. For scalar and pseudoscalar mediators produced in association with bottom quarks, the search sets limits on the production cross- section of 300 times the predicted rate for mediators with masses between 10 and 50 GeV and assuming a dark-matter mass of 1 GeV and unitary coupling. Constraints on colour- charged scalar simplified models are also presented. Assuming a dark-matter particle mass of 35 GeV, mediator particles with mass below 1.1 TeV are excluded for couplings yielding a dark-matter relic density consistent with measurements