Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Mastodon MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

The Phony War: Lies, Damn Lies and the IPCC

Posted on 25 September 2010 by gpwayne

It seems ironic that one key version of this argument – that The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘misleads’ by misrepresenting the science of climate change and its potential consequences  - is itself a gross misrepresentation of a statement made by Professor Mike Hulme, a climate change scientist who works at the University of East Anglia. He was also co-ordinating Lead Author for the chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for the IPCC’s AR3 report, as well as a contributing author for several other chapters. This is how Hulme dismissed the claim:

"I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead."

The same argument also has a broader scope, demonstrated by the claim that within the IPCC, there is a politically motivated elite who filter and screen all science to ensure it is consistent with some hidden agenda. This position turns the structure of the IPCC into an argument, by claiming that the small number of lead reviewers dictate what goes into the IPCC reports.

Before considering this argument in full, it is prudent to observe that the IPCC does no primary science or research at all. Its job is purely to collate research findings from thousands of climate scientists (and others working in disciplines that bear on climate science indirectly, such as geology or chemistry). From this, the IPCC produces ‘synthesis reports’ – rather like an executive summary – in which they review and sum up all the available material.  It is necessary therefore to have an organisational structure capable of dealing efficiently with so much information, and the hierarchical nature of the IPCC structure is a reflection of this requirement.

How does the process work? The IPCC primarily concerns itself with science that has been published in peer-reviewed journals, although, as it makes clear in the IPCC’s published operational appendices, it does also use so called ‘grey’ material where there is insufficient or non-existent peer-reviewed material available at the time the reports are prepared. See IPCC principles, Annex 2: Procedure for using non-published/non-peer-reviewed sources in IPCC reports. Many people are involved in this complex process:

“More than 450 Lead Authors and more than 800 Contributing Authors (CAs) have contributed to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)".

Source: The role of the IPCC and key elements of the IPCC assessment process, February 2010

To suggest the IPCC can misrepresent the science belies the fact that such misrepresentations would be fiercely criticised by those it misrepresented. Considering how many lead authors and contributors are involved, any egregious misrepresentation would hardly remain unremarked for very long.

The Broader Consensus

As with all such disputes, it is helpful to consider if there is any evidence of credible independent support for the reports the IPCC has produced, and the conclusions those reports contain. If the accusations were true, such misrepresentation would also be problematic for official bodies, particularly national science academies and the like.

On that basis, it is reassuring to note that nearly every major national scientific body e.g. the Royal Society (UK) or the National Academy of Sciences (US), unreservedly supports the work and findings of the IPCC. An expanded list can be found here, including this statement:

“With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change”.

In 2010 an independent investigation of the IPCC was launched. Conducted by the InterAcademy Council, which represents the world’s scientific academies, the report highlighted a number of organisational and procedural areas that the council felt could be improved. However, the recommendations did not detract from the council’s appreciation of the IPCC’s work:

“The Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall. However, the world has changed considerably since the creation of the IPCC, with major advances in climate science, heated controversy on some climate-related issues, and an increased focus of governments on the impacts and potential responses to changing climate”.

Source: IAC Report Executive Summary

Like all organisations, the IPCC can improve on its performance. Recent defensiveness regarding errors or ambiguities in the AR4 report may be mitigated in light of unpleasant attacks on the organisation and its director, but the criticisms are valid none the less.

However, claims that the IPCC does not accurately represent the views and findings of the scientists, on whose work the IPCC reports are based, are not supported by the facts.

 This post is the Intermediate Version (written by Graham Wayne who rewrote my rather brief and rushed original version) of the skeptic argument "The IPCC consensus is phoney".

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 67 out of 67:

  1. CW: 1. CRU indicates a warming rate that is very near the best estimate, and completely in the margin of error. 2. GISS indicates a value that is exactly the best estimate, therefore countering your point. 3. That is completely irrelevant. At least you agree with a 1.8C/century increase. That's cause for concern, don't you think?
    0 0
  2. archiesteel, I really don't think one should accept CW's misleading framework of judging warming projections for 2100 based on linear extrapolation of past warming trends. All the models show warming starting slowly, then accelerating over the first half of this century. In the second half of the century, warming either continues to accelerate (under "business as usual") or slows down again (if we successfully manage to reduce emissions early enough). In neither case, however, is a linear extrapolation of pre-2010 warming a reliable guide to the projected evolution of global mean surface temperature over the remainder of the century.
    0 0
  3. archiesteel, The CRU and GISS trends are at or below the best estimate for the "most optimistic scenario" for the period you prefer. They are below the most optimistic scenario for the subsequent MSU era. And not surprisingly, no I am not "concerned" about the recent warming rates. Why? 1. The same rate occurred in the CRU without modern CO2 forcing ( CRU and HadSST 1.7 K per century from 1910 to 1945 ). So such a 35 year trend is not even a record in the global thermometer era. 2. During the Holocene Climatic Optimum, climate was actually much more extreme: (longer, hotter summers -and- longer colder winters). But this was the period of the founding of human civilization!
    0 0
  4. Ned, it is the IPCC that predicts the 0.2 C per decade rate that should be occurring now. And it is the IPCC that predicts the various warming rates for different 'scenarios'. Science is about predictions of theories and the following observations which reject or modify the theories. It is incorrect to state that all the models show acceleration. In fact, in the IPCC graph, only one scenario indicates even a slight acceleration, that being the A2 (red). The 'middle' scenario, the A1B, indicates a DEceleration of temperature trend. So does the 'most optimistic' scenario, the B1(blue). And all observed temperature trends are at or below the 'most optimistic' scenario!
    0 0
    Moderator Response: please limit image size to 400. Thank you.
  5. @CW: "The CRU and GISS trends are at or below the best estimate for the "most optimistic scenario" for the period you prefer." Both are within the margin of error, therefore confirming the trend. "They are below the most optimistic scenario for the subsequent MSU era." Irrelevant. "And not surprisingly, no I am not "concerned" about the recent warming rates." Of course not. "1. The same rate occurred in the CRU without modern CO2 forcing ( CRU and HadSST 1.7 K per century from 1910 to 1945 ). So such a 35 year trend is not even a record in the global thermometer era." That's not a logical argument. Just because something happened before doesn't mean the current situation isn't alarming - especially since, according to all other factors, we should be in a cooling phase right now. Seems to me your opposition is mainly political in nature. "2. During the Holocene Climatic Optimum, climate was actually much more extreme: (longer, hotter summers -and- longer colder winters). But this was the period of the founding of human civilization!" Do you have references for you claim that the climate was more extreme during the Climate Optimum. Also, it seems as though current global average temperatures are *higher* than at the Climate Optimum. That alone should be cause for concern.
    0 0
  6. archiesteel, the orbital forcing of the HCO ( fairly well understood and calculable ) gave some 50 W/m^2 more sunshine at the TOA for the Arctic during summer, and some 15 W/m^2 less sunshine TOA for the Arctic winter. Similar, though smaller changes also occurred at lower latitudes, including around 30 degrees North where the Mesopotamian settlements were founded. Knowledge of temperatures is all from proxy, and less certain than the solar orbital forcing which is pretty solid. Still, the Arctic is analyzed to have been significantly warmer during the HCO than it is today: Now, this pertains only to the Northern Hemisphere. But that's where the Mesopotamian civilization was. Interestingly, there was quite a bit of Arctic ice melt with this period, but not Greenland. (not the high interior anyway). Also, it is interesting that winters were colder and summers were hotter. Overall temperatures were somewhat higher (summers were disproportionately hotter). But imagine winters were a million degrees colder, and also summers were a million degrees hotter. The average annual anomaly would be zero. But it would be a deadly zero. Sometimes, the average doesn't much.
    0 0
  7. CW - I agree that HCO was probably warmer - that is what the IPCC report says too. However, you claimed it was more "extreme" which implies ... what? I would say the evidence was warm and more important, settled.
    0 0
  8. @CW: I didn't ask for references that summers were hotter and winters colder, but that the climate was more "extreme". You haven't provided this. You also seem to think the warming was global, but the reality is that the tropics and the southern hemisphere actually cooled. At around 30 degrees North, the effect wouldn't have merely been "smaller," it would have been negligible. As far as overall temperatures goes, these were lower, not higher. Not that this really matters, anyway; we have a pretty good idea what caused the HCO, and we know that's not what's happening today. Even if the HCO had been warmer (and it wasn't, as far as we can tell), it still wouldn't change the fact the current warming is very likely caused by a rise in atmospheric CO2. "But imagine winters were a million degrees colder" Absolute zero is −273.15°C. You can't get any colder than that (actually, you can't even get there).
    0 0
  9. For shits and giggles, here's what NOAA (who uses the same graph from Kerwin 1999) has to say: "In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."
    0 0
  10. scaddenp and archiesteel, The climate was more extreme because the annual variation was greater. (hotter summers, colder winters as discussed) This meant a more extreme seasonal transition. This also meant a greater pole to equator gradient. It is the meridional gradient which is the basis of the thermal wind ( jet stream ). The HCO is NOT an analog of what CO2 is theorized to do. CO2 is theorized to warm some in summer, slightly more in winter. CO2 then is modeled to slightly DECREASE thermal gradient and transitions. However, the HCO IS an important comparison. Greenland, the polar bears, and humans all survived the HCO, and human civilization, as exemplified by the Mesopotamian era, flourished during the HCO. archiesteel, I stand corrected with respect to Absolute Zero. Better stated, the point should read were winters a hundred degrees cooler and summers a hundred degrees warmer, the mean would be zero, which would appear benign, but not at all reflect the extremes.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: In the interest of readability, please tame whatever device you're using for text input so as to better exploit the white space available for comments. Thank you!
  11. @CW: you're still missing the point that overall temperatures were lower than today. Sure, humans and polar bears survived the HCO. That's besides the point - what we're seeing today is different than the HCO, it's happening faster, and it's already reached higher global temperatures. As for climate being more extreme, I'm not sure you can be that categorical. I believe a high rate of decadal increase throughout the world (i.e. the current situation) is going to cause more extreme weather events than the relatively stable system in place during the long (even if seasonal minima/maxima were higher in the NH).
    0 0
  12. "you're still missing the point that overall temperatures were lower than today." That is certainly not true for the Arctic or even the Northern Hemisphere, probably not true for the globe. Look at the noise in the whole Holocene ( plus or minus 1 degree C ). We haven't even exceeded that. And as I pointed out, the mean can be meaningless, as the seasonal variation was more extreme in the HCO. Extreme weather is caused by increased gradients. To the extent that CO2 forcing is significant, as modeled it should REDUCE gradients and thus REDUCE storminess. I don't think it's that significant. There have been weather disasters through out human history in 'warm periods' and 'cool periods'. http://www.disastercenter.com/disaster/TOP100K.html
    0 0
  13. @CW: "That is certainly not true for the Arctic or even the Northern Hemisphere, probably not true for the globe." By "overall" I clearly meant global averages. "Look at the noise in the whole Holocene ( plus or minus 1 degree C ). We haven't even exceeded that." It's not very useful to look at the proxy noise to determine averages were higher during the HCO than today. This is like looking at individual temperatures today and claiming such snapshots accurately reflect global temperatures (you know, what some deniers have done because it snowed a lot in their backyard last winter?) "And as I pointed out, the mean can be meaningless, as the seasonal variation was more extreme in the HCO." Not in the Mesopotamian settlements. The difference would have been barely noticeable at 30 degrees. "Extreme weather is caused by increased gradients." Define "gradient" in this context, I'm not sure I follow. Do you simply mean a higher difference between minima and maxima? My argument is that increasing global temps will disrupt long-phase natural fluctuations, and thus likely cause more extreme weather events. "To the extent that CO2 forcing is significant, as modeled it should REDUCE gradients and thus REDUCE storminess." Please provide some sort of science for these affirmations, and that "gradients" are a bigger factor in determining storminess than global temperature increases and the disruption to natural cycles this causes. You have yet to make that case. "I don't think it's that significant." Of course not. Your severe bias agaisnt AGW theory won't allow you to believe otherwise. "There have been weather disasters through out human history in 'warm periods' and 'cool periods'." True, but completely irrelevant.
    0 0
  14. "Of course not. Your severe bias agaisnt AGW theory won't allow you to believe otherwise." "bias agaisnt AGW theory"? I haven't written anything about radiative forcing. All I'm doing is pointing out that the extent of a warming rate is low as declared by the IPCC and by daily, annual, and millenial scales of change, not particularly significant. I would gladly like to see any evidence you can provide otherwise.
    0 0
  15. @CW: you're still missing the point that overall temperatures were lower than today. No. See figure 1: http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/2008GL034187.pdf
    0 0
  16. @CW: "I haven't written anything about radiative forcing." You consider the current warming to be insignificant, as your next chapter summarizes. "All I'm doing is pointing out that the extent of a warming rate is low as declared by the IPCC" That's a strange interpretation. The fact it is in the lower scenario doesn't mean it's "low" (as in not significant). A 1.8C/century trend is very high compared to past climate change. You're trying to play on words, here. Please keep it honest. "by daily, annual, and millenial scales of change, not particularly significant." It is in fact quite significant, because it cannot be attributed to natural cycles (unlike the HCO) and is almost certainly due to CO2, which means temperatures will keep on rising, and the oceans will continue to acidify. "I would gladly like to see any evidence you can provide otherwise." I would gladly like to see any evidence that supports *your* claim, seeing as it goes against the established science. "No. See figure 1" That's one paper. This one argues the heat was 0.2 to 0.6 above: "The early to mid‐Holocene appears as a relatively long warm interval some 0.2–0.6 K above present‐day temperatures, the culmination of the warming that followed the end of the last glaciation" In any case, I'm glad to hear you admit the MWP was 0.5 degrees colder than the current temperatures. For my part, I'll say it's possible the holocene was warmer, but as the change occured over a long period of time (and the current projected increase will take us above the warmest HCO estimates before 2050) it is useless to compare it to the present situation, especially when we know the causes aren't the same.
    0 0
  17. CW - been away for a few days. Interesting argument for a more extreme HCO climate. I would like to make a couple of further points though. Firstly, I can't comment on NH proxies for HCO temperatures but we do have evidence for warmer temperatures here (NZ) 5-6000 kpa. However these are glacial records and it was pointed out to me that by topographical and ablation considerations, current glacial retreat will likely exceed those boundaries within decades - without any FURTHER warming. It would be interesting to whether same was true for NH proxies. Secondly, I dont think HCO is useful analogue. We are heading back to pliocene CO2 levels, not HCO and more importantly, it is the RATE of change that is important, not where it goes. Milankovich cycle driven change is slow. Thirdly, if we continue to emit, we will be back a Miocene levels. Milankovich cycles operated then - the big difference between then and now is the composition of the atmosphere.
    0 0

Prev  1  2  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us