• Energy Research
• basic medicine close

The scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change is empirically settled, but communicating it to nonscientific audiences remains challenging. To be explicit about the state of knowledge on climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has adopted a vocabulary that ranks climate findings through certainty-calibrated qualifiers of confidence and likelihood. In this article, we quantified the occurrence of knowns and unknowns about "The Physical Science Basis" of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report by counting the frequency of calibrated qualifiers. We found that the tone of the IPCC's probabilistic language is remarkably conservative (mean confidence is medium, and mean likelihood is 66%-100% or 0-33%), and emanates from the IPCC recommendations themselves, complexity of climate research, and exposure to politically motivated debates. Leveraging communication of uncertainty with overwhelming scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change should be one element of a wider reform, whereby the creation of an IPCC outreach working group could enhance the transmission of climate science to the panel's audiences. Supported by British Ecological Society research grant no. 4496–5470 to SH-P; Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness project no. CGL2013–40924-P to DRV; and Royal Society, Psychonomic Society, and Australian Research Council discovery project no. DP160103596 to SL.

The most enduring and high-profile scientific debate in Australian prehistory is that surrounding the loss of more than 50 species of endemic, large-bodied vertebrates (megafauna) and the timing of these extinctions (1). Wroe et al. (2) present a personal perspective on some of the available literature to reject the scenario of rapid, continent-wide losses, and downplay any role for human agency. They contend that different species of megafauna went extinct progressively during the Middle and Late Pleistocene, with many “disappearing” long before human hunters arrived, leaving climate change as the alternative explanation. However, these conclusions rely on a biased selection of data and disregard several underlying geochronological …

During the Pleistocene, Australia and New Guinea supported a rich assemblage of large vertebrates. Why these animals disappeared has been debated for more than a century and remains controversial. Previous synthetic reviews of this problem have typically focused heavily on particular types of evidence, such as the dating of extinction and human arrival, and have frequently ignored uncertainties and biases that can lead to misinterpretation of this evidence. Here, we review diverse evidence bearing on this issue and conclude that, although many knowledge gaps remain, multiple independent lines of evidence point to direct human impact as the most likely cause of extinction.

AbstractClimate change and human activity are dooming species at an unprecedented rate via a plethora of direct and indirect, often synergic, mechanisms. Among these, primary extinctions driven by environmental change could be just the tip of an enormous extinction iceberg. As our understanding of the importance of ecological interactions in shaping ecosystem identity advances, it is becoming clearer how the disappearance of consumers following the depletion of their resources — a process known as ‘co-extinction’ — is more likely the major driver of biodiversity loss. Although the general relevance of co-extinctions is supported by a sound and robust theoretical background, the challenges in obtaining empirical information about ongoing (and past) co-extinction events complicate the assessment of their relative contributions to the rapid decline of species diversity even in well-known systems, let alone at the global scale. By subjecting a large set of virtual Earths to different trajectories of extreme environmental change (global heating and cooling), and by tracking species loss up to the complete annihilation of all life either accounting or not for co-extinction processes, we show how ecological dependencies amplify the direct effects of environmental change on the collapse of planetary diversity by up to ten times.

BackgroundDire forecasts predict that an increasingly hostile environment globally will increase the threats to human health. Infants and young children are especially at risk because children are particularly vulnerable to climate‐related stressors. The childhood diseases most affected, the breadth and magnitude of future health problems and the time frame over which these problems will manifest remain largely unknown.ObjectivesTo review the possibility that spacially explicit analyses can be used to determine how climate change has affected children's health to date and whether these analyses can be used for future projections.MethodsAs an example of whether these objectives can be achieved, all available Australian environmental and health databases were reviewed.ResultsEnvironmental and health data in Australia have been collected for up to 30 years for the same spatial areas at ‘Statistical Area level 1’ (SA1) scale. SA1s are defined as having a population of between 200 and 800 people and collectively they cover the whole of Australia without gaps or overlap. Although the SA1 environmental and health data have been collected separately, they can be merged to allow detailed statistical analyses that can determine how climate change has affected the health of children.ConclusionsThe availability of environmental and health datasets that share the same precise spatial coordinates provides a pathway whereby past and emerging effects on child health can be measured and predicted into the future. Given that the future health and well‐being of children is one of society's greatest concerns, this information is urgently needed.

Rapid land-use and climate changes are projected to cause broad-scale global land-cover transformation that will increase species extinction rates. We assessed the exposure of globally threatened plant biodiversity to future habitat loss over the first half of this century by testing country-level associations between threatened plant species richness and future habitat loss owing to land-use and climate changes, separately. In countries overlapping Biodiversity Hotspots, plant species endangerment increases with climate change-driven habitat loss. This association suggests that many currently threatened plant species will become extinct owing to anthropogenic climate change in the absence of potentially mitigating factors such as natural and assisted range shift, and physiological and genetic adaptations. Countries rich in threatened species, which are also projected to have relatively high total future habitat loss, are concentrated around the equator. Because poverty and poor governance can compromise conservation, we considered the economic condition and quality of governance with the degree of plant species endangerment and future habitat loss to prioritize countries based on conservation need. We identified Angola, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Laos, Madagascar, Myanmar, Nepal, Tajikistan, and Tanzania as the countries in greatest need of conservation assistance. For conservation endeavors to be effective, the conservation capacity of these high-need countries needs to be improved by assisting political stability and economic sustainability. We make policy recommendations that aim to mitigate climate change, promote plant species conservation, and improve the economic conditions and quality of governance in countries with high conservation need.