Integrating population modeling into ecological risk assessment

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2009

These judgments were vetted by 3 rounds of IPCC review and were approved in the Summary for Policymakers of both the AR4 Working Group 2 and Synthesis Reports by the IPCC Plenary. † Vulnerability to climate change is the degree to which geophysical, biological and socioeconomic systems are susceptible to and unable to cope with adverse impacts of climate change. ‡ The criteria are: (i) magnitude of impacts; (ii) timing of impacts; (iii) persistence and reversibility of impacts; (iv) potential for adaptation; (v) distributional aspects of impacts and vulnerabilities; (vi) likelihood (estimates of uncertainty) of impacts and vulnerabilities and confidence in those estimates; and (vii) importance of the system(s) at risk. IPCC authors applied only the first 6 criteria in its assessment, because ''importance'' is really a subjective judgment by a potential decision-maker and thus crosses too far into the realm of being ''policy prescriptive''; we follow the same convention.

2005

Climatic Change, 2009

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007 presents the most complete and authoritative assessment of the status of scientific knowledge on all aspects of climate change. This paper presents an updated assessment of the risks from anthropogenic climate change, based on a comprehensive review of the pertinent scientific literature published since finalization of the AR4. Many risks are now assessed as stronger than in the AR4, including the risk of large sea-level rise already in the current century, the amplification of global warming due to biological and geological carbon-cycle feedbacks, a large magnitude of "committed warming" currently concealed by a strong aerosol mask, substantial increases in climate variability and extreme weather events, and the risks to marine ecosystems from climate change and ocean acidification. Some topics remain the subject of intense scientific debate, such as past and future changes in tropical cyclone activity and the risk of large-scale Amazon forest dieback. The rise in greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations has accelerated recently, and it is expected to accelerate further in the absence of targeted policy interventions. Taken together, these findings point to an increased urgency of implementing mitigation policies as well as comprehensive and equitable adaptation policies.

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 2020

Climate-change impacts are unfolding at a pace, intensity and scale that captures increasing public attention 1. A key policy objective to limit human interference in Earth's climate system is expressed in Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, in a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally and ensure food production is not threatened and enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner 2. However, it has been challenging to identify precisely when anthropogenic interference becomes 'dangerous' because of uncertainties in model projections, sectoral and regional differences in impacts and the influence of value judgements on what constitutes dangerous 3-6. To facilitate judgements about risks, the Working Group II (WGII) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR)

The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) commits signatories to achieving a "stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system", leaving unspecified the level of global warming that is "dangerous" (Oppenheimer and Petsonk 2005; Liverman 2009). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments have progressively improved the evidence base on the potential impacts of climate change, but large uncertainties remain. These uncertainties, combined with the geographical diversity of impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptive capacities, and lack of clarity around risk tolerance, have made it difficult to arrive at a precise temperature ceiling for avoidance of dangerous" climate impacts.

Environmental Politics, 2009

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution , reselling , loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2013

Changes to sources, stressors, habitats, and geographic ranges; toxicological effects; end points; and uncertainty estimation require significant changes in the implementation of ecological risk assessment (ERA). Because of the lack of analog systems and circumstances in historically studied sites, there is a likelihood of type III error. As a first step, the authors propose a decision key to aid managers and risk assessors in determining when and to what extent climate change should be incorporated. Next, when global climate change is an important factor, the authors recommend seven critical changes to ERA. First, develop conceptual cause-effect diagrams that consider relevant management decisions as well as appropriate spatial and temporal scales to include both direct and indirect effects of climate change and the stressor of management interest. Second, develop assessment end points that are expressed as ecosystem services. Third, evaluate multiple stressors and nonlinear responses-include the chemicals and the stressors related to climate change. Fourth, estimate how climate change will affect or modify management options as the impacts become manifest. Fifth, consider the direction and rate of change relative to management objectives, recognizing that both positive and negative outcomes can occur. Sixth, determine the major drivers of uncertainty, estimating and bounding stochastic uncertainty spatially, temporally, and progressively. Seventh, plan for adaptive management to account for changing environmental conditions and consequent changes to ecosystem services. Good communication is essential for making risk-related information understandable and useful for managers and stakeholders to implement a successful risk-assessment and decision-making process. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2013;32:79-92. # 2012 SETAC

Journal of Risk Research, 2019

This paper provides new knowledge on how to understand and describe climate change risk. This type of risk is of the utmost importance for us all, but current approaches for conceptualizing and characterizing it, as for example used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), suffer from severe weaknesses, resulting in poor communication and misguidance. Two main problems are that the risk concept is too strongly associated with statistically expected values, and that the risk characterizations fail to integrate probabilities and judgments of the strength of the knowledge supporting these. The present paper points to and discusses these weaknesses. It shows how a solid risk science foundation can be formed, which clarifies the meaning of key climate change risk concepts and supports and improves the evidence-informed communication and decision-making. Specifically, the paper provides insights on the nexus between climate change risk, uncertainties and knowledge, including the potential for surprises, as well as the links between risk and vulnerability (resilience). Recommendations are provided on how to assess uncertainties in relation to risk, using precise and imprecise probabilities, combining these with strength of knowledge judgement, and establishing scientific processes to scrutinize the underlying knowledges basis with respect to potential surprises.