IPCC is the science authority for the
UNFCCC
The 'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change' ('IPCC') was established in 1988 by two
United Nations organizations, the
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), to evaluate the risk of
climate change brought on by humans. The IPCC does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena. One of the main activities of the IPCC is to publish special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
[1] (The UNFCCC is an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change; implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the
Kyoto Protocol.) The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature.
[2] The IPCC is only open to member states of the WMO and UNEP.
IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change.
[3][4] National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative.
[5]
All IPCC technical reports face extensive scientific review. The summary reports (i.e. ''Summary for Policymakers''), which draw the most media attention, include review by participating governments in addition to scientific review.
[6]
Aims
The principles of the IPCC operation
[7] are assigned by the relevant
WMO Executive Council and
UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change process.
The stated aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to:
# human-induced climate change,
# the impacts of human-induced climate change,
# options for adaptation and mitigation.
The history of the IPCC is described in a .
IPCC Reports
The IPCC published its
first assessment report in 1990, a supplementary report in 1992, a
second assessment report (SAR) in 1995, and a
third assessment report (TAR) in 2001. A
fourth assessment report (AR4) was released in 2007. Each of the assessment reports is in three volumes, corresponding to Working Groups I, II and III. Unqualified, "the IPCC report" is often used to mean the Working Group I report, which covers the basic science of climate change.
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
| The four SRES scenario families [8][9][10] of the ''Fourth Assessment Report'' vs. associated changes in global-mean temperature until 2100 |
| AR4 |
more economic focus |
more environmental focus |
Globalisation
(homogeneous world) | 'A1'
rapid economic growth
(groups: A1T/A1B/A1Fl)
'1.4 - 6.4 °C' | 'B1'
global environmental sustainability
'1.1 - 2.9 °C' |
Regionalisation
(heterogeneous world) | 'A2'
regionally oriented
economic development
'2.0 - 5.4 °C' | 'B2'
local environmental sustainability
'1.4 - 3.8°C' |
The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) was completed in early 2007
[ IPCC WG1, UCAR.]. Like previous assessment reports, it consists of four reports, three of them from its working groups.
Working Group I dealt with the "Physical Science Basis of Climate Change."
The Working Group I Summary for Policymakers (SPM) was published on
2 February,
2007[11] and revised on
5 February,
2007[12]. There was also a
2 February,
2007 press release
[ Press release, IPCC, 2007-02-02.]. The full WGI report
[13] was published in March. The key conclusions of the SPM were that
[, IPCC 2007-02-02.]:
★ ''Warming of the climate system is unequivocal''.
★ ''Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations''.
★ Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized
[ Chron Tech News.], although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18)
.
★ The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
★ World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
★
★ Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3].
★
★ There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells,
heat waves and heavy rainfall.
★
★ There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in
droughts, tropical
cyclones and extreme
high tides.
★ Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
★ ''Global atmospheric concentrations of
carbon dioxide,
methane, and
nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values'' over the past 650,000 years
An outline of chapters in the WGI report (as of November 3, 2005)
[ ] and a list of the report's authors (as of March 10, 2005)
were made available before publication of the SPM.
The Summary for Policymakers for the Working Group II
[1] report was released on April 6, 2007
[14].
The Summary for Policymakers for the Working Group III report
[15] was released on May 4, 2007.
The AR4 Synthesis Report (SYR) is expected to be finalized during the last quarter of 2007.
IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001
The Third Assessment Report (TAR) consists of four reports, three of them from its working groups:
★ Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
[ Working Group 1, IPCC.]
★ Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
[ Working Group 2, IPCC.]
★ Working Group III: Mitigation
[ Working Group 3, IPCC.]
★ Synthesis Report
[ Synthesis Report, IPCC.]
The "headlines" from the Summary for Policymakers
[ Headlines, IPCC.] in ''The Scientific Basis'' were:
#An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system (The
global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6 °C; Temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the lowest 8 kilometers of the atmosphere; Snow cover and ice extent have decreased)
#Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate (Anthropogenic aerosols are short-lived and mostly produce negative
radiative forcing; Natural factors have made small contributions to radiative forcing over the past century)
#Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased (Complex physically based climate models are required to provide detailed estimates of feedback and of regional features. Such models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature difference since 1979) and there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols. Nevertheless, confidence in the ability of these models to provide useful projections of future climate has improved due to their demonstrated performance on a range of space and time-scales
[ Working Group 1, IPCC.].)
#There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities
#Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century
#Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC
SRES scenarios
The TAR estimate for the
climate sensitivity is 1.5 to 4.5 °C; and the average surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius degrees over the period 1990 to 2100, and the sea level is projected to rise by 0.1 to 0.9 meters over the same period. The wide range in predictions is based on
scenarios that assume different levels of future CO
2 emissions. Each scenario then has a range of possible outcomes associated with it. The most optimistic outcome assumes an aggressive campaign to reduce CO
2 emissions; the most pessimistic is a "business as usual" scenario. Other scenarios fall in between.
IPCC predictions are based on the same models used to establish the importance of the different factors in global warming.
These models need data about anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols.
These data are predicted from
economic models based on 35 scenarios.
Scenarios go from pessimistic to optimistic, and predictions of global warming depend on the kind of scenario considered.
IPCC uses the best available predictions and their reports are under strong scientific scrutiny.
The IPCC concedes that there is a need for better models and better scientific understanding of some climate phenomena, as well as the uncertainties involved.
Critics assert that the data is insufficient to determine the real importance of
greenhouse gases in climate change.
Sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases may be overestimated or underestimated because of flaws in the models and because the importance of some external factors may be misestimated. The predictions are based on scenarios, and the IPCC did not assign any probability to the 35 scenarios used.
Debate over Climate Change 2001
Economic growth estimates
Castles and Henderson asserted that the IPCC's use of exchange rates to convert GDP measures into a common currency is inappropriate, and that, for most countries a
Purchasing Power Parity conversion would yield higher estimates of income. It follows that the rate of growth implied by an assumption of income convergence is higher if exchange rate conversions are used. They imply that this is likely to produced biased projections of emissions.
Nebojsa Nakicenovic et al. claim that this is incorrect because, provided an internally consistent procedure is used, projections of emissions are unaffected by the choice of index number used to measure GDP.
[16]
Physical modeling
A few scientists in IPCC Working Group I (Science) have expressed disagreement with the IPCC reports (of the 120 lead authors, 2 have complained).
A particularly active critic,
MIT physicist
Richard Lindzen, expressed his unhappiness about those portions in the Executive Summary based on his contributions in May 2001 before the
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation:
The Summary for Policymakers of the WG1 reports ''does'' include caveats on model treatments: ''Such models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature difference since 1979) and there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols. Nevertheless, confidence in the ability of these models to provide useful projections of future climate has improved due to their demonstrated performance on a range of space and time-scales.''
[2].
These statements are in turn supported by the executive summary of chapter 8 of the report, which includes:
★ ''Coupled models can provide credible simulations of both the present annual mean climate and the climatological seasonal cycle over broad continental scales for most variables of interest for climate change. Clouds and humidity remain sources of significant uncertainty but there have been incremental improvements in simulations of these quantities''.
★ ''Confidence in the ability of models to project future climates is increased by the ability of several models to reproduce the warming trend in 20th century surface air temperature when driven by radiative forcing due to increasing greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. However, only idealised scenarios of only sulphate aerosols have been used''.
IPCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995
''Climate Change 1995'', the IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR), was finished in 1996. It is split into four parts:
★ A synthesis to help interpret
UNFCCC article 2.
★ ''The Science of Climate Change'' (WG I)
★ ''Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change'' (WG II)
★ ''Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change'' (WG III)
Each of the last three parts was completed by a separate working group, and each has a Summary for Policymakers (SPM) that represents a consensus of national representatives. The SPM of the WG I report contains headings:
# Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase
# Anthropogenic aerosols tend to produce negative radiative forcings
# Climate has changed over the past century (air temperature has increased by between 0.3 and 0.6 °C since the late 19th century; this estimate has not significantly changed since the 1990 report).
# The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate (considerable progress since the 1990 report in distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic influences on climate, because of: including aerosols; coupled models; pattern-based studies)
# Climate is expected to continue to change in the future (increasing realism of simulations increases confidence; important uncertainties remain but are taken into account in the range of model projections)
# There are still many uncertainties (estimates of future emissions and biogeochemical cycling; models; instrument data for model testing, assessment of variability, and detection studies)
Debate over Climate Change 1995
Three scientists involved in climate research believe that the IPCC reports do not accurately summarise the state of knowledge.
A
December 20,
1995, Reuters report quoted British scientist
Keith Shine, one of IPCC's lead authors, discussing the Policymakers' Summary. He said: "We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it is presented.... It's peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientists' report". It is not clear, in this case, whether Shine was complaining that the report had been changed to be more skeptical, or less, or something else entirely.
Dr.
Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and past president of the National Academy of Sciences, has publicly denounced the IPCC report, writing "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report". He opposed it in the
Leipzig Declaration of his
Science and Environmental Policy Project.
In turn, Seitz's comments were vigorously opposed by the presidents of the
American Meteorological Society and
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, who wrote about a ''systematic effort by some individuals to undermine and discredit the scientific process that has led many scientists working on understanding climate to conclude that there is a very real possibility that humans are modifying Earth's climate on a global scale. Rather than carrying out a legitimate scientific debate... they are waging in the public media a vocal campaign against scientific results with which they disagree''
[3].
S. Fred Singer disseminated a letter about Chapter 8, asserting that
[4]:
# Chapter 8 was altered substantially to make it conform to the Summary;
# Three key clauses — expressing the consensus of authors, contributors, and reviewers — should have been placed into the Summary instead of being deleted from the approved draft chapter;
Dr.
Benjamin D. Santer, Convening Lead Author of Chapter 8 of 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, replied
[5]:
# All revisions were made with the sole purpose of producing the best-possible and most clearly explained assessment of the science, and were under the full scientific control of the Convening Lead Author of Chapter 8.
# None of the changes were politically motivated.
IPCC Supplementary Report: 1992
The 1992 supplementary report was an update, requested in the context of the negotiations on the
Framework Convention on Climate Change at the
Earth Summit (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) in
Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
The major conclusion was that research since 1990 did "not affect our fundamental understanding of the science of the greenhouse effect and either confirm or do not justify alteration of the major conclusions of the first IPCC scientific assessment". It noted that transient (time-dependent) simulations, which had been very preliminary in the FAR, were now improved, but did not include aerosol or ozone changes.
IPCC First Assessment Report: 1990
The IPCC first assessment report was completed in 1990, and served as the basis of the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The executive summary of the WG I Summary for Policymakers report includes:
★ We are certain of the following: there is a natural greenhouse effect...; emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: CO
2, methane, CFCs and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it.
★ We calculate with confidence that: ...CO
2 has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect; long-lived gases would require immediate reductions in emissions from human activities of over 60% to stabilise their concentrations at today's levels...
★ Based on current models, we predict: under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3
oC per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5
oC per decade); this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years; under other ... scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls, rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0.2
oC [to] about 0.1
oC per decade.
★ There are many uncertainties in our predictions particularly with regard to the timing, magnitude and regional patterns of climate change, due to our incomplete understanding of: sources and sinks of GHGs; clouds; oceans; polar ice sheets.
★ Our judgement is that: global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3 to 0.6
oC over the last 100 years...; The size of this warming is broadly consistent with prediction of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability; alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect is not likely for a decade or more.
Operations
The Chair of the IPCC is
Rajendra K. Pachauri, elected in May 2002; previously
Robert Watson headed the IPCC.
The IPCC Panel is composed of representatives appointed by governments and organizations. Participation of delegates with appropriate expertise is encouraged. Plenary sessions of the IPCC and IPCC
Working Groups are held at the level of government representatives. Non Governmental and Intergovernmental Organisations may be allowed to attend as observers. Sessions of the IPCC Bureau, workshops, expert and lead authors meetings are by invitation only.
[17] Attendance at the 2003 meeting included 350 government officials and climate change experts. After the opening ceremonies, closed plenary sessions were held.
[18] The meeting report
[18] states there were 322 persons in attendance at Sessions with about seven-eighths of participants being from governmental organizations.
[18]
The IPCC is led by government scientists, but also involves several hundred academic scientists and researchers. It synthesises the available information about
climate change and
global warming, has published four major reports reviewing the latest climate science, as well as more specialized reports.
The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.
[21]
There are several major groups:
★ IPCC Panel: Meets in plenary session about once a year and controls the organization's structure and procedures. The Panel is the IPCC corporate entity.
★ Chair: Elected by the Panel.
★ Secretariat: Oversees and manages all activities. Supported by
UNEP and
WMO.
★ Bureau: Elected by the Panel. Chaired by the Chair. 30 members include IPCC Vice-Chairs, Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs of Working Groups and Task Force.
★ Working Groups: Each has two Co-Chairs, one from the developed and one from developing world, and a technical support unit.
★
★ Working Group I: Assesses scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change.
★
★ Working Group II: Assesses vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, consequences, and adaptation options.
★
★ Working Group III: Assesses options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise mitigating climate change.
★ Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
The IPCC receives funding from UNEP, WMO, and its own Trust Fund for which it solicits contributions from governments.
Contributors
According to a flash animation on the front page of the
IPCC's website, people from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report over the previous 6 years. These people included:
★ 2500+ scientific expert reviewers
★ 850+ Contributing authors
★ 450+ lead authors.
Of these, the contributors to the Working Group 1 report (including the summary for policy makers) included
[6]
★ 600 authors from 40 countries
★ Over 620 expert reviewers
★ A large number of government reviewers
★ Representatives from 113 governments.
Activities
The IPCC concentrates its activities on the tasks allotted to it by the relevant
WMO Executive Council and
UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process.
1
In April 2006, the IPCC released the ''
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report'' or AR4.
[22] Reports of the workshops held so far are available at the IPCC website.
[23]
★ Working Group I
[7]:
★
★ Report was due to be finalised during February of
2007 [8] and was finished on schedule.
★
★ By May 2005, there had been 3 AR4 meetings, with only public information being meeting locations, an author list, one invitation, one agenda, and one list of presentation titles.
★
★ By December 2006, governments were reviewing the revised summary for policy makers.
★ Working Group II
[9]:
★
★ Report was due to be finalised in mid-2007 and was completed on schedule.
★
★ In May 2005, there had been 2 AR4 meetings, with no public information released.
★
★ One shared meeting with WG III had taken place, with a published summary.
★ Working Group III
[10]:
★
★ Report was due to be finalized in mid-2007.
★
★ In May 2005, there had been 1 AR4 meeting, with no public information released.
If it decided to prepare one, the AR4 Synthesis Report (SYR) was to be finalised during the last quarter of 2007. That remains the plan. Documentation on the scoping meetings for the AR4 are available
[11] as are the outlines for the WG I report and a provisional author list .
While the preparation of the assessment reports is a major IPCC function, it also supports other activities, such as the Data Distribution Centre
[14] and the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme
[15], required under the
UNFCCC. This involves publishing default
emission factors, which are factors used to derive emissions estimates based on the levels of fuel consumption, industrial production and so on.
The IPCC also often answers inquiries from the UNFCCC 'Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA)'.
Publications
The IPCC reports are a compendium of
peer reviewed and published science. Each subsequent IPCC report notes areas where the science has improved since the previous report and also notes areas where further research is required.
Authors for the IPCC reports are chosen from a list of researchers prepared by governments, and participating organisations and the Working Group/Task Force Bureaux, and other experts as appropriate, known through their publications and works (, 4.2.1,2). The composition of the group of Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors for a section or chapter of a Report is intended to reflect the need to aim for a range of views, expertise and geographical representation (ensuring appropriate representation of experts from developing and developed countries and countries with economies in transition).
There are generally three stages in the review process :
★ Expert review (6-8 weeks)
★ Government/expert review
★ Government review of:
★
★ Summaries for Policymakers
★
★ Overview Chapters
★
★ Synthesis Report
Review comments are in an open archive for at least five years.
There are several types of endorsement which documents receive :
★ 'approval': Material has been subjected to detailed, line by line discussion and agreement.
★
★ Working Group Summaries for Policymakers are ''approved'' by their Working Groups.
★
★ Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers is ''approved'' by Panel.
★ 'adoption': Endorsed section by section (and not line by line).
★
★ Panel ''adopts'' Overview Chapters of Methodology Reports.
★
★ Panel ''adopts'' IPCC Synthesis Report.
★ 'acceptance': Not been subject to line by line discussion and agreement, but presents a comprehensive, objective, and balanced view of the subject matter.
★
★ Working Groups ''accept'' their reports.
★
★ Task Force Reports are ''accepted'' by the Panel.
★
★ Working Group Summaries for Policymakers are ''accepted'' by the Panel after group ''approval''.
The Panel is responsible for the IPCC and its endorsement of Reports allows it to ensure they meet IPCC standards. The Panel's ''approval'' process has been criticized for changing the product of the experts who create the Reports. On the other hand, not requiring Panel re-endorsement of Reports has also been criticized, after changes required by the approval process were made to Reports.
Criticism of IPCC
Christopher Landsea resignation
Main articles: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
In January 2005
Christopher Landsea resigned from work on the
IPCC AR4, saying that he viewed the process "''as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound''" because of
Kevin Trenberth's public contention that global warming was contributing to recent hurricane activity
[24].
Roger A. Pielke who published Landsea's letter writes: "How anyone can deny that political factors were everpresent in the negotiations isn't paying attention", but notes that the actual report "Despite the pressures, on tropical cyclones they figured out a way to maintain consistency with the actual balance of opinion(s) in the community of relevant experts." He continues "So there might be a human contribution (and presumably this is just to the observed upwards trends observed in some basins, and not to downward trends observed in others, but this is unclear) but the human contribution itself has not been quantitatively assessed, yet the experts, using their judgment, expect it to be there. In plain English this is what is called a "hypothesis" and not a "conclusion." And it is a fair representation of the issue."
[25]
Emphasis of the "Hockey Stick" Graph
Main articles: Hockey stick controversy
The
third assessment report (TAR) prominently featured
[26] a graph labeled "Millennial Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction" from a paper by
Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH98
) often referred to as the "Hockey Stick Graph". This graph differed from a schematic in the
first assessment report which depicted larger global temperature variations over the past 1000 years, and higher temperatures during the
Medieval Warm Period than the present day. (The schematic was not an actual plot of data) The appearance of MBH98 in the TAR was widely construed as demonstrating that the current warming period is exceptional in comparison to temperatures between 1000 and 1900. The methodology used to produce this graph was criticized in an article by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.
In a 2006 letter to
Nature, Bradley, Hughes and Mann pointed out that their original article had said that ''more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached'' and that the uncertainties were ''the point of the article.''
[26]
History and studies suggesting a conservative bias, understating dangers
Other critics have pointed to conservative biases and influences over IPCC which suggest that IPCC, far from being prone to exaggerations, is actually more prone to underestimating dangers, understating risks, and reporting only the "lowest common denominator" findings which make it through the bureaucracy. These sort of problems are almost inevitable with such a large organisation representing such a large number of bodies with differing positions. An enormous amount of careful negotiation is on the content of the text. As noted by the History News Network,
On February 1st, 2007, the eve of the publication of IPCC's major report on climate, a new study was published in the peer-review journal Science, in which research by an international group of scientists suggests that temperatures and sea levels have been rising at or above the maximum rates proposed during the last IPCC report in 2001.
[ Humans blamed for climate change ] The study compared IPCC 2001 projections on temperature and sea level change with what has actually happened. Over the six year span of time, the actual temperature rise was near the top (in the top 10%) of the "range" given by IPCC's 2001 projection. In the case of sea level rises, the actual rise was above even the top of the range IPCC had given.
An example of scientific research which has indicated that previous estimates by the IPCC, far from overstating dangers and risks, has actually understated them (this may be due, in part, to the expanding human understanding of climate, as well as to the conservative bias, noted above, which is built into the IPCC system,) includes a study on projected rises in sea levels. When the researchers' analysis was "applied to the possible scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the researchers found that in 2100 sea levels would be 0.5–1.4 m above 1990 levels. These values are much greater than the 9–88 cm as projected by the IPCC itself in its Third Assessment Report, published in 2001.
[ Sea level rise 'under-estimated' ][ London-on-Sea: the future of a city in decay ]
A "conservative" bias in the sense of right-wing, pro-corporate leanings and influences has been documented by the release of a famous Memo by ExxonMobil to the Bush Whitehouse, and its effects on the IPCC's leadership. The memo led to strong Bush administration lobbying, evidently at the behest of ExxonMobil, to oust
Robert Watson, one of the world's leading climate scientists, from the IPCC chairmanship, and to have him replaced by Pachauri, who was seen at the time as much more soft-stated, mild-mannered, and more industry-friendly in his rhetoric.
[ Top climate scientist ousted ][ US and Oil Lobby Oust Climate Change Scientist ] Notwithstanding the Exxon memo and the intentions it states for selecting him as more soft-spoken, Pachauri's language has become stronger since taking the IPCC chairmanship as the scientific evidence has mounted.
In reporting criticism by some scientists that IPCC's then impending January 2007 report understates certain risks, particularly sea level rises, an AP story quoted Dr. Stefan Ramstorf, professor of physics and oceanography at Potsdam University, thus:
In his December 2006 book, '', and in an interview on
Fox News on
January 31 2007, energy expert
Joseph Romm noted that the
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is already out of date and omits recent observations and factors contributing to global warming, such as the release of greenhouse gases from thawing tundra.
[28]
These recent reports and publications are in marked contrast to some media portrayals of IPCC's reports as possibly over-stating dangers to humankind posed by climate change.
IPCC processes
UK House of Lords Science and Economic Analysis and Report on IPCC for the G-8 Summit, July 2005:
Interestingly, the
Stern Review ordered by the UK government, whose findings were released in October 2006, made a stronger economic argument in favor of urgent action to combat human-made climate change than previous analyses, including some by IPCC.
Burden on participating scientists
Scientists who participate in the IPCC assessment process do so without any compensation other than the normal salaries they receive from their home institutions. The process is labor intensive, diverting time and resources from participating scientists' research programs.
[26] Concerns have been raised that the large uncompensated time commitment and disruption to their own research may discourage qualified scientists from participating.
[26]
See also
★
Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change – international conference (2005)
★
Global warming
★
G8+5
★
Summary for policymakers
★
Post-Kyoto negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions
Notes and references
1. Principles governing IPCC work
2. About IPCC – Mandate and Membership of the IPCC
3. A guide to facts and fiction about climate change
4. The Science of Climate Change
5. Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
6. Principles Governing IPCC Work
7. IPCC. . Retrieved December 19 2006.
8. according to: Canadian Institute for Climate Studies, CCIS project: ''Frequently Asked Questions ''
9. IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Chapter 4: An Overview of Scenarios / 4.2. SRES Scenario Taxonomy / 'Table 4- 2: Overview of SRES scenario quantifications.'
10. Figure 2.11: Schematic illustration of SRES scenarios (IPCC)
11.
12.
13.
14. Working Group II Contribution to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: (23 page PDF file)
15. WG III Summary for Policymakers: Mitigation of Climate Change
16. IPCC SRES Revisited: A Response
17. IPCC. Official documents. Retrieved December 2006.
18. IPCC. . February 19 2006. Retrieved December 20 2006.
19. IPCC. . February 19 2006. Retrieved December 20 2006.
20. IPCC. . February 19 2006. Retrieved December 20 2006.
21. IPCC. Mandate and Membership of IPCC. Retrieved December 20 2006.
22. IPCC. Activities — Assessment Reports. Retrieved December 20 2006.
23. IPCC. Activities — Workshops & Expert Meetings. Retrieved December 20 2006.
24. Chris Landsea Leaves
25. Up: IPCC and Hurricanes
26.
27.
28. Fox interview
29.
30.
External links
★
The IPCC web site
★
★
IPCC Organisation
★
★
★
★
IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001
★
★
★ A non-authorized
summary of the Third Assessment Report by
GreenFacts.
★
★ IPCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995
★
★
★ Second Assessment Summaries for Policymakers:
★
★
★
★ Working Group I (The Physical Science Basis)
Summary for Policymakers,
★
★
★
★ Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability)
Summary for Policymakers,
★
★
★
★ Working Group III (Mitigation of Climate Change)
Summary for Policymakers
★
★
★
★
IPCC article at the Encyclopedia of Earth - General overview of the IPCC
★
The IPCC Controversy - from the
Science & Environmental Policy Project
★
Climate Change - What Is the IPCC by Jean-Marc Jancovici
★
Climate Change Freeview Video Interview 2006 - Sherwood Rowland, Nobel Laureate (1995) for work on ozone depletion discusses climate change. Provided by the Vega Science Trust.
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
