Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-1 (section)

=== 1.1.4 What is New in the History of Interdisciplinary Climate Change Assessment ===

<div id="h2-4-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Interdisciplinary climate change assessment, which has played a prominent role in science–society interactions on the climate issue since 1988, has advanced in important ways since AR5 ( [[#Mitchell--2006|Mitchell et al., 2006]] ; [[#Mach--2017|Mach and Field, 2017]] ; [[#Oppenheimer--2019|Oppenheimer et al., 2019]] ). Building on a substantially expanded scientific and technical literature ( [[#Burkett--2014|Burkett et al., 2014]] ; [[#Minx--2017|Minx et al., 2017]] ), this AR6 report emphasises at least three broad themes.

First, this AR6 assessment has an increased focus on risk- and solutions-frameworks. The risk framing can move beyond the limits of single best estimates or most-likely outcomes and include high-consequence outcomes for which probabilities are low or in some cases unknown ( [[#Jones--2014|Jones et al., 2014]] ; [[#Mach--2017|Mach and Field, 2017]] ). In this report, the risk framing for the first time spans all three Working Groups, includes risks from the responses to climate change, considers dynamic and cascading consequences (Section 1.3.1.1), describes with more geographic detail risks to people and ecosystems, and assesses such risks over a range of scenarios (Chapter 16). The focus on solutions encompasses the interconnections among climate responses, sustainable development, and transformation, and the implications for governance across scales within the public and private sectors (Section 17.5.2; Chapter 18). The assessment therefore includes climate-related decision making and risk management, climate resilient development pathways, implementation and evaluation of adaptation, and also limits to adaptation, and loss and damage (Cross-Chapter Box LOSS in Chapter 17; Section 1.4.4). Specific focal areas reflect contexts increasingly important for the implementation of responses, such as cities (Chapter 6).

Second, emphases on social justice and different forms of expertise have emerged (Sections 1.4.1.1; 17.5.2). As climate change impacts and implemented responses increasingly occur, there is heightened awareness of the ways that climate responses interact with issues of justice and social progress. In this report, there is expanded attention to inequity in climate vulnerability and responses, the role of power and participation in processes of implementation, unequal and differential impacts, and climate justice. The historic focus on scientific literature has also been increasingly accompanied by attention to and incorporation of Indigenous knowledge (IK), local knowledge (LK) and associated scholars (Section 1.3.2.3; Chapter 12).

Third, AR6 has a more extensive focus on the role of transformation in meeting societal goals (Section 1.5).

To support these three themes, this report assesses literature with an increasing diversity of topics and geographical areas covered. The diversity is encompassed through sectoral and regional chapters (Chapters 2–15), as well as cross-chapter papers and boxes. The literature also increasingly evaluates the lived experiences of climate change—the physical changes underway, the impacts for people and ecosystems, the perceptions of the risks, and adaptation and mitigation responses planned and implemented. In particular, scientific capabilities to attribute individual extreme weather and climate events to GHG emissions have gone from hypothetical to standard and routine over the last three decades, and societal perceptions of these events and their impacts for people and ecosystems are now being studied as well (Figure 1.1; Cross-Working Group Box ATTRIBUTION in Chapter 1; see synthesis in Chapter 16).

Finally, climate change assessment has become increasingly integrative across multiple disciplines within the natural and social sciences. This report’s chapters combine experts across Working Groups and disciplines, such as natural and social sciences, engineering, humanities, law, and business administration. In this assessment cycle, the special reports ( [[#Allen--2018|Allen et al., 2018]] ; [[#IPCC--2019a|IPCC, 2019a]] ; [[#IPCC--2019b|IPCC, 2019b]] ) all emphasise such integration, and the chapter teams in the present report integrate disciplinary perspectives and also science–policy interactions inherent in climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. There has been increasing real-time assessment of the assessment process itself, including interpersonal dynamics and how they shape key findings ( [[#Oppenheimer--2019|Oppenheimer et al., 2019]] ). Additionally, best practices are being adopted from applied decision and policy analysis, decision support and co-production, in order to increase assessment relevance and usability for decision making ( [[#Hall--2019|Hall et al., 2019]] ; [[#Mach--2019|Mach et al., 2019]] ). Methods of integration in this report include systematic review, meta-analysis, multi-criteria integration and expert elicitation (see synthesis in Chapter 16). The emphasis on knowledge for action has also included the role of public communication, stories and narratives within assessment and associated outreach (Section 1.2.2).

<div id="1.2" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="different-entry-points-for-understanding-climate-change-impacts-adaptation-and-vulnerability"></span>