We'll present a couple illustrations before we'll get to the actual publication we hope to discuss — one that compares methodology of science - based and «science - denying» climate websites but that also touches on a subject we personally find far more interesting: what's actually going on in the Arctic, an area that is not only experiencing major
physical consequences of climate change, but that is subsequently also set to be a stage for a cascade of ecological consequences of this climate change — both in the Arctic tundra biome and in the adjacent Arctic marine ecosystem.
At over 2000 pages and five years in the making, the report represents the most comprehensive and authoritative assessment ever produced on the causes and
physical consequences of climate change.
WHEREAS,
the physical consequences of climate change are already evident, including rising sea levels, increased hurricane intensity, increased winter storm intensity, and species migration;
Not exact matches
The results affirm the strong and growing scientific consensus developing from the understanding
of the
physical origins and
consequences of climate change, as outlined in the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Working Group 1 report last September.
Rather,
climate change is a
consequence of changed physical conditions...» and further down states this: ``...
climate is the same as weather statistics -LSB-...] This statistics, however, -LSB-...](is not) a force that influences the outcomes.»
Scientists already feel that the second part
of the IPCC report, which addresses the
consequences of global warming, is not as sound as the first part, which deals with the underlying
physical factors contributing to
climate change.
Though precise
consequences can not yet be defined, three main pathways
of climate change impact are outlined, affecting fisheries and aquaculture, their dependent communities and their economic activities: direct
physical (e.g. flooding, severe droughts), biological and ecological (e.g. productivity
of lakes and rivers), and indirect wider social and economic (e.g. fresh water use conflicts).
Getting across the risks
of inaction and ill - preparedness, in terms
of physical, economic, and geopolitical
consequences and in ways people will understand is a requisite first step to dealing with
climate change «in a serious way.»
And that's illustrated if you compare how «science - based» and «science - denier» blogs discuss right about any
climate - related topic, from actual atmospheric temperature development to its
physical manifestations, like sea level rise (see the chart in the middle
of this piece) and social and ecological
consequences of climate change — including at some point the fate
of iconic mammal species that use sea ice as hunting grounds.
As any consideration
of the potential economic
consequences of climate change depends critically on the
physical evidence for this process, my comment is principally concerned with the scientific basis.
However, recent observations
of the rate and severity
of physical and ecological responses to escalating radiative forcing — melting glaciers and ice sheets resulting in sea level rise and major
changes in weather patterns, prolonged droughts, more frequent hurricanes and storms, and so on — are surprising even top
climate experts, and raising awareness that, as a nation, we are dangerously unprepared for the inevitable
consequences.