Attribution: how is it relevant for loss and damage policy and practice?

Attribution has become a recurring issue in discussions about Loss and Damage (L&D). In this highly-politicised context, attribution is often associated with responsibility and blame; and linked to debates about liability and compensation. The aim of attribution science, however, is not to establish responsibility, but to further scientific understanding of causal links between elements of the Earth System and society. This research into causality could inform the management of climate-related risks through improved understanding of drivers of relevant hazards, or, more widely, vulnerability and exposure; with potential benefits regardless of political positions on L&D. Experience shows that it is nevertheless difficult to have open discussions about the science in the policy sphere. This is not only a missed opportunity, but also problematic in that it could inhibit understanding of scientific results and uncertainties, potentially leading to policy planning which does not have sufficient scientific evidence to support it. In this chapter, we first explore this dilemma for science-policy dialogue, summarising several years of research into stakeholder perspectives of attribution in the context of L&D. We then aim to provide clarity about the scientific research available, through an overview of research which might contribute evidence about the causal connections between anthropogenic climate change and losses and damages, including climate science, but also other fields which examine other drivers of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Finally, we explore potential applications of attribution research, suggesting that an integrated and nuanced approach has potential to inform planning to avert, minimise and address losses and damages. The key messages are In the political context of climate negotiations, questions about whether losses and damages can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change are often linked to issues of responsibility, blame, and liability. Attribution science does not aim to establish responsibility or blame, but rather to investigate drivers of change. Attribution science is advancing rapidly, and has potential to increase understanding of how climate variability and change is influencing slow onset and extreme weather events, and how this interacts with other drivers of risk, including socio-economic drivers, to influence losses and damages. Over time, some uncertainties in the science will be reduced, as the anthropogenic climate change signal becomes stronger, and understanding of climate variability and change develops. However, some uncertainties will not be eliminated. Uncertainty is common in science, and does not prevent useful applications in policy, but might determine which applications are appropriate. It is important to highlight that in attribution studies, the strength of evidence varies substantially between different kinds of slow onset and extreme weather events, and between regions. Policy-makers should not expect the later emergence of conclusive evidence about the influence of climate variability and change on specific incidences of losses and damages; and, in particular, should not expect the strength of evidence to be equal between events, and between countries. Rather than waiting for further confidence in attribution studies, there is potential to start working now to integrate science into policy and practice, to help understand and tackle drivers of losses and damages, informing prevention, recovery, rehabilitation, and transformation

Reconciling carbon-cycle concepts, terminology, and methods

Author Posting. © The Author(s), 2006. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of Springer for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Ecosystems 9 (2006): 1041-1050, doi:10.1007/s10021-005-0105-7.Recent patterns and projections of climatic change have focused increased scientific and public attention on patterns of carbon (C) cycling and its controls, particularly the factors that determine whether an ecosystem is a net source or sink of atmospheric CO2. Net ecosystem production (NEP), a central concept in C-cycling research, has been used to represent two different concepts by C-cycling scientists. We propose that NEP be restricted to just one of its two original definitions—the imbalance between gross primary production (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (ER), and that a new term—net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB)—be applied to the net rate of C accumulation in (or loss from; negative sign) ecosystems. NECB differs from NEP when C fluxes other than C fixation and respiration occur or when inorganic C enters or leaves in dissolved form. These fluxes include leaching loss or lateral transfer of C from the ecosystem; emission of volatile organic C, methane, and carbon monoxide; and soot and CO2 from fire. C fluxes in addition to NEP are particularly important determinants of NECB over long time scales. However, even over short time scales, they are important in ecosystems such as streams, estuaries, wetlands, and cities. Recent technological advances have led to a diversity of approaches to measuring C fluxes at different temporal and spatial scales. These approaches frequently capture different components of NEP or NECB and can therefore be compared across scales only by carefully specifying the fluxes included in the measurements. By explicitly identifying the fluxes that comprise NECB and other components of the C cycle, such as net ecosystem exchange (NEE) and net biome production (NBP), we provide a less ambiguous framework for understanding and communicating recent changes in the global C cycle. Key words: Net ecosystem production, net ecosystem carbon balance, gross primary production, ecosystem respiration, autotrophic respiration, heterotrophic respiration, net ecosystem exchange, net biome production, net primary production

A millennial long March–July precipitation reconstruction for southern-central England

We present a millennial long dendroclimatic reconstruction of spring/summer precipitation for southern-central England. Previous research identified a significant moisture stress signal in ring-width data measured from oak trees growing in southern England. In this study, we build upon this earlier work, specifically targeting south-central England, to derive a well replicated oak ring-width composite chronology using both living and historical material. The data-set includes 352 living trees (AD 1629-2009) and 1540 individual historical series (AD 663-1925). The period expressed by at least 50 trees in any year is AD 980-2009. Calibration experiments identify the optimal seasonal predictand target as March-July precipitation (1901-2007: r = 0. 33). However, comparison with the long Kew Gardens precipitation record indicates a weakening in tree-growth/climate response from ~1800 to 1920 which we speculate may be related to smoke and sulphur dioxide (SO) emissions at that time which may have also contributed to a decrease in tree productivity. The time-series derived using the regional curve standardisation method to capture lower frequency information shows a mediaeval period with alternating multi-decade-long dry and wet periods, with AD 1153-1172 being the wettest reconstructed 20-year period in the whole record. Drier conditions are prevalent from ~1300 to the early sixteenth century followed by a period of increasing precipitation levels. The most recent four centuries of the record appear similar to the mediaeval period with multiple decade-long dry and wet periods. The late twentieth century is the second reconstructed wettest period. These centennial hydroclimatic trends are in broad agreement with independent regional scale hydroclimatic reconstructions from tree-ring (East Anglia), historical, speleothem and peat water level proxy archives in the United Kingdom and appear coupled with reconstructed sea surface temperature changes in the North Atlantic which in turn influence the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation and westerly airflow across the UK

Solute carriers affect Anopheles stephensi survival and Plasmodium berghei infection in the salivary glands

Malaria is caused by mosquito-borne Plasmodium spp. parasites that must infect and survive within mosquito salivary glands (SGs) prior to host transmission. Recent advances in transcriptomics and the complete genome sequencing of mosquito vectors have increased our knowledge of the SG genes and proteins involved in pathogen infection and transmission. Membrane solute carriers are key proteins involved in drug transport and are useful in the development of new interventions for transmission blocking. Herein, we applied transcriptomics analysis to compare SGs mRNA levels in Anopheles stephensi fed on non-infected and P. berghei-infected mice. The A. stephensi solute carriers prestinA and NDAE1 were up-regulated in response to infection. These molecules are predicted to interact with each other, and are reportedly involved in the maintenance of cell homeostasis. To further evaluate their functions in mosquito survival and parasite infection, these genes were knocked down by RNA interference. Knockdown of prestinA and NDAE1 resulted in reduction of the number of sporozoites in mosquito SGs. Moreover, NDAE1 knockdown strongly impacted mosquito survival, resulting in the death of half of the treated mosquitoes. Overall, our findings indicate the importance of prestinA and NDAE1 in interactions between mosquito SGs and Plasmodium, and suggest the need for further research.publishersversionpublishe