The IPCC needs to change and switch to shorter, more targeted reports

[Henk Elegeert]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/02/ipcc-hacked-climate-science-emails/print#skiplinks>
[image: guardian.co.uk home] <http://www.guardian.co.uk/>
The IPCC needs to change and switch to shorter, more targeted reports

A handful of errors does not mean that human-induced climate change is an
illusion or that CO2 emissions do not need to be cut, writes the former
chairman of the IPCC. From Yale Environment 360 <http://www.e360.yale.edu/>,
part of the Guardian Environment
Network<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/network>

   - Robert Watson <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/robertwatson>
   - guardian.co.uk <http://www.guardian.co.uk/>, Tuesday 2 March 2010 14.10
   GMT
   -  larger <http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/accessibility> |
smaller<http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/accessibility>

[image: A glacier in Antarctica]

A glacier in Antarctica. Photograph: Gordon Wiltsie/Getty Images/National
Geographic

Until last December, a very large majority of the scientific community and
most politicians would have agreed that the scientific evidence of human-
induced climate
change<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change> was
unequivocal and that the sole question was whether the world's political
leaders could agree in Copenhagen to meaningful, legally binding greenhouse
gas emission reduction targets. But, as we now know, the negotiations only
produced an aspirational target of limiting the global mean surface
temperature to no more than 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels and an
accord that does not bind any country to reduce its emissions.

Since then, there have been reported errors and imprecise wording in the
Fourth Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/ipcc>, issued in 2007. These
include the hyped statement that Himalayan
glaciers<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/glaciers> would
melt by 2035 or earlier (the IPCC admitted that this was an outright error
and not evidence-based); that agricultural production in some North African
countries would decrease by up to 50 percent by 2020 (the synthesis report
failed to include the nuances and more detailed discussion in the underlying
chapter); and that over half of the Netherlands was belowsea
level<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/sea-level>,
rather than a quarter. (This was largely a definitional issue — the Dutch
Ministry of Transport uses the figure 60 percent below high water level
during storms.)

These errors or imprecise wording in the IPCC's 2007 Working Group II
report, coupled with the issues surrounding the hacked e-mails and
temperature data from the University of East Anglia, have provided the
climate skeptics and some in the media with ammunition to undermine public
confidence in the conclusions of the IPCC and climate science in general.

Clearly, the language in the leaked e-mails could suggest that the
scientists may have inappropriately manipulated the data to support the
theory of human-induced climate change and attempted to suppress other data
that contradicts this theory. That is why I applaud the University of East
Anglia — affiliated with the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research,
where I work as strategic director — for rapidly establishing an independent
review of the whole issue. But to suggest that the hacked e-mails or the
identified inaccuracies in the IPCC's Working Group II report undermine the
broad evidence that the Earth's climate is changing due to human activities
— or that any talk of carbon emissions cuts should be suspended — is simply
untenable.

Recently, the UK Royal Society, the National Environment Research Council
and the UK Meteorological Office issued a joint statement not only
supporting the findings of the 2007 IPCC report, but showing that recent
scientific information further strengthens those conclusions. The statement
concluded that these agencies could not emphasize enough the body of
scientific evidence that underpins the call for action now. Also, a
statement from 11 science academies in developed and developing countries
concluded that climate change is real, and that we need to prepare for the
consequences, and urged all nations to take prompt action to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions.

So let me return to the issue of the IPCC, which is one of the most rigorous
scientific review bodies in existence. Many thousands of scientists have
dedicated their time to preparing and reviewing the most comprehensive and
authoritative assessments of climate science available. In addition,
governments from around the world have reviewed and approved the IPCC's key
findings. The reports undergo two rounds of peer review, and the
policymakers' summaries of the working groups are then subjected to a
word-by-word approval of all governments in the presence of the chapter lead
authors.

In many cases, the IPCC is very conservative in its statements, e.g., the
projections of sea level rise reported in Working Group I were based on
contributions from thermal expansion of the oceans and the melting of
mountain glaciers, but did not contain a contribution from the melting of
the Greenland ice sheet, due to an inadequate understanding of the current
rate of melting.

Some would say that only four mistakes or imprecise wording have been found
in the 1,000-page Working Group II report, and none in working groups I and
III, and so would ask: Is there really a problem? But given that each of the
mistakes overstated the implications of climate change, it is critical to
regain any lost trust from the media, public, governments, and private
sector. The IPCC could start by posting all errors — accompanied by
explanations of how they were made — on its website.

I see no evidence that the authors purposely overstated the potential
impacts from climate change in an effort to convince the public of the
seriousness of the threat. The threat is serious enough without the need to
hype the issue. But the expert and government peer-review process should
have caught these inaccuracies and careless wordings. The vast amount of
attention in the print and TV media, especially in the UK, has clearly left
some of the public confused, if not skeptical.

The challenge now is to regain any lost trust through a continuing
re-examination and restatement of the evidence, clearly identifying what we
know and what is still uncertain. It is critical that the public understand
the issue of climate change, given the need to both mitigate and adapt in a
cost-effective and socially responsible manner.

So does the IPCC process need to be significantly revised? I would argue no,
that the IPCC is more than capable of conducting rigorous and reliable
assessments in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner. But the IPCC
needs to regain its full and deserved credibility. The procedures for the
selection of authors and review editors and the peer-review process and
approval of reports are all sound. What is needed is to tighten up the
implementation of these procedures, coupled with training of authors and
review editors. The selected authors need to represent the full range of
credible views, including those of the skeptics, and must ensure that all
statements are based on sound science and that the citations used contain
convincing evidence.

The IPCC should consider shorter reports focused on the key issues, rather
than the all-encompassing reports that have become the norm. Authors, peer
reviewers, and the working group secretariats need to be absolutely rigorous
in ensuring that all conclusions are backed up by evidence, with an accurate
assessment of how good the evidence is, and that all of the citations are
valid. Gray literature — i.e., the use of non-peer-reviewed literature — can
and should be used as long as it is evidence-based and available to the peer
reviewers for evaluation.

One criticism often aimed at the IPCC is that it is inflexible and unable to
conduct rapid response assessments of new evidence due to the requirements
of two rounds of peer review involving experts and governments. One solution
to this weakness is to complement, not replace, the IPCC by developing a
"peer-reviewed" Wikipedia that can continually update the evidence and
synthesize the findings and note where the new evidence strengthens,
modifies, or undermines previous conclusions.

In my opinion, there is no doubt that the evidence for human-induced climate
change is irrefutable. The world's leading scientists, many of whom have
participated in the IPCC, overwhelmingly agree that what we're We must not
allow the skeptics to derail the political will to safeguard the planet.
experiencing cannot be attributed to natural variation in the climate over
time, but is due to human activities. And they also agree that if we do not
act, climate change will continue apace with increasing droughts, floods,
and rising seas, leading to major damaging impacts to the natural world
(loss of species and critical ecosystem services) and society (displaced
human populations).

There is no doubt that the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases has
increased significantly over the past 150 years primarily due to human
activities. These gases are radiatively active and absorb and trap outgoing
infrared radiation from the Earth's surface and hence, based on simple
physics, the Earth's atmosphere must respond by warming. The only issue is
by how much and when.

The IPCC concluded that the global temperature data and analyses are robust,
with evidence of increasingly variable and extreme temperatures, coupled
with increasingly severe weather events, heat waves, floods, and droughts.
While a number of scientists argue that some of the land temperature data is
contaminated and unreliable because of the urban heat-island effect and
movement of observational sites, ocean data — as well balloon and satellite
data — also show an increasingly warmer world. These data sets are clearly
free from any potential contamination from any urban heat island effect.

In addition, the evidence for a changing climate over the past 100 years
also comes from observed changes in retreating mountain glaciers throughout
most of the world, a decline in the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice,
melting of the Greenland ice sheet, changes in precipitation patterns, and
changes in vegetation and the behavior of wildlife. Yet despite this
accumulating evidence, the challenges of the skeptics must be fully
addressed.

The key question is the cause of the observed changes in temperature. The
IPCC concluded that it is more than 90 percent certain that most of the
observed changes over the past 50 to 60 years are due to human activities
and that the changes cannot be explained by known natural phenomena.

Future increases in greenhouse gas concentrations are projected to be
accompanied by increased climate variability and more extreme climatic
events, leading in general to adverse impacts on agriculture, water quantity
and quality, coastal erosion, loss of biodiversity, and degradation of
ecosystem services. Developing countries will be the most vulnerable.
Therefore, it is clear that climate change is not only an environmental
issue, but a development and security issue.

All major emitters of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases need to
rapidly and cost-effectively transition to a low-carbon economy, in both the
production and use of energy and the management of forests and agricultural
lands. In order to ensure food, water, and human security, and to protect
the world's biodiversity, the goal should be to limit the global average
temperature rise to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) above pre-industrial levels.
This will require a peak of global emissions of all greenhouse gases by
around 2015, and at least a 50 percent reduction in global emissions by
2050, relative to 1990. Without concerted action now, the world will be
faced with temperature increases far in excess of 2 degrees C, with
unthinkable impacts.

An equitable and substantive post-Kyoto agreement is essential if the target
of 2 degrees C is to be realized. Industrialized countries must demonstrate
leadership, and provide developing countries with technical and financial
assistance to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions while they address the
critical issues of poverty and hunger.

Given the limited success at Copenhagen, 2010 is a critical year for the
world's political leaders to unite in the fight against climate change.
Strong and visionary political leadership will be essential. We must not
allow the skeptics to use the incident at the University of East Anglia or
the mistakes in the IPCC report to distract us or derail the political will
to safeguard the planet.
Click here to read a contrasting view from IPCC critic Roger A. Pielke
Jr.<http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2244>

   - guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010


   - `

Bron:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/02/ipcc-hacked-climate-science-emails

How to  safeguard the planet ? En dat met gemanipuleerde cijfers? Of met
niet aangetoonde (laat staan bewezen) (veronder)stellingen?
Which visionary political leadership will be essential?

Hoe staat het met D66 op dit punt?

Henk Elegeert

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********