Claim: ‘dangerous climate change’ is risky business

From the INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS and the “water up to your nose” department comes this screed of fear.

Risk analysis for common ground on climate loss and damage

The Paris Agreement included groundbreaking text on the need for a mechanism to help identify risks beyond adaptation and support the victims of climate-related loss and damage–but how exactly it will work remains unclear. New IIASA research lends insight to policymakers on how to move forward.

The issue of ‘dangerous’ climate change has been fundamental for the international climate negotiations, informing the adoption of the 2 °C and 1.5 °C goals. The question of how to deal with dangerous climate change as being experienced and perceived by developing countries and communities has been one of the most contentious questions in international climate negotiations.

“The impacts of climate change are being felt on all continents and in every ocean on the planet,” says Reinhard Mechler, a researcher at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and the Universities of Vienna and University of Graz. In these cases, say Mechler and coauthor Thomas Schinko, countries need assistance in responding. Yet there has been a contentious debate between vulnerable countries and developed nations about the extent of such assistance and the form that it should take.

This debate was institutionalized in 2013 via the Warsaw Mechanism on Loss and Damage and further endorsed by the Paris Agreement in 2015, yet the exact remit of Loss and Damage has not been clarified. There is space for countries to come to agreement on the topic and proceed with action, say researchers. In a new article published in the journalScience, the researchers lay out a framework for loss and damage in terms of supporting measures that can help vulnerable people survive, adapt, and even become more resilient in the face of irreversible climate change impacts.

The article comes just ahead of the next United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting (COP22) in Marrakesh, Morocco, which begins on 7 November.

While the 2015 Paris Agreement aimed to limit climate change to between 1.5°C and 2°C above preindustrial levels, even this level of warming could lead to irreversible impacts for some of the most vulnerable nations, for example low-lying countries that are vulnerable to sea-level rise. There are already severe impacts today: in the small island nation of Kiribati, increasing soil salinity due to sea level rise and water intrusion is putting severe stress on agriculture to the point where food security is at stake and food imports are being ramped up strongly.

In the new paper, the researchers synthesize and build on advances in the field of climate risk analysis including work done by the IPCC in 2014, to which IIASA strongly contributed. The authors lay out a framework for identifying risks beyond adaptation, and define the policy space for loss and damage with two sets of options where developed and developing countries could agree on international support and action in addition to support on adaptation or disaster risk management.

The first set of options refers to support for curative measures, which deal with unavoided and unavoidable risks. For example, given increasing sea levels induced by climate change, there is need to upgrade coastal protection; melting glaciers increase the risk of glacial lake outbursts, for which additional protection efforts are required. At high levels of warming, impacts become unavoidable, and people may be forced to migrate, for which international legal protection is essential. The second set of options refers to the concept of transformative risk management–that means building resilience against climate-related impacts while also realizing that people and communities will need support to learn new skills and develop new livelihoods, or even voluntarily migrate to new homes to cope with the impacts of climate change.

“When the water is up to your nose, doing just a little bit more on risk is not enough,” says Schinko. “Transformative risk management goes beyond traditional risk management -it is about people, and enhancing their resilience broadly.”

The analysis also provides a stark view of the potential impacts at higher levels of warming such as 3°C and 4°C above preindustrial levels. Given that the world is currently not on track to meet the temperature target set in Paris, the question of climate adaptation, and loss and damage that is beyond adaptation, could come to the forefront of the debate.

The paper is based on recent advances in risk science, which the researchers say has an important role to play in the debate on the topic in Marrakesh. Mechler says, “This is a way to work towards consensus and principled action for dealing with critical climate related risks. Also, our work underlines the need to sustain and ramp up efforts for tackling greenhouse gas, as well as support for tackling risks beyond coping capacities enforced in tandem with climate adaptation and disaster risk management.”

Implications of these findings will be presented at a side event with negotiators, NGOs and other researchers on November 7th at COP22 in Marrakesh.

###

Reference

Mechler R and Schinko T (2016). Identifying the policy space for climate loss and damage.Science. 21 October 2016

Advertisements

55 thoughts on “Claim: ‘dangerous climate change’ is risky business

  1. “The question of how to deal with dangerous climate change as being experienced and perceived by developing countries and communities has been one of the most contentious questions in international climate negotiations.”
    FALSE
    The contentious issue at international climate negotiations is emission reduction and this issue survives and engages UN bureaucrats even though no empirical evidence has been presented to support the assumption that emission reduction will reduce the rate of warming.

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2845972

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2853163

  2. Wake me up when sea levels make it possible to paddle a canoe into old seaports like Ephesus, Ostia, Deal, Claudian Invasion landing etc, inland spots where once you could park entire fleets. And forget going to see where the Pass of Thermopylae hugged the sea. It’s well inland too. Surely all this irresistible modern sea level rise wouldn’t be stopped by a bit of siltation or bad luck.

    Don’t like sea levels dribbling up a bit? Go have yourself an Ice Age. Just remember that just some slight chilling and extra ice in the 1970s had the luvvies wailing their heads off…or “lending insight to policymakers” as they say these days.

    • Dribbling up sea levels have been a major concern for the past several hundred years.

      Abd that is the reason for them also having a “deep” problem with the “rising” tides and the “lowering” gauges in Venice, Italy, …… to wit:

      Subsidence, the gradual lowering of the surface of Venice, has led to the seasonal Acqua alta when much of the city’s surface is occasionally covered at high tide.

      Also, with increasing population, the increased pumping of “fresh” water out of the ground has also been causing subsidence.

      But that is what happens when you “build a city” on landfill in the marsh lands of a tidal zone.

      • “But that is what happens when you “build a city” on landfill in the marsh lands of a tidal zone.”

        But it did make sense at the time.

        What the heck does one expect when the place is built on a foundation of submerged wooden columns? I mean nothing lasts forever! But to hear the alarmist one would think that the gradual sinking of the city is something that would not be expected.

      • The Chinese are building an island in the South China Sea …… and the ruler of Dubai built islands for the Super Rich …… and the man-made Dubai islands are said to now be suffering from “subsidence” problems ….. and so will that new Chinese island, …. just the same as did/is Japan’s Kansai International Airport.

    • Well my eyeball is a lot better at eyeballing graphs, than your algorithm.

      It comes from spending hours looking at oscilloscope traces of noisy waveforms. I could call them signals; but they are not since they typically carry no information except about themselves. “White” noise for example is completely unpredictable. No sample of any length gives you any information about what the very next data point after the last one you have will be, or what the previous value is, prior to the very first data point you have. You cannot tell whether it is higher, or lower, or the same as.

      So in a sense, a stream of white noise is about as high as you can get in information content, in that every single data value tells you ALL that there is to know about that point, and nothing else about it can be determined. So you have all of the information that there is in that message.

      So what about the Christmas Island tide gauge graph above ??

      Well I can append just two points, one at each end, of that string, and completely reverse the slope of the trend line that is given above. One only needs to look at the single transition that occurred in 1998, to see the truth of my assertion.

      That leads me to opine that I can’t imagine a more pure example of sheer bullshit, than is that overlaid trend line, on that tied gauge graph.

      The string is not really long enough to ascertain if there is a significant 1/f noise component in that noise, and noise is all that graph is, except for the fact that presumably all of those numbers were actually read off some instrument. In that sense, I suppose it is a signal, except that is like white noise in that it is information about only itself.
      The fluctuations aren’t errors in measurement or observation. Remember that graph will never repeat, no matter how long you wait, so the notion that there is anything meaningful that statistics can extract, is poppycock.

      This example is worse than just numerical Origami. Your folding of the paper has rendered no swan, or jumping frog or dancing crane. What you have is just a crumpled piece of paper that you can’t even use to wipe your nose. Or any other body parts.

      So is that photograph an actual picture of Venice Italy ?? It certainly conveys the idea that some body or bodies were hell bent on trying to submerge that particular piece of land. Insane !!

      G

      • @ george e. smith – October 21, 2016 at 8:50 am

        So in a sense, a stream of white noise is about as high as you can get in information content, in that every single data value tells you ALL that there is to know about that point, and nothing else about it can be determined. So you have all of the information that there is in that message.

        That leads me to opine that I can’t imagine a more pure example of sheer bullshit, than is that overlaid trend line, on that tied gauge graph.

        george e., your common sense thinking, logical reasoning, intelligent deductions and your great talent of expressing the aforesaid in, per se, “colorful verbiage” never ceases to make for delightful reading.

        And ps, george e., IMHO, your above quoted comments also applies to quite a number of the other “graphs” of various proxy data ….. that are posted hereon WUWT.

        Sam C

    • I found it interesting to compare the tidal gauge data for Kiritimati, Kiribati posted by Lee with this list: http://www.stormfax.com/ElNinoRecordsWeb.jpg which lists El Ninos by strength (from NOAA).

      I see that the high points on the tidal gauge that exceed 7300 millimeters correspond to the El Ninos of 1982 and 1987. These 2 El Ninos are rated above 2C on the NOAA chart.

      A 2nd group of high points, each exceeding 7200 mm, correspond to the El Ninos of 1987, 1991, 2002, 2009. These El Ninos are rated between 1C and 1.5C on the NOAA chart.

      It seems one way of rating the strength of an El Nino is by the height of sea level produced at Kiribati.

      On this new scale, the latest El Nino compares with the 2nd group, not the 1st.

      SR

    • I also see that, had the tidal gauge record included the El Nino of 1972 (rated at nearly 2C by NOAA), the left side would have been significantly higher. This would destroy the upward trend on the graph posted by Lee.

      SR

    • I googled Kiribati re geography and it’s history.
      First thing that stood out : it is no higher than 6 feet (2 m) above sea level anywhere. The other thing that caught my eye in regards to their farming being “devastated”? That had more to do with the mining of phosphates until they ran out in 1999 ( probably guano) that destroyed whatever “farm land” that was available.
      The warmists keep on using that salt water inundated country ( a coral reef build on sand and dead coral) as a prime example of sea level rise.
      Don’t they ever even google this kind of info? A high schooler ( Ok a few could) would look at the land and say ” That is not a very safe place to build on” But yes they are building on it, apparently an international airport.
      Are they trying to put it here?https://www.google.ca/search?q=Kiribati&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibiMLXw-3PAhVBC2MKHdKHBPYQsAQINQ&biw=1280&bih=894#img.
      Yes I know I am stretching some of this a bit but think of this : The whole group of islands is larger than the USA, has 100,000 people living on them and most of them have never been off the island they were born on or have a clue about AGW .
      The whole thing is part of the economic warfare waged in the area because of fishing rights, potential energy discoveries etc.
      It has nothing to do with global warming, sea level rise or anything else but strategic and economics. ( sorry about the rant I am just Po’d tonight the misinfo on the Main World Media , the MWM not the MSM, is totally disgusting they should be ashamed of themselves).

    • That’s only 4 lousy inches per century! But hey, they say they have a fresh water problem.

      So since we know that their fresh water problem really is from too many people taking too much water from their fresh water lens, maybe Obama should limit the number of people drawing out that water – by outlawing Americans from traveling to Kiribati. “”

  3. So if one is doing a “cost-benefit analysis”, and the “cost” proves to be a benefit itself, one has more that a bit of cognitive dissonance. Thus far, as the net effect of warming has been a benefit, what are they trying to avoid?

  4. Mr. Obama’s legacy leaves us poorer, less informed, and more vulnerable to war, bad policy, and extremists. His deliberate choice to lie about climate issues is one of the worst things he has done to achieve this.

    • All that “Hope and change” right?
      His energy policies have and will be devastating for a long time to come and sadly enough, it’s going to be long haul even if Trump gets in. With Hillary ?

  5. There are already severe impacts today: in the small island nation of Kiribati, increasing soil salinity due to sea level rise and water intrusion is putting severe stress on agriculture to the point where food security is at stake.

    Rising soil salinity is largely due to over extraction of ground-water. If all their freshwater comes from local rainfall, then when more water is pumped out of the ground than can be replaced by rain the only outcome is that the saltwater layer will rise to replace it.

    • The population in 1979 was 58,000. 2013 it is nearly doubled to 115,000. That’s a lot more water required.

    • Sounds like Kiribati is going to be needing salt water desalination plants in their not-to-distant future. The obvious question is whether they have the money to build them, or maybe more correctly, from where are they going to get the money to build them.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination

      Quote: “According to the International Desalination Association, in June 2015, 18,426 desalination plants operated worldwide, producing 86.8 million cubic meters per day, providing water for 300 million people.[5] This number increased from 78.4 million cubic meters in 2013,[4] a 57% increase in just 5 years…..”

  6. This probably has already been noted and said many times, but: I just realized that the ‘1.5C limit’ is just a stepped-up attempt to panic people, as it ‘might’ occur ‘a lot sooner’ and it ‘will be catastrophic.’

    • Exactly.

      Also, they had to lower the limit because even they had to realize it was never going to get to 2 °C.

    • OOPS, a correction is necessary, instead of ‘every ocean’ …. the above should have stated …….

      ….. and in everyone’s ‘pocketbook’ on the planet …

    • roving,
      May I help?

      The impacts include: –

      More food – to feed more people.
      We saw above Kiribati has all-but doubled its population.
      They all need feeding.
      But CO2 has helped plant growth.

      Fewer deaths from cold in cold-temperate areas with poor insulation – say, the UK – in winter.

      Looks like a lower rate of Cat 3 [SS] hurricanes hitting the Lower 48.

      Looks, also, like an outbreak of fracking – good for energy security, if nothing else.

      Auto
      Hoping the slight warming does make snow rare – or rarer – in London.
      Our transport network struggles with autumn leaves . . . .
      And – guess what – autumn comes every year.
      No kidding, Sherlock!

  7. Hillary has no butt. She has lied her ass off.

    From Max Boot’s article touting HRC, titled: What the hell happened to My Rep Party?
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/18/trump-presidential-election-gop-values-republican-party-conservative-principles/

    What the hell happened to you, Max Boot? You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
    For SCOTUS alone we must keep Angel out of the Oval. Nixonian belief she’s above the law, her contempt of country, citizens, constitution, etc- if H wins, we may as well do a Nat’l Thelma & Louise.

    Writing, “evidence of T’s degeneracy & lunacy”- are you saying HC isn’t a degenerate? Is it lunacy to think laws are beneath her? She’s ALREADY done harm to US & she’d do exponentially more. Her contribution to US is a BODY count. DT’s contribution? Tens of thousands of jobs. Wouldn’t he have greater economic insight than HC? Giving T’s words more weight than H’s actions is lunacy. Do lunatics create billions in wealth? It takes wisdom. It takes razor-wits.. HC has neither. Do a poll, find out how many Americans wish they had his affliction.

    Your hysteria re what MrT MIGHT do vs what HC HAS & WILL do is absurd. She has greatly harmed US. Her negligence/judgement has caused deaths T’s hyperbole is a tool used for affect, not a guarantor of future actions. He ‘threatens’ the NYTimes with a lawsuit- he may never, but if it makes them back off, he wins- lunacy. Reagan’s rhetoric also scared the hell out of ppl when he ran.

    Your a-crack’s chaffed by his claim HC is in, ‘a conspiracy with a shadowy cabal of internat’l banks to plot destruction of sovereign US in order to enrich global financial powers, her friends & donors.’

    Really Max? Do you live under a rock?

    Seen Wiki’s leaks? HC to Brazil bankers, ‘I want to conspire with you shadowy cabal of internat’l bankers to plot destruction of sovereign US in order to enrich global financial powers, my friends & donors.’

    Seriously, look up & tell me if you see a rock ceiling.

    She wants a superstate called Snamerica, a ‘Borderless Hemispheric Common Market.’ Doesn’t that sound like destruction of sovereign US to you?

    You say, ‘Trump’s been ranting that election is rigged,’ as if it’s baseless. JimO’Keefe’s vids show mass voter fraud. Vote machines owned by Soros ppl, the dead taking time from their dirt naps to vote, MSM collusion w Clinton camp- Max, it happens every election. Where is you head? Do you see poop?

    You wrote, ‘72% approve of his threat to jail HC, a violation of most basic norms of democracy.’ Which is worse, your critique of the pub for agreeing w him, or your wish to see a criminal escape justice? Surely you’re not echoing MSM’s absurdity he wants to jail H for ‘political’ reasons r you? They got more on her than AlCapone.

    When you wrote, ‘Clinton, a flawed candidate, sure, but also a centrist Dem w ample qualif’ns for Prez,’ my beverage burst out my nostrils. A flawed candidate? You think? Stalin was also ‘flawed’ w all his sillness. She’s a ‘centrist’? Yeah and tigers are vegetarian. Maybe the center of the far left. Ample qualif’ns for Prez? Name one.

    If not anti-Christ, she is at least the anti-Midas, w awful judgement, even before her jellified brain wasn’t leaking. Her ethics r on par with a used-car hawker, & she’d be prime for extortion fr our enemies to whom she handed our nation’s toppest secrets.

    HC has no butt, cuz she’s lied her ass off, & is so sickly, it’s hard to get out of bed the first 6 days after Sunday. How can we elect a woman who is buttless, has a withered husk of a face, & a voice like fingernails scraping chalkboard? Who wants to wake up to THAT for 4 years? The old cow needs to be put out to pasture.

    Washington, Franklin, Adams, & later Lincoln. God didn’t put such genius at US’s inception, so a blood-curdling lib screecher could ruin it. Hearing the sound of chronic PMS out her munch-hole will give me ear cancer. TomJeff didn’t write a Declaration of Diversity, he wrote, with awesome handwriting btw, a Declaration of Independence.

    Sadly, I’ve learned the US is populated by lazybrains & dumbed-down peeps, many who can’t even name our opponent in the Rev War even after given the clue PRevere once rode, shouting, ‘The British are coming!’

    I’m afraid these ppl are about to put HC in WH. -Oh the tears in Heaven streaming down the cheeks of the Founders watching the demise of America from on high. The nation Abraham Lincoln saved and for which he was martyred. Just like the bitterly hot tears I shed for 3 days in Nov of 2012.
    .

  8. These people are total buffoons. If they truly believe that there is a crying need to reduce carbon emissions, why don’t the morons throw a few of those millions of dollars towards the three companies that are currently developing molten salt nuclear reactors ? Their commercialization wil not only reduce carbon emissions to zero, but wil provide the cheapest power of any technology, including any fossil fuel power and eliminate almost al of the concerns about dealing with nuclear wastes while burning the wastes as a fuel. The only answer seems to be that any technology with the word nuclear attached is a no-no.

    • Unfortunately, these people are not total buffoons. They know exactly what they are doing, and it’s the people who can’t see it or believe them that are the buffoons.

      It’s not about reducing carbon emissions and never has been. It’s about political control and wealth redistribution from wealthy countries (i.e., taxpayers) to poor, undeveloped countries to further their globalist agenda.

      • Wrong, Phil. It is about redistribution of the wealth from the taxpayers to the wealthy who will control the so called undeveloped nations. The rich will not lose money, they will gain it, and the poor will get poorer. The second reason is population reduction through control. They don’t want 8 billion humans, they want 800 million which would be enough to keep the level of THEIR civilization and quality of life where they want it, but not enough to require additional resources to raise the poor to a better way of life.

      • Tom O,

        Totally agree. I think you said it more clearly than I did. It is about redistribution of the wealth from the taxpayers to the wealthy, and ultimately who’s in control. Unfortunately, I know which side of the fence I’ll be on.

      • Tom & Phil are spot-on with their analyses. These people are playing a sort-of ‘Sim-City’ –‘Sim-Globe?’ — from their luxury homes. People like the Hollyhock cabal, funded by uber-wealthy family trusts in USA,, channelled via Tides Foundation (Joel Solomon, Gregor Robertson’s mentor) want to wind the clock back to the “purity” of mediaeval times.
        My interpretation of that is a revival of feudalism. A few wealthy families living luxuriously in fortified castles. The peasants (what’s left of them) will provide the manpower and their women-folk for breeding purposes on demand.

      • Ross King, there is truth in the way you see it. Just realize that it only winds back to the purity of the medieval period for those in the supporting roles – the worker bees. Civilization will continue as is, and improve as new technology becomes available for the “Lords” and their direct supporters, also known as butt kissers and boot lickers. Should we survive the purge, we will be living in mud huts and scratching out gardens with sticks, and eating with our fingers and possibly, wooden utensils of some sort.

      • Phil, do you really , really think that money is ever going to get to to “poor and undeveloped” countries? Sorry it will come to a screeching halt at the bank accounts of the few that are in charge of those countries.

  9. “The issue of ‘dangerous’ climate change has been fundamental for the international climate negotiations, informing the adoption of the 2 °C and 1.5 °C goals. The question of how to deal with dangerous climate change as being experienced and perceived by developing countries and communities has been one of the most contentious questions in international climate negotiations.”

    Operating on a false assumption: That humans are changing the operation of the Earth’s climate.

    The facts do not back up this assumption, but there is so much money to be made in promoting this enterprise, that it doesn’t matter.

  10. Note that people have dealt with the affects of weather since time immemorial.

    ‘The Paris Agreement included groundbreaking text on the need for a mechanism to help identify risks beyond adaptation and support the victims of climate-related loss and damage–but how exactly it will work remains unclear. New IIASA research lends insight to policymakers on how to move forward.’

    Their prescription is their goal. Collectivism. People dealing with the affects of weather replaced by governments/organizations/collectives dealing with the affects of weather. And whatever else they can manage to get control of.

  11. The main risk in NY is the rising sea of policy over reach under the banner of abundance of caution. It is a proven model of policy distortion that threatens to inundate democracy and fact checking.

  12. I have a question for the engineers among you:
    I have been for years ( born in a country that is partly and has been for centuries below sea level) always been fascinated on how other countries have dealt with this “sea level” rise ( London, Venice Italy FI, Bangladesh).

    Then I realized that many, many major cities ( especially all harbour ones like NYC) have dealt with their underground infrastructures, which, if you think of it, must be way, way below sea level.
    Such things as pipes for water, sewer, hydro, transportation and so on. Down to such below ground level that I believe it would stagger most people’s brains btw. I don’t hear them screaming murder about this. They just ( well okay not “just”) go on and deal with it. They aren’t quitting their jobs, running to the UN for “emergency” funding.
    No day in and day out they deal with the problem and move on.
    Why does this not ever get mentioned?

    • Two (2) reasons why it never gets mentioned:

      1. It requires someone like you, an “original thinker”, to associate or correlate the two entities, ….. current sea levels and oceanfront “underground” infrastructure.

      2. It would be counterproductive to their CAGW agenda.

      New York City noninfrequently suffers a break or fracture in/of the protective wall of “underground” infrastructure ….. and thousands of gallons of “salty” ocean water rushes in before they can make repairs.

  13. Would’nt it be fair if most of the Climate Fund goes to the rich countries? They ar expected to loose the most by rising sea and Climate Change. There is some difference between New York and some huts out in no where. Or have i lost the perspective. :-)

    • YOU ARE CORRECT, ….. Svend, ….. I never considered that fact.

      “DUH”, how is it possible for poor people in poor countries ….. to lose anything of value due to the climate changing?

      And given the FACT that the per se “expert” climate scientists have been assuring everyone that any dire effects resulting from a changing climate will not pose a big problem for anyone for at least 100 to 150 years …………. and by that time, …… those poor people in poor countries will have had plenty of time to educate themselves and build great cities for their pleasurable living.

Comments are closed.