Here are the naked numbers, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Between 1880 and 1980, the global annual temperature increased by an average of 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit (0.07 degrees Celsius) per decade. Since 1981, the rate of increase has accelerated to 0.32 degrees F (0.18 degrees C) per decade. This led to an overall global average temperature increase of 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) compared to the pre-industrial era. In 2019, the average global temperature on land and in the ocean was 0.95 °C (1.75 °F) above the 20th century average. This made 2019 the second warmest year since records began, behind 2016. Global warming is the phenomenon of a gradual increase in temperature near the Earth`s surface. This phenomenon has been observed in the last century or two. This change has disrupted Earth`s climate regime. However, the concept of global warming is quite controversial, but scientists have provided relevant data to support the fact that the Earth`s temperature is constantly rising. The feasibility assessment presented in this report begins with the assessment of unavoidable warming due to past emissions (Section 1.2.4) and the identification of mitigation pathways that would lead to global warming of 1.5°C, suggesting the need for rapid and deep deviations from current emission trajectories (Chapter 2). In the case of adaptation, the feasibility assessment begins with an assessment of the risks and impacts of climate change (Chapter 3). Climate risk mitigation and adaptation would require system-wide technical, institutional and socio-economic transitions, as well as the implementation of a range of specific mitigation and adaptation options.
Chapter 4 applies different indicators classified in these six dimensions to assess the feasibility of illustrative examples of relevant mitigation and adaptation options (Section 4.5.1). These options and pathways have different impacts on sustainable development, poverty reduction, and adaptability (Chapter 5). Cost-benefit analyses are common decision support tools that compare the costs of impacts with the benefits of different countermeasures (IPCC, 2014a, b)294. In the case of climate change, however, it can be difficult to use cost-benefit analysis tools given the complex interrelationships of the Anthropocene, as the impacts are different from the costs and complex interconnectedness within the global social-ecological system (see Box 1.1 and Chapter 5 of Chapter 2). Some costs are relatively easy to quantify financially, but not all. Climate change affects people`s lives and livelihoods, culture and values, and entire ecosystems. It has unpredictable feedback loops and impacts on other regions (IPCC, 2014a)295, resulting in indirect, secondary, tertiary and opportunity costs that are typically extremely difficult to quantify. Monetary quantification is further complicated by the fact that costs and benefits can occur in different regions at very different times, perhaps over centuries, while it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to meaningfully estimate discount rates of future costs and benefits.
Standard cost-benefit analyses are therefore difficult to justify (IPCC, 2014a; Dietz et al., 2016)296 and are not used as an assessment tool in this report. Arctic warming. Thawing permafrost undermines infrastructure and releases methane, a greenhouse gas. [109] Low-carbon energy improves human health by minimizing climate change. It also has the short-term benefit of reducing the number of deaths from air pollution,[232] estimated at 7 million per year in 2016. [233] Meeting the Paris Agreement`s goals of limiting warming to 2°C could save about one million of these lives per year by 2050, while limiting global warming to 1.5°C could save millions, while increasing energy security and reducing poverty. [234] Global warming does not only mean warming, which is why “climate change” has become the preferred term for researchers and policymakers. As the globe warms on average, this rise in temperature can have paradoxical effects, such as more frequent and violent snowstorms. Climate change can and will affect the globe in several ways: melting ice, drying out already arid areas, causing extreme weather and disrupting the delicate balance of the oceans.
Barriers to the transition from climate change mitigation planning and adaptation to practical policy implementation include finance, information, technology, public attitudes, social values and practices (Whitmarsh et al., 2011; Corner and Clarke, 2017)255, and staff restrictions. Institutional capacity to use available knowledge and resources is also needed (Mimura et al., 2014)256. Integrating close cross-sectoral linkages, delegating authority and resources to subnational and local governments with the support of national governments, and facilitating partnerships between public, civil, private and higher education institutions (Leal Filho et al., 2018)257 can help implement the identified response options (Chapter 4). The implementation challenges of 1.5°C are greater than those compatible with limiting warming to well below 2°C, particularly in terms of the magnitude and speed of the transition and the distributional impacts on ecosystems and socio-economic actors. Uncertainties related to climate change at different scales and response capacities, combined with the complexity of coupled social and environmental systems, highlight the need for diverse and adaptable implementation options within different regions and between different and with different actors.