Can we afford to wait for the IPCC reports?
Hugh Knowles, 17th March 2008, Climate change
It is time to consider whether the IPCC reporting process has a fatal flaw. Could the verification and reporting process be accentuating scientific reticence and hiding the true picture of climate change? If so, the reports coming from this well respected organisation may well be too conservative for the formation of effective policy on climate change.
The IPCC regularly produce hugely valuable reports synthesising current climate science. Yet the four year reporting schedule and extensive deliberation process mean that the science is already out of date by the time the report is published. We are rapidly discovering that the processes involved in climate change are rarely linear and are moving far faster than anticipated. Therefore the lag time between submission and publication could be disastrous.
The climate change science that is currently in the pipeline, and will feed into the next IPCC report, is presenting us with a very different picture from that in the IPCC 4th synthesis - which is informing the formation of current policy.
For example:
The IPCC regularly produce hugely valuable reports synthesising current climate science. Yet the four year reporting schedule and extensive deliberation process mean that the science is already out of date by the time the report is published. We are rapidly discovering that the processes involved in climate change are rarely linear and are moving far faster than anticipated. Therefore the lag time between submission and publication could be disastrous.
The climate change science that is currently in the pipeline, and will feed into the next IPCC report, is presenting us with a very different picture from that in the IPCC 4th synthesis - which is informing the formation of current policy.
For example:
- Arctic sea ice retreat is larger than in any of the 19 IPCC models.
- Positive feedback mechanisms could lead to an ice-free Arctic by summer 2013. This would be about 100 years ahead of the IPCC predictions.
- The estimates made in the IPCC on climate sensitivity also seem to be conservative (Climate sensitivity refers to the expected increase in global temperatures from a doubling in concentration of GHGs from pre-industrial levels of 280ppm). The IPCC assumes a 3-degree rise. Recent research suggests that it could be as high as 6 degrees. Therefore reaching 550ppm would result in catastrophic change. The 3-degree figure does not take into account a number of feedbacks in the climate system.
- The ability of our ecosystem to absorb CO2 appears to have been overestimated. The amount of CO2 taken out of the air by natural carbon sinks, such as the ocean, is falling.
The extensive melting of the Arctic sea ice in the summer 2007 has demonstrated that the impacts of serious climate change are probably already here and far sooner than expected. This has raised questions about the speed at which the Greenland ice sheet could melt. It is very difficult to model, but the science is pointing to the possibility of positive feedbacks in the system causing a rapid non-linear collapse. This would make the IPCC 2007 predictions of 18-59cm sea level rise by 2100 woefully inadequate.
Whilst the uncertainties in climate change science are inevitably large, an increasing body of evidence demands that we consider worse case outcomes and not just average scenarios. We can no longer afford to wait 4 years for this science to be filtered through the IPCC and brought to wider attention. The limits of the IPCC reporting model have to be immediately understood by policy makers and business leaders.
For a summary of the latest climate change science and references for the science mentioned above please see the excellent Climate Code Red report here.
Registered charity number 1040519
Comments
Forum for the Future welcomes constructive comment and differing opinions. We reserve the right not to publish messages which we believe are commercial or designed to disrupt discussion. We moderate comments according to these guidelines.
balancing consensus with urgency
Very good points. This problem quickly became very clear during the research on Forum for the Future's joint project with HP Labs looking at the different potential responses to climate change we may see globally by 2030. We started out on that project thinking that it would be fine to use the IPCC synthesis report as a kind of environmental baseline, and describe different scenarios for human responses (social, economic, political) around that. But when we talked to climate change experts from around the world, we realised that we would have to consider the possibility of much more rapid changes in climate and the consequent impacts on trade, international relations and so on.
The problem with the IPCC process is also its strength. They work hard developing consensus and agreeing what amounts in the end to a common denominator on the science. This takes a lot of time and ends up filtering out a lot of the more extreme observations and also of course the most recent science can't be considered. The value of the process is that what it produces can be used more confidently by politicians, business leaders and generally in the public realm. This slows down the dissemination of the science but at least means that the science makes its way into the policy arena. And that is an absolute prerequisite for doing anything about climate change.
That doesn't take away the critical and very worrying fact that most post-4th assessment data supports the more negative projections for climate change. We need the IPCC and the balance it brings between consensus and urgency. But we could do with them hurrying up a bit next time.
Lack of falsifiability
The reports of the IPCC provide a non-scientific thus irrational basis for policy making. This is true, not withstanding the fact that these reports are written, in part, by people with scientific credentials such as PhD degrees and peer reviewed publications in climatology. According to the IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth (http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/recent_contributors/kevin_trenberth/ ) the IPCC climate models do not make predictions. It follows that: a) the IPCC models are not falsifiable and b) the IPCC models are not "scientific" models under Karl Popper's widely accepted definition of "scientific." To proceed on the basis on the basis of a "consensus" of scientists is not a scientific argument. It is, in fact, an argument from authority. The mark of a scientific model is not that it is favored by a consensus but rather that it is falsifiable and repeatedly tested without being falsified. The proportion of scientists who favor a particular model is irrelevant. A point of possible confusion is that the IPCC models do make what the IPCC calls "projections." A projection is a mathematical function that maps the time to the computed global average temperature. While projections support comparison of projected to measured temperatures and computation of the error, they do not support falsifibility of the models. It is predictions which, if they were to be made, would support falsifiability.
science, accountability and action
The main concern I have is that waiting for any scientific consensus could be drastically inhibiting the bottom up process-driven approach that will lead to the flexibility required to adapt to climate change effectively. I am not saying that scientific analyses do not have their place, but waiting for validation from the IPCC will surely mean we are always playing catch up. And given that we are dealing with a dynamically changing system with so many variables, my worry is that we will never be able to say with any real certainty what will happen and when it will happen anyway!
Rob Holdway of Giraffe Innovation said something at a business-oriented conference recently that struck a chord with me - to the effect of....
'No organization, no matter how adroit, can make money from a poisoned population and a dead planet'.
A simple provocation with a clear call to action no matter what the latest report says.
So ...whilst I believe that accurate assessment of the problem is obviously vital (scientific or otherwise), I am also reasonably convinced that taking responsibility at both the political, business and individual level should not be dependent on a top-down scientific report that, at best, can only provide a snapshot of our current situation and, at worst, lead to a deferment of responsibilty whilst we wait. I think the biggest task for us is to find ways of interacting sciencific analyses, on the one hand, and process-driven accountability on the other.
It strikes me, that if we think about change as involving a process of accountabillty rather than from an end-result deterministic viewpoint, it becomes the great equaliser - in that it is as much about the smaller people stepping up to the plate as much as it is politicians radically altering their rhetoric and policies. Which, as a small fish in a very large pond, leaves me feeling rather optimistic!