IPCC AR6 WG2 - Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

128 views
Skip to first unread message

Renaud de RICHTER

unread,
Feb 28, 2022, 3:28:09 PM2/28/22
to geoengineering, Carbon Dioxide Removal, Leon Di Marco

The Working Group II contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report assesses the impacts of climate change, looking at ecosystems, biodiversity, and human communities at global and regional levels. It also reviews vulnerabilities and the capacities and limits of the natural world and human societies to adapt to climate change.



Summary for Policymakers (about 40 p)



Andrew Revkin

unread,
Feb 28, 2022, 4:11:10 PM2/28/22
to renaud.d...@gmail.com, geoengineering, Carbon Dioxide Removal, Leon Di Marco
Oddly there's a section on SRM in the summary for policymakers - I would have assumed that would belog in the Working Group 3 report.... Here's my take: 


Geoengineering - The report includes a short critique of climate engineering, specifically proposals that would artificially add aerosols to the atmosphere to reflect some sunlight back to space, offsetting some warming. There's been a rising tide of opposition to "solar radiation management," most notably a recent call by hundreds of scientists for an international "non-use agreement."

I'm not sure why this form of geoengineering made it into the adaptation report. Blocking sunlight is a form of warming mitigation and any assessment really belongs in next month's report on policies for slowing warming. Here are points the adaptation-report authors describe as having high confidence:

Solar radiation modification approaches, if they were to be implemented, introduce a widespread range of new risks to people and ecosystems, which are not well understood. Solar radiation modification approaches have potential to offset warming and ameliorate some climate hazards, but substantial residual climate change or overcompensating change would occur at regional scales and seasonal timescales. Large uncertainties and knowledge gaps are associated with the potential of solar radiation modification approaches to reduce climate change risks. Solar radiation modification would not stop atmospheric CO2 concentrations from increasing or reduce resulting ocean acidification under continued anthropogenic emissions.

For what it's worth, I predict a non-use agreement on solar radiation management will never happen. But if it did it would indirectly chill important research on aerosols' climate impacts in the atmosphere, just as a push to stop rogue iron-seeding tests in the ocean killed support for more careful scientific research on the matter. A decade was lost, although new efforts are planned.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHodn982odrbvYsxqhvZjzHySfouEa1wbu6DyuyV3jXwLeW7nw%40mail.gmail.com.


--
ANDREW REVKIN
Founding Director, Initiative on Communication & Sustainability
Columbia University Climate School
+1 914.441.5556 phone, @revkin Twitter

H simmens

unread,
Feb 28, 2022, 4:20:00 PM2/28/22
to rev...@gmail.com, renaud.d...@gmail.com, geoengineering, Carbon Dioxide Removal, Leon Di Marco
Andrew,

Here’s part of the backstory at least according to climate change news:

“According to sources monitoring the talks, the US stood alone in seeking to keep a draft paragraph referencing solar radiation modification (SRM), carbon dioxide removals (CDR) and carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a single block.

Other countries pushed to separate SRM, which could cool the planet but does not address the underlying cause of heating – that is, levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

‘Nature-based solutions’ prove divisive at Glasgow climate talks

Sources said the US “aggressively fought” for a “balanced” statement that took five hours of side huddles at the virtual talks to resolve. When it became clear that SRM would be separated from emission reduction and carbon sequestration options, the US sought to drop the mention of SRM altogether due to the focus on its risks. 

The final SPM states that SRM would “introduce a widespread range of new risks to people and ecosystems, which are not well understood”.


https://climatechangenews.com/2022/02/28/revealed-how-rich-and-at-risk-nations-fought-over-science-of-climate-impacts/


Herb

Herb Simmens
Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens

On Feb 28, 2022, at 11:11 AM, Andrew Revkin <rev...@gmail.com> wrote:



Daniele Visioni

unread,
Feb 28, 2022, 4:21:23 PM2/28/22
to rev...@gmail.com, renaud.d...@gmail.com, geoengineering, Carbon Dioxide Removal, Leon Di Marco
Section 16.1.2 explains the rationale stating "Given that solar radiation modification (SRM) could also be considered a response with significant implications for climate risks across scales, this chapter also includes Cross-Working Group Box SRM."
Therefore what’s in WG2 is essentially what was in WG1 (and what will be in WG3?). But there was no mention of SRM in the WG1 SPM.

I am very curious about this reportage: https://climatechangenews.com/2022/02/28/revealed-how-rich-and-at-risk-nations-fought-over-science-of-climate-impacts/
and would like to know if someone has more insight into it. In particular it claims 

"According to sources monitoring the talks, the US stood alone in seeking to keep a draft paragraph referencing solar radiation modification (SRM), carbon dioxide removals (CDR) and carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a single block.
Other countries pushed to separate SRM, which could cool the planet but does not address the underlying cause of heating – that is, levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Sources said the US “aggressively fought” for a “balanced” statement that took five hours of side huddles at the virtual talks to resolve. When it became clear that SRM would be separated from emission reduction and carbon sequestration options, the US sought to drop the mention of SRM altogether due to the focus on its risks. 
The final SPM states that SRM would “introduce a widespread range of new risks to people and ecosystems, which are not well understood”.”

Oliver Morton

unread,
Mar 1, 2022, 9:22:09 AM3/1/22
to geoengineering
Here is the text of the cross working group box
XWGB on SRM.pdf

christop...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 1, 2022, 8:55:58 PM3/1/22
to geoengineering
Hi everyone, 

As an IPCC author who was involved in the SRM discussion during the Summary for Policymakers meeting I can say that the Climate Home News story is not entirely accurate. Multiple countries held certain positions. 

Also, SRM is now fully within the remit of the WG2 report given the expanded IPCC definition of risk that now includes the risks from the implementation of response options to climate change.

best, 
Chris
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages