The impacts of global warming are likely to be "severe, pervasive and irreversible", a major report by the UN has warned.

Scientists and officials meeting in Japan say the document is the most comprehensive assessment to date of the impacts of climate change on the world.

Some impacts of climate change include a higher risk of flooding and changes to crop yields and water availability.

Humans may be able to adapt to some of these changes, but only within limits.

An example of an adaptation strategy would be the construction of sea walls and levees to protect against flooding. Another might be introducing more efficient irrigation for farmers in areas where water is scarce.

Natural systems are currently bearing the brunt of climatic changes, but a growing impact on humans is feared.

Members of the UN's climate panel say it provides overwhelming evidence of the scale of these effects.

Our health, homes, food and safety are all likely to be threatened by rising temperatures, the summary says.

The report was agreed after almost a week of intense discussions here in Yokohama, which included concerns among some authors about the tone of the evolving document.

This is the second of a series from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) due out this year that outlines the causes, effects and solutions to global warming.
This latest Summary for Policymakers document highlights the fact that the amount of scientific evidence on the impacts of warming has almost doubled since the last report in 2007.

Be it the melting of glaciers or warming of permafrost, the summary highlights the fact that on all continents and across the oceans, changes in the climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems in recent decades.

In the words of the report, "increasing magnitudes of warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts".

"Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate change,'' IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri told journalists at a news conference in Yokohama.

Dr Saleemul Huq, a convening lead author on one of the chapters, commented: "Before this we thought we knew this was happening, but now we have overwhelming evidence that it is happening and it is real."

Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, said that, previously, people could have damaged the Earth's climate out of "ignorance".

"Now, ignorance is no longer a good excuse," he said.

Mr Jarraud said the report was based on more than 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies. He said this document was "the most solid evidence you can get in any scientific discipline".

US Secretary of State John Kerry commented: "Unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy. Denial of the science is malpractice."

He added: "No single country causes climate change, and no one country can stop it. But we need to match the urgency of our response with the scale of the science."

Ed Davey, the UK Energy and Climate Secretary said: "The science has clearly spoken. Left unchecked, climate change will impact on many aspects of our society, with far reaching consequences to human health, global food security and economic development.

"The recent flooding in the UK is a testament to the devastation that climate change could bring to our daily lives."

The report details significant short-term impacts on natural systems in the next 20 to 30 years. It details five reasons for concern that would likely increase as a result of the warming the world is already committed to.

These include threats to unique systems such as Arctic sea ice and coral reefs, where risks are said to increase to "very high" with a 2C rise in temperatures.

The summary document outlines impacts on the seas and on freshwater systems as well. The oceans will become more acidic, threatening coral and the many species that they harbour.

On land, animals, plants and other species will begin to move towards higher ground or towards the poles as the mercury rises.

Humans, though, are also increasingly affected as the century goes on.

Food security is highlighted as an area of significant concern. Crop yields for maize, rice and wheat are all hit in the period up to 2050, with around a tenth of projections showing losses over 25%.

After 2050, the risk of more severe yield impacts increases, as boom-and-bust cycles affect many regions. All the while, the demand for food from a population estimated to be around nine billion will rise.

Many fish species, a critical food source for many, will also move because of warmer waters.

In some parts of the tropics and in Antarctica, potential catches could decline by more than 50%.

"This is a sobering assessment," said Prof Neil Adger from the University of Exeter, another IPCC author.

"Going into the future, the risks only increase, and these are about people, the impacts on crops, on the availability of water and particularly, the extreme events on people's lives and livelihoods."

People will be affected by flooding and heat related mortality. The report warns of new risks including the threat to those who work outside, such as farmers and construction workers. There are concerns raised over migration linked to climate change, as well as conflict and national security.

Report co-author Maggie Opondo of the University of Nairobi said that in places such as Africa, climate change and extreme events mean "people are going to become more vulnerable to sinking deeper into poverty".

While the poorer countries are likely to suffer more in the short term, the rich won't escape.

"The rich are going to have to think about climate change. We're seeing that in the UK, with the floods we had a few months ago, and the storms we had in the US and the drought in California," said Dr Huq.

"These are multibillion dollar events that the rich are going to have to pay for, and there's a limit to what they can pay."

But it is not all bad news, as the co-chair of the working group that drew up the report points out.

"I think the really big breakthrough in this report is the new idea of thinking about managing climate change as a problem in managing risks," said Dr Chris Field.

"Climate change is really important but we have a lot of the tools for dealing effectively with it - we just need to be smart about it."

There is far greater emphasis to adapting to the impacts of climate in this new summary. The problem, as ever, is who foots the bill?

"It is not up to IPCC to define that," said Dr Jose Marengo, a Brazilian government official who attended the talks.

"It provides the scientific basis to say this is the bill, somebody has to pay, and with the scientific grounds it is relatively easier now to go to the climate negotiations in the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and start making deals about who will pay for adaptation."

 Skinnereal wrote:
Maybe the deniers might start listening.
There's no mention of insurance, and with pay-outs going up, shouldn't a share of premiums go towards prevention?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
Maybe the deniers might start listening.
There's no mention of insurance, and with pay-outs going up, shouldn't a share of premiums go towards prevention?

Blah blah. Gulf Coast has avoided major hurricanes since OMG GLOABAL WAMRINZ! so I am ok with it.
At worst Canada becomes the breadbasket of the world.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
Maybe the deniers might start listening.
There's no mention of insurance, and with pay-outs going up, shouldn't a share of premiums go towards prevention?

Blah blah. Gulf Coast has avoided major hurricanes since OMG GLOABAL WAMRINZ! so I am ok with it.
At worst Canada becomes the breadbasket of the world.

Hmmmm, maple syrup, bread, and poutine

 whembly wrote:
I'm not denying that there's climate change... as in, we have fething weather.

I'm all for "green energy alternatives" and for practical, sensible policies on human waste.

But the IPCC pushing the hockey stick data point loses all credibility for me.

Also, "Carbon Tax" initative is nothing more than a wealth transfer mechanism. It's a scam.

And if anyone keeps pushing this "the science is settled on this" has no fething clue.

 whembly wrote:
I'm not denying that there's climate change... as in, we have fething weather.

I'm all for "green energy alternatives" and for practical, sensible policies on human waste.

But the IPCC pushing the hockey stick data point loses all credibility for me.

Also, "Carbon Tax" initative is nothing more than a wealth transfer mechanism. It's a scam.

And if anyone keeps pushing this "the science is settled on this" has no fething clue.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm not denying that there's climate change... as in, we have fething weather.

I'm all for "green energy alternatives" and for practical, sensible policies on human waste.

But the IPCC pushing the hockey stick data point loses all credibility for me.

Also, "Carbon Tax" initative is nothing more than a wealth transfer mechanism. It's a scam.

And if anyone keeps pushing this "the science is settled on this" has no fething clue.

I'm not sure what you are saying s\with your first quote....

Also
Dr Saleemul Huq, a convening lead author on one of the chapters, commented: "Before this we thought we knew this was happening, but now we have overwhelming evidence that it is happening and it is real."

Ed Davey, the UK Energy and Climate Secretary said: "The science has clearly spoken. Left unchecked, climate change will impact on many aspects of our society, with far reaching consequences to human health, global food security and economic development.

The major scientific agencies of the United States — including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — agree that climate change is occurring and that humans are contributing to it. In 2010, the National Research Council concluded that "Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems". Many independent scientific organizations have released similar statements, both in the United States and abroad. This doesn't necessarily mean that every scientist sees eye to eye on each component of the climate change problem, but broad agreement exists that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by excess greenhouse gases from human activities.

Scientists are still researching a number of important questions, including exactly how much Earth will warm, how quickly it will warm, and what the consequences of the warming will be in specific regions of the world. Scientists continue to research these questions so society can be better informed about how to plan for a changing climate. However, enough certainty exists about basic causes and effects of climate change to justify taking actions that reduce future risks.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm not denying that there's climate change... as in, we have fething weather.

I'm all for "green energy alternatives" and for practical, sensible policies on human waste.

But the IPCC pushing the hockey stick data point loses all credibility for me.

Also, "Carbon Tax" initative is nothing more than a wealth transfer mechanism. It's a scam.

And if anyone keeps pushing this "the science is settled on this" has no fething clue.

I'm not sure what you are saying s\with your first quote....

Also
Dr Saleemul Huq, a convening lead author on one of the chapters, commented: "Before this we thought we knew this was happening, but now we have overwhelming evidence that it is happening and it is real."

Ed Davey, the UK Energy and Climate Secretary said: "The science has clearly spoken. Left unchecked, climate change will impact on many aspects of our society, with far reaching consequences to human health, global food security and economic development.

 whembly wrote:
I realize that there's many, many things that we don't understand about our climate and our potential impact. But, I view many "studies" by both the government and UN regarding climate whenever the "science is settled" crap.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I realize that there's many, many things that we don't understand about our climate and our potential impact. But, I view many "studies" by both the government and UN regarding climate whenever the "science is settled" crap.

I'm sorry, you don't view the studies by the US government and the fething UN as legitimate. I don't even see any point in debating you if you ignore facts to support your view.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I realize that there's many, many things that we don't understand about our climate and our potential impact. But, I view many "studies" by both the government and UN regarding climate whenever the "science is settled" crap.

I'm sorry, you don't view the studies by the US government and the fething UN as legitimate. I don't even see any point in debating you if you ignore facts to support your view.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
I admit it, I had to look up poutine.

This will be on my bucket list.

 Frazzled wrote:
Think about it. Canada develops, Texas and Louisiana realize there are French and at least one Spanish speaking person there are being oppressed. Shortly after, 10,000 rednecks in pickups without identifying markers (other than Budweiser and Duck Dynasty) led by a Messianic wiener dog arrive to help insure free and fair elections concerning annexation into Greater Texas. Off shore a Battleship with "Texas" scratched through patrols in case the Brits or Belgiums get uppity.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I realize that there's many, many things that we don't understand about our climate and our potential impact. But, I view many "studies" by both the government and UN regarding climate whenever the "science is settled" crap.

I'm sorry, you don't view the studies by the US government and the fething UN as legitimate. I don't even see any point in debating you if you ignore facts to support your view.

I'm sorry... you think the IPCC, in fact an arm of the United Nations, is all about legitimate facts?

O.o

You do know who's in the UN... right? It consists of countries mostly rated as either “not free” or “partly free” by Freedom House, and which Russian and China both having veto powers. You think they're all concerned about outright facts and legitimancy?

Dude...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I realize that there's many, many things that we don't understand about our climate and our potential impact. But, I view many "studies" by both the government and UN regarding climate whenever the "science is settled" crap.

I'm sorry, you don't view the studies by the US government and the fething UN as legitimate. I don't even see any point in debating you if you ignore facts to support your view.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
BarBoBot:
Well we can't get billions of years now can we? From our current knowledge we see the world's average (got to remember that, average, no all) temperature is going up. I live in
NY, we had a cold winter. That doesn't mean that climate change does not exist, and it is an argument that has no meaning. We have created holes in out ozone layer. The CO2 in our atmosphere has increased dramatically. Temperature has gone up while at the same time solar activity has actually gone down.

whembly: Yes, I do think it is legitimate, and I did say UN, I know it's part of the UN. Why would a climate change report be altered by these countries. If anything anything most countries, possibly Russia, and most definitely China, one of our biggest polluters, would try to affect the report in the other direction so they don't have to spend more money.

Also, could you put some facts in the "money to be made" thing.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.

Conclusion

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
describes thousands of peer-reviewed scientific
journal articles that do not support, and often flatly
contradict, IPCC’s pessimistic narrative of “death,
injury, and disrupted livelihoods.” The impact of
rising temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2
levels in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries
has not been anything like what IPCC would have us
believe, and its forecasts differ wildly from those
sound science would suggest.

Why is this research and perspective missing
from IPCC’s reports? NIPCC has been publishing
volumes containing this research for five years—long
enough, one would think, for the authors of IPCC’s
reports to have taken notice, if only to disagree. But
the drafts of the Working Group II contribution to
IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report suggest otherwise.
Either IPCC’s authors purposely ignore this research
because it runs counter to their thesis that any human
impact on climate must be bad and therefore stopped
at any cost, or they are inept and have failed to
conduct a proper and full scientific investigation of
the pertinent literature. Either way, IPCC is
misleading the scientific community, policymakers,
and the general public. Because the stakes are high,
this is a grave disservice.

How CO2 enrichment has affected global food
production and biospheric productivity is a matter of
fact, not opinion. The evidence is overwhelming that
it has and will continue to help plants thrive, leading
to greater biodiversity, shrinking deserts, expanded
habitat for wildlife, and more food for a growing
human population. In sharp contrast to IPCC’s
pessimistic forecast of declining food production,
NIPCC’s authors say “a future warming of the climate
coupled with rising atmospheric CO2 levels will boost
global agricultural production and help meet the food
needs of the planet’s growing population.” They find
“the positive direct effects of CO2 on crop yields tend
to overcome any negative effects associated with
changed weather conditions.”

Journalists, policymakers, and the interested
public should demand to know why IPCC either hides
or is silent about these truths.

 easysauce wrote:
Fact is, most green house emissions are not caused by humans

even if 100% of man made emissions dissipated overnight, its a drop in the bucket compared to the NATURALLY produced ones.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
Fact is, most green house emissions are not caused by humans

even if 100% of man made emissions dissipated overnight, its a drop in the bucket compared to the NATURALLY produced ones.

Are you being wilfully ignorant? It's never been claimed humans are the sole cause of things like CO2, but they part we do play is highly relevant given the system in which it operates. The issue is that there are sources and sinks of all these emissions and they broadly lie in an equilibrium which shifts slightly one way or the other over time causing the sorts of climate change seen across thousands and millions of years. The issue with human activity is that we are putting an increase of emissions into a system that was previously well balanced, and taking deforestation into account we are also destroying some of the sinks to CO2. Futhermore, geologically speaking, these increases have been achieved over night. Saying 'but but there's a huge volume produced naturally so what we do doesn't matter' is a dishonest argument obvious to anyone with some scientific understanding.

 easysauce wrote:
the level of C02 has been going DOWN, and we are no where close to pre historic levels.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
BarBoBot:
Well we can't get billions of years now can we? From our current knowledge we see the world's average (got to remember that, average, no all) temperature is going up. I live in
NY, we had a cold winter. That doesn't mean that climate change does not exist, and it is an argument that has no meaning. We have created holes in out ozone layer. The CO2 in our atmosphere has increased dramatically. Temperature has gone up while at the same time solar activity has actually gone down.

whembly: Yes, I do think it is legitimate, and I did say UN, I know it's part of the UN. Why would a climate change report be altered by these countries. If anything anything most countries, possibly Russia, and most definitely China, one of our biggest polluters, would try to affect the report in the other direction so they don't have to spend more money.

Also, could you put some facts in the "money to be made" thing.

In any scientific "debates"... you need review both sides of the debate.

You have the IPCC, an outfit of the UN, down pat.

Do some research on their counterpart, they're all over the place on the 'net. Here's one: The NIPCC, a group that describes itself as:

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.

Looks like they've just released another report too... here's the conclusion:

Spoiler:

Conclusion

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
describes thousands of peer-reviewed scientific
journal articles that do not support, and often flatly
contradict, IPCC’s pessimistic narrative of “death,
injury, and disrupted livelihoods.” The impact of
rising temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2
levels in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries
has not been anything like what IPCC would have us
believe, and its forecasts differ wildly from those
sound science would suggest.

Why is this research and perspective missing
from IPCC’s reports? NIPCC has been publishing
volumes containing this research for five years—long
enough, one would think, for the authors of IPCC’s
reports to have taken notice, if only to disagree. But
the drafts of the Working Group II contribution to
IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report suggest otherwise.
Either IPCC’s authors purposely ignore this research
because it runs counter to their thesis that any human
impact on climate must be bad and therefore stopped
at any cost, or they are inept and have failed to
conduct a proper and full scientific investigation of
the pertinent literature. Either way, IPCC is
misleading the scientific community, policymakers,
and the general public. Because the stakes are high,
this is a grave disservice.

How CO2 enrichment has affected global food
production and biospheric productivity is a matter of
fact, not opinion. The evidence is overwhelming that
it has and will continue to help plants thrive, leading
to greater biodiversity, shrinking deserts, expanded
habitat for wildlife, and more food for a growing
human population. In sharp contrast to IPCC’s
pessimistic forecast of declining food production,
NIPCC’s authors say “a future warming of the climate
coupled with rising atmospheric CO2 levels will boost
global agricultural production and help meet the food
needs of the planet’s growing population.” They find
“the positive direct effects of CO2 on crop yields tend
to overcome any negative effects associated with
changed weather conditions.”

Journalists, policymakers, and the interested
public should demand to know why IPCC either hides
or is silent about these truths.

They've included a feth ton of references and peer-reviewed articles in these reports if you want to take the next step and review it.

The point being, there are many legitimate scientific critics of the IPCC that should provide at least a red-flag for you... and maybe, not just take the UN/Government's study as gospel.

All this says to me, really, is that we really don't KNOW how climate works and what is, if any, the human impact. That doesn't mean we should stop researching this, nor does it mean we shouldn't advocate for alternative/clean energy sources... but, it does mean that we should be very wary of any bureaucrats asking for money in the name of "Climate Change™".

Spoiler: