Assessing Inter-Sectoral Climate Change Risks: The Role of Isimip

Introduction

The documentary highlights the impact that the issues of global climatic change have as far as the scarcity of water is concerned. It assesses this impact from a global perspective. The documentary portrays a framework for comparing various global and regional risks that arise from various sectors of different parts of the world. The documentary shows that different sectors can come together to combat the effects of climate change and salvage the continuous water loss. It shows how the knowledge attained from these models can be used to support the decisions that we make as far as mitigation and adaptation. These decisions require both global and regional approaches when attempting to facilitate transformations that are in tandem with the concept of sustainable development (Rosenzweig, 435).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

I learn from the documentary that the effects of climate change and the issues of water shortages can actually be solved, especially when the world comes together and join hands in protecting the universe and work towards sustainable development. However, the most striking thing from the documentary is that the shifts and disruptions in climate are inevitable. The film offers a real scenario while explaining how standards that are agreed at the community level with other climatic variables can be used to combat climate change and scarcity of water.

However, the documentary is short in providing the actual genesis of global warming, climate change, and water shortage. It does not point out how those blocking the efforts of war against climate change should be dealt with even when it points it out. It clearly talks about the effects of climate change but it does not consider the attempts of freedom from poverty that the developing countries go through every day. Poverty is one of the major driving forces of the environmental degradation in Africa. It does not offer the way out of poverty of these struggling segment of the world. Most importantly, it does not give a strategy of dealing with the developed countries and their industrialization efforts as well as their nuclear plants that is a threat to the global climate.

Curbing climate change

The film asserts that human beings may the leading cause of global warming. However, they may as well be a leading player in helping in the curbing and reduction of global warming. The film shows that actually there is a model that has been produced that is intended for measuring the human behavior and their relationship with climate. The model finds its authority in climate science and social psychology. It tries to bring to the fore how a change in human behavior affects the change in global temperature (Gao, 135).

I was able to learn from the film that human behavior like home insulation or buying of hybrid vehicles plays a crucial role in the mitigation of the emission of greenhouse gases. These behaviors will likely lead to a reduction in the devastating effects of climate change. Other behaviors I learnt from the film that can reduce greenhouse gases emission include driving fewer miles as well as thermostat adjustments. It is, therefore, important that every time we come up with a model against climate change, we should reconsider including a change in human behavior.

The films gave me a better understanding of how human beings perceive the risks resulting from the climate change. The way they respond to these risks is important in fighting climate change now and in the future. However, the film did not talk about building resilience and confidence among community members as an impetus of curbing climate change. Other than just focusing on effects of climate change, we should also focus on how we release emissions into the atmosphere and prevent it.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

The film shows that the level of scientific agreement is a very integral part of public support as far as climate policy is concerned (Ding et al., 101). It asserts that when scientific consensus is communicated clearly to the public, it increases the level of acceptance of the issues of climate change and people start to act in a manner that they are contributing in fighting climate change (Lewandowsky, et al., 126).

The film, as well, reports that notwithstanding the various indicators of scientific consensus, there has been an agreement that scientists in climate sphere have disagreements as far as the essential causes of climate change are concerned. The studies that have been done regarding the agreement of climate scientists on the issues of global warming found that most scientists had strong disagreements as to what causes global warming. However, the film showed that from the year 1996, climate scientists started to considerably agree on AGW.

I learned from the film that scientific literature that has gone through a peer-review process shades more light while assessing the level of agreement among climate scientists that have published several books and articles as well as journals on climate change and global warming. At least 928 papers were not in agreement with the position on AGW from the published abstracts between 1993 and 2003 (Shwed et al, 834).

However, the film did not point out how this analysis will help curb the problem of climate change and global warming. It was only interested in the level of agreement or disagreement between climate scientists but no clue on how we are going to fight climate change with such information.

Works Cited

Ding, Ding, and Klaus Gebel. "Built environment, physical activity, and obesity: what have we learned from reviewing the literature?." Health & place 18.1 (2012): 100-105.

Gao, Song. "Managing short-lived climate forcers in curbing climate change: an atmospheric chemistry synopsis." Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 5.2 (2015): 130-137.

Lewandowsky, Stephan, et al. "Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing." Psychological Science in the Public Interest 13.3 (2012): 106-131.

Rosenzweig, Cynthia, et al. "Assessing inter-sectoral climate change risks: the role of ISIMIP." Environmental Research Letters 12.1 (2017): 010301.

Shwed, Uri, and Peter S. Bearman. "The temporal structure of scientific consensus formation." American sociological review 75.6 (2010): 817-840.

Tol, Richard SJ. "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis." Energy Policy 73 (2014): 701-705.