IPCC Second Assessment Report

Last updated

The Second Assessment Report (SAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 1995, is an assessment of the then available scientific and socio-economic information on climate change. The report was split into four parts: a synthesis to help interpret UNFCCC article 2, The Science of Climate Change (Working Group I), Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change (WG II), Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change (WG III). Each of the last three parts was completed by a separate Working Group (WG), and each has a Summary for Policymakers (SPM) that represents a consensus of national representatives.

Contents

The SPM of the WG I report contains the following statements: Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase; anthropogenic aerosols tend to produce negative radiative forcings; climate has changed over the past century (air temperature has increased by between 0.3 and 0.6 °C since the late 19th century; this estimate has not significantly changed since the 1990 report); The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate (considerable progress since the 1990 report in distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic influences on climate, because of: including aerosols; coupled models; pattern-based studies). Climate is expected to continue to change in the future (increasing realism of simulations increases confidence; important uncertainties remain but are taken into account in the range of model projections). Finally, the report stated that there were still many uncertainties (estimates of future emissions and biogeochemical cycling; models; instrument data for model testing, assessment of variability, and detection studies).

Overview

The Second Assessment Report, titled Climate Change 1995, consists of reports from each of the three Working Groups, and a Synthesis Report: [1]

These reports were prepared by over two thousand experts, and "contain the factual basis of the issue of climate change, gleaned from available expert literature and further carefully reviewed by experts and governments." [2]

The Synthesis Report gave its purpose as providing the scientific, technical and socio-economic information for determining

what concentrations of greenhouse gases might be regarded as "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" and the charting of a future which allows for economic development which is sustainable. [3]

Conclusions

Working Group I, dealing with the scientific aspects of climate, stated that

carbon dioxide remains the most important contributor to anthropogenic forcing of climate change; projections of future global mean temperature change and sea level rise confirm the potential for human activities to alter the Earth's climate to an extent unprecedented in human history; and the long time-scales governing both the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the response of the climate system to those accumulations, means that many important aspects of climate change are effectively irreversible. [4]

Working Group I subsequently characterized its reports in the First and Second Assessments as progressing from an understanding that the greenhouse effect is well understood, greenhouse gases are increasing (due largely to human activity), and therefore should lead to significant global warming (though lack of understanding limited specific regional predictions), to a greater understanding (despite continuing uncertainties) that global warming continues and is most likely due to human activity, and that very substantial cuts in emissions would be required to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations. [5]

Working Group II assessed whether the range of plausible impacts of global warming constitutes dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, [6] while Working Group III provided information to help countries "take decisions they believe are most appropriate for their specific circumstances". [7]

Chapter 8: Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes

In the IPCC process, a "convening lead author" for each chapter worked with other lead authors and contributing authors to agree the structure of the chapter, and assign teams of scientists to write each section of the chapter, producing a draft which was subject to acceptance by the whole author group. Participating governments then provided review comments on the draft, incorporated into the assessment which was presented to seek acceptance at a plenary session of the IPCC. [8] [9]

The IPCC chairman Bert Bolin had difficulty finding a convening lead author for Chapter 8. After delays, Benjamin D. Santer who was doing postdoctoral research on the topic was persuaded to take on the task. Twenty participants from various countries met at the initial meeting in Livermore, California, in August 1994 to identify the scientific topic areas, and discussion continued by email. At the first drafting session (in Sigtuna, Sweden, in October) Santer persuaded the others that the chapter should discuss observational and model uncertainties, though these were also covered in other chapters. The "zeroth" draft was then sent out for peer review to scientific topic experts, all the chapter authors and lead authors of other chapters. Their responses were incorporated in the second drafting session in March 1995 at Brighton. In May the entire draft Working Group I report as well as the summary for policymakers was submitted for full "country review" by participating governments, to provide comments for incorporation at the third drafting session at Asheville, North Carolina, in July. Because of the delayed timing, Santer did not receive government comments for this meeting, some did not arrive until the plenary meeting in November. [9]

The Chapter 8 draft report put together on 5 October had an Executive Summary of the evidence, and after various qualifications, said "Taken together, these results point towards a human influence on climate." Governments at the November plenary meeting in Madrid demanded changes to how this was worded in the Summary for Policymakers, after extended discussions Bolin suggested the adjective "discernible" and this was agreed. The approved Summary for Policymakers includes a section headed "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate", setting out progress in detection and attribution studies, cautioning that "Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors." Santer was subsequently required by the IPCC to bring the rest of the chapter into compliance with this wording. [10] [11] The summary at the start of the accepted version of the chapter stated that "these results indicate that the observed trend in global mean temperature over the past 100 years is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin. More importantly, there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcings by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols in the observed climate record. Taken together, these results point towards a human influence on global climate." The final paragraph in the chapter stated "The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on global climate." An introductory preface to the SAR written by IPCC chairman Bolin and his co-chairs John T. Houghton and L. Gylvan Meira Filho highlighted "that observations suggest 'a discernible human influence on global climate', one of the key findings of this report, adds an important new dimension to discussion of the climate issue." [12]

Prior to the publication of the Second Assessment Report, the industry group Global Climate Coalition distributed a report entitled "The IPCC: Institutionalized Scientific Cleansing" to reporters, US Congressmen, and scientists, which said that Santer had altered the text, after acceptance by the Working Group, and without approval of the authors, to strike content characterizing the uncertainty of the science. [9] Three weeks later, and a week after the Second Assessment Report was released, the Global Climate Coalition was echoed in a letter published in The Wall Street Journal from the retired condensed matter physicist and former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, chair of the George C. Marshall Institute and Science and Environmental Policy Project, but not a climatologist. In this letter, Seitz alleged that Santer had perpetrated "a disturbing corruption of the peer-review process." Seitz criticized the conclusions of Chapter 8, and wrote that "key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version", deleting "hints of the skepticism" he attributed to other unnamed scientists. [8] [13] [14] [15]

The position of the lead author of Chapter 8, Benjamin D. Santer, was supported by fellow IPCC authors and senior figures of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). [10] The presidents of the AMS and UCAR stated that there was a "systematic effort by some individuals to undermine and discredit the scientific process that has led many scientists working on understanding climate to conclude that there is a very real possibility that humans are modifying Earth's climate on a global scale." [10]

Other rebuttals of Seitz's comments include a 1997 paper [16] by Paul Edwards and IPCC author Stephen Schneider, and a 2007 complaint to the UK broadcast regulator Ofcom about the television programme, "The Great Global Warming Swindle". [8] The 2007 complaint includes a rebuttal of Seitz's claims by the former IPCC chairman, Bert Bolin. [17]

Debate over value of a statistical life

One of the controversies of the Second Assessment Working Group III report is the economic valuation of human life, which is used in monetized (i.e., converted into US dollar values) estimates of climate change impacts. [18] Often in these monetized estimates, the health risks of climate change are valued so that they are "consistent" with valuations of other health risks. [19] [20] There are a wide range of views on monetized estimates of climate change impacts. [21] The strengths and weaknesses of monetized estimates are discussed in the SAR [22] and later IPCC assessments. [23]

In the preparation of the SAR, disagreement arose over the Working Group III Summary for Policymakers (SPM). [24] The SPM is written by a group of IPCC authors, who then discuss the draft with government delegates from all of the UNFCCC Parties (i.e., delegates from most of the world's governments). [25] The economic valuation of human life (referred to by economists as the "value of statistical life") [19] was viewed by some governments (such as India) as suggesting that people living in poor countries are worth less than people living in rich countries. [24] David Pearce, who was a lead author of the relevant chapter of the SAR, officially dissented on the SPM. According to Pearce: [26]

The relevant chapter [of the Report] values of statistical life based on actual studies in different countries ... What the authors of Chapter 6 did not accept, and still do not accept, was the call from a few [government] delegates for a common valuation based on the highest number for willingness to pay.

In other words, a few government delegates wanted "statistical lives" in poor countries to be valued at the same level as "statistical lives" in rich countries. IPCC author Michael Grubb [27] later commented: [24]

Many of us think that the governments were basically right. The metric [used by Pearce] makes sense for determining how a given government might make tradeoffs between its own internal projects. But the same logic fails when the issue is one of damage inflicted by some countries on others: why should the deaths inflicted by the big emitters—principally the industrialised countries—be valued differently according to the wealth of the victims' countries?

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Attribution of recent climate change</span> Effort to scientifically ascertain mechanisms responsible for recent global warming

Efforts to scientifically ascertain and attribute mechanisms responsible for recent global warming and related climate changes on Earth have found that the main driver is elevated levels of greenhouse gases produced by human activities, with natural forces adding variability. The likely range of human-induced surface-level air warming by 2010–2019 compared to levels in 1850–1900 is 0.8 °C to 1.3 °C, with a best estimate of 1.07 °C. This is close to the observed overall warming during that time of 0.9 °C to 1.2 °C, while temperature changes during that time were likely only ±0.1 °C due to natural forcings and ±0.2 °C due to variability in the climate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</span> Scientific intergovernmental body on climate change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations. Its job is to advance scientific knowledge about climate change caused by human activities. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the IPCC in 1988. The United Nations endorsed the creation of the IPCC later that year. It has a secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland, hosted by the WMO. It has 195 member states who govern the IPCC. The member states elect a bureau of scientists to serve through an assessment cycle. A cycle is usually six to seven years. The bureau selects experts to prepare IPCC reports. It draws the experts from nominations by governments and observer organizations. The IPCC has three working groups and a task force, which carry out its scientific work.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established an international environmental treaty to combat "dangerous human interference with the climate system", in part by stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. It was signed by 154 states at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992. Its original secretariat was in Geneva but relocated to Bonn in 1996. It entered into force on 21 March 1994.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scientific consensus on climate change</span> Evaluation of climate change by the scientific community

There is a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

The Summary for policymakers (SPM) is a summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports intended to aid policymakers. The form is approved line by line by governments: "Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IPCC Third Assessment Report</span> Assessment of available scientific and socio-economic information on climate change by the IPCC

The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), Climate Change 2001, is an assessment of available scientific and socio-economic information on climate change by the IPCC. Statements of the IPCC or information from the TAR were often used as a reference showing a scientific consensus on the subject of global warming. The Third Assessment Report (TAR) was completed in 2001 and consists of four reports, three of them from its Working Groups: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis; Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Working Group III: Mitigation; Synthesis Report. A number of the TAR's conclusions are given quantitative estimates of how probable it is that they are correct, e.g., greater than 66% probability of being correct. These are "Bayesian" probabilities, which are based on an expert assessment of all the available evidence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Special Report on Emissions Scenarios</span> 2000 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) is a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that was published in 2000. The greenhouse gas emissions scenarios described in the Report have been used to make projections of possible future climate change. The SRES scenarios, as they are often called, were used in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), published in 2001, and in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007. The SRES scenarios were designed to improve upon some aspects of the IS92 scenarios, which had been used in the earlier IPCC Second Assessment Report of 1995. The SRES scenarios are "baseline" scenarios, which means that they do not take into account any current or future measures to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Effects of climate change</span>

Climate change affects the physical environment, ecosystems and human societies. Changes in the climate system include an overall warming trend, more extreme weather and rising sea levels. These in turn impact nature and wildlife, as well as human settlements and societies. The effects of human-caused climate change are broad and far-reaching, especially if significant climate action is not taken. The projected and observed negative impacts of climate change are sometimes referred to as the climate crisis.

The economic analysis of climate change explains how economic thinking, tools and techniques are applied to calculate the magnitude and distribution of damage caused by climate change. It also informs the policies and approaches for mitigation and adaptation to climate change from global to household scales. This topic is also inclusive of alternative economic approaches, including ecological economics and degrowth.

Climate Change 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was published in 2007 and is the fourth in a series of reports intended to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information concerning climate change, its potential effects, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The report is the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, produced by thousands of authors, editors, and reviewers from dozens of countries, citing over 6,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies. People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which took six years to produce. Contributors to AR4 included more than 2,500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change</span> Current rise in Earths average temperature and its effects

In common usage, climate change describes global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its effects on Earth's climate system. Climate change in a broader sense also includes previous long-term changes to Earth's climate. The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane. Greenhouse gases absorb some of the heat that the Earth radiates after it warms from sunlight. Larger amounts of these gases trap more heat in Earth's lower atmosphere, causing global warming.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IPCC First Assessment Report</span> 1990 IPCC report

The First Assessment Report (FAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was completed in 1990. It served as the basis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This report had effects not only on the establishment of the UNFCCC, but also on the first conference of the parties (COP), held in Berlin in 1995. The executive summary of the WG I Summary for Policymakers report that said they were certain that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface. They calculated with confidence that CO2 had been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Dennis Teel Avery was the director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, where he edited Global Food Quarterly. He died on June 20, 2020, at the age of 83.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IPCC Fifth Assessment Report</span> Intergovernmental report on climate change

The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the fifth in a series of such reports and was completed in 2014. As had been the case in the past, the outline of the AR5 was developed through a scoping process which involved climate change experts from all relevant disciplines and users of IPCC reports, in particular representatives from governments. Governments and organizations involved in the Fourth Report were asked to submit comments and observations in writing with the submissions analysed by the panel. Projections in AR5 are based on "Representative Concentration Pathways" (RCPs). The RCPs are consistent with a wide range of possible changes in future anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Projected changes in global mean surface temperature and sea level are given in the main RCP article.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economic impacts of climate change</span> Impacts on the economy created by climate change

The economic impacts of climate change vary geographically and are difficult to forecast exactly. Researchers have warned that current economic forecasts may seriously underestimate the effects of climate change, and point to the need for new models that give a more accurate picture of potential damages. Nevertheless, one 2018 study found that potential global economic gains if countries implement mitigation strategies to comply with the 2 °C target set at the Paris Agreement are in the vicinity of US$17 trillion per year up to 2100 compared to a very high emission scenario. A study by the reinsurance company Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd in 2021 estimated that global climate change is likely to reduce global economic output by 11-14%, or as much as $23 trillion annually by 2050, compared with global economic output without climate change. According to this study, the economies of wealthy countries like the United States would likely shrink by approximately 7% while some developing nations would be devastated, losing around 20% or in some cases 40% of the their economic output.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Representative Concentration Pathway</span> Projections used in climate change modeling

A Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) is a greenhouse gas concentration trajectory adopted by the IPCC. Four pathways were used for climate modeling and research for the IPCC fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in 2014. The pathways describe different climate futures, all of which are considered possible depending on the volume of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted in the years to come. The RCPs – originally RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6, and RCP8.5 – are labelled after a possible range of radiative forcing values in the year 2100. Since AR5 the original pathways are being considered together with Shared Socioeconomic Pathways: as are new RCPs such as RCP1.9, RCP3.4 and RCP7.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C</span> Special climate change report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR15) was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on 8 October 2018. The report, approved in Incheon, South Korea, includes over 6,000 scientific references, and was prepared by 91 authors from 40 countries. In December 2015, the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference called for the report. The report was delivered at the United Nations' 48th session of the IPCC to "deliver the authoritative, scientific guide for governments" to deal with climate change. Its key finding is that meeting a 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) target is possible but would require "deep emissions reductions" and "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society". Furthermore, the report finds that "limiting global warming to 1.5 °C compared with 2 °C would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health and well-being" and that a 2 °C temperature increase would exacerbate extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, coral bleaching, and loss of ecosystems, among other impacts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Special Report on Climate Change and Land</span> IPCC report

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL), also known as the "Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems", is a landmark study from 2019 by 107 experts from 52 countries. The SRCCL provides a comprehensive overview of the entire land-climate system for the first time and decided to enlist land as a "critical resource". The IPCC's 50th session (IPCC-50) formally adopted the SRCCL's Summary for policymakers (SPM) and approved the underlying report. The SPM and the full text of Special Report on Climate Change and Land—in an unedited form—were released on 8 August 2019. The report is over 1,300 pages long and includes the work of 107 experts from 52 countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IPCC Sixth Assessment Report</span> Intergovernmental report on climate change

The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the sixth in a series of reports which assess scientific, technical, and socio-economic information concerning climate change. Three Working Groups covered the following topics: The Physical Science Basis (WGI); Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (WGII); Mitigation of Climate Change (WGIII). Of these, the first study was published in 2021, the second report February 2022, and the third in April 2022. The final synthesis report was finished in March 2023.

Joyce Penner is an atmospheric scientist known for her research on climate change, especially on the impact of aerosols and clouds.

References

  1. ↑ IPCC SAR SYR 1995, p. vii, and see IPCC website Archived 2018-11-30 at the Wayback Machine .
  2. ↑ IPCC SAR SYR 1995, p. viii.
  3. ↑ IPCC SAR SYR 1995, Section 1.5, p. 3 Archived 2011-10-15 at the Wayback Machine . The "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" language is from Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
  4. ↑ IPCC SAR SYR 1995, Preface, p. xi Archived 2011-10-15 at the Wayback Machine .
  5. ↑ IPCC TAR WG1 2001, Technical Summary, Section A.2, pp. 22–3 Archived 2011-10-15 at the Wayback Machine
  6. ↑ IPCC SAR SYR 1995, p. 27 Archived 2018-09-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  7. ↑ IPCC SAR SYR 1995, p. 45 Archived 2018-09-13 at the Wayback Machine .
  8. 1 2 3 "Ch. 2: Complete Transcript and Rebuttal". Complaint to Ofcom Regarding "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Sec. 2.12: Conspiracy Theory About the IPCC., in Rive et al. 2007 , pp. 94–95
  9. 1 2 3 Oreskes, Naomi; Conway, Erik M. (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming . Bloomsbury Publishing. pp.  200–208. ISBN   978-1-59691-610-4.
  10. 1 2 3 Rasmussen, C., ed. (25 July 1996). "Special insert—An open letter to Ben Santer". UCAR Quarterly. Archived from the original on 26 June 2006. Retrieved 24 June 2009.
  11. ↑ IPCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995, WG1 Archived 2011-10-15 at the Wayback Machine . Summary for Policymakers, pp. 4–5
  12. ↑ IPCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995, WG1. ch 8, summary, pp. 412, 439, xi
  13. ↑ Seitz, F. (12 June 1996). Major deception on global warming Archived 2013-05-30 at the Wayback Machine , Wall Street Journal. p. A16.
  14. ↑ Lahsen, M. (1999). The Detection and Attribution of Conspiracies: The Controversy Over Chapter 8. In G. E. Marcus (Ed.), Paranoia Within Reason: A Casebook on Conspiracy as Explanation (pp. 111–136). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ISBN   0-226-50458-1.
  15. ↑ Helvarg, David (December 16, 1996). "The greenhouse spin". The Nation . Vol. 263, no. 20. pp. 21–24. Archived from the original on February 16, 2016. Retrieved February 10, 2016.
  16. ↑ Edwards, P. & S. Schneider (1997). "The 1995 IPCC Report: Broad Consensus or "Scientific Cleansing"?" (PDF). Ecofable/Ecoscience, 1:1 (1997), pp. 3–9. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 January 2010. Retrieved 24 June 2009.
  17. ↑ "Appendix G: Professor Bert Bolin's Peer Review Comments". Complaint to Ofcom Regarding "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Comment 9 (Comment 114 in the current document)., in Rive et al. 2007 , pp. 165–166
  18. ↑ This has been documented in a number of sources:
  19. 1 2 Pearce, D.W.; et al. Ch. 6: The social costs of climate change: greenhouse damage and the benefits of control. Box 6.1 Attributing a monetary value to a statistical life., in IPCC SAR WG3 1995 , p. 196 (p.194 of PDF)
  20. ↑ Ackerman, F. (18 May 2004). "Priceless Benefits, Costly Mistakes: What's Wrong With Cost-Benefit Analysis?". Post-autistic economics review. pp. 2–7. Archived from the original on 6 June 2013. Retrieved 2 January 2014.
  21. ↑ For example:
  22. ↑ Chapter 5 of the SAR Working Group III report ( IPCC SAR WG3 1995 ) discusses how cost-benefit analysis (which extensively uses monetized estimates) can be applied to climate change. Other chapters (1–4, 6, and 10) also contain relevant information.
  23. ↑ For example:
  24. 1 2 3 Grubb, M. (September 2005). "Stick to the Target" (PDF). Prospect Magazine. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-07-03.
  25. ↑ Committee on the Science of Climate Change, US National Research Council (2001). "Ch. 7: Assessing Progress in Climate Science". Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. Washington, D.C., USA: National Academy Press. p. 23. Bibcode:2001ccsa.book.....N. ISBN   0-309-07574-2. Archived from the original on 5 June 2011.
  26. ↑ Pearce, D. (1 January 1996). "Correction on Global Warming Cost Benefit Conflict". Environmental Damage Valuation and Cost Benefit News. Archived from the original on 16 July 2008. Retrieved 20 May 2009.
  27. ↑ Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge. "Michael Grubb: Other positions and activities". University of Cambridge Faculty of Economics website. Archived from the original on 3 July 2013. Retrieved 12 December 2012.

Sources

The Second Assessment Report consists of the following reports from each of the three Working Groups, and a Synthesis Report. The WG2 report has on-line text; all are available in PDF format at the IPCC's documents web page.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.