Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "reasons for concern".

Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [United Nations (1992) http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf. Accessed February 9, 2009] commits signatory nations to stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that "would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference (DAI) with the climate system." In an effort to provide some insight into impacts of climate change that might be considered DAI, authors of the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identified 5 "reasons for concern" (RFCs). Relationships between various impacts reflected in each RFC and increases in global mean temperature (GMT) were portrayed in what has come to be called the "burning embers diagram." In presenting the "embers" in the TAR, IPCC authors did not assess whether any single RFC was more important than any other; nor did they conclude what level of impacts or what atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases would constitute DAI, a value judgment that would be policy prescriptive. Here, we describe revisions of the sensitivities of the RFCs to increases in GMT and a more thorough understanding of the concept of vulnerability that has evolved over the past 8 years. This is based on our expert judgment about new findings in the growing literature since the publication of the TAR in 2001, including literature that was assessed in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), as well as additional research published since AR4. Compared with results reported in the TAR, smaller increases in GMT are now estimated to lead to significant or substantial consequences in the framework of the 5 "reasons for concern."

Assessing adaptation to the health risks of climate change: what guidance can existing frameworks provide?

Climate change adaptation assessments aim at assisting policy-makers in reducing the health risks associated with climate change and variability. This paper identifies key characteristics of the climate-health relationship and of the adaptation decision problem that require consideration in climate change adaptation assessments. It then analyzes whether these characteristics are appropriately considered in existing guidelines for climate impact and adaptation assessment and in pertinent conceptual models from environmental epidemiology. The review finds three assessment guidelines based on a generalized risk management framework to be most useful for guiding adaptation assessments of human health. Since none of them adequately addresses all key challenges of the adaptation decision problem, actual adaptation assessments need to combine elements from different guidelines. Established conceptual models from environmental epidemiology are found to be of limited relevance for assessing and planning adaptation to climate change since the prevailing toxicological model of environmental health is not applicable to many climate-sensitive health risks.