Today I finished reading this heavy report. As told before, many pages could have been spared, if the obvious or the trivia had been left out. If temperature increases or has increased, it is a bit trivial to insist on all possible consequences of rising temperatures: If there are new data or observations, it is ok; but if only projections, model runs or guess-work show up, it becomes tedious.
– sea level: long term projections are told being rather uncertain
– SST: the website realclimate.org is given as a reference for scientific discussions!
– flood events: increase is due to better reporting
– river droughts: have not become more severe
The chapter 7 (Economic consequences) says that the share of climate change (or anthropogenic CC) in the increasing losses reported by Munich Re is still unknown!
Chapter 8 (Data gaps…) tells that there was no standard set of emission scenarios and climate models available, so projections are a hotchpot of many different ones. Most are IPCC models, known to have poor or even no regional skill. So the confidence in these year 2100 projections should be moderate!
Chapter 6 on adaptation tells some very sensible things. It even says that the Mediterranian stressed today by over-populated summer holidays could benefit from a warming that would force a modal split of these holidays (pre-summer and post-summer).
The report is very readable and aesthetically pleasant. There are few really new insights, and it should not be considered as a separate report from the IPCC AR4; more a Europian adaptation. It should be noted positively that uncertainties are not systematically swept under the carpet! Alas, not a single inclusion from a non-IPCC consensus scientist is included. Politically correctness rules.