Download Carter AR5 info requ..

Information request to the IPCC ASR5 WG 1 respecting risk and clarity
20 Oct 2013
Background Summary
The writer’s background in environmental health protection policy and global climate change presentations allows him to assess the
AR5 for informing governments on environmental health risk of committed global warming.
We are committed by atmospheric greenhouse gas forcing alone to a warming of over 2.0C, by system inertias to a total warming of
about 2.5C by 2100 , which is a full long term commitment of 4C.
This is a commitment to catastrophic food production losses to billions and disastrous losses affecting all regions.
This is an extreme risk probable commitment, to subsea methane hydrate disintegration, loss of the Amazon forest, loss of the
Boreal forest, loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet, loss of the Greenland ice sheet, and loss of the coral reefs.
The combined national emissions pledges filed with the UN commits the world to 4.5C by 2100 I(Climate Interactive) and 8C long
term. This is a commitment to the above losses and the end of agriculture.
The AR5 is crucial to our future survival because the IPCC assessment is the only science recognized by governments for policy
making and in international discussions.
The IPCC AR5 is likely our last chance to drive the deplorable lack of political will in acting to prevent global climate planetary
catastrophe. Because of many strong amplifying climate feedbacks and the fact that only zero carbon emissions (including carbon
feedback emissions) can stabilize global temperature and ocean acidification we are facing the prospect of runaway global climate
change and planetary catastrophe. At present with no action on emissions foreseen, and 2C being targeted, the lives of billions are
on the line, and future generations are being condemned to a wrecked uninhabitable planet.
The IPCC AR5 science does not apply principles and considerations of risk. The WG1 SPM science provided does not allow policy
makers to make a risk assessment nor lead them to understand the current state planetary emergency. Policy based on the science
provided to policy makers would most likely lead to global climate planetary catastrophe rather than preventing it. This information
request would allow for an assessment of risk and provide crucial evidence to confirm the planetary emergency for action.
Extreme Arctic warming planetary risk
One big reason for this is the omission of the several extremely large positive amplifying feedback Arctic sources. These include the
Arctic albedo feedback and emissions of methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide under Arctic warming, which is rapid.

We request in accordance with the UNEP 2012 recommendation (Policy Implications for Warming Permafrost) a special
IPCC risk assessment of all Arctic positive feedbacks including the risk from their combination.
This catastrophic risk of Arctic multiple positive methane feedback runaway is well documented by the 2010 review paper
Possible role of wetlands permafrost and methane hydrates in the methane cycle under future climate change
http://www.lmd.jussieu.fr/~obolmd/PDF/2010_OConnor_et_al_RG.pdf
Fiona M. O’Connor et al 2010.
Risk
The charter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is
"... to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information
relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for
adaptation and mitigation.
The AR5 is no risk assessment. It excludes essential risk information in general. It is a more a computer model probability
assessment. The SPM information does not allow for a risk assessment. If policy is determined by the AR5 SPM science a
commitment to global climate planetary catastrophe is practically certain, because by omitting worst risks governments have no
more incentive against carrying on increasing fossil fuel exploitation and combustion.
The IPCC does not even define dangerous climate change or climate interference, claiming that danger is a value judgment that
science cannot and only makers make. This is obviously not true as it only apples to climate change policy.
Danger is defined and determined by risk.
Risk is the product of magnitude and probability of a consequence.
A high magnitude risk to the planet, or billions of people, or future generations- is a high risk even if the probability is not reliably
known by science. If high impacts risks are not recorded at all by the IPCC SPM they will not be considered at all. The AR5 is omitting
the greatest risks because of uncertainty of the numeric probability. Where there is a range - for risk assume the upper range and
express qualitatively in accordance with the following from AR5.
The degree of certainty in key findings in this assessment is based on the author teams’ evaluations of underlying scientific
understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence (from very low to very high) and, when possible, probabilistically
with a quantified likelihood (from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain).
By definition, the most dangerous effect and worst impact of global warming is the multiple positive amplifying feedbacks that
warming causes, and further increase with the warming (time and degree).
At some point this becomes a self-accelerating totally uncontrollable vicious cycle- so called feedback runaway global climate
change. This could be the end of civilization, humanity and most life.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 is another source of positive feedback.
Most of the positive amplifying feedbacks are carbon cycle feedbacks and the largest carbon source is Arctic.
These amplifying feedbacks are not accounted for in the IPCC AR5 projections of global warming.
AR5
The IPCC is mandated to provide comprehensive policy relevant information to governments. The AR5 omits much of the most
policy relevant information.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE IPCC MANDATE, PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND MAKE THE INFORMATION
AVAILABLE TO POLICY MAKERS AND TO INFORM THE WG2 & WG3.












A safe or danger (very low risk) limit given for warming. 2C is certain catastrophe to billions of the most vulnerable (from
AR4) and feedback planetary catastrophe.
A safe or danger (very low risk) limit given for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (CO2 equivalent).
The likelihood of the sensitivity being higher than 4C and 4.5C.
The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a
doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high
confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than6°C (medium confidence)
The equilibrium sensitivity is dynamic. The equilibrium temperature (centuries from now) cannot be the same 3C as
applies today without positive snow-ice albedo and carbon positive feedbacks.
Projections based on a higher climate sensitivity, in addition to the single fast feedback sensitivity only metric of 3C, for
example 4.5C for planetary catastrophic risk aversion. The AR5 uses one single metric (3°C the same as IPCC FAR 1990) for
climate sensitivity in all situations, that does allow for the risk of any higher sensitivity and does not account for the
increasing sensitivity that will occur from the many positive amplifying feedbacks with warming. Of eight AR4 studies 3
were above 3c and one was 5C. You cannot rely on only 3C to be the basis of the entire assessment.
Science specifics for a 1.5C and 1C warming (in addition to 2C).
All projections from the 1950 base – in addition to the other AR5 bases.
Provide the SRES scenarios as well. The new RCP scenarios are policy confusing rather than policy informative and they are
not consistent.
Real world temperature scenario based on the current high emissions trend
Mitigation science for stabilizing atmospheric CO2 eq at a safe level (below 400 CO2 eq exclude aerosol cooling).
Provide projections of warming and mitigation science based on CO2 eq, not CO2 alone.
Provide the observed temperature record beyond 2005 and the policy relevant reasons for the pause in the global
temperature increase i.e. high Asian air pollution cooling aerosols and deep ocean heat transport.
Provide warming projections from 1850 by the projected mean and range for each scenario in accordance with past IPCC
reporting.
This is not satisfactory recording, nor most policy relevant. Relative to the average from year 1850 to 1900, global surface
temperature change by the end of the 21st century is projected to likely exceed 1.5°C for RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (high
confidence). Warming is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (high confidence), more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5
(high confidence), but unlikely to exceed 2°C for RCP2.6 (medium confidence). Warming is unlikely to exceed 4°C for RCP2.6, RCP4.5
and RCP6.0 (high confidence) and is about as likely as not to exceed 4°C for RCP8.5 (medium confidence). {12.4}

An explanation of how the RCP2.6 achieves a sub 2C and declining warming which is impossible without assuming
successful geoengineering or sucessful large scale carbon capture storage
 Document qualitatively and quantitatively where possible the expected feedback warming and risk and with mean and
upper ranges for the following positive feedback sources.
o Terrestrial carbon feedback from warming (include potential Amazon die back)
o Terrestrial carbon feedback due to atmospheric CO2 sink from a slowing of CO2 uptake
o Amplifying carbon feedback from increasing tropospheric ozone.
o Positive feedback from global forest fires
o Fast responding peatland carbon feedback
o Global wetland (other than peat)
o Permafrost CO2, methane and N2O
o Subsea floor methane hydrate and free gas
o Loss of Arctic snow and summer sea ice albedo warming feedback
 Risk from the combination of the many positive Arctic feedbacks
 The Arctic and N hemisphere snow and ice albedo feedback, with the 30 year amplification of up the 4X global warming
and future projections.
 Potential tipping points
 Warming and changes beyond 2100. AR5 gives warming and changes by 2100, while the full long term equilibrium warming
will be nearly double that due to the ocean heat and much higher with positive feedbacks. We are likely in the near term to
commit future generations to a warming beyond the limit of human survival.
 Todays committed unavoidable warming (assuming a best emergency emissions reduction, no attempted geo-engineering
or attempted carbon capture storage, and excluding aerosol cooling).
 Todays committed warming from combined national emissions pledges filed with the UN
 The benefit of a rapid early emissions peaking on atmospheric GHG stabilization, taking into account socio-economic
inertia, climate inertia and carbon feedback warming.
 The long established science for the standard mitigation method based on stabilizing at safe atmospheric CO2eq
method, in addition to the AR5 new mitigation method of the carbon budget which is not reliable nor most policy relevant.
The terms of the UNFCCC are and always have been based on a safe atmospheric stabilization concentration, not a carbon
budget to burn a lot more fossil fuels. This is an extreme inappropriate high risk method for mitigation.
Very Sincerely
Dr Peter Carter
[email protected]
[email protected]