Summary: The IPCC is the only organization of its kind today, and so the best that we have to deal with the critical problem of climate change (with warming now starting its third century). The leaked draft of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) shows that they’re improving in response to criticism. Here we look at a prominent activist’s reaction (not what you might expect), and some areas in which the IPCC needs more reform.

Other posts in this series about second order draft (SOD) of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

Contents

About the Intergovernmental Panel

….. on Climate Change (IPCC) About the leak of the AR5 About the Draft AR5 Update: comments about the leak Joe Romm blows his top Suggestions for the future For More Information

(1) About the IPCC

The IPCC has always had difficulty managing its dual mission: report the state of climate science and advocate for public policy action to mitigate effects of rising CO2. One of their best critics, Monckton of Brenchley, describes the results in the opening to his review of AR5:

The IPCC’s credibility has already been damaged by its premature adoption and subsequent hasty abandonment of the now-discredited “hockey-stick” graph as its logo; by its rewriting its Second Assessment Report after submission of the scientists’ final draft, to state the opposite of their finding that no discernible human influence on climate is detectable; by its declaration that all Himalayan ice would be gone in 25 years {see this summary}; and by its use of a dishonest statistical technique in 2007 falsely to suggest that the rate of global warming is accelerating.

Even more telling are critics showing systematic misstating by IPCC authors of the climate science literature (eg, chapter lead authors often showcasing their own work and ignoring their critics). While just business as usual in academic science, the IPCC should not tolerable this when writing the foundation for high-stakes and high-cost public policy. It shows a lack of internal controls at the IPCC, and weakens their credibility — which is their greatest asset.

For more about the IPCC’s weaknesses:

(2) About the leak of the Draft AR5

Alex Rawls leaked the draft of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), bringing sunlight to the IPCC’s secretive workings. He deserves our applause. The IPCC releases its advice for policy-makers long before the science summaries which are its foundation, which makes review and response impossible. Such behavior, that of propagandists, diminishes their credibility. Rawls has forced the IPCC to defend its draft report before policy-makers (and the news media) get its prescriptions.

Update: Climate Scientist Judith Curry comments on the leak (she is chair of the School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology):

The leak of the SOD {second order draft of AR5} was a good thing; the IPCC still has the opportunity to do a much better job, and the wider discussion in the blogosphere and even the mainstream media places pressure on the IPCC authors to consider these issues; they can’t sweep them under the rug as in previous reports.

(3) The Draft AR5

What about the AR5 draft? We’ll wait for expert reviews. My impression (FWIW) is that AR5 is a great improvement, in many ways, over their previous work. The IPCC is defending its franchise and learning from experience, both commendable qualities. To see one piece of AR5 read The IPCC sees the pause in global warming!, 18 December 2012.

Also see this honest graphic about one of the potential climate game changers: release of methane (a powerful greenhouse gas). How well have IPCC’s models forecast actual results?

.

Methane (CH4) in the atmosphere

Caption (references omitted):

Figure 1.7: Observed globally and annually averaged methane concentrations in parts per billion (ppb) since 1990 compared with projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Estimated observed global annual CH4 concentrations are shown in black. The shading shows the largest model projected range of global annual CH4 8 concentrations from 1990–2015 …

The IPCC models shown are:

FAR: 1990, the IPCC’s First Assessment Report

SAR: 1995, the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report

TAR: 2001, IPCC’s Third Assessment Report

AR4: 2007, the IPCC”s Fourth Assessment Report

(4) Joe Romm blows his top

Another way to judge the IPCC is by looking at the reactions of “activists” (ie, propagandists), cheerleaders for drastic public policy action. Such as Joe Romm: “Leaked IPCC Draft Report: Recent Warming Is Manmade, Cloud Feedback Is Positive, Inaction Is Suicidal“, ThinkProgress, 16 December 2012 — Excerpt:

That multiply-hedged morass is pretty much the mildest statement that could possibly be made. … For me, the leaked draft, which has not yet been peer reviewed — and thus still has time to be watered down yet more – underscores how pointless the IPCC has become. Like the 4th assessment before it, this ultra-conservative and instantly obsolete report ignores the latest science … And like the AR4, the AR5 scenarios low-ball future impacts … Once again, the authors twist themselves in pretzels to over-hedge every statement with their precise (but inaccurate!) terminology. … But all AR5 can muster up for the probability of future “increases in frequency and/or intensity of drought” is “Likely [>66% probability] in some regions” — which I guess means the IPCC thinks there is 1 in 3 chance it won’t happen anywhere! How could that be with the kind of warming we will see in the RCP8.5 scenario, which, it must be added is really just business as usual emissions and far from the worst-case? This failure to warn the public and policymakers echoes the great failing of their 2011 extreme weather report.

After years of chiding skeptics for daring to question the IPCC’s work, suddenly Romm discovers that he — not the IPCC — is the ur-source of climate information. He displays one of the great rules of alarmist climate propaganda: Scientists and the IPCC are authorities, unless they disagree with alarmists. Then they’re cranks. Here’s my favorite example: High school science facts prove global warming! Skeptical scientists humiliated by this revelation!.

(5) Suggestions for the future

The IPCC has taken steps to improve their credibility. In the opening to his review of AR5 Monckton of Brenchley suggests other improvement, leading with these:

(a) All alterations by governments to the scientists’ final draft must be referred back to all expert reviewers for comment before publication, and if included must be visibly flagged.

(b) To limit politicization of Assessment Reports, all material from non-peer-reviewed sources, such as environmental lobby groups, should be excluded. Reason:

30% of all references listed in AR4 were not from reviewed papers in the learned journals but from the “gray literature”. … Example: For six months the IPCC’s climate-science chairman, Dr. Pachauri, asserted that anyone who doubted the conclusion in AR4 that all the ice in the Himalayas would be gone within 25 years was “anti-science”. Yet the conclusion had no scientific basis. It came from a polemic by a travel journalist. The lead author of the relevant chapter said he had known of the error but had decided not to correct it.

Mockton’s review also has long (very long) lists of peer-reviewed science overlooked by the IPCC (and ignored by the news media), because it ruins the narrative. This goes to the most serious criticisms of the IPCC: it’s narrow selection of sources, and blindness to many threads of research in the climate sciences.

For other ways to improve our ability to see and respond to climate change see My “wish list” for the climate sciences in 2009, (equally valid today as then).

(6) For More Information

FM posts about shockwaves and other geo-science related issues:

.

.