Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

src: www.un.org

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) is the scientific and intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations, established at the request of member governments, dedicated to the task of providing the world with an objective scientific view of climate change and its political and economic impact. It was first established in 1988 by two UN organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and was subsequently endorsed by the UN General Assembly through Resolution 43/53. IPCC membership is open to all WMO and UNEP members. The IPCC produced a report supporting the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is a major international agreement on climate change. The main purpose of the UNFCCC is to "stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent harmful anthropogenic disturbances [ie, human-caused] by the climate system". The IPCC report includes "relevant scientific, technical and socio-economic information to understand the scientific basis of human-caused climate change risks, potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

The IPCC does not do original research on its own, nor does it monitor climate work or related phenomena themselves. The IPCC bases its judgment on the published literature, which includes peer reviewed and peer reviewed sources.

Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (voluntarily, without payment from the IPCC) to write and review reports, which are then reviewed by the government. The IPCC report contains "Summary for Policy Makers", subject to approval line by line by delegates from all participating governments. Usually this involves the government of more than 120 countries.

The IPCC provides internationally accepted authority on climate change, producing reports that have the approval of leading climate scientists and consensus of participating governments. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize is shared, in the same section, between the IPCC and Al Gore.

Video Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Origin and destination

The IPCC was developed from the international scientific body, Advisory Group for Greenhouse Gases set up in 1985 by the International Council of Scientific Unions, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide recommendations based on research flows. This small group of scientists lacks the resources to mask the increasingly complex interdisciplinary nature of climate science, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of State want an international convention to agree on greenhouse gas restrictions, and the conservative Reagan Administration is concerned about the unbridled influence from independent scientists or from UN agencies including UNEP and WMO. The US government is a major force in shaping the IPCC as an autonomous interdepartmental body in which scientists take on both science experts and as their official government representatives to produce reports that have strong support from all the world's leading scientists who research topics, and which must then obtain consensus agreements from each participating government. In this way, it was formed as a hybrid between a scientific body and an intergovernmental political organization. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produces and assesses evidence on climate change. They generate many assessments and in each assessment report, he found that they have found the most dominant in contributing to climate change since the last report.

The IPCC has adopted and published the "Principles Governing IPCC Work", stating that the IPCC will assess:

• the risk of human-caused climate change,
• potential impact, and
• possible options for prevention.

The document also states that the IPCC will do this work by assessing "comprehensively, objectively, openly and transparently, relevant scientific, technical and socio-economic information to understand the scientific basis" of these topics. The principles also state that "the IPCC report should be neutral with regard to policy, although they may need to be objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of specific policies."

Maps Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Organization

Korean economist Hoesung Lee has been chairman of the IPCC since October 8, 2015, following the election of the new IPCC Bureau. Prior to this election, the IPCC was chaired by its deputy Chairman Ismail El Gizouli, who was appointed Chief of Event after the resignation of Rajendra K. Pachauri in February 2015. Previous seats were Rajendra K. Pachauri, elected in May 2002; Robert Watson in 1997; and Bert Bolin in 1988. The seats were assisted by elected bureaus including vice chairmen, work group leaders, and secretariats.

The IPCC panel consists of representatives designated by governments and organizations. The participation of delegates with appropriate expertise is encouraged. The plenary sessions of the IPCC and IPCC working groups are held at the level of government representation. Non-Governmental and Intergovernmental Organizations may be permitted to attend as observers. IPCC Bureau meeting sessions, workshops, experts, and lead author only by invitation. Attendance at the 2003 meeting included 350 government officials and climate change experts. After the opening ceremony, a closed plenary session was held. The meeting report said there were 322 people present in the Session with about seven-eight participants coming from government organizations.

There are several large groups:

• IPCC panel: Meets plenary sessions about once a year and controls organizational structure, procedures, and work programs. Panel is an IPCC corporate entity.
• Seat: Selected by Panel.
• Secretariat: Supervise and organize all activities. Supported by UNEP and WMO.
Bureau
• : Selected by Panel. Led by Chairman. 30 members including IPCC Deputy Chairs, Co-Chairs and Deputy Chairs Working Groups and Task Force.
• Working Group: Each has two Co-Chairs, one from developed and one from a developing country, and one technical support unit.
  • Working Group I: Assessing the scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change. Co-Chairs: ValÃÆ' Â © rie Masson-Delmotte and Panmao Zhai
  • Working Group II: Assessing the vulnerability of the socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, consequences, and adaptation options. Co-Chairs: Hans-Otto PÃÆ'¶rtner and Debra Roberts
  • Working Group III: Review options to limit greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise mitigate climate change. Co-Chairs: Priyadarshi R. Shukla and Jim Skea
• National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Task Force

The IPCC received funding through the IPCC Trust Fund, established in 1989 by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Secretary Costs and secretarial housing provided by the WMO, while UNEP fulfilled the Depute Secretary's expense. Annual cash contributions to Trust Funds are made by WMO, by UNEP, and by IPCC Members; the payment scale is determined by the IPCC Panel, which is also responsible for considering and adopting with the annual budget consensus. Organizations are required to comply with the Financial and Regulatory Rules of the WMO.

src: www.sciencemag.org

Assessment report

The IPCC has published five comprehensive assessment reports that review the latest climate science, as well as a number of special reports on specific topics. These reports were prepared by the relevant research teams selected by the Bureau of government nominations. Expert reviewers from various governments, IPCC observer organizations and other organizations are invited at different stages to comment on various aspects of the design.

The IPCC published the First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990, supplementary reports in 1992, Second Assessment Report (SAR) in 1995, Third Assessment Report (TAR) in 2001, Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) Fifth (AR5) in 2014. IPCC is currently completing the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), which will be completed by 2022.

Each assessment report is in three volumes, in accordance with 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.

Coverage and report preparation

The IPCC does not conduct research or monitor climate-related data. The lead author of the IPCC report assesses the available information on climate change based on published sources. According to the IPCC guidelines, authors should give priority to peer reviewed resources. Authors can refer to non-peer-reviewed sources ("gray literature"), provided they have sufficient quality. Examples of un-reviewed resources include model results, reports from government agencies and non-governmental organizations, and industry journals. Each subsequent IPCC report notes areas where science has improved since the previous report and also noted areas where further research is needed.

There are usually three stages in the review process:

• An expert review (6-8 weeks)
• An expert review
• Government reviews on:
  • Summary for Policy Maker
  • Overview Chapter
  • Synthesis Report

Review comments are in the open archive for at least five years.

There are several types of support that receive documents:

• Approval. The material has been subject to details, line by line discussion and agreement.
  • Summary of Working Groups for Policy Makers approved by their Working Group.
  • The Synthesis Report Summary for Policy Makers is approved by the Panel.
• Adoption. Support section by section (and not line by line).
  • Panel adopt Chapter Summary of Methodology Report.
  • Panel adopts IPCC Synthesis Report.
• Reception. Not subject to discussion and agreement line by line, but presents a comprehensive, objective, and balanced subject view.
  • Working Group received their report.
  • The Task Force report was received by the Panel.
  • The Working Group Summary for Policy Makers received received by the Panel after the approval group.

The Panel is responsible for the IPCC and its endorsement of the Report makes it possible to ensure they meet the IPCC standards.

There are various comments on the IPCC procedure, an example discussed later in the article (see also IPCC Summary for Policy Makers). Some of these comments have been supportive, while others are very important. Some commentators suggest changes to the IPCC procedures.

Author

Each chapter has a number of authors who are responsible for writing and editing material. A chapter usually has two "main author directors", ten to fifteen "primary authors", and a rather large number of "contributing authors". The coordinating lead author is responsible for collecting contributions from other authors, ensuring that they meet the stylistic and format requirements, and reporting to the Working Group seats. The lead author is responsible for writing parts of the chapters. Contributing authors to prepare text, graphics or data for inclusion by lead author.

The authors for the IPCC report are selected from a list of researchers prepared by governments and participating organizations, and by the Working Group/Task Force of the Bureau, as well as other experts known through published works. The author's choice aims for different views, expertise and geographic representations, ensuring the representation of experts from developing countries and developed countries and countries with economies in transition.

First assessment report

The IPCC's first assessment report was completed in 1990, and serves as the basis of the UNFCCC.

The executive summary of WG I Summary for policymakers reports that they believe that emissions generated from human activities substantially increase atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, resulting in an average of additional warming on the Earth's surface. They count with the belief that CO ₂ has been responsible for more than half of the enhanced greenhouse effect. They estimate that under the "business as usual" scenario (BAU), global average temperatures will rise by about 0.3 ° C per decade over the course of the century [21]. They assessed that global average surface temperatures have increased by 0.3-0.6 Â ° C over the past 100 years, widely consistent with predictions of climate models, but also as great as natural climate variability. Firm detection of enhanced greenhouse effects is unlikely for a decade or more.

Additional report of 1992

The 1992 supplementary report is an update, requested in the context of UNFCCC negotiations at the Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

The main conclusion is that research since 1990 does not "not affect our fundamental understanding of greenhouse effect science and either confirm or not justify the major inference change of the first IPCC scientific assessment". It notes that while (time dependent) simulations, which have been very early in FAR, are now upgraded, but do not include aerosol or ozone changes.

Second scoring report

Climate Change 1995 , IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR), completed in 1996. It is divided into four sections:

• Synthesis to help interpret the UNFCCC article 2.
• Climate Change Science (WG I)
• Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation (WG II)
• Economic and Social Dimension of Climate Change (WG III)

Each of the last three sections is completed by a separate working group, and each has a Summary for Policy Maker (SPM) representing a national representative consensus. The SPM report from WG I contains the title:

1. GHG concentrations continue to increase
2. Anthropogenic aosols tend to produce negative radiation waves
3. The climate has changed over the past century (air temperature has increased between 0.3 and 0.6 ° C since the end of the 19th century, this estimate has not changed significantly since the 1990 report).
4. The balance of evidence shows the human influence that can be seen in the global climate (a major advance since the 1990 report in distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic effects on climate, because: including aerosols, combined models, pattern-based studies)
5. Climate is expected to continue to change in the future (increasing simulated realism increases trust; important uncertainty remains but is taken into account within the projected range of models)
6. There is still a lot of uncertainty (future estimates of emissions and cycling biogeochemistry, model, instrument data for model testing, variability assessment, and detection studies)

Third assessment report

The Third Assessment Report (TAR) was completed in 2001 and consists of four reports, three of which are from the working group:

• Working Group I: Scientific Basis
• Working Group II: Impact, Adaptation and Vulnerability
• Working Group III: Mitigation
• Synthesis Report

A number of TAR conclusions are given a quantitative estimate of how likely it is that they are correct, for example, greater than 66% probability of being true. This is a "Bayesian" probability, which is based on expert judgment of all available evidence.

The "strong findings" of the TAR Synthesis Report include:

• "Observations show the Earth's surface is warming up. Globally, the 1990s are most likely the hottest decade in the instrumental record". The atmospheric concentration of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (ie, transmitted humans) has increased substantially.
• Since the mid-20th century, most of the observed heating is "probable" (greater than 66% probability, based on expert judgment) due to human activity.
• Projections under the Special Report on Emission Scenarios suggest warming during the 21st century at a faster rate than those experienced for at least the last 10,000 years.
• "Projected climate change will have a beneficial and detrimental effect on environmental and socio-economic systems, but the greater the change and the rate of change in climate, the more adverse effects that dominate."
• "Ecosystems and species are vulnerable to climate change and other pressures (as illustrated by the observed impact of recent regional temperature changes) and some will be permanently damaged or lost."
• "Greenhouse gas (mitigation) reduction measures will reduce the pressure on natural and human systems from climate change."
• "Adaptation [to climate change effects] has the potential to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change and can often generate additional direct benefits, but will not prevent all damage." An example of adaptation to climate change is building a dike in response to sea level rise.

Comments about TAR

In 2001, 16 national science academies issued a joint statement on climate change. The joint statement was made by the Australian Academy of Sciences, the Belgian Flemish Academy of Sciences for Science and Art, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of Canada, the Caribbean Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the French Academy of Sciences, the German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, The National Academy of Sciences of India, the Indonesian Academy of Sciences, the Royal Academy of Ireland, the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), the Malaysian Academy of Sciences, the Royal Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society (UK). The statement, also published as an editorial in the journal Science, states "we support the conclusion [TAR] that at least 90% believe that temperatures will continue to increase, with an average global surface temperature projected to increase between 1.4 and 5.8 Ã, Â ° C above the 1990 level by 2100 ". TAR has also been supported by the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, and the European Geosciences Union (see "IPCC Endorsement").

In 2001, the US National Research Council (US NRC) produced a report assessing the contribution of Working Group I (WGI) to TAR. The US NRC (2001) "generally agrees" with the WGI assessment, and describes the full WGI report as an "astonishing summary of research activities in climate science".

IPCC writer Richard Lindzen has made a number of criticisms against TAR. Among his critics, Lindzen has stated that the WGI Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) does not precisely summarize the full WGI report. For example, Lindzen states that the SPM minimizes the uncertainties associated with climate models. John Houghton, who is co-chair of TAR WGI, has responded to Lindzen's criticism of MSS. Houghton has stressed that the SPM is agreed upon by delegates from many of the world's governments, and that any changes to the MSS must be supported by scientific evidence.

IPCC writer Kevin Trenberth also commented on WGI SPM. Trenberth has stated that during the preparation of the WGI SPM, several government delegations sought to "blunt, and possibly obscure, the messages in the report". However, Trenberth concludes that the SPM is "a fairly balanced summary".

US NRC (2001) concludes that WGI SPM and Technical Summary are "consistent" with full WGI reports. US NRC (2001) states:

[...] The full report [WGI] is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary. The full WGI report and its Technical Summary are not specifically intended for policy. Summary for Policy-makers is less emphasis on communicating a stronger base of uncertainty and emphasis on areas of major concern related to human-caused climate change. Changes in this emphasis seem to be the result of a summary process in which scientists work with policy makers on documents. The written response of the US coordinator and lead the scientific writer to the committee indicates, however, that (a) no changes were made without the consent of the lead author to hold (this group represents a small portion of lead and contributing authors) and (b) most of the changes happens to have no significant impact.

Fourth assessment report

The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) was published in 2007. Like the previous assessment report, it consists of four reports:

• Working Group I: Basic of Physical Sciences
• Working Group II: Impact, Adaptation and Vulnerability
• Working Group III: Mitigation
• Synthesis Report

People from over 130 countries contribute to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, which takes 6 years to produce. Contributors to AR4 include more than 2500 expert reviewers, over 800 contributing authors, and over 450 lead authors.

The "strong findings" of the Synthesis report include:

• "The heating of the climate system is resolute, as is now evident from observations of global average air and sea level increases, melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea levels."
• Most of the average global warming over the last 50 years is "very likely" (possibly greater than 90%, based on expert judgment) due to human activity.

• "The [climate change] impact is likely to increase as the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events increases."

• "Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise will continue for centuries even if GHG emissions should be reduced sufficiently for GHG concentrations to be stable, due to the time scale associated with climate processes and feedback." Stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations is discussed in climate change mitigation.
• "Some planned adaptations (human activities) are happening now: wider adaptation is needed to reduce vulnerability to climate change."
• "Unresolved climate change will, in the long run, possibly exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt."
• "Many impacts [climate change] can be reduced, delayed or avoided by mitigation".

The global warming projection of AR4 is shown below. This projection is valid until the end of the 21st century (2090-99), relative to temperatures by the end of the 20th century (1980-99). Add 0.7 Â ° C to the projection to make it relative to the pre-industrial level, not 1980-99. Description of greenhouse gas emission scenarios can be found in the Special Report on Emission Scenarios.

"Possibility" means the possibility is greater than 66% correct, based on expert judgment.

Response to AR4

Several academic sciences have referred and/or repeated several conclusions from AR4. These include:

• A joint statement made in 2007, 2008 and 2009 by the science academies of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa and the G8 countries ("G8 5").
• Publications by the Australian Academy of Science.
• A joint statement made in 2007 by the African Academy of Sciences Network.
• Statement made in 2010 by the Inter Academy Medical Panel This statement has been signed by 43 scientific academies.

The Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL, et al. , 2009; 2010) has conducted two reviews of AR4. These reviews generally support the AR4 conclusion. PBL (2010) made several recommendations to improve the IPCC process. Assessment of literature by the US National Research Council (US NRC, 2010) concluded:

Climate change is occurring, largely due to human activity, and pose significant risks to - and in many cases have affected - various human and natural systems the emphasis on indigenous sources. text ]. [...] This conclusion is based on a large amount of scientific evidence, including recent work, and is consistent with the conclusions of recent assessments by the US Global Change Research Program [...], Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report [...] , and other assessments of the state of scientific knowledge about climate change.

Several errors have been found in the IPCC report AR4 Working Group II. Two errors include the melting of Himalayan glaciers (see next section), and Dutch land under sea level.

Fifth assessment report

The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is completed in 2014. AR5 follows the same general format as AR4, with three Working Group reports and Synthesis reports. The Working Group I (WG1) report was published in September 2013.

The conclusions of AR5 are summarized below:

Working Group I

• "The heating of the climate system is resolute, and since the 1950s, many changes have been observed unprecedented for decades into the millennium."
• "The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have risen to unprecedented levels in at least 800,000 years".
• The human influence on the climate system is clear. It is possible (95-100% probability) that human influence is the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010.

Working Group II

• "Increase in warming [global] increases the likelihood of a severe, permeable, and irreversible impact"
• "The first step toward adaptation to climate change in the future is to reduce vulnerability and exposure to current climate variability"
• "The overall risk of climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change"

Working Group III

• Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections show a global average increase in 2100 from 3.7 to 4.8 Â ° C, relative to pre-industrial levels (median value ; range is 2.5 to 7.8 Â ° C including climate uncertainty).
• Current trajectories of global greenhouse gas emissions are inconsistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 Ã, Â ° C, relative to pre-industrial levels. Promises made as part of the Cancún Agreement are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that provide "probability" of opportunity (probability 66-100%) of limiting global warming (at 2100) to below 3 Ã, Â ° C, relative to pre- industry level.

Concentration Concentration Path

The projection in AR5 is based on "Representative Concentration Pathways" (RCPs). RCP is consistent with possible changes in future anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Projected changes in global average surface temperature and sea level are given in the main RCP article.

src: i0.wp.com

Custom report

In addition to the climate assessment report, the IPCC publishes Special Reports on specific topics. The preparation and approval process for all IPCC Special Reports follows the same procedures as for the IPCC Assessment Report. In 2011 two IPCC Special Reports were completed, Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN) and Special Report on Managing Risks from Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). Both Special Reports are requested by the government.

Custom Reports on Emission Scenarios (SRES)

The Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) is a report by the IPCC published in 2000. SRES contains "scenarios" of future changes in greenhouse gas emissions and sulfur dioxide. One of the uses of SRES scenarios is projecting climate change in the future, for example, changes in global average temperature. The SRES scenario is used in the IPCC's Third and Fourth Assessment Report.

The SRES scenario is a "baseline" (or "reference") scenario, which means that they do not take into account current or future actions to limit GHG emissions (eg, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate change). The SRES emission projection is broadly proportional in proximity to the basic projections that have been developed by the scientific community.

Comments about SRES

There are a number of comments about SRES. Parson et al. (2007) states that SRES represents "substantial progress from the previous scenario". At the same time, there is criticism of SRES.

The most notable criticism of SRES focuses on the fact that all but one of the participating models compare gross domestic product (GDP) across regions using market exchange rates (MER), rather than a more appropriate purchasing power parity approach (PPP). This criticism is discussed in a major SRES article.

Special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation (SRREN)

This report assesses the existing literature on the commercialization of renewable energy for climate change mitigation. It was published in 2012 and includes six of the most important renewable energy technologies, as well as their integration into current and future energy systems. It also considers the environmental and social consequences associated with this technology, the costs and strategies for overcoming technical and non-technical barriers to their applications and diffusion. Full report in PDF form found here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srren/SRREN_Full_Report.pdf

More than 130 authors from all over the world contributed to the drafting of the IPCC Special Report on Renewable Resources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN) - not to mention more than 100 scientists, who contribute as contributing authors.

Special Report on managing risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation (SREX)

This report is published in 2012. This assesses the impact of climate change on the threat of natural disasters and how countries can manage expected changes in the frequency of occurrence and intensity of bad weather patterns better. It aims to be a resource for decision makers to prepare more effectively to manage the risks of these events. Areas that are potentially important to consider are also the detection of trends in extreme events and attribution of these trends to human influences. The full report, 594 pages, in PDF form can be found here: [1]

More than 80 authors, 19 review editors, and more than 100 contributing authors from all over the world contribute to the preparation of SREX.

Methodology report

In the IPCC, the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program developed a methodology for estimating greenhouse gas emissions. This has been done since 1991 by the IPCC WGI in close cooperation with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Energy Agency. The objectives of the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program are:

• to develop and improve internationally agreed methodologies and software for the accounting and reporting of national greenhouse gas emissions and removals; and
• to encourage the widespread use of this methodology by the countries participating in the IPCC and by the signatories of the UNFCCC.

Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventory

The 1996 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Investigations provide a methodological basis for estimating national greenhouse gas inventories. Over time, these guidelines are complemented by good practice reports: Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in a National Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Good Practice Guidelines for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry .

The 1996 guidelines and two good practice reports will be used by the parties to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol on their annual national greenhouse gas inventory.

IPCC Guidelines 2006 for National Greenhouse Gas Inventory

2006 The IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventory are the latest version of this emission estimation methodology, including a large number of default emission factors. Although the IPCC prepares a new version of these guidelines at the request of the parties to the UNFCCC, this method has not been officially accepted for use in national greenhouse gas emissions reporting under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.

src: www.sciencemag.org

Activity

The IPCC focuses its activities on the tasks assigned to it by the relevant WMO Executive Board and the resolutions and decisions of the UNEP Governing Council and measures to support the UNFCCC process. Although the preparation of the assessment report is a key function of the IPCC, it also supports other activities, such as the National Data Distribution and Inventory Center for National Greenhouse Gases, which is required under the UNFCCC. This involves issuing the default emission factor, which is a factor used to lower emissions estimates based on the level of fuel consumption, industrial production and so on.

The IPCC also frequently answers questions from the UNFCCC Children's Agency for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA).

src: 2celsius.net

Nobel Peace Prize

In December 2007, the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to build and disseminate greater knowledge of manmade climate change, and lay the groundwork for the steps necessary to combat such change." This award was shared with Former US Vice-President Al Gore for his work on climate change and documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

src: enb.iisd.org

Criticism

There is widespread support for IPCC in the scientific community, which is reflected in publications by scientific bodies and other experts. However, criticism of the IPCC has been made.

Since 2010 the IPCC has been under unparalleled public and political scrutiny. The global IPCC consensus approach has been challenged internally and externally with the important (but not the only) 2009 email Climatic Research Unit ("Climategate") controversy. It has been regarded as a monopoly of information with results for the quality and impact of such IPCC work.

Date of Himalayan glacier melt projection

A paragraph in the 2007 Working Group II report ("Impact, Adaptation and Vulnerability"), chapter 10 includes projections that Himalayan glaciers may disappear by 2035

Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in other parts of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if rates are now continuing, their chances of disappearing by 2035 and probably sooner are very high if the Earth continues to heat up with the current rate. Its total area is likely to shrink from the current 500,000 to 100,000 km ² by 2035 (WWF, 2005).

This projection is not included in the final summary for policy makers. The IPCC has since admitted that the date is not true, while reaffirming that the conclusion in the final summary is strong. They expressed regret for the "poor implementation of IPCC procedures in this regard". The date 2035 has been correctly quoted by the IPCC of the WWF report, which has misquoted its own source, ICSI's report "Ice and Ice Variations in the past and present on the Global and Regional Scale".

Rajendra K. Pachauri responded in an interview with Science .

Overstatement effect

Former IPCC chairman Robert Watson said, regarding the estimates of Himalayan glaciers, "All the errors seem to have gone in the direction that makes it look like a more serious climate change by exaggerating the impact.That is worrying IPCC needs to look at this trend in error and ask why it happen ". Martin Parry, the climatologist who once co-chaired the IPCC II working group, said that "What started with an unfavorable error over the Himalayan glaciers has been a riot without substance" and the IPCC has investigated other alleged misconceptions, which "generally unfounded and also marginal for assessment ".

Emphasis on the "hockey stick" graph

The third assessment report (TAR) clearly displays a chart labeled "Millennium Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction" based on a 1999 paper by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes (MBH99), who has been referred to as "hockey stick chart ". This graph extends a similar graph in Figure 3.20 from the 1995 IPCC Second Study Report, and is different from the scheme in the first assessment report that has no temperature unit, but appears to illustrate greater global temperature variations over the past 1000 years, and higher temperatures. during the Middle Warm Period from the mid-20th century. The schematic was not an actual data plot, and was based on a temperature diagram in central England, with temperatures rising on the basis of documentary evidence from medieval vineyards in England. Even with this increase, the maximum shown for the Medieval Warm Period did not reach the temperature recorded in central England in 2007. MBH99's findings are supported by the reconstruction cited by Jones et al. 1998, Pollack, Huang & amp; Shen 1998, Crowley & amp; Lowery 2000 and Briffa 2000, using different data and methods. Jones et al. and the Briffa reconstruction was overlaid with MBH99 reconstruction in Figure 2.21 of the IPCC report.

These studies are widely presented as indicating that the current heating period is remarkable compared to temperatures between 1000 and 1900, and the MBH99-based graph is featured in publicity. Even at the draft stage, these findings are debated by the counterparts: in May 2000 the Fred Singer Science and Environmental Policy Project held a press event on Capitol Hill, Washington, DC, displaying comments on the WibjÃÆ'¶rn KarlÃÆ'Â © n chart and Singer opposed the graph in United States Senate Committee on Trade, Science and Transportation hearings on July 18, 2000. Contrarian John Lawrence Daly displays a modified version of the IPCC schematic 1990, incorrectly identified as appearing in the 1995 IPCC report, and argues that "Overturning previous views in the 1995 report, IPCC presented 'Tongkat Hockey' as a new orthodoxy with almost no apology or explanation for a sudden reversal since the 1995 report ". The criticism of the reconstruction of MBH99 in a review paper, which was quickly discredited in the immediate controversy and Baliunas, was taken by the Bush administration, and the Senate speech by US Republican Senator James Inhofe alleges that "man-made global warming is the biggest hoax ever done to the American people ". The data and methodology used to produce "hockey stick charts" were criticized in papers by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, and in turn the criticisms in this paper were examined by other studies and comprehensively refuted by Wahl & Ammann 2007, which shows errors in the methods used by McIntyre and McKitrick.

On June 23, 2005, Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce wrote along with Ed Whitfield, the head of the Subcommittee on Supervision and Investigation who demanded a complete record of climate research, as well as personal information about their finances and careers, from Mann, Bradley and Hughes. Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, said this was a "misguided and invalid investigation" apparently aimed at intimidating scientists, and at his request the US National Academy of Sciences arranged for the National Research Council to set up a special investigation. The National Research Council report agrees that there are some statistical failures, but this has little effect on the graph, which is generally true. In a 2006 letter to Nature, Mann, Bradley, and Hughes show that their original article says that "wider high-resolution data is needed before more confident conclusions can be reached" and that the uncertainty is " core of the article ".

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007 featured a graph showing 12 temperature reconstructions by proxy, including the three highlighted in the Third Assessment Report 2001 (TAR); Mann, Bradley & amp; Hughes 1999 as before, Jones et al. 1998 and Briffa 2000 have both been calibrated by more recent research. In addition, the Medieval Medieval Period analysis mentions the reconstruction by Crowley & amp; Lowery 2000 (as quoted in TAR) and Osborn & amp; Briffa 2006. Ten of these 14 reconstructions cover 1,000 years or more. Most reconstructions share multiple data series, especially tree-loop data, but newer reconstructions use additional data and cover a larger area, using a variety of statistical methods. This section discusses the issue of divergence that affects specific tree circle data.

The conservative nature of the IPCC report

Some critics argue that IPCC reports tend to be conservative by consistently underestimating the speed and impact of global warming, and only reporting on findings of the "lowest common denominations".

On February 1, 2007, prior to the publication of the IPCC's major climate report, a study was published which showed that sea temperatures and sea levels had increased at or above the maximum rates proposed during the last IPCC report in 2001. This study compared the 2001 IPCC projected temperatures and changes sea ​​level with observation. During the six years studied, the temperature rise actually approached the upper end of the range provided by the IPCC projections of 2001, and sea level rise was actually above the top of the IPCC projection range.

Another example of scientific research showing that previous estimates by the IPCC, far from excessive hazards and risks, actually consider it a study of sea level rise projection. When the researchers' analysis "was applied to scenarios that might be outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the researchers found that by 2100 the sea level would be 0.5-1.4 m [50-140 cm] above 1990 levels. These values ​​are much larger than 9-88 cm as projected by the IPCC itself in the Third Assessment Report, published in 2001 ". This may be due, in part, to the widespread human understanding of climate.

Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, reviewing the study of a multi-meter sea level rise by Jim Hansen, noted "There is no doubt that sea level rise, within the IPCC, is a very conservative number, so the truth is somewhere between the IPCC and Jim. "

In reporting criticism by some scientists that the upcoming IPCC report in January 2007 attributes particular risks, particularly sea level rise, an AP story cites Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of physics and oceanography at Potsdam University who says "On the one hand, it is one the power of the IPCC becomes very conservative and cautious and does not overstate any climate change risk ".

In his December 2006 book, Hell and High Water: Global Warming, and in an interview on Fox News on January 31, 2007, energy expert Joseph Romm noted that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is out of date and omits recent observations and factors which contribute to global warming, such as the release of greenhouse gases from tundra liquefaction.

The political influence on the IPCC has been documented by the release of memos by ExxonMobil to the Bush administration, and its impact on the leadership of the IPCC. The memo caused the Bush administration's powerful lobby, apparently on the orders of ExxonMobil, to overthrow Robert Watson, a climate scientist, from the IPCC chairman, and to make him succeeded by Pachauri, seen at that time as more polite and industrial-friendly.

IPCC process

Michael Oppenheimer, a longtime participant at the IPCC and co-ordinated the lead author of the Fifth Assessment Report conceded in the State of the Planet 2008-2009 Science Magazine some limitations of the IPCC consensus approach and requested a shorter and concise review of specific issues than large-scale approaches such as in previous IPCC assessment report. This becomes even more important to provide a wider exploration of uncertainty. Others see it also thanks to a mixture of incentives for consensus in the IPCC process and asks to enter a different position of opinion or minority or to raise a statement about uncertainty.

The IPCC process on climate change and its efficacy and success have been compared with dealing with other environmental challenges (compare Ozone depletion and global warming). In the case of the global regulation of Ozone depletion under the Montreal Protocol has been successful, in the case of Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol has failed. The Ozone Case is used to assess the efficiency of the IPCC process. The IPCC's key situation is building a broad scientific consensus while countries and governments still follow different goals, if not contradictory. The linear model underlying the policy-making of the knowledge we have, the better the political response will be is in doubt.

According to Sheldon Ungar's comparison with global warming, the actors in the case of ozone depletion have a better understanding of scientific ignorance and uncertainty. The ozone case is communicated to the layman "with an easy-to-understand bridging metaphor derived from popular culture" and is associated with "direct risk with everyday relevance", while public opinion on climate change does not see future dangers. The gradual mitigation of ozone layer challenges is also based on successfully reducing regional load-sharing conflicts. In the case of IPCC conclusions and the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, regional cost-benefit analyzes and load-sharing conflicts related to the distribution of emissions reductions remain an unsolved problem. In the UK, a report for the House of Lords committee was asked to urge the IPCC to include a better assessment of the costs and benefits of climate change but the Stern Review ordered by the British government made stronger arguments in favor to combat manmade climate change..

Reporting density

Because the IPCC does not carry out its own research, it operates based on scientific papers and results documented independently from other scientific bodies, and the schedule for generating reports requires a deadline for submission before the final release of the report. In principle, this means that any significant new evidence or events that change our understanding of climate science between this deadline and the publication of the IPCC report can not be included. In the field of science where our scientific understanding is changing rapidly, it has been raised as a serious flaw in the body that is widely regarded as the ultimate authority in science. However, there is generally a steady development of key findings and levels of scientific belief from one assessment report to the next.

The submission deadline for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) differs for reports from each Working Group. Deadlines for Working Groups that I have reported have been adjusted during the drafting and review process to ensure that reviewers have access to unpublished material cited by the author. The final deadline for the publication cited is July 24, 2006. The last WG I report was released on April 30, 2007 and the final AR4 Synthesis Report was released on November 17, 2007.

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, acknowledged at the launch of this report that since the IPCC began working on it, scientists have noted "a much stronger trend in climate change," such as the unexpected polar ice melt in the summer of 2007, and added, "it means You better start with early intervention ".

Load at participating scientist

Scientists participating in the IPCC assessment process do so without any compensation other than the normal salary they receive from their home institutions. The process is labor-intensive, diverting the time and resources of research programs of participating scientists. Concern has been raised that large uncompensated time commitments and disruptions to their own research may hinder qualified scientists from participating.

Lack of error correction after publication

In May 2010, Pachauri noted that the IPCC does not currently have a process to respond to errors or omissions after issuing the report. The problem, according to Pachauri, was that once a report was issued a panel of scientists who produced the report was dissolved.

Proposed organizational improvement

In February 2010, in response to a claim-related controversy in the Fourth Assessment Report, five climate scientists - all contributing to or leading the report's authors of the IPCC - wrote in the journal Nature that calls for change to the IPCC. They suggest new organizational choices, ranging from tightening the selection of lead authors and contributors, to disposing of it to support a small permanent body, or even to change the entire climate science review process into a "living" Wikipedia-IPCC. Other recommendations include that the panel employs full-time staff and removes government oversight of the process to avoid political interference.

src: landscapeiskingston.files.wordpress.com

InterAcademy Council

In March 2010, at the invitation of the UN Secretary General and the chairman of the IPCC, the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was asked to review the IPCC process to develop its report. The IAC panel, chaired by Harold Tafler Shapiro, was held on May 14, 2010 and released its report on September 1, 2010.

IAC found that, "The IPCC assessment process has been successful overall". The Panel, however, made seven official recommendations to improve the IPCC assessment process, including:

1. form an executive committee;
2. elect an executive director whose term of office shall only apply to one judgment;
3. encourages review editors to ensure that all reviewer comments are adequately considered and that the original controversy is adequately reflected in the assessment report;
4. adopt a better process to respond to reviewer comments;
5. the working group should use a qualitative-level understanding scale in the Summary for Policy Makers and a Technical Summary;
6. "Quantitative probabilities (such as on a probability scale) should be used to describe the possibility of well-defined outcomes only if there is sufficient evidence"; and
7. implement a communication plan that emphasizes transparency and sets guidelines for who can speak on behalf of the organization.

The Panel also recommends that IPCC avoid appearing to advocate certain policies in response to its scientific conclusions. Commenting on the IAC report, Nature News notes that "The proposal was greeted with an excellent response from climate researchers eager to continue after the media scandal and the credibility challenges that have rocked the UN body over the past nine months".

src: landscapeiskingston.files.wordpress.com

Archiving

Papers and electronic files of certain working groups from the IPCC, including reviews and comments on the draft of their Assessment Report, are filed in the Archives of Environmental Science and Public Policy at Harvard Library.

src: enb.iisd.org

Support from IPCC

Source of the article : Wikipedia