GLACIAL SLIP: The U.N. IPCC will undergo an independent review to try to prevent mistakes, such as predicting the imminent demise of Himalayan glaciers, from slipping into future reports.
Image: NASA
More In This Article
Listen to this Podcast
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
African crop yields wither, along with the Amazon rainforest; Himalayan glaciers disappear by 2035. These are the erroneous predictions ascribed to the most recent report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—a document reviewed by some 2,500 scientists and other experts as well as vetted by more than 190 countries. So does the fact that a few errors crept into a more than 3,000 page report merit a revision of IPCC processes?
That is the question facing a new panel to be assembled by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) in Amsterdam, a composite board of many of the world's national scientific bodies, such as the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S. "This will be an independent review," says physicist Robbert Dijkgraaf, president of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, one of the IAC co-chairs, about the evaluation requested by the U.N. and the IPCC. "We are ready to take on the important task of assuring nations around the world that they will receive sound climate advice."
The IAC hopes to form the panel, whose number has yet to be determined, in the next few weeks and will be required to deliver its report on if and how to reform the IPCC by August. The U.N. will provide financial support for travel and meeting expenses but the work of the review will be done for free. "It will definitely not go through all the data, the vast amount of data in climate science," explains Dijkgraaf. "What it will do is see what are the procedures and how can they be improved. How can we avoid perhaps that certain types of errors are not made?"
Dijkgraaf should know. After all, one of the errors made by the IPCC came as a result of information provided directly by the Dutch government about the percentage of the Netherlands that would be vulnerable to flooding as a result of rising sea levels. The government corrected that percentage in a subsequent statement.
The panel will also determine how the IPCC treats the multiplicity of opinions within various domains of climate science, such as oceanographers who disagree on the rate of sea-level rise. "We were specifically asked in our review to analyze how the IPCC deals with diverse scientific perspectives," Dijkgraaf says. "Any science goes through periodic outside review. It only strengthens the science."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentCue the deniers in three. . . two. ..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCue the deniers in three. . . two. . .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere had better be a betterway because the proposed method will not find the error identified below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA paper is available at www.scribd.com called Gravity causes Climate Changes. http://www.scribd.com/doc/27343303/Gravity-Causes-Climate-Change
It claims that the IPCC and GCMs FAIL to properly implement the Greenhouse Effect, by
1. ignoring that the amount of energy photons coming into the Earth limits the GHE, and
2. instead claiming that the simple addition of CO2 without added energy, causes warming in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
ABSTRACT
This paper disproves the IPCC and Global Computer Models global warming analyses and offers alternate theories.
It identifies:
1-- that the IPCC fails to follow basic principles of science when it misrepresents the Greenhouse Effect (GHE) and claims that simply adding Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) to the air results in warming, when the original Arrhenius paper says that you must add an extra energy photon to a GHG to get added GHE warming.
2--that the quantities of energy entering the Earth, not the amount of GHGs, are liimiting and limited to dictate how much of GHE warming can occur
3--that the physical conditions on Earth maintain an EXCESS of the GHGs in the air over that needed to satisfy the limited energy available for the GHE, thus invalidating the IPCC claim that just adding more GHGs means warming. The proof is simple: Water Vapor & CO2 absorbtion bands are saturated meaning that all energy phtons into those bands are absorbed; there is excess water vapor in the ocean and CO2 coming out of the ocean, that is not used for the GHE- so why would the GHE wait until man generates more CO2; This voids the idea of AGW& the justification for the Kyoto Treaty and Cap & Trade CO2 emissions control (see Excess CO2 Scenario paper at www.scribd.com)
4--that the various forces of gravity from the sun moon and planets, and the gravitational potential energy provide additional energy into the Earth that was not considered in the IPCC analyses. This energy is much greater than the solar insolation used as the sole source by IPCC. Identifying that these energy sources were not used by the IPCC invalidates the IPCC analyses.
5--that the timing (60 year, 900 year etc natural cycles) and spatial distribution of the energy from gravity and gravitational potential energy is imposed on the Earth by orbital variations, eccentricity and the changes in the planets' latitudes above and below the Sun-Earth ecliptic plane.
Cue the gulible in three...two...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere was another story, today, about an open letter from US scientists that will be sent on Friday. It independently welcomes an external review of the IPCC by National Academies even as it supports the IPCC process and fundamental conclusions. The fundamental point is that discord over mistakes cannot hamstring honest and thorough discussion of the risks of climate change and the range of possible responses. Be in touch.
Gary Yohe
Cue the righthanded wingnuts to blame it on the democrats and President Obama in three...two...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI recently joined the Yahoo Group entitled neutron_repulsion@yahoogroups.com the idea being explored is the sun has an ironlike core and the sun is a variable star.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlternative explanations are important
Right, because everyone knows Yahoo groups houses the greatest astrophysics expert community currently alive in the world today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeez, I think every day now I find myself wishing the internet had never been born. At least then we wouldn't all be drowned in a flood of anonymous average Joes that think they can trump the academic institution just because they read a book somewhere they can barely remember.
galaxy--since you are "making fun" of the comments of others.....probably often appropriately....when you refer to "the acedemic institution"--- what is "the" institution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn regards to climate change, there seems to be far more unknowns currently than there are known facts. There are many unproven hypothsis, that with more time and data we will determine the relative accuracy.
I forgot how rude some people can be
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, let's suppose CO2 does not cause global warming. So what ? It's a menace to the environment anyway! As far as I know nobody disputes that a growing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is raising the acidity of seawater everywhere. At the current rate of acidification, natural selection mechanisms are insufficient to permit marine species from adapting swiftly enough to the increasing acidity to elude extinction. That's a big chunk of the earths biomass that is threatened.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, let's suppose CO2 does not cause global warming. So what? It's a menace to the environment anyway! As far as I know nobody disputes that a growing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is raising the acidity of seawater everywhere. At the current rate of acidification, natural selection mechanisms are insufficient to permit marine species to adapt swiftly enough to the increasing acidity so as to elude extinction. That's a big chunk of the earth’s biomass that is threatened.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGravity does not cause climate change. The energy imparted to the earth by the planet's gravitational relationship to the sun and other solar system bodies is either kinetic energy due to the earth's motion in response to gravitational fields, or potential, due to the earth's position within the net gavitational field at its location. Neither of these warms the surface; they are the energy of the whole earth as a body in a field.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming does not depend on MORE energy striking the earth's surface. It depends on the balance between energy received and energy emitted. Greenhouse gases change that balance by reducing the amount of energy that can radiate into space. Therefore the same insolation can cause warming if less energy is re-radiated from the earth's surface into space, just as a small space can be heated within the earth's atmosphere (a greenhouse).
UV and visible light passing through the glass warms the objects inside, which absorb it and reradiate in the infrared because of their higher temperature (Wien's law, look up blackbody radiation). However the infrared is not transmitted as well by the glass, so the energy stays in the greenhouse, which gets warmer and stays warmer even at night.
A similar phenomenon happens in the earth's atmosphere as a whole in the presence of increasing amounts of CO2 and CH4 in particular -- and both of these are increasing due to human activities of the last few centuries and the last few decades in particular.
The greatest fear is that positive feedback loops will amplify this effect; one cause of increase reinforcing another rather than damping it out. Current example: warmer temperatures in Arctic permafrost may be releasing methane sequestered there -- which might speed the warming effect.
Look at the peer reviewed articles in reputable journals. In any large aggregation of data there will be errors, but science itself is the process of finding them and looking carefully at the preponderance of evidence.
Today the vast preponderance of evidence indicates rapid and possibly accelerating global warming, despite a small number of erroneous statements, misquotes, or even erroneous inferences.
While a review of all the data may seem onerous, it is precisely that data that forms the basis of the IPCC's conclusions (one would think). If the data itself is not reviewed then won't the new conclusions have a shaky foundation and give opponents the ability to continue to discount?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@mharder: It is important that the IPCC procedures be worked out first, to know if we really need to run through all the data again. If the IPCC procedures are legitimate and scientific, then the data from the past report doesn't need much of a review, just a correction of the major errors (Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 for example). If on the other hand it turns out that the IPCC fudged the rules, then everything needs to be re-examined, more data needs to be brought in, and things done properly next time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn a separate note, I have this fear that if the IAC finds the IPCC's methods to be faulty, the deniers will become even more virulent, and if they say the methods are legitimate, then the deniers will say that the IAC is just part of the conspiracy also. Hopefully the irrationality level of the deniers hasn't reached that stage yet (where anyone who disagrees is part of a conspiracy), but it seems to be getting close.
How about the latest WWF directed finding by the IPCC? Apparently the WWF decided that AGW would cause massive deforestation of the Amazon and lobbied the the IPCC to have that included in the report as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReal studies show the WWF claim to be unsupported hogwash, but the IPCC keeps printing their propaganda without a question.
Disband the IPCC. This idiocy must stop.
My livelihood depends on the coal industry. However, even though it would be in my own short term self-interest to deny global warming, I do not. It is not in my long term self interest or that of my family and society. As you can imagine I am in daily contact with people who are very vociferous in their opposition to any thought that burning fossil fuels is contributing to any climate problems. They are not stupid or ill mannered people. Many have advanced degrees in their field and are very good at what they do for a living. The thought of global warning scares them so they deny It. They do latch on to any evidence of disagreement or ridicule among the advocates of global warming being a problem. Calm, cool, reasoned response to their objections over the long term will get positive results. We have too much divisiveness within our society as it is without snide comments and rancor toward each other when discussing this issue. Taking the attitude that only those with an advance degree or the so-called "experts" in their field are they only ones who should have an opinion on the issue is a very dangerous proposition. In the end, the average individuals in this country are the ones that will provide the votes that will pass the legislation that will finally matter. Devote your energies to calmly and methodically providing rational expanations to those that need coaxing to understand the reality of the situation. Haughtiness and distain for those that are not anoited with a title is not what our society is all about. We overthrew King George's minions a couple of centuries ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this