IPCC

Sea-level rise could be double IPCC projections

Last year, Nature Geoscience and Science (PDF) published major articles suggesting that the consensus projection for sea-level rise this century was far too low -- and could be as high as five feet. Now the Journal of Glaciology joins in with a remarkable analysis, "Intermittent thinning of Jakobshavn Isbræ, West Greenland, since the Little Ice Age" (PDF).

The lead author, Beata Csatho from the University of Buffalo, explains implications of this work for the traditionally very simplified ice sheet models, such as those used by United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to make projections of sea-level rise:

It is doubtful that future IPCC reports will make a difference in climate policy

I have a long column at Salon.com, "Desperate times, desperate scientists," which discusses how dire the climate situation is and how desperate climate scientists have become in the face of global inaction.

In general, I am a fan of what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has done -- and they certainly deserve the Nobel Prize they shared with Al Gore. That said, at the end of the Salon piece I argue for disbanding it:

In fact, I think that with the release of the recent synthesis report, the IPCC has reached the end of its usefulness. Anyone who isn't persuaded by that document and the general desperation of international climate scientists is unlikely to be moved by yet another such assessment and more begging. In particular, skeptical Americans are unlikely to be convinced by another international report that focuses on international climate impacts.

We could use a new definitive analysis by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences on climate science, U.S. impacts, and solutions. That analysis should also do something the IPCC doesn't -- namely, look at plausible worst-case scenarios, given that such scenarios typically form the basis for most of our security and health policies.

It would be harder for Americans to ignore an Academy study than the IPCC reports. An Academy study would also be more likely to get thorough attention from the U.S. media and possibly even from conservatives ...

I just don't think that continuing the IPCC process will have any meaningful impact on American climate policy. And much of the rest of the industrialized world is ready to make the necessary commitments now.

WSJ launches Luddite attack on climate scientists and Al Gore

The bar for Wall Street Journal editorials, in the journalistic equivalent of limbo dancing, keeps dropping. In a piece titled "The Science of Gore's Nobel" (subs. req'd), Holman W. Jenkins Jr. of the WSJ editorial board manages to slander the media, Al Gore, the Nobel Committee, and all climate scientists -- without offering any facts to back up the attacks:

The media will be tempted to blur the fact that his medal, which Mr. Gore will collect on Monday in Oslo, isn't for "science" ... Yet now one has been awarded for promoting belief in manmade global warming as a crisis.

Why would the media blur the Nobel Peace Prize with a science prize when Gore isn't a scientist? They wouldn't, of course, but this imagined media blunder allows Jenkins -- a journalist -- to make climate change the subject of his piece.

What folks are saying about the upcoming Bali talks

Representatives from nearly 200 nations will gather in Bali, Indonesia, next week to discuss what’s to be done about this whole climate-change thing once the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. So what’s the word on the street? United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has been clear about his expectations: “The world’s scientists have spoken, clearly […]

Contents of the IPCC Sythesis Report Summary for Policymakers

For those not familiar with it, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up in 1988 to write periodic assessments of the state of climate science. Its goal is to produce policy-neutral reports that inform policymakers about the best thinking of the scientific community. These reports have tremendous impact on the debate, owing to the credibility of the IPCC process.

The IPCC is actually split into three working groups. Working group 1 focuses on basic climate science, working group 2 focuses on the impacts of climate change and human adaptation to it, and working group 3 focuses on mitigation efforts (efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions). In 2007, as part of the IPCC's fourth assessment report, each of the three working groups issued a report (e.g., see here for a discussion of the working group 1 report).

Now comes the final part of the fourth assessment report: the synthesis report. This report ties together the three working group reports in an effort to create a single unified picture of what we know about climate change.

IPCC says debate over, further delay fatal, action not costly

In its definitive scientific synthesis report (PDF), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today issued its strongest call for immediate action to save humanity from the deadly consequences of unrestrained greenhouse gas emissions.

This report -- signed off by 130 nations including the U.S. and China -- slams the door on any argument for delay and makes clear we must under no circumstances listen to those who urge that we wait (who knows how long) to develop as yet non-existent technology [this means you President Bush, Newt Gingrich, Bjorn Lomborg]. As The New York Times put it:

Members of the panel said their review of the data led them to conclude as a group and individually that reductions in greenhouse gasses had to start immediately to avert a global climate disaster that could leave island states submerged and abandoned, African crop yields decreased by 50 percent, and cause over a 5 percent decrease in global gross domestic product.

... this summary was the first to acknowledge that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet from rising temperature [which would raise the oceans 23 feet] could result in sea-level rise over centuries rather than millennia.

Readers of this blog know the IPCC almost certainly underestimates the timing and severity of likely impacts because it ignores or downplays key amplifying feedbacks in the carbon cycle (see "Are scientists overestimating or underestimating climate change," especially Part II and Part III). Indeed, IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri -- a scientist and economist -- admitted as much:

He said that since the panel began its work five years ago, scientists have recorded "much stronger trends in climate change," like a recent melting of polar ice that had not been predicted. "That means you better start with intervention much earlier."

How much earlier? The normally understated Pachauri warns:

"If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."

In short: time's up! America, we better pick the right President in 2008.

To balance the bad news, the IPCC and its member governments agree on the good news -- action is affordable:

Earth still round; sky, blue

IPCC: climate change will hit poor hardest.

My Nobel Peace Prize prediction

This year’s Nobel Peace Prize will be jointly won by Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC. You heard it here first!

Articles about climate skeptics

Even while rejecting the authority of the most comprehensive and reviewed scientific document on any subject, namely the IPCC report, one of the most common climate delusionist tactics is the argument from authority. Whether it is Alexander Cockburn responding to George Monbiot or some anonymous person on some blog, everyone has some personal "scientist" friend who assures them the rest of the world has gone mad.

When an argument from authority is invoked it is perfectly legitimate to then examine said authority's, um ... authority, to see if there is really a good reason we should take their word over the word of ... well, just about everybody who would know.