1. Workshop on Climate Change IAV, Boulder, CO, 8-9 January 2009 Some TSU reflections on the AR4 and onward Jean Palutikof Head of TSU for the AR4 now Director, National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD

2. Workshop on Climate Change IAV, Boulder, CO, 8-9 January 2009 Chapters of the WGII AR4 SPM Technical Summary Observed impacts Scenarios and methods Impacts by sector Impacts by region 4 response/summary chapters –Adaptation –Adaptation and mitigation –Key vulnerabilities –CC and sustainability

3. Workshop on Climate Change IAV, Boulder, CO, 8-9 January 2009 How did it look from a TSU perspective: sectors and regions? Most sectoral impact chapters took an approach based around quantification of, primarily future, impacts, following the literature. Exception was Chapter 7 (Settlements), which took a vulnerability-based approach. Regional chapters were very uneven. –Two of the most successful: Aus+NZ; NAm: Homogeneous regions - two countries Wealth of refereed literature –Asia and LAm struggled: Sheer scale of the undertaking, Large amount of grey literature

4. Workshop on Climate Change IAV, Boulder, CO, 8-9 January 2009 How did it look from a TSU perspective: bracketing chapters? Perceived as more ‘interesting’ by the authors (more of an intellectual challenge) whereas this is not necessarily the case from the perspective of the audience. Chapter 17 made a deliberate decision to take a scholarly approach and to de- emphasise the grey literature Chapter 18 suffered from a lack of literature to assess.

5. Workshop on Climate Change IAV, Boulder, CO, 8-9 January 2009 Issues: Some chapters came close to doing research. Some chapters were conscientious about addressing reviewers comments and some were cavalier. Some authors were over-influenced by what they thought the governments would think. The grey literature was a continuing headache –Especially when it was non-English language. –IPCC gives insufficient guidance. VERY UNEVEN The commitment and grace of the authors was a continuing wonder to the TSU. The task of WGII was fundamentally different from that of WGI and WGIII, and this was largely unrecognised. –In its scope –In the literature to be assessed –In its audience

6. Workshop on Climate Change IAV, Boulder, CO, 8-9 January 2009 Challenges of the WGII AR5? Gradual shift in emphasis of activity in climate change –From research in universities to practice in the community –From quantification of present and future impacts to acceptance of their reality –From impacts to adaptation Where will the IPCC position itself?

7. Workshop on Climate Change IAV, Boulder, CO, 8-9 January 2009 Grey literature OK if being used to illustrates how the field is developing But can be an issue if used to substantiate scientific argument. Calls into question just how much WGII assesses literature and how much it reports it. And where the borderline between assessment and research really lies.

8. Workshop on Climate Change IAV, Boulder, CO, 8-9 January 2009 To conclude As ever, the hard questions are asked of WGII For WGI and WGIII, the assessment remains well-constrained in its terms of reference For WGII, the assessment, already wide in its scope, has the potential to broaden even further to encompass the assessment of practical initiatives to address climate change.