We summarize what we assess as the past year's most important findings within climate change research: limits to adaptation, vulnerability hotspots, new threats coming from the climate–health nexus, climate (im)mobility and security, sustainable practices for land use and finance, losses and damages, inclusive societal climate decisions and ways to overcome structural barriers to accelerate mitigation and limit global warming to below 2°C.

We synthesize 10 topics within climate research where there have been significant advances or emerging scientific consensus since January 2021. The selection of these insights was based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings concern: (1) new aspects of soft and hard limits to adaptation; (2) the emergence of regional vulnerability hotspots from climate impacts and human vulnerability; (3) new threats on the climate–health horizon – some involving plants and animals; (4) climate (im)mobility and the need for anticipatory action; (5) security and climate; (6) sustainable land management as a prerequisite to land-based solutions; (7) sustainable finance practices in the private sector and the need for political guidance; (8) the urgent planetary imperative for addressing losses and damages; (9) inclusive societal choices for climate-resilient development and (10) how to overcome barriers to accelerate mitigation and limit global warming to below 2°C.

Science has evidence on barriers to mitigation and how to overcome them to avoid limits to adaptation across multiple fields.

No universally accepted methods for objective evaluation of the function of the Incident Command System (ICS) in disaster exercises currently exist. An ICS evaluation method for disaster simulations was derived and piloted.

A comprehensive variable list for ICS function was created and four distinct ICS evaluation methods (quantitative and qualitative) were derived and piloted prospectively during an exercise. Delay times for key provider-victim interactions were recorded through a system of data collection using participant and observer-based instruments. Two different post exercise surveys (commanders, other participants) were used to assess knowledge and perceptions of assigned roles, organization, and communications. Direct observation by trained observers and a structured debriefing session also were employed.

A total of 45 volunteers participated in the exercise that included 20 mock victims. First, mean, and last victim delay times (from exercise initiation) were 2.1, 4.0, and 9.3 minutes (min) until triage, and 5.2, 11.9, and 22.0 min for scene evacuation, respectively. First, mean, and last victim delay times to definitive treatment were 6.0, 14.5, and 25.0 min. Mean time to triage (and range) for scene Zones I (nearest entrance), II (intermediate) and III (ground zero) were 2.9 (2.0–4.0), 4.1 (3.0–5.0) and 5.2 (3.0–9.0) min, respectively. The lowest acuity level (Green) victims had the shortest mean times for triage (3.5 min), evacuation (4.0 min), and treatment (10.0 min) while the highest acuity level (Red) victims had the longest mean times for all measures; patterns consistent with independent rather than ICS-directed rescuer activities. Specific ICS problem areas were identified.

A structured, objective, quantitative evaluation of ICS function can identify deficiencies that can become the focus for subsequent improvement efforts.