Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
ClimateKG
Search
Search
English
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-4
(section)
IPCC
Discussion
English
Read
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
In other projects
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==== 4.3.4.1 Methodological Advances ==== <div id="section-4-3-4-1-methodological-advances-block-1"></div> Rather than revisiting the AR5 and O’Neill et al. (2017) assessments from the particular perspective of risk related to SLR and for the global scale, this section provides a complementary perspective by assessing risks for specific geographies ( resource-rich coastal cities , urban atoll islands, large tropical agricultural deltas and selected Arctic communities), based on the methodological advances below. '''''Scale of analysis and geographical scope''''' – To date, the RFCs and associated burning embers have been developed at a global scale (Oppenheimer et al., 2014; Gattuso et al., 2015; O’Neill et al., 2017) and do not address the spatial variability of risk highlighted in this report (Sections 4.3.2.7, 4.3.4, 5.3.7, Cross-Chapter Box 9, Box 4.1). In addition, assessments usually identify risks either for global human dimensions (e.g., to people, livelihood, breakdown of infrastructures, biodiversity, global economy, etc.; IPCC, 2014; Oppenheimer et al., 2014; O’Neill et al., 2017) or for ecosystems and ecosystem services (Gattuso et al., 2015; Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2018) (Section 5.3.7). This section moves the focus from the global to more local scales by considering four generic categories of low-lying coastal areas (Figure 4.3, Panel B): selected Arctic communities remote from regions of rapid GIA, large tropical agricultural deltas, urban atoll islands, and resource-rich coastal cities . Each of these categories is informed by several real-world case studies. '''''Risks considered''''' – In line with the AR5 (IPCC, 2014) , current and future risks result from the interaction of SLR-related hazards with the vulnerability of exposed ecosystems and societies. According to the specific scope of the chapter, this assessment focusses on the additional risks due to SLR and does not account for changes in extreme event climatology. Hazards considered are coastal flooding (Section 4.3.4.2), erosion (Section 4.3.4.3) and salinisation (Section 4.3.4.4). The proxies used to describe exposure and vulnerability are the density of assets at the coast (Section 4.3.2.2) and the level of degradation of natural buffering by marine and terrestrial ecosystems (Sections 4.3.2.3, 4.3.3.5.4, and 5.3.2 to 5.3.4). The assessment especially addresses risks to human assets at the coast, including populations, infrastructures and livelihoods. Specific metrics were developed (see SM4.3 for details), and their contribution to present-day observed impacts and to end-century risk have been assessed based on the authors’ expert judgment and a methodological grid presented in SM4.3 (SM4.3.1 to SM4.3.6). The author’s expert judgment draws on Sections 4.3.3.2 to 4.3.3.5 as well as additional literature for local scale perspectives (SM4.3.9). '''''Sea level rise scenarios''''' – Based on the updates for ranges and mean values developed in this chapter (Section 4.2, Table 4.3), this assessment considers the end-century GMSL (2100) relative to 1986–2005 levels for two scenarios, SROCC RCP2.6 and SROCC RCP8.5. Both mean values and the SROCC RCP8.5 upper end of the ''likely '' range are used to assess risk transitions (Figure 4.3, Panel A). For the sake of readability, the following values were used: 43 cm (mean SROCC RCP2.6), 84 cm (mean SROCC RCP8.5) and 110 cm (SROCC RCP8.5 upper end of ''likely '' range). While GMSL serves as a representation of different possible climate change scenarios (see Panel A in Figure 4.3, Section 4.1.2), the assessment of additional risks due to SLR on specific geographies is developed against end-century relative SLR (RSL) in order to allow a geographically accurate approach (Panel B, Figure 4.3). Accordingly, risk was assessed to illustrative geographies based on RSLs for each of the two SROCC RCP scenarios and each of the real-world case studies to (SM4.3.6 and Table SM4.3.2; see dotted lines in Panel B of Figure 4.3). RSL observations include some or all of the following VLMs: both uplift (e.g., due to tectonics) and subsidence due to natural (e.g., tectonics, sediment compaction) and human (e.g., oil/gas/water extraction, mining activities) factors, as well as to GIA. However, in SROCC, numerical RSL projections only include GIA and the regional gravitational, rotational, and deformational responses (GRD, see Section 4.2.1.5) to ice mass loss. The main reason is the difficulty of project ing the influence o n some factors such as human interventions to the end of the century. '''''Adaptation scenarios''''' – Risk will also depend on the effectiveness of coastal societies’ responses to both extreme events and slow onset changes. To capture the response dimension, four metrics have been considered that refer to the implementation of adequately calibrated hard, engineered coastal defences (Section 4.4.2.2), the restoration of the degraded ecosystems or the creation of new natural buffers areas (Section 4.4.2.2 and 4.4.2.3), planned and local-scale relocation (Section 4.4.2.6), and measures to limit human-induced subsidence (Sections 4.4.2.2, 4.4.2.5). On these bases, two contrasting adaptation scenarios were considered. The first one is called ‘No-to-moderate response’ (see (A) bars in Panel B, Figure 4.3) and represents a business-as-usual scenario where no major additional adaptation efforts compared to today are implemented. That is, neither substantial intensification of current actions nor new types of actions, e.g., only moderate raising of existing protections in high-density areas or sporadic episodes of relocation or beach nourishment where largescale efforts are not already underway. The second one, called ‘Maximum potential response’ (bars (B) in Figure 4.3), refers to an ambitious combination of both incremental and transformational adaptation (i.e., significantly upscaled effort); for example, relocation of entire districts or raised protections in some cities, or creation/restoration at a significant scale of beach-dune systems including indigenous vegetation. <div id="section-4-3-4-2-key-findings-on-future-risks-and-adaptation-benefits"></div> <span id="key-findings-on-future-risks-and-adaptation-benefits"></span>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to ClimateKG may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
ClimateKG:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-4
(section)
Add languages
Add topic