Jump to content

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 131.111.85.79 (talk) at 19:50, 12 January 2022 (→‎Conservative nature of IPCC reports). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"IPCC" redirects here. For other uses, see IPCC (disambiguation).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
AbbreviationIPCC
Formation1988; 36 years ago (1988)
TypePanel
HeadquartersGeneva, Switzerland
Chair
Hoesung Lee
Parent organization
World Meteorological Organization
United Nations Environment Program
Websitewww.ipcc.ch Edit this at Wikidata

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations responsible for advancing knowledge on human-induced climate change.[1][2][3][4] It was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and later endorsed by United Nations General Assembly.[5] Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, it is comprised of 195 member states.[6][7]

The IPCC provides objective and comprehensive scientific information on anthropogenic climate change, including the natural, political, and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options. It does not conduct original research nor monitor climate change, but rather undertakes a periodic, systematic review of all relevant published literature.[8][9] Thousands of scientists and other experts volunteer to review the data and compile key findings into "Assessment Reports" for policymakers and the general public;[10] this has been described as the biggest peer review process in the scientific community.[11]

The IPCC is an internationally accepted authority on climate change, and its work is widely agreed upon by leading climate scientists as well as governments.[12][11] Its reports play a key role in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[13][8] with the Fifth Assessment Report heavily informing the landmark Paris Agreement in 2015.[14] The IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore for contributions to the human understanding of climate change.[15]

The IPCC is governed by its member states, which elect a bureau of scientists to serve for the duration of an assessment cycle (usually six to seven years); the bureau selects experts nominated by governments and observer organisations to prepare IPCC reports.[16] The IPCC is supported by a secretariat and various "Technical Support Units" from specialised working groups and task forces.[16]

Following the election of its new bureau in 2015, the IPCC began its sixth assessment cycle, to be completed in 2022. In August 2021, the Physical Science working group of the IPCC published its contribution the Sixth Assessment Report,[17] which The Guardian described as the "starkest warning yet" of "major inevitable and irreversible climate changes",[18] a theme echoed by many newspapers around the world.[19] During this period, the IPCC has released several special reports, including the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C, the Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL), and the Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC). Consequently, the sixth assessment cycle has been described as the most ambitious in the IPCC's history.[20]

Origins and aims

The IPCC developed from an international scientific body, the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases set up in 1985 by the International Council of Scientific Unions, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide recommendations based on current research. This small group of scientists lacked the resources to cover the increasingly complex interdisciplinary nature of climate science. The United States government sought an international convention for restrictions on greenhouse gases, and under the conservative Reagan Administration expressed concern about unrestrained influence from independent scientists or from United Nations bodies such as the UNEP and WMO. The U.S. government was the main force in shaping the IPCC as an autonomous intergovernmental body in which scientists took part both as experts and as official representatives of their governments, which would produce reports backed by all leading relevant scientists, and which then had to gain consensus agreement from every participating government. In this way, the IPCC was formed as a hybrid between a scientific body and an intergovernmental political organisation.[2]

The United Nations formally endorsed the creation of the IPCC in 1988, citing the fact that "[c]ertain human activities could change global climate patterns, threatening present and future generations with potentially severe economic and social consequences", and that "[c]ontinued growth in atmospheric concentrations of 'greenhouse' gases could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels".[21] To that end, the IPCC was tasked with reviewing peer-reviewed scientific literature and other relevant publications to provide information on the state of knowledge about climate change and its consequences and impacts.

Organization

The IPCC does not conduct original research, but produces comprehensive assessments, reports on special topics, and methodologies based on. Its assessments build on previous reports, highlighting the trajectory towards the latest knowledge; for example, the wording of the reports from the first to the fifth assessment reflects the growing evidence for a changing climate caused by human activity.

The IPCC has adopted and published "Principles Governing IPCC Work", which states that the IPCC will assess:[8]

Pursuant to its governing principles, the IPCC conducts its assessments on a "comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis" that encompasses all "scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis" of climate change. IPCC reports must be neutral with respect to policy recommendations, but may address the objective scientific, technical and socioeconomic factors relevant to enacting certain policies.[8]

The IPCC is currently chaired by Korean economist Hoesung Lee, who has served since 8 October 2015 with the election of the new IPCC Bureau,[22] along with three vice-chairs, Youba Sokona (Mali), Ko Barrett (USA) and Thelma Krug (Brazil).[23] Before this election, the IPCC was led by Vice-Chair Ismail El Gizouli, who was designated acting Chair after the resignation of Rajendra K. Pachauri in February 2015.[24] The previous chairs were Rajendra K. Pachauri, elected in May 2002; Robert Watson in 1997; and Bert Bolin in 1988.[25] The chair is assisted by an elected bureau including vice-chairs and working group co-chairs, and by a secretariat.

The Panel itself is composed of representatives appointed by governments. 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 Organizations admitted as observer organizations may also attend.[26] Sessions of the Panel, IPCC Bureau, workshops, expert and lead authors meetings are by invitation only.[8] About 500 people from 130 countries attended the 48th Session of the Panel in Incheon, Republic of Korea, in October 2018, including 290 government officials and 60 representatives of observer organizations. The opening ceremonies of sessions of the Panel and of Lead Author Meetings are open to media, but otherwise IPCC meetings are closed.

The IPCC is structured as follows:

  • IPCC Panel: Meets in plenary session about once a year.[16] It controls the organization's structure, procedures, and work programme, and accepts and approves IPCC reports. The Panel is the IPCC corporate entity.[10]
  • Chair: Elected by the Panel.
  • Secretariat: Oversees and manages all activities. Supported by UNEP and WMO.
  • Bureau: Elected by the Panel. Chaired by the Chair. Its 34 members include IPCC Vice-Chairs, Co-Chairs of Working Groups and the Task Force, and Vice-Chairs of the Working Groups.[27] It provides guidance to the Panel on the scientific and technical aspects of its work.[28]
  • Working Groups: Each has two Co-Chairs, one from the developed and one from developing world, and a technical support unit. Sessions of the Working Group approve the Summary for Policymakers of special reports and working group contributions to an assessment report. Each Working Group has a Bureau comprising its Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs, who are also members of the IPCC Bureau.
    • Working Group I: Assesses scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change. Co-Chairs: Valérie Masson-Delmotte and Panmao Zhai[27]
    • Working Group II: Assesses vulnerability of socioeconomic and natural systems to climate change, consequences, and adaptation options. Co-Chairs: Hans-Otto Pörtner and Debra Roberts[27]
    • Working Group III: Assesses options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise mitigating climate change. Co-Chairs: Priyadarshi R. Shukla and Jim Skea[27]
  • Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.[29] Co-Chairs: Kiyoto Tanabe and Eduardo Calvo Buendía
    • Task Force Bureau: Comprises the two Co-Chairs, who are also members of the IPCC Bureau, and 12 members.
  • Executive Committee: Comprises the Chair, IPCC Vice-Chairs and the Co-Chairs of the Working Groups and Task Force. Its role includes addressing urgent issues that arise between sessions of the Panel.[30]

Funding

The IPCC receives funding through a dedicated trust fund, established in 1989 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The trust fund receives annual cash contributions by the WMO, UNEP, and IPCC member governments; payments are voluntary and there is no set amount required. Administrative and operational costs, such as for the secretariat and headquarters, are provided by the WMO, which also sets the IPCC's financial regulations and rules.[31] The Panel is responsible for considering and adopting by consensus the annual budget.

Assessment reports

Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change
IPCC Assessment Reports
IPCC Special Reports

The IPCC has published five comprehensive assessment reports reviewing the latest climate science, as well as a number of special reports on particular topics.[32] These reports are prepared by teams of relevant researchers selected by the Bureau from government nominations. Expert reviewers from a wide range of governments, IPCC observer organizations and other organizations are invited at different stages to comment on various aspects of the drafts.[33]

The IPCC published its First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990, a supplementary report in 1992, a Second Assessment Report (SAR) in 1995, a Third Assessment Report (TAR) in 2001, a Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in 2007[34] and a Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in 2014. The IPCC is currently preparing its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), which is being released in stages and will be completed in 2022.

Each assessment report is in three volumes, corresponding to Working Groups I, II, and III. It is completed by a synthesis report that integrates the working group contributions and any special reports produced in that assessment cycle.

Scope and preparation of the reports

The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data. Lead authors of IPCC reports assess the available information about climate change based on published sources.[35][36] According to IPCC guidelines, authors should give priority to peer-reviewed sources.[35] Authors may refer to non-peer-reviewed sources (the "grey literature"), provided that they are of sufficient quality.[35] Examples of non-peer-reviewed sources include model results, reports from government agencies and non-governmental organizations, and industry journals.[35] Each subsequent IPCC report notes areas where the science has improved since the previous report and also notes areas where further research is required.

There are generally three stages in the review process:[35]

  • Expert review (6–8 weeks)
  • Government/expert review
  • Government review of:
    • Summaries for Policymakers
    • Overview Chapters
    • Synthesis Report

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

There are several types of endorsement which documents receive:

  • Approval. Material has been subjected to detailed, line by line discussion and agreement.
    • Working Group Summaries for Policymakers are approved by their Working Groups.
    • Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers is approved by Panel.
  • Adoption. Endorsed section by section (and not line by line).
    • Panel adopts Overview Chapters of Methodology Reports.
    • Panel adopts IPCC Synthesis Report.
  • Acceptance. Not been subject to line by line discussion and agreement, but presents a comprehensive, objective, and balanced view of the subject matter.
    • Working Groups accept their reports.
    • Task Force Reports are accepted by the Panel.
    • Working Group Summaries for Policymakers are accepted by the Panel after group approval.

The Panel is responsible for the IPCC and its endorsement of Reports allows it to ensure they meet IPCC standards.

There have been a range of commentaries on the IPCC's procedures, examples of which are discussed later in the article (see also IPCC Summary for Policymakers). Some of these comments have been supportive,[37] while others have been critical.[38] Some commentators have suggested changes to the IPCC's procedures.[39]

Authors

Each chapter has a number of authors who are responsible for writing and editing the material. A chapter typically has two "coordinating lead authors", ten to fifteen "lead authors", and a somewhat larger number of "contributing authors". The coordinating lead authors are responsible for assembling the contributions of the other authors, ensuring that they meet stylistic and formatting requirements, and reporting to the Working Group chairs. Lead authors are responsible for writing sections of chapters. Contributing authors prepare text, graphs or data for inclusion by the lead authors.[40]

Authors for the IPCC reports are chosen from a list of researchers prepared by governments and participating organisations, and by the Working Group/Task Force Bureaux, as well as other experts known through their published work. The choice of authors aims for a range of views, expertise and geographical representation, ensuring representation of experts from developing and developed countries and countries with economies in transition.

First assessment report (1990)

This section is an excerpt from IPCC First Assessment Report.[edit]
Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change
IPCC Assessment Reports
IPCC Special Reports
The First Assessment Report (FAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was completed in 1990. It served as the basis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This report had effects not only on the establishment of the UNFCCC, but also on the first session of the Conference of the Parties (COP), held in Berlin in 1995.[41] The executive summary of the WG I Summary for Policymakers report that said they were certain that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface. They calculated with confidence that CO2 had been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Second assessment report (1995)

This section is an excerpt from IPCC Second Assessment Report.[edit]

The Second Assessment Report (SAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 1995, is an assessment of the then available scientific and socio-economic information on climate change. The report was split into four parts: a synthesis to help interpret UNFCCC article 2, The Science of Climate Change (Working Group I), Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change (WG II), Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change (WG III). Each of the last three parts was completed by a separate Working Group (WG), and each has a Summary for Policymakers (SPM) that represents a consensus of national representatives.

The SPM of the WG I report contains the following statements: Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase; anthropogenic aerosols tend to produce negative radiative forcings; climate has changed over the past century (air temperature has increased by between 0.3 and 0.6 °C since the late 19th century; this estimate has not significantly changed since the 1990 report); The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate (considerable progress since the 1990 report in distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic influences on climate, because of: including aerosols; coupled models; pattern-based studies). Climate is expected to continue to change in the future (increasing realism of simulations increases confidence; important uncertainties remain but are taken into account in the range of model projections). Finally, the report stated that there were still many uncertainties (estimates of future emissions and biogeochemical cycling; models; instrument data for model testing, assessment of variability, and detection studies).

Third assessment report (2001)

This section is an excerpt from IPCC Third Assessment Report.[edit]
IPCC WG1 co-chair Sir John T. Houghton showing the IPCC fig. 2.20 hockey stick graph at a climate conference in 2005
The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), Climate Change 2001, is an assessment of available scientific and socio-economic information on climate change by the IPCC. Statements of the IPCC or information from the TAR were often used as a reference showing a scientific consensus on the subject of global warming. The Third Assessment Report (TAR) was completed in 2001 and consists of four reports, three of them from its Working Groups: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis;[42] Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability;[43] Working Group III: Mitigation;[44] Synthesis Report.[45] A number of the TAR's conclusions are given quantitative estimates of how probable it is that they are correct, e.g., greater than 66% probability of being correct.[46] These are "Bayesian" probabilities, which are based on an expert assessment of all the available evidence.[47][48]

Fourth assessment report (2007)

This section is an excerpt from IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.[edit]
Climate Change 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was published in 2007 and is the fourth in a series of reports intended to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information concerning climate change, its potential effects, and options for adaptation and mitigation.[49] The report is the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, produced by thousands of authors, editors, and reviewers from dozens of countries, citing over 6,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies. People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which took six years to produce.[49] Contributors to AR4 included more than 2,500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors.[49]

Fifth assessment report (2014)

This section is an excerpt from IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.[edit]
Average IPCC AR5 climate model projections for 2081–2100 relative to 1986–2005, under low and high emission scenarios

The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the fifth in a series of such reports and was completed in 2014.[50] As had been the case in the past, the outline of the AR5 was developed through a scoping process which involved climate change experts from all relevant disciplines and users of IPCC reports, in particular representatives from governments. Governments and organizations involved in the Fourth Report were asked to submit comments and observations in writing with the submissions analysed by the panel.[51][52] Projections in AR5 are based on "Representative Concentration Pathways" (RCPs).[53] The RCPs are consistent with a wide range of possible changes in future anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Projected changes in global mean surface temperature and sea level are given in the main RCP article.

The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report followed the same general format as the Fourth Assessment Report, with three Working Group reports and a Synthesis report.[54][50] The report was delivered in stages, starting with the report from Working Group I in September 2013.[54] It reported on the physical science basis, based on 9,200 peer-reviewed studies.[55][56] The Synthesis Report was released on 2 November 2014,[57] in time to pave the way for negotiations on reducing carbon emissions at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris during late 2015.

The report's Summary for Policymakers stated that warming of the climate system is 'unequivocal' with changes unprecedented over decades to millennia, including warming of the atmosphere and oceans, loss of snow and ice, and sea level rise. Greenhouse gas emissions, driven largely by economic and population growth, have led to greenhouse gas concentrations that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. These, together with other anthropogenic drivers, are "extremely likely" (where that means more than 95% probability) to have been the dominant cause of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century.[58]

Sixth assessment report (2021/2022)

This section is an excerpt from IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.[edit]

The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the sixth in a series of reports which assess the available scientific information on climate change. Three Working Groups (WGI, II, and III) covered the following topics: The Physical Science Basis (WGI); Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (WGII); Mitigation of Climate Change (WGIII). Of these, the first study was published in 2021, the second report February 2022, and the third in April 2022. The final synthesis report was finished in March 2023.

The first of the three working groups published its report on 9 August 2021, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.[59][60] A total of 234 scientists from 66 countries contributed to this first working group (WGI) report.[61][62] The authors[63] built on more than 14,000 scientific papers to produce a 3,949-page report, which was then approved by 195 governments.[64] The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) document was drafted by scientists and agreed to line-by-line by the 195 governments in the IPCC during the five days leading up to 6 August 2021.[63]

According to the WGI report, it is only possible to avoid warming of 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) or 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) if massive and immediate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are made.[59] In a front-page story, The Guardian described the report as "its starkest warning yet" of "major inevitable and irreversible climate changes",[65] a theme echoed by many newspapers[66] as well as political leaders and activists around the world.

Archiving

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

Other reports

Special reports

In addition to climate assessment reports, the IPCC publishes Special Reports on specific topics. The preparation and approval process for all IPCC Special Reports follows the same procedures as for IPCC Assessment Reports. In the year 2011 two IPCC Special Report were finalized, the Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN) and the Special Report on Managing Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). Both Special Reports were requested by governments.[67]

Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES)

The Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) is a report by the IPCC which was published in 2000.[68] The SRES contains "scenarios" of future changes in emissions of greenhouse gases and sulfur dioxide.[69] One of the uses of the SRES scenarios is to project future changes in climate, e.g., changes in global mean temperature. The SRES scenarios were used in the IPCC's Third[70] and Fourth Assessment Reports.[71]

The SRES scenarios are "baseline" (or "reference") scenarios, which means that they do not take into account any current or future measures to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (e.g., the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).[72] SRES emissions projections are broadly comparable in range to the baseline projections that have been developed by the scientific community.[73]

Comments on the SRES

There have been a number of comments on the SRES. Parson et al. (2007)[74] stated that the SRES represented "a substantial advance from prior scenarios". At the same time, there have been criticisms of the SRES.[75]

The most prominently publicized criticism of SRES focused on the fact that all but one of the participating models compared gross domestic product (GDP) across regions using market exchange rates (MER), instead of the more correct purchasing-power parity (PPP) approach.[76] This criticism is discussed in the main SRES article.

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

This report assesses existing literature on renewable energy commercialisation for the mitigation of climate change.[77] It was published in 2012 and covers the six most important renewable energy technologies in a transition, as well as their integration into present and future energy systems. It also takes into consideration the environmental and social consequences associated with these technologies, the cost and strategies to overcome technical as well as non-technical obstacles to their application and diffusion.

More than 130 authors from all over the world contributed to the preparation of IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN) on a voluntary basis – not to mention more than 100 scientists, who served as contributing authors.[67][77]

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

The report was published in 2012. It assesses the effect that climate change has on the threat of natural disasters and how nations can better manage an expected change in the frequency of occurrence and intensity of severe weather patterns. It aims to become a resource for decision-makers to prepare more effectively for managing the risks of these events. A potentially important area for consideration is also the detection of trends in extreme events and the attribution of these trends to human influence. The full report, 594 pages in length, may be found here in PDF form.

More than 80 authors, 19 review editors, and more than 100 contributing authors from all over the world contributed to the preparation of SREX.[67][78]

Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR15)

Main article: Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C

When the Paris Agreement was adopted, the UNFCCC invited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to write a special report on "How can humanity prevent the global temperature rise more than 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial level".[79] The completed report, Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR15), was released on 8 October 2018. Its full title is "Global Warming of 1.5 °C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty".[79]

The finished report summarizes the findings of scientists, showing that maintaining a temperature rise to below 1.5 °C remains possible, but only through "rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure..., and industrial systems".[79][80] Meeting the Paris target of 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) is possible but would require "deep emissions reductions", "rapid",[80] "far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".[81] In order to achieve the 1.5 °C target, CO2 emissions must decline by 45% (relative to 2010 levels) by 2030, reaching net zero by around 2050. Deep reductions in non-CO2 emissions (such as nitrous oxide and methane) will also be required to limit warming to 1.5 °C. Under the pledges of the countries entering the Paris Accord, a sharp rise of 3.1 to 3.7 °C is still expected to occur by 2100. Holding this rise to 1.5 °C avoids the worst effects of a rise by even 2 °C. However, a warming of even 1.5 degrees will still result in large-scale drought, famine, heat stress, species die-off, loss of entire ecosystems, and loss of habitable land, throwing more than 100 million into poverty. Effects will be most drastic in arid regions including the Middle East and the Sahel in Africa, where fresh water will remain in some areas following a 1.5 °C rise in temperatures but are expected to dry up completely if the rise reaches 2 °C.[82][83][84]

Special Report on climate change and land (SRCCL)

Main article: Special Report on Climate Change and Land

The final draft of the "Special Report on climate change and land" (SRCCL)—with the full title, "Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems" was published online on 7 August 2019.[85][86]

Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC)

Main article: Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate

The "Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate" (SROCC) was approved on 25 September 2019 in Monaco.[87] Among other findings, the report concluded that sea level rises could be up to two feet higher by the year 2100, even if efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to limit global warming are successful; coastal cities across the world could see so-called "storm[s] of the century" at least once a year.[88]

Methodology reports

Within IPCC the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program develops methodologies to estimate emissions of greenhouse gases.[89] This has been undertaken since 1991 by the IPCC WGI in close collaboration with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Energy Agency. The objectives of the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program are:

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

Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

The 1996 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories provide the methodological basis for the estimation of national greenhouse gas emissions inventories.[90] Over time these guidelines have been completed with good practice reports: Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories and Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry.

The 1996 guidelines and the two good practice reports are to be used by parties to the UNFCCC and to the Kyoto Protocol in their annual submissions of national greenhouse gas inventories.

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories is the latest version of these emission estimation methodologies, including a large number of default emission factors.[clarification needed][91] Although the IPCC prepared this new version of the guidelines on request of the parties to the UNFCCC, the methods have not yet been officially accepted for use in national greenhouse gas emissions reporting under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.[92]

Other 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 UNFCCC process.[8] While the preparation of the assessment reports is a major IPCC function, it also supports other activities, such as the Data Distribution Centre[93] and the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme,[94] 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).

Awards

Nobel Peace Prize in 2007

Main article: 2007 Nobel Peace Prize
Wikisource has original text related to this article:

In December 2007, the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change". The award is shared with former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore for his work on climate change and the documentary An Inconvenient Truth.[95]

Criticism

See also: Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

There is widespread support for the IPCC in the scientific community, which is reflected in publications by other scientific bodies [96][97] 2008[98] and 2009[99][100] and experts;[101] however, critiques of the IPCC have been made.[102]

Since 2010, the IPCC has come under yet unparalleled public and political scrutiny.[103] The global IPCC consensus approach has been challenged internally[104][105] and externally, for example, during the 2009 Climatic Research Unit email controversy ("Climategate").[106] It is contested by some as an information monopoly with results for both the quality and the impact of the IPCC work as such.[104][107]

Conservative nature of IPCC reports

Some critics have contended that the IPCC reports tend to be conservative by consistently underestimating the pace and impacts of global warming,[108] and report only the "lowest common denominator" findings.[109]

On the eve of the publication of IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 another study was published suggesting that temperatures and sea levels have been rising at or above the maximum rates proposed during IPCC's 2001 Third Assessment Report. The study compared IPCC 2001 projections on temperature and sea level change with observations. Over the six years studied, the actual temperature rise was near the top end of the range given by IPCC's 2001 projection, and the actual sea level rise was above the top of the range of the IPCC projection.[110][111]

Another example of scientific research which suggests that previous estimates by the IPCC, far from overstating dangers and risks, have actually understated them is a study on projected rises in sea levels. When the researchers' analysis was "applied to the possible scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the researchers found that in 2100 sea levels would be 0.5–1.4 m [50–140 cm] above 1990 levels. These values are much greater than the 9–88 cm as projected by the IPCC itself in its Third Assessment Report, published in 2001". This may have been due, in part, to the expanding human understanding of climate.[112][113]

Greg Holland from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who reviewed a multi-meter sea level rise study by Jim Hansen, noted "There is no doubt that the sea level rise, within the IPCC, is a very conservative number, so the truth lies somewhere between IPCC and Jim."[114]

In reporting criticism by some scientists that IPCC's then-impending January 2007 report understates certain risks, particularly sea level rises, an AP story quoted Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of physics and oceanography at Potsdam University as saying "In a way, it is one of the strengths of the IPCC to be very conservative and cautious and not overstate any climate change risk".[115]

In his December 2006 book, Hell and High Water: Global Warming, and in an interview on Fox News on 31 January 2007, energy expert Joseph Romm noted that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is already out of date and omits recent observations and factors contributing to global warming, such as the release of greenhouse gases from thawing tundra.[116][unreliable source?]

Political influence on the IPCC has been documented by the release of a memo by ExxonMobil to the Bush administration, and its effects on the IPCC's leadership. The memo led to strong Bush administration lobbying, evidently at the behest of ExxonMobil, to oust Robert Watson, a climate scientist, from the IPCC chairmanship, and to have him replaced by Rajendra Pachauri, who was seen at the time as more mild-mannered and industry-friendly.[117][118]

Procedures

Michael Oppenheimer, a long-time participant in the IPCC and coordinating lead author of the Fifth Assessment Report conceded in Science Magazine's State of the Planet 2008–2009 some limitations of the IPCC consensus approach and asks for concurring, smaller assessments of special problems instead of the large scale approach as in the previous IPCC assessment reports.[105] It has become more important to provide a broader exploration of uncertainties.[105] Others see as well mixed blessings of the drive for consensus within the IPCC process and ask to include dissenting or minority positions[119] or to improve statements about uncertainties.[120][121]

The IPCC process on climate change and its efficiency and success has been compared with dealings with other environmental challenges (compare Ozone depletion and global warming). In case of the Ozone depletion, global regulation based on the Montreal Protocol has been successful. In case of Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol failed.[122] The Ozone case was used to assess the efficiency of the IPCC process.[123] The lockstep situation of the IPCC is having built a broad science consensus while states and governments still follow different, if not opposing goals.[124] The underlying linear model of policy-making of the more knowledge we have, the better the political response will be is being doubted.[124][125]

According to Sheldon Ungar's comparison with global warming, the actors in the ozone depletion case had a better understanding of scientific ignorance and uncertainties.[126] The ozone case communicated to lay persons "with easy-to-understand bridging metaphors derived from the popular culture" and related to "immediate risks with everyday relevance", while the public opinion on climate change sees no imminent danger.[126] The stepwise mitigation of the ozone layer challenge was based as well on successfully reducing regional burden sharing conflicts.[123] In case of the IPCC conclusions and the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, varying regional cost-benefit analysis and burden-sharing conflicts with regard to the distribution of emission reductions remain an unsolved problem.[122] In the UK, a report for a House of Lords committee asked to urge the IPCC to involve better assessments of costs and benefits of climate change,[127] but the Stern Review, ordered by the UK government, made a stronger argument in favor to combat human-made climate change.[128][unreliable source?]

Outdatedness of reports

Since the IPCC does not carry out its own research, it operates on the basis of scientific papers and independently documented results from other scientific bodies, and its schedule for producing reports requires a deadline for submissions prior to the report's final release. In principle, this means that any significant new evidence or events that change our understanding of climate science between this deadline and publication of an IPCC report cannot be included. In an area of science where our scientific understanding is rapidly changing, this has been raised as a serious shortcoming in a body which is widely regarded as the ultimate authority on the science.[129] However, there has generally been a steady evolution of key findings and levels of scientific confidence from one assessment report to the next.[130]

The submission deadlines for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) differed for the reports of each Working Group. Deadlines for the Working Group I report were adjusted during the drafting and review process in order to ensure that reviewers had access to unpublished material being cited by the authors. The final deadline for cited publications was 24 July 2006.[131] The final WG I report was released on 30 April 2007 and the final AR4 Synthesis Report was released on 17 November 2007.Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chair, admitted at the launch of this report that since the IPCC began work on it, scientists have recorded "much stronger trends in climate change", like the unforeseen dramatic melting of polar ice in the summer of 2007,[132] and added, "that means you better start with intervention much earlier".[133]

Burden on participating scientists

Scientists who participate in the IPCC assessment process do so without any compensation other than the normal salaries they receive from their home institutions. The process is labor-intensive, diverting time and resources from participating scientists' research programs.[134] Concerns have been raised that the large uncompensated time commitment and disruption to their own research may discourage qualified scientists from participating.[135]

Lack of error correction after publication

In May 2010, Pachauri noted that the IPCC currently had no process for responding to errors or flaws once it issued a report. The problem, according to Pachauri, was that once a report was issued the panels of scientists producing the reports were disbanded.[136]

Proposed organizational overhaul

In February 2010, in response to controversies regarding claims in the Fourth Assessment Report,[137][138] five climate scientists – all contributing or lead IPCC report authors – wrote in the journal Nature calling for changes to the IPCC. They suggested a range of new organizational options, from tightening the selection of lead authors and contributors, to dumping it in favor of a small permanent body, or even turning the whole climate science assessment process into a moderated "living" Wikipedia-IPCC.[139][140] Other recommendations included that the panel employ a full-time staff and remove government oversight from its processes to avoid political interference.[141]

Reframing of scientific research

The 2018 report What Lies Beneath by the Breakthrough – National Centre for Climate Restoration urges the IPCC, the wider UNFCCC negotiations, and national policy makers to change their approach. The authors note, "We urgently require a reframing of scientific research within an existential risk-management framework."[142]

Reviews

InterAcademy Council review

In March 2010, at the invitation of the United Nations secretary-general and the chair of the IPCC, the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was asked to review the IPCC's processes for developing its reports.[143][144] The IAC panel, chaired by Harold Tafler Shapiro, convened on 14 May 2010 and released its report on 1 September 2010.[136][145]

The IAC found that, "The IPCC assessment process has been successful overall". The panel, however, made seven formal recommendations for improving the IPCC's assessment process, including:

  1. establish an executive committee;
  2. elect an executive director whose term would only last for one assessment;
  3. encourage review editors to ensure that all reviewer comments are adequately considered and genuine controversies are adequately reflected in the assessment reports;
  4. adopt a better process for responding to reviewer comments;
  5. working groups should use a qualitative level-of-understanding scale in the Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary;
  6. "Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence"; and
  7. implement a communications plan that emphasizes transparency and establish guidelines for who can speak on behalf of the organization.[146]

The panel also advised that the IPCC avoid appearing to advocate specific policies in response to its scientific conclusions.[147] Commenting on the IAC report, Nature News noted that "The proposals were met with a largely favourable response from climate researchers who are eager to move on after the media scandals and credibility challenges that have rocked the United Nations body during the past nine months".[148]

Endorsements

Various scientific bodies have issued official statements endorsing and concurring with the findings of the IPCC.

  • Joint science academies' statement of 2001. "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus".[96]
  • Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. "We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment..."[149]
  • Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. "CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."[150][clarification needed]
  • European Geosciences Union. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ... is the main representative of the global scientific community ... . [The] IPCC third assessment report ... represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of scientific researchers and investigations as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature".[151]
  • International Council for Science (ICSU). "...the IPCC 4th Assessment Report represents the most comprehensive international scientific assessment ever conducted. This assessment reflects the current collective knowledge on the climate system, its evolution to date, and its anticipated future development".[152]
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US). "Internationally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)... is the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers".[153]
  • United States National Research Council. "The IPCC Third Assessment Report'] conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue".[154]
  • Network of African Science Academies. "The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability".[155]
  • Royal Meteorological Society, in response to the release of the Fourth Assessment Report, referred to the IPCC as "The world's best climate scientists".[156]
  • Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London. "The most authoritative assessment of climate change in the near future is provided by the Inter-Governmental Panel for Climate Change".[157]

See also

References

Citations

  1. ^ "About the IPCC". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 22 February 2019.
  2. ^ a b Weart 2011
  3. ^ "Principles Governing IPCC Work" (PDF).
  4. ^ "A guide to facts and fictions about climate change" (PDF). The Royal Society. March 2005. Retrieved 30 November 2009.
  5. ^ "History — IPCC". Retrieved 10 August 2021.
  6. ^ "A guide to facts and fiction about climate change". The Royal Society. March 2005. Retrieved 24 July 2007.
  7. ^ ANNEX III: List of IPCC Member Countries (ipcc.ch)
  8. ^ a b c d e f IPCC. "Principles Governing IPCC Work" (PDF).. Approved 1–3 October 1998, last amended 14–18 October 2013. Retrieved 22 February 2019.
  9. ^ [1] Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work
  10. ^ a b "Structure of the IPCC". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 22 February 2019.
  11. ^ a b "IPCC, the world's unrivalled authority on climate science". www.msn.com. Retrieved 11 August 2021.
  12. ^ Sample, Ian (2 February 2007). "Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study". Guardian. London. Retrieved 24 July 2007. Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change..."
  13. ^ Introduction to the Convention, UNFCCC, archived from the original on 8 January 2014, retrieved 27 January 2014{{citation}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link).
  14. ^ Schleussner, Carl-Friedrich; Rogelj, Joeri; Schaeffer, Michiel; Lissner, Tabea; Licker, Rachel; Fischer, Erich M.; Knutti, Reto; Levermann, Anders; Frieler, Katja; Hare, William (25 July 2016). "Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal" (PDF). Nature Climate Change. 6 (9): 827. Bibcode:2016NatCC...6..827S. doi:10.1038/nclimate3096.
  15. ^ "The Nobel Peace Prize for 2007". Nobelprize.org. 12 October 2007. Archived from the original on 9 January 2010. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
  16. ^ a b c "Structure — IPCC". Retrieved 10 August 2021.
  17. ^ IPCC Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis (9 August 2021). "Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis". United Nations.
  18. ^ Harvey, Fiona (9 August 2021). "Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible – IPCC's starkest warning yet". The Guardian.
  19. ^ Sullivan, Helen (10 August 2021). "'Code red for humanity': what the papers say about the IPCC report on the climate crisis". The Guardian.
  20. ^ "Decisions adopted by the 43rd Session of the Panel" (PDF). p. 11 decision 6.
  21. ^ General Assembly resolution 43/53, Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind A/RES/43/53 (6 December 1988)
  22. ^ "IPCC elects Hoesung Lee of Republic of Korea as Chair — IPCC". Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  23. ^ "Bureau Portal — IPCC". ippc. Retrieved 2 December 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  24. ^ "IPCC press release 24 February 2015: IPCC agrees on Acting Chair after R.K. Pachauri steps down" (PDF). IPCC. Retrieved 22 February 2019.
  25. ^ "16 Years of Scientific Assessment in Support of the Climate Convention" (PDF).
  26. ^ LIST OF IPCC OBSERVERS ORGANIZATIONS (152 as of 16 MARCH 2018)
  27. ^ a b c d "Bureau Portal — IPCC". Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  28. ^ "Terms of Reference of the Bureau" (PDF). Retrieved 25 February 2019.
  29. ^ "Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories". Retrieved 25 February 2019.
  30. ^ "IPCC Executive Committee" (PDF). Retrieved 25 February 2019.
  31. ^ "Financial Procedures for the IPCC" (PDF). Retrieved 25 February 2019.
  32. ^ "The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?". Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved 20 May 2016.
  33. ^ IPCC. "IPCC Factsheet: How does the IPCC review process work?" (PDF). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. Retrieved 18 January 2018.
  34. ^ "The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?". Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved 29 September 2017.
  35. ^ a b c d e "Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work" (PDF).
  36. ^ IPCC. About the IPCC
  37. ^ e.g., Barker, T. (28 February 2005). "House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs Minutes of Evidence. Memorandum by Dr Terry Baker, Cambridge University"., in Economic Affairs Committee 2005
  38. ^ e.g., Economic Affairs Committee. "Abstract"., in Economic Affairs Committee 2005
  39. ^ "InterAcademy Council Review of the IPCC".
  40. ^ "IPCC Factsheet: How does the IPCC select its authors?" (PDF). 30 August 2013. Retrieved 12 October 2018.
  41. ^ "The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?". Union of Concerned Scientists: Reports & Multimedia - Activist Resources: Explainers. Union of Concerned Scientists. 11 October 2018. Archived from the original on 30 December 2019. Retrieved 30 December 2019.
  42. ^ TAR Working Group 1 Archived 2021-12-28 at the Wayback Machine, IPCC.
  43. ^ TAR Working Group 2 Archived 2016-05-14 at the Wayback Machine, IPCC.
  44. ^ TAR Working Group 3 Archived 2017-02-27 at the Wayback Machine, IPCC.
  45. ^ TAR Synthesis Report Archived 2021-08-14 at the Wayback Machine, IPCC.
  46. ^ "Question 2" (PDF), Box 2-1: Confidence and likelihood statements, archived (PDF) from the original on 28 July 2021, retrieved 12 August 2021, in IPCC TAR SYR 2001 Q2 p 44
  47. ^ Ahmad, Q.K.; et al., "Ch 2: Methods and Tools" (PDF), Sec. 2.6.2. "Objective" and "Subjective" Probabilities are not Always Explicitly Distinguished, archived (PDF) from the original on 8 August 2021, retrieved 12 August 2021, in IPCC TAR WG2 2001 Ch 2 p 129
  48. ^ Granger Morgan, M.; et al. (2009), Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2: Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in decisionmaking. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (PDF), Washington D.C.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, archived from the original (PDF) on 16 June 2013, pp. 19–20, 27–28. Report website. Archived 11 December 2009 at the Wayback Machine
  49. ^ a b c Press flyer announcing 2007 report Archived 2021-06-25 at the Wayback Machine IPCC
  50. ^ a b IPCC (2014) The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) leaflet
  51. ^ "Report of the 31st Session of the IPCC" (PDF). IPCC. Agenda item 3; Annex III. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 December 2023.
  52. ^ "Scope, Content and Process for the Preparation of the Synthesis Report (SYR) of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)" (PDF). IPCC.
  53. ^ Collins, M.; et al. (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report). Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility (Section 12.3.1.3): Cambridge University Press. pp. 1045–1047. ISBN 978-1-107-66182-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  54. ^ a b IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R. K. Pachauri and L. A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.
  55. ^ Nesbit, Jeff (2013). "Settled Science".
  56. ^ Redfearn, Graham (27 September 2013). "IPCC climate change report by numbers". Planet Oz. Guardian.
  57. ^ "Fossil fuels should be 'phased out by 2100' says IPCC". BBC. 2 November 2014. Retrieved 2 November 2014.
  58. ^ "Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). IPCC. Retrieved 1 August 2015.
  59. ^ a b McGrath, Matt (9 August 2021). "Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'". BBC News. BBC. Archived from the original on 13 August 2021. Retrieved 9 August 2021.
  60. ^ IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2391 pp. doi:10.1017/9781009157896.
  61. ^ "UN climate science talks open amid heatwaves, floods and drought". UN News. 26 July 2021. Archived from the original on 2 August 2021. Retrieved 2 August 2021.
  62. ^ Dunne, Daisy (10 August 2021). "How scientists around the world reacted to the IPCC's landmark climate report". The Independent. Archived from the original on 13 August 2021. Retrieved 13 August 2021.
  63. ^ a b "The IPCC delivers its starkest warning about the world's climate". The Economist. 9 August 2021. ISSN 0013-0613. Archived from the original on 12 August 2021. Retrieved 9 August 2021.
  64. ^ Plumer, Brad; Fountain, Henry (11 August 2021) [2021-08-09]. "A Hotter Future Is Certain, Climate Panel Warns. But How Hot Is Up to Us". Climate Change: U.N. Climate Report. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 13 August 2021. Retrieved 9 August 2021.
  65. ^ Harvey, Fiona (9 August 2021). "Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible – IPCC's starkest warning yet". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 11 August 2021. Retrieved 11 August 2021.
  66. ^ Sullivan, Helen (10 August 2021). "'Code red for humanity': what the papers say about the IPCC report on the climate crisis". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 11 August 2021. Retrieved 11 August 2021.
  67. ^ a b c "IPCC – Activities". Ipcc.ch. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
  68. ^ IPCC SRES 2000
  69. ^ Summary for Policymakers, in IPCC SRES 2000, p. 3
  70. ^ "Summary for Policymakers", Question 3, archived from the original on 29 September 2012, in IPCC TAR SYR 2001
  71. ^ "Summary for Policymakers", 3. Projected climate change and its impacts, archived from the original on 30 November 2018, retrieved 30 April 2016, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007
  72. ^ Morita, T., "Ch 2. Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation Scenarios and Implications", 2.5.1.1 IPCC Emissions Scenarios and the SRES Process, archived from the original on 4 May 2013
  73. ^ "Synthesis report", 3.1 Emissions scenarios, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007
  74. ^ "Ch 3. Review of Major Climate-Change Scenario Exercises" (PDF), Sec 3.1.1. Significance and use, archived from the original (PDF) on 16 June 2013, in Parson & others 2007, p. 31
  75. ^ "Ch 3. Review of Major Climate-Change Scenario Exercises" (PDF), Sec 3.1.2. Criticisms and controversies, archived from the original (PDF) on 16 June 2013, in Parson & others 2007, pp. 35–38
  76. ^ "Ch 3. Review of Major Climate-Change Scenario Exercises" (PDF), Sec 3.1.2. Criticisms and controversies: Exchange rates: PPP versus MER, archived from the original (PDF) on 16 June 2013, in Parson & others 2007, p. 36
  77. ^ a b "Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation" (PDF). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 9 May 2011.
  78. ^ "IPCC". Ipcc-wg2.gov. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
  79. ^ a b c Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (Report). Incheon, Republic of Korea: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 7 October 2018. Retrieved 7 October 2018.
  80. ^ a b Headline Statements (PDF). Global Warming of 1.5 °C an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (Report). IPCC. 8 October 2018. p. 3. Retrieved 8 October 2018.
  81. ^ Press release: Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC (PDF) (Report). Incheon, Republic of Korea: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 7 October 2018. Retrieved 7 October 2018.
  82. ^ Irfan, Umair (6 October 2018). "A major climate report will slam the door on wishful thinking". Vox. Retrieved 7 October 2018.
  83. ^ "Global Warming of 1.5 °C an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change. Retrieved 7 October 2018.
  84. ^ Davenport, Coral (7 October 2018). "Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 3 January 2022. Retrieved 8 October 2018.
  85. ^ Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems (SRCCL). IPCC (Report). Summary for Policymakers. p. 43. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  86. ^ Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems (SRCCL). IPCC (Report). Leaflet. 8 August 2019. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  87. ^ Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC). IPCC (Report). 25 September 2019. Retrieved 25 September 2019.
  88. ^ Poon, Linda. "The Storm of the Century Could Soon Happen Every Year". CityLab. Retrieved 26 September 2019.
  89. ^ "National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program". Ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
  90. ^ "Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories". Ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
  91. ^ "IPCC 2006 GLs". Ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
  92. ^ "Greenhouse Gas Emissions". Unfccc.int. 22 February 2012. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
  93. ^ "Welcome to the IPCC Data Distribution Centre". Ipcc-data.org. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
  94. ^ "IPCC – National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme". Ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
  95. ^ "2007 Nobel Peace Prize Laureates". Retrieved 11 October 2007.
  96. ^ a b Joint statement by 16 national science academies (17 May 2001), The Science of Climate Change (PDF), London: Royal Society, ISBN 978-0854035588, archived from the original (PDF) on 19 April 2015 {{citation}}: |author= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  97. ^ Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias & others 2007
  98. ^ Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias & others 2008
  99. ^ Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias & others 2009
  100. ^ Summary, p. 3, in US NRC 2010
  101. ^
  102. ^ Chapter 1: Introduction, in IAC 2010, pp. 1–2. Archived file.
  103. ^ Bagla, 2010; Schiermeier, 2010, quoted in Hulme 2010
  104. ^ a b Evaluation, characterization, and communication of uncertainty by the intergovernmental panel on climate change—an introductory essay Climatic ChangeAn Interdisciplinary, International Journal Devoted to the Description, Causes and Implications of Climatic Change, Gary Yohe and Michael Oppenheimer 2011
  105. ^ a b c Oppenheimer, Michael; O'Neill, Brian C.; Webster, Mort; Agrawal, Shardul (2007). "Climate Change, The Limits of Consensus". Science. 317 (5844): 1505–1506. doi:10.1126/science.1144831. PMID 17872430. S2CID 129837694. reprinted in Oppenheimer, Michael; O'Neill, Brian C.; Webster, Mort; Agrawal, Shardul (2008). "The limits of consensus". In Donald Kennedy and the Editors of Science (ed.). Science Magazine's State of the Planet 2008-2009: with a Special Section on Energy and Sustainability. ISBN 978-1597264051. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)
  106. ^ Hulme, M. (2013) Exploring climate change through science and in society: an anthology of Mike Hulme’s essays, interviews and speechesRoutledge, Abingdon, UK, 330pp
  107. ^ Tol, Richard S. J. (2010) : Regulating knowledge monopolies: The case of the IPCC, ESRI working paper, No. 350
  108. ^ Scherer, Glenn (6 December 2012). "Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative". Scientific American. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  109. ^ McKibben, Bill (15 March 2007). "Warning on Warming". The New York Review of Books. 54 (4): 18. Bibcode:2004Natur.427..197S. doi:10.1038/427197a. Retrieved 21 February 2010.
  110. ^ Black, Richard (2 February 2007). "Humans blamed for climate change". BBC News. Retrieved 24 July 2007.
  111. ^ Rahmstorf, S.; Cazenave, A.; Church, J. A.; Hansen, J. E.; Keeling, R. F.; Parker, D. E.; Somerville, R. C. J. (4 May 2007). "Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections". Science. 316 (5825): 709. Bibcode:2007Sci...316..709R. doi:10.1126/science.1136843. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 17272686. S2CID 34008905.
  112. ^ "Sea level rise 'under-estimated'". BBC News. 14 December 2006. Retrieved 24 July 2007.
  113. ^ Highfield, Roger (28 December 2006). "London-on-Sea: the future of a city in decay". Telegraph.co.uk. Archived from the original on 17 May 2007. Retrieved 24 July 2007.
  114. ^ "James Hansen's controversial sea level rise paper has now been published online". Washington Post. 2015.
  115. ^ "Climate change: The scientific basis". CTV Television Network. 5 February 2007. Archived from the original on 5 February 2007. Retrieved 24 July 2007.
  116. ^ Fox interview
  117. ^ Pearce, Fred (19 April 2002). "Top climate scientist ousted". New Scientist. Retrieved 24 July 2007.
  118. ^ Borger, Julian (20 April 2002). "US and Oil Lobby Oust Climate Change Scientist". Guardian. London. Retrieved 24 July 2007.
  119. ^ Lessons from the IPCC: do scientific assessments need to be consensual to be authoritative? Mike Hulme, in (eds.) Doubelday, R. and Willesden, J. March 2013, pp, 142 ff
  120. ^ Do scientific assessments need to be consensual to be authoritative? Curry, JA and PJ Webster, 2012: Climate change: no consensus on consensus. CAB Reviews, in press, 2012
  121. ^ Lemonick, Michael D. (1 November 2010). "Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues". Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2010.577. Retrieved 22 December 2010.
  122. ^ a b Of Montreal and Kyoto: A Tale of Two Protocols by Cass Sunstein 38 ELR 10566 8/2008
  123. ^ a b "book summary at the Max Planck Gesellschaft, in German". Archived from the original on 12 October 2014. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  124. ^ a b Grundmann, Reiner; Stehr, Nico (2010). "Climate Change: What Role for Sociology?". Current Sociology. 58 (6): 897–910. doi:10.1177/0011392110376031. S2CID 143371210.
  125. ^ Environmental Politics Climate Change and Knowledge Politics Archived 26 August 2014 at the Wayback Machine Reiner Grundmann Vol. 16, No. 3, 414–432, June 2007
  126. ^ a b Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: climate change versus the ozone hole, by Sheldon Ungar, doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/306 Public Understanding of Science July 2000 vol. 9 no. 3 297-312 Archived 8 September 2014 at the Wayback Machine Abstract]
  127. ^ "The Economics of Climate Change" (PDF). Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  128. ^ See main article on Stern Review
  129. ^ "Example of concerns over outdatedness of IPCC reports, see p. 3" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 December 2007. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  130. ^ "Climate change: Five things we have learned from the IPCC report". BBC News. 9 August 2021. Retrieved 12 August 2021.
  131. ^ "Guidelines for inclusion of recent scientific literature in the Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 February 2008.
  132. ^ "Carbon Equity report on the Arctic summer of 2007". Archived from the original on 25 September 2010. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  133. ^ Rosenthal, Elisabeth; Kanter, James (18 November 2007). "Alarming UN report on climate change too rosy, many say". New York Times. Retrieved 22 February 2010.
  134. ^ Committee on Analysis of Global Change Assessments; Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate; Division of Earth and Life Sciences (2007). Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0309104852. Retrieved 24 July 2007.
  135. ^ Cicerone, Ralph J.; Barron, Eric J.; Dickinson, Robert E.; Fung, Inez Y.; Hansen, James E.; Karl, Thomas R.; Lindzen, Richard S.; McWilliams, James C.; Rowland, F. Sherwood; Sarachik, Edward S.; Wallace, John M.; Turekian, Vaughan C. (2001). "Assessing Progress in Climate Science". Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0309075749. Retrieved 31 October 2013. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)
  136. ^ a b Associated Press, "U.N. climate chief welcomes review, defends work", Japan Times, 16 May 2010, p. 5.
  137. ^ "Top scientists call for overhaul of UN climate panel". Brisbane Times. 10 February 2010. Retrieved 11 February 2010.
  138. ^ Gibson, Eloise (12 February 2010). "Climate panel facing calls to restructure". The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 11 February 2010.
  139. ^ "Nature TOC 2010-02-11, volume 463 number 7282, opinions". 100211 nature.com
  140. ^ Dayton, Leigh (11 February 2010). "Scientists say IPCC should be overhauled or scrapped". The Australian. 100211 theaustralian.com.au
  141. ^ Agence France-Presse-Jiji Press, "UN climate panel needs fix: scientists", The Age, 11 February 2010.
  142. ^ "The Scientific Understatement Of Climate Risks". Breakthrough Institute. 2018.
  143. ^ Black, Richard (10 March 2010). "Scientists to review climate body". BBC News. Retrieved 4 April 2010.
  144. ^ "UN Requests IAC Review of IPCC". InterAcademy Council. Retrieved 31 August 2010.
  145. ^ "InterAcademy Council Report Recommends Fundamental Reform of IPCC Management Structure". Review of the IPCC. InterAcademy Council. 30 August 2010. Retrieved 31 August 2010.
  146. ^ "Climate Change Assessments: Review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC" (PDF). InterAcademy Council. n.d. Retrieved 1 September 2010.
  147. ^ MacFarquhar, Neil (30 August 2010). "Review Finds Flaws in U.N. Climate Panel Structure". New York Times.
  148. ^ Tollefson, J. (2010). "Climate panel must adapt to survive". Nature. 467 (7311): 14. doi:10.1038/467014a. PMID 20811426.
  149. ^ "CFCAS Letter to PM, November 25, 2005" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 August 2010. Retrieved 9 August 2019.
  150. ^ Bob Jones. "CMOS Position Statement on Global Warming". Cmos.ca. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
  151. ^ European Geosciences Union Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences (7 July 2005). "Position Statement on Climate Change and Recent Letters from the Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce".
  152. ^ Statement by ICSU on the controversy around the 4th IPCC Assessment 23 February 2010 Archived 7 July 2010 at the Wayback Machine
  153. ^ "NOAA Global Warming FAQs". Ncdc.noaa.gov. 20 August 2008. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
  154. ^ Summary, 2001, doi:10.17226/10139, ISBN 978-0-309-07574-9, in US NRC 2001, p. 3
  155. ^ "Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC)" (PDF). Network of African Science Academies. 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 September 2008. Retrieved 29 March 2008.
  156. ^ "Royal Meteorological Society's statement on the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report". Rmets.org. 14 February 2007. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
  157. ^ Zalasiewicz, Jan; et al. "Global warming: a perspective from earth history". Geological Society of London. Archived from the original on 23 February 2009. Retrieved 22 February 2010.

Sources

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change&oldid=1065287635"