Call Girls In Pratap Nagar꧁❤ 🔝 9953056974🔝❤꧂ Escort ServiCe
SBSTA - IPCC Special Event - Projected climate change, potential impacts and associated risks
1. Jason Florio / Aurora Photos
Projected Climate Change,
Potential Impacts and
Associated Risks
Section B continued: Impacts Guiding AMBITION and
CHOICES in Mitigation and Adaptation
2. • Less impacts from extreme weather where
people live
• By 2100, global mean sea level rise will be
around 10 cm lower …. but will continue to
rise for centuries
• 10 million fewer people exposed to risk of
rising seas (…less coastal ecosystems
exposed)
At 1.5°C compared to 2°C:
Jason Florio / Aurora Photos
Impacts of global warming: Where
do we want to go?
4. Where do we want to go?
At 1.5°C compared to 2°C:
• Lower impact on biodiversity and species
• Smaller reductions in yields of maize, rice,
wheat crop yields
• Global population exposed to water
shortages is up to 50% less (also less water
shortages for ecosystems)
Andre Seale / Aurora Photos
5. SPM 1.5°C: Terrestrial biodiversity
• Of 105,000 species studied, 6% of insects, 8% of plants and
4% of vertebrates are projected to lose over half of their
climatically determined geographic range for global warming
of 1.5°C, half of the respective numbers at 2°C.
• Approximately 4% (interquartile range 2–7%) of the global
land area is projected to undergo a transformation of
ecosystems from one type to another at 1°C of global
warming, compared with 13% (interquartile range 8–20%) at
2°C. This indicates that the area at risk is projected to be
approximately 50% lower at 1.5°C compared to 2°C.
6. Where do we want to go?
At 1.5°C compared to 2°C:
• Lower impacts on biodiversity and species
P. Smith et al. 2018
no impact
on biodiversity
at 1.5 vs. 2°C
beneficial
for biodiversity
at 1.5 vs. 2°C
Terrestrial
biodiversity
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLETerrestrial Meta-analysis as in SR1.5
7. Where do we want to go?
At 1.5°C compared to 2°C:
• Lower risk to fisheries & the livelihoods that
depend on them
• Up to several hundred million fewer people
exposed to climate-related risk and
susceptible to poverty by 2050
Natalie Behring / Aurora Photos
8. Where do we want to go?
At 1.5°C compared to 2°C:
• Lower risks for health, livelihoods, food
security, water supply, human security and
economic growth
Jason Florio / Aurora Photos
• A wide range of adaptation options can reduce
climate risks; less adaptation needs at 1.5°C
• Disproportionately high risk for Arctic,
dryland regions, small island developing
states and least developed countries
9. Where do we want to go?
At 1.5°C compared to 2°C:
• Reduced risk to human health – lower heat-
related morbidity and mortality
Placeh
older
picture
from
fre site
… on a rise linked to
strengthened increase in
heat wave exposures…
(Lancet 2018)
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE, TO BE ASSESSED IN AR6
10. Confidence level : M, medium; H, high; VH; very high
|
Arctic Sea Ice
Coral Reefs
Global biodiversity
1.5°C
IPCC SR1.5, 2018
2.0°C
11. Confidence level : M, medium; H, high; VH; very high
|
….half a degree matters… every bit of warming matters….
… for ecosystems, biodiversity and humankind
1.5°C
IPCC SR1.5, 2018
2.0°C
...less loss and damage at 1.5°C
12. Verons 2009
Warm water coral reefs under various pressures
Vulnerable ecosystem identified in AR5 and SR1.5
0.8 to 1.0°COBSERVATIONS
2016
Even in a 1.5°C warmer
world.... high risk of losing
70 to 90% of coral reefs
and their services to
humankind; … even
higher losses at 2°C
1.5°C
2.0°C
2006-
2015
Assessing risk of global warming
low very highmod. high
Risk level
13. Large changes in community composition expected
driven by local invasions and losses
Drivers of change: Warming and velocity....
Garcia-Molinos
et al. 2015,
2017 NCC
RCP4.5 versus 8.5
+2°C
+4°C
RCP 4.5
RCP 8.5
AR5: Marine biodiversity
Ultimate Species Heat Limits surpassed in Tropics
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
15. Peter Essick / Aurora Photos
Ambitious emissions reductions
have...
• Reduced competition for land (BECCS)
• Food security for humankind
• Ecosystem restoration and carbon
storage (soils and biomass)
• Biodiversity conservation
• Co-benefits for
• Human health
16. Ashley Cooper/ Aurora Photos
Half a degree…,
…every bit of warming
matters
Each year matters
Each choice matters
For minimizing impacts and associated risks….
Editor's Notes
Smith et al 2018 Fig 1 Areas showing greatest benefit to maintaining plant species richness at 1,5 vs 2C. Darker the green the greater the banafit in mean species richness perserved. Areas that are light green show same number of approximate species at 1.5 and 2C
Change in the number of heatwave exposure events (with one exposure event being one heatwave experienced by one person) compared to historical average number of events 1986-2005. The Lancet
This increase in population exposure to heatwaves continues to directly risk the health of exposed populations but also indirectly eg through food insecurity resulting from livestock exposure to heatwaves
RFC1 Unique and threatened
systems: ecological and human systems that have restricted geographic ranges constrained by
climate related conditions and have high endemism or other distinctive properties. Examples
include coral reefs, the Arctic and its indigenous people, mountain glaciers, and biodiversity
hotspots. RFC2 Extreme weather events: risks/impacts to human health, livelihoods, assets, and
ecosystems from extreme weather events such as heat waves, heavy rain, drought and associated
wildfires, and coastal flooding. RFC3 Distribution of impacts: risks/impacts that
disproportionately affect particular groups due to uneven distribution of physical climate change
hazards, exposure or vulnerability. RFC4 Global aggregate impacts: global monetary damage,
global scale degradation and loss of ecosystems and biodiversity. RFC5 Large-scale singular
events: are relatively large, abrupt and sometimes irreversible changes in systems that are caused
by global warming. Examples include disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.
Differences between current (year 2006) and projected (year 2100) cell species richness for Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) RCP4.5 (b) and RCP8.5 (c). Black contour lines correspond to limits of exclusive economic zones (EEZ). Latitudinal and longitudinal global medians (solid line) with their 25 and 75% quartiles (shaded area) (5◦ moving average) are given in the marginal panels to the right and above, respectively.
Figure SPM.7, Panel b
Complete caption of Figure SPM.7:
Figure SPM.7 | CMIP5 multi-model simulated time series from 1950 to 2100 for Northern Hemisphere September sea ice extent (5-year running mean). Time series of projections and a measure of uncertainty (shading) are shown for scenarios RCP2.6 (blue) and RCP8.5 (red). Black (grey shading) is the modelled historical evolution using historical reconstructed forcings. The mean and associated uncertainties averaged over 2081−2100 are given for all RCP scenarios as colored vertical bars. The numbers of CMIP5 models used to calculate the multi-model mean is indicated. For sea ice extent (b), the projected mean and uncertainty (minimum-maximum range) of the subset of models that most closely reproduce the climatological mean state and 1979 to 2012 trend of the Arctic sea ice is given (number of models given in brackets). For completeness, the CMIP5 multi-model mean is also indicated with dotted lines. The dashed line represents nearly ice-free conditions (i.e., when sea ice extent is less than 106 km2 for at least five consecutive years). For further technical details see the Technical Summary Supplementary Material {Figures 6.28, 12.5, and 12.28–12.31; Figures TS.15, TS.17, and TS.20}