|
IPCC directs here. For other uses see IPCC (disambiguation). 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 assess the "risk of human-induced climate change". The Panel is open to all members of the WMO and UNEP. IPCC reports are widely cited * * in almost any debate related to climate change * *. National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative. A small but vocal minority (nearly 1.5%) of the scientists involved with the report have accused the IPCC of bias (see criticism, below). Aims The principles of the IPCC operation * 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 role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments" *. The stated aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to: The history of the IPCC is described here. Operations The current 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 *. Attendance at the 2003 meeting was 350 government officials and climate change experts. After the opening ceremonies, plenary sessions are closed meetings *. The meeting report * states there were 322 persons in attendance at Sessions and with about seven-eighths of participants being from governmental organizations *. 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 *. There are several major groups: The IPCC receives funding from UNEP, WMO, and its own Trust Fund for which it solicits contributions from 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 *. The IPCC is currently (April 2006) in the process of preparing the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report or AR4 *; reports of the workshops held so far are available *. If it is decided to prepare one the AR4 Synthesis Report (SYR) would be finalised during the last quarter of 2007. Documentation on the scoping meetings for the AR4 are available * 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 * and the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme *, 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 *: There are several types of endorsement which documents receive *: 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. IPCC Reports The IPCC published a 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) is currently underway. Each of the assessment reports is in three volumes from the working groups I, II and III. Unqualified, "the IPCC report" is often used to mean the WG I report. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: AR4 Main article: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Work on the fourth assessment report (AR4) is well underway *; the second order draft is now available for comment. Author lists and a chapter outline of the WGI report are available *, as is a poster of the basic contents and new foci of AR4 *. The report's publication is planned for early 2007 . IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001 Main article: IPCC Third Assessment Report The most recent IPCC report is Climate Change 2001, the Third Assessment Report (TAR). The TAR consists of four reports, three of them from the Working Groups: The "headlines" from the summary for policymakers * in The Scientific Basis were: 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 metres over the same period. The wide range in predictions is based upon several different scenarios that assume different levels of future CO2 emissions. Each scenario then has a range of possible outcomes associated with it. The most optimistic outcome assumes an aggressive campaign to reduce CO2 emissions, while the most pessimistic is a "business as usual" scenario. The more realistic 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 different 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 available data is not sufficient to determine the real importance of greenhouse gases in climate change. Sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases may be overestimated or underestimated because of some 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. Economic growth estimates Castles and Henderson asserted that the IPCC has been using inflated economic growth rates, which result in increased emission estimates *. This was incorrect because IPCC growth and emissions rates were based upon several factors and not only GDP, as rebutted by Nebojsa Nakicenovic et al. Physical modeling See also: global climate model A few participants in IPCC Working Group I (Science) do not agree 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 does not reflect the full document... For example, I worked on Chapter 7, Physical Processes. This chapter dealt with the nature of the basic processes which determine the response of climate, and found numerous problems with model treatments – including those of clouds and water vapor. The chapter was summarized with the following sentence: 'Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapour, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport.'" 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. *. These statements are in turn supported by the executive summary of chapter 8 of the report, which includes: IPCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995 Main article: IPCC Second Assessment Report Climate Change 1995, the IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) was finished in 1996. It is split into four parts: Each of the last three parts was completed by a separate working group, and each has a Summary for Policymakers (SfP) that represents a consensus of national representatives. The SfP of the WG I report contains headings: Debate over Climate Change 1995 Most scientists involved in climate research believe that the IPCC reports accurately summarise the state of knowledge. Few scientists have objected and made public comments to that effect. The report formed the basis of negotiations over the Kyoto Protocol. 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 *. S. Fred Singer disseminated a letter about what he learned about changes to Chapter 8, interpretations of the IPCC Summary's key conclusion, and some policy implications *: Dr. Benjamin D. Santer, Convening Lead Author of Chapter 8 of 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, replied *: 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 policymakers summary of the WG I report includes: Landsea In January of 2005 Christopher Landsea resigned from work on the IPCC AR4, saying: "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4" *. IPCC processes "We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations. There are significant doubts about some aspects of the IPCC’s emissions scenario exercise, in particular, the high emissions scenarios. The Government should press the IPCC to change their approach. There are some positive aspects to global warming and these appear to have been played down in the IPCC reports; the Government should press the IPCC to reflect in a more balanced way the costs and benefits of climate change. The Government should press the IPCC for better estimates of the monetary costs of global warming damage and for explicit monetary comparisons between the costs of measures to control warming and their benefits. Since warming will continue, regardless of action now, due to the lengthy time lags." * See also | |||||||
|
| ||||||||
 |
|
| |