1.3. Approach of the Assessment
The assessment process involves evaluation and synthesis of available information
to advance understanding of climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability.
The information comes predominately from peer-reviewed published literature.
Evidence also is drawn from published, non-peer-reviewed literature and unpublished
sources, but only after evaluation of its quality and validity by the authors
of this report.
WGII's assessment has been conducted by an international group of experts
nominated by governments and scientific bodies and selected by the WGII Bureau
of the IPCC for their scientific and technical expertise and to achieve broad
geographical balance. These experts come from academia, governments, industry,
and scientific and environmental organizations. They participate without compensation
from the IPCC, donating substantial time to support the work of the IPCC.
Figure TS-2: Regions for the IPCC Working Group II Third Assessment
Report. Note that regions in which small island states are located include
the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans, and the Caribbean and Mediterranean
Seas. The boundary between Europe and Asia runs along the eastern Ural Mountains,
River Ural, and Caspian Sea. For the polar regions, the Arctic consists
of the area north of the Arctic Circle, including Greenland; the Antarctic
consists of the Antarctic continent, together with the Southern Ocean south
of ~58°S. |
This assessment is structured to examine climate change
impacts, adaptations, and vulnerabilities of systems and regions and to provide
a global synthesis of cross-system and cross-regional issues. To the extent
feasible, given the available literature, climate change is examined in the
context of sustainable development and equity. The first section sets the stage
for the assessment by discussing the context of climate change, methods and
tools, and scenarios. Individual chapters assess vulnerabilities of water systems,
terrestrial ecosystems (including agriculture and forestry), ocean and coastal
systems, human settlements (including energy and industrial sectors), insurance
and other financial services, and human health. A chapter is devoted to each
of eight major regions of the world: Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand,
Europe, Latin America, North America, polar regions, and small island states.
These regions are shown in Figure TS-2. All of the regions
are highly heterogeneous, and climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and
vulnerability will vary in important ways within each of the regions. The final
section of the report synthesizes adaptation capacity and its potential to alleviate
adverse impacts, enhance beneficial effects, and increase sustainable development
and equity and reviews information that is relevant for interpretation of Article
2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and
key provisions of international agreements to address climate change. The report
also contains a Summary for Policymakers, which provides a brief synthesis of
the conclusions of the report that have particular relevance to those who have
responsibility for making climate change response decisions. This Technical
Summary provides a more comprehensive summary of the assessment; it references
sections of the underlying report in brackets at the end of the paragraphs for
readers who would like more information on a particular topic. [1.1]
1.4. Treatment of Uncertainties
Since the SAR, greater emphasis has been placed on developing methods for
characterizing and communicating uncertainties. Two approaches to evaluate
uncertainties are applied in the WGII assessment. A quantitative approach is
adopted to assess confidence levels in instances for which present understanding
of relevant processes, system behavior, observations, model simulations, and
estimates is sufficient to support broad agreement among authors of the report
about Bayesian probabilities associated with selected findings. A more qualitative
approach is used to assess and report the quality or level of scientific understanding
that supports a conclusion (see Box 2). These approaches,
and the rationale for them, are explained in more detail in Third Assessment
Report: Cross-Cutting Issues Guidance Papers (http://www.gispri.or.jp),
supporting material prepared by the IPCC to increase the use of consistent terms
and concepts within and across the Working Group volumes of the TAR. [1.1,
2.6].
Box 2. Confidence Levels and State of Knowledge
Quantitative Assessment of Confidence Levels
In applying the quantitative approach, authors of the report assign
a confidence level that represents the degree of belief among the authors
in the validity of a conclusion, based on their collective expert judgment
of observational evidence, modeling results, and theory that they have
examined. Five confidence levels are used. In the tables of the Technical
Summary, symbols are substituted for words:
Very High (*****)
|
95% or greater
|
High (****)
|
67-95%
|
Medium(***)
|
33-67%
|
Low (**)
|
5-33%
|
Very Low (*)
|
5% or less
|
Qualitative Assessment of the State of Knowledge
In applying the qualitative approach, authors of the report
evaluate the level of scientific understanding in support of a conclusion,
based on the amount of supporting evidence and the level of agreement
among experts about the interpretation of the evidence. Four qualitative
classifications are employed:
- Well-established: Models incorporate known processes, observations
are consistent with models, or multiple lines of evidence support
the finding.
- Established but incomplete: Models incorporate most known
processes, although some parameterizations may not be well tested;
observations are somewhat consistent but incomplete; current empirical
estimates are well founded, but the possibility of changes in governing
processes over time is considerable; or only one or a few lines of
evidence support the finding.
- Competing explanations: Different model
representations account for different aspects of observations or evidence
or incorporate different aspects of key processes, leading to competing
explanations.
- Speculative: Conceptually plausible ideas that are not adequately
represented in the literature or that contain many difficult-to-reduce
uncertainties [Box
1-1]
|
|