Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC
IPCC <ul><li>Established in 1988 to conduct assessments of the scientific basis for understanding the risk of human-induce...
Why Review the IPCC? <ul><li>IPCC’s assessments have served society well overall </li></ul><ul><ul><li>raised public aware...
InterAcademy Council <ul><li>The  InterAcademy Council (IAC) is a multinational organization of science academies </li></u...
IAC Board <ul><li>Academies in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Africa...
 
 
IAC Review Committee <ul><li>Harold Shapiro,  Chair , USA </li></ul><ul><li>Roseanne Diab,  Vice Chair , South Africa </li...
Committee Approach <ul><li>Focused on  processes and procedures  to carry out assessments,  not  climate change science </...
IPCC Assessment Process <ul><li>Scoping and election of assessment leaders </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Determination of the scop...
Assessment Reports WG I Report The Physical Science Basis  WG II Report Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability  WG III Repo...
Committee Chair Harold Shapiro on IPCC <ul><li>“ Through its unique partnership between scientists and governments, the IP...
Achievements of IPCC <ul><li>Periodic assessments of our understanding of nature, origin and impact of observed changes in...
Recommendations <ul><li>Aimed at helping IPCC manage an increasingly complex assessment process and doing so under the gaz...
Current Management Structure <ul><li>Panel  meets annually to make decisions on procedures and the work program of the IPC...
Recommendations on Management and Governance <ul><li>Appoint an  Executive Committee  with defined powers to act between p...
Recommendations on Processes and Procedures <ul><li>Strengthen the review process </li></ul><ul><li>Improve the characteri...
Review Process <ul><li>Review Editors should fully exercise their authority to ensure that all review comments are adequat...
Case Study: Himalaya Glaciers <ul><li>Perhaps the most talked-about error in the fourth assessment was this statement in t...
 
Himalaya Glaciers (2) <ul><li>The  Committee examined the draft text and relevant reviewer comments and concludes IPCC’s r...
Uncertainty <ul><li>IPCC, 2007b, High confidence: </li></ul><ul><li>“ Agricultural production, including access to food, i...
Uncertainty <ul><li>Working Groups should use IPCC’s level-of-understanding scale to communicate the nature, number, and q...
Level-of-understanding Scale <ul><li>Each Working Group should use the qualitative level-of-understanding scale in its Sum...
Probability Scale <ul><li>Vi rtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence </li></ul><ul><li>Extremely likely > 95% prob...
Gray Literature <ul><li>The use of so-called gray literature from unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources has been contro...
Full Range of Scientific Views <ul><li>Document that full range of  thoughtful  scientific views has been considered. </li...
Communications <ul><li>IPCC’s new communications strategy should be completed and implemented as soon as possible. </li></...
Transparency <ul><li>IPCC should establish criteria for selecting participants in the scoping process, IPCC leaders, and a...
30 August: Report Released at UN The full report and other information about the review is available at http://reviewipcc....
Press Coverage <ul><li>Nature </li></ul><ul><li>Climate panel must adapt to survive </li></ul><ul><li>NewYorkTimes </li></...
Steps Ahead <ul><li>Key decision makers </li></ul><ul><li>IPCC leadership </li></ul><ul><li>National governments of member...
The Nature of (Climate) Science <ul><li>Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts (Richard Feynman) </li></ul><ul>...
Building Bridges
Building Capacity: The World Worldmapper.org
The World of Science  (output 2002) Worldmapper.org
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Slecht klimaat voor de wetenschap_okt 2010_Presentatie Robbert Dijkgraaf

760 views

Published on

Smeltende ijskappen, Nederland verdwijnt onder de zeespiegel: het klinkt allemaal heel erg. Een stuk erger dan het eigenlijk is, is de conclusie van een internationale onderzoekscommissie na 3 maanden onderzoek. Het klimaatrapport van IPCC (2007) klopt volgens de commissie niet helemaal.

VUconnected organiseerde een debat en Robbert Dijkgraaf ga deze presentatie. Kijk voor meer informatie op www.vuconnected.nl/skvdw

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Slecht klimaat voor de wetenschap_okt 2010_Presentatie Robbert Dijkgraaf

  1. 1. Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC
  2. 2. IPCC <ul><li>Established in 1988 to conduct assessments of the scientific basis for understanding the risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation </li></ul><ul><li>Governments (194 member nations of WMO and UNEP) agree on the scope of the assessment, elect the scientific leaders to oversee the process, review the reports, and approve the Summaries for Policy Makers </li></ul><ul><li>Scientists (more than 1000 volunteers) evaluate the available information on climate change and draft and review the assessment reports </li></ul>
  3. 3. Why Review the IPCC? <ul><li>IPCC’s assessments have served society well overall </li></ul><ul><ul><li>raised public awareness of climate change </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>driven policymakers to consider options for responding to climate change </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>earned IPCC a share of the Nobel Prize in 2007 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>But the debate about climate change science and the costs of proposed climate policies is becoming more intense and contentious </li></ul><ul><ul><li>much greater public scrutiny of IPCC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>questions about the impartiality of IPCC toward climate policy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>media attention to the revelation of errors in the last assessment </li></ul></ul><ul><li>UN and IPCC requested an independent review of IPCC processes and procedures by the InterAcademy Council </li></ul>
  4. 4. InterAcademy Council <ul><li>The InterAcademy Council (IAC) is a multinational organization of science academies </li></ul><ul><li>IAC produces reports on scientific, technological, and health issues for national governments and international organizations </li></ul><ul><li>IAC is headquartered at the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) in Amsterdam. </li></ul>
  5. 5. IAC Board <ul><li>Academies in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States </li></ul><ul><li>African Academy of Sciences </li></ul><ul><li>Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS) </li></ul><ul><li>IAP: The Global Network of Science Academies </li></ul><ul><li>the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) </li></ul><ul><li>and the InterAcademy Medical Panel (IAMP)   </li></ul><ul><li>Co-chairs: Lu Yongxiang (China) and Robbert Dijkgraaf (The Netherlands) </li></ul>
  6. 8. IAC Review Committee <ul><li>Harold Shapiro, Chair , USA </li></ul><ul><li>Roseanne Diab, Vice Chair , South Africa </li></ul><ul><li>Carlos Henrique de Brito Cruz, Brazil </li></ul><ul><li>Maureen Cropper, USA </li></ul><ul><li>Jingun Fang, P.R. China </li></ul><ul><li>Louise Fresco, Netherlands </li></ul><ul><li>Syukuro Manabe, USA and Japan </li></ul><ul><li>Goverdhan Mehta, India </li></ul><ul><li>Mario Molina, USA and Mexico </li></ul><ul><li>Peter Williams, United Kingdom </li></ul><ul><li>Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker, Germany and France </li></ul><ul><li>Abdul Hamid Zakri, Malaysia </li></ul>
  7. 9. Committee Approach <ul><li>Focused on processes and procedures to carry out assessments, not climate change science </li></ul><ul><li>Examined published articles on assessments and material provided by IPCC Secretariat </li></ul><ul><li>Consulted widely </li></ul><ul><ul><li>more than 400 individuals with a variety of views provided input through presentations at committee and subgroup meetings (Netherlands, Canada, UK, Brazil, China, US), interviews, a widely-distributed questionnaire, and a public website </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Report peer-reviewed by 12 individuals selected by the IAC </li></ul>
  8. 10. IPCC Assessment Process <ul><li>Scoping and election of assessment leaders </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Determination of the scope and outline of the reports </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bureau (particularly Working Group co-chairs) selects authors and leads author teams through preparation and review of the assessment report </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Report writing and review </li></ul><ul><ul><li>written by scientists </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>first draft reviewed by scientists and other experts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>second draft reviewed by governments and experts </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Report approval and acceptance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>governments approve the language in the Summary for Policymakers line by line </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Panel accepts the final reports </li></ul></ul>
  9. 11. Assessment Reports WG I Report The Physical Science Basis WG II Report Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability WG III Report Mitigation of Climate Change Synthesis Report <ul><li>Produced every 5 or 6 years; next due in 2013 </li></ul><ul><li>Each report includes a Summary for Policymakers, which highlights the key findings of the assessment </li></ul>
  10. 12. Committee Chair Harold Shapiro on IPCC <ul><li>“ Through its unique partnership between scientists and governments, the IPCC has heightened public awareness of climate change, raised the level of scientific debate, and influenced the science agendas of many nations. However, despite these successes, some fundamental changes to the process and the management structure are essential” </li></ul>
  11. 13. Achievements of IPCC <ul><li>Periodic assessments of our understanding of nature, origin and impact of observed changes in world’s climate. </li></ul><ul><li>Global focus on climate change. </li></ul><ul><li>Continued conversation between scientists and policymakers. </li></ul><ul><li>Innovative decentralized network of scientists along government representatives. </li></ul>
  12. 14. Recommendations <ul><li>Aimed at helping IPCC manage an increasingly complex assessment process and doing so under the gaze of a public microscope </li></ul><ul><li>Two types of recommendations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>significant changes in management and governance; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>strengthened and enhanced procedures for carrying out an assessment. </li></ul></ul>
  13. 15. Current Management Structure <ul><li>Panel meets annually to make decisions on procedures and the work program of the IPCC </li></ul><ul><li>IPCC Chair oversees all IPCC activities, leads writing of the Synthesis Report, and speaks on behalf of the IPCC </li></ul><ul><li>Bureau oversees the assessment process </li></ul><ul><li>Secretariat </li></ul><ul><ul><li>facilitates the work of the Panel and Bureau and the participation of developing country scientists </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>manages the website </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>coordinates report production and outreach </li></ul></ul>
  14. 16. Recommendations on Management and Governance <ul><li>Appoint an Executive Committee with defined powers to act between plenary sessions </li></ul><ul><li>Elect a full-time Executive Director with appropriate stature to lead the Secretariat and act on behalf of the IPCC chair </li></ul><ul><li>Terms of senior leadership (Chair, Executive Director, and Working Group Co-chairs) limited to one assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Adopt a conflict of interest policy </li></ul>
  15. 17. Recommendations on Processes and Procedures <ul><li>Strengthen the review process </li></ul><ul><li>Improve the characterization and communication of uncertainty </li></ul><ul><li>Enhance communications </li></ul><ul><li>Increase transparency </li></ul>
  16. 18. Review Process <ul><li>Review Editors should fully exercise their authority to ensure that all review comments are adequately considered </li></ul><ul><li>Authors’ response to review comments should focus on the most significant issues (90.000 review comments in last assessment) </li></ul>Recommendations aimed at minimizing the number of errors
  17. 19. Case Study: Himalaya Glaciers <ul><li>Perhaps the most talked-about error in the fourth assessment was this statement in the Working Group II report: </li></ul><ul><li>“ Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high (…) (WWF, 2005).” </li></ul>
  18. 21. Himalaya Glaciers (2) <ul><li>The Committee examined the draft text and relevant reviewer comments and concludes IPCC’s report review process failed in two ways: </li></ul><ul><li>Authors failing to carefully consider thoughtful review comments </li></ul><ul><li>Review editors failing to ensure that reviewer comments were adequately addressed </li></ul>
  19. 22. Uncertainty <ul><li>IPCC, 2007b, High confidence: </li></ul><ul><li>“ Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries and regions is projected to be severely compromised by climate variability and change. The area suitable for agriculture, the length of growing seasons and yield potential, particularly along the margins of semi-arid and arid areas, are expected to decrease. This would further adversely affect food security and exacerbate malnutrition in the continent. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% by 2020.” </li></ul>Each major conclusion in the Summary for Policymakers includes a judgment about its uncertainty, but some statements were assigned high confidence with little evidence.
  20. 23. Uncertainty <ul><li>Working Groups should use IPCC’s level-of-understanding scale to communicate the nature, number, and quality of studies considered. </li></ul><ul><li>Quantitative probabilities should be used only when statements are well defined and supported by sufficient evidence. </li></ul>
  21. 24. Level-of-understanding Scale <ul><li>Each Working Group should use the qualitative level-of-understanding scale in its Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary </li></ul>
  22. 25. Probability Scale <ul><li>Vi rtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence </li></ul><ul><li>Extremely likely > 95% probability </li></ul><ul><li>Very likely > 90% probability </li></ul><ul><li>Likely > 66% probability </li></ul><ul><li>More likely than not > 50% probability </li></ul><ul><li>About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability </li></ul><ul><li>Unlikely < 33% probability </li></ul><ul><li>Very unlikely < 10% probability </li></ul><ul><li>Extremely unlikely < 5% probability </li></ul><ul><li>Exceptionally unlikely < 1% probability </li></ul>Quantitative probabilities should be used to describe the probability of well defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence. Authors should indicate the basis for assigning a probability to an outcome or event (measurement, expert judgment, model runs).
  23. 26. Gray Literature <ul><li>The use of so-called gray literature from unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources has been controversial. </li></ul><ul><li>Such sources of information and data are often relevant (or even the only source on certain countries). </li></ul><ul><li>Guidelines are vague and are not always followed, and should be made more specific (including noting what sources are not acceptable). </li></ul><ul><li>Gray literature should be appropriately flagged. </li></ul>
  24. 27. Full Range of Scientific Views <ul><li>Document that full range of thoughtful scientific views has been considered. </li></ul><ul><li>Lead authors and review editors satisfy themselves that due consideration has been given to properly documented alternative views. </li></ul>
  25. 28. Communications <ul><li>IPCC’s new communications strategy should be completed and implemented as soon as possible. </li></ul><ul><li>The strategy should include a plan for responding to crises and guidelines on how to speak on IPCC’s behalf. </li></ul>IPCC’s public response to errors has been slow and inadequate, and IPCC leaders have been criticized for making public statements that appear to advocate specific climate policies
  26. 29. Transparency <ul><li>IPCC should establish criteria for selecting participants in the scoping process, IPCC leaders, and authors of assessment reports. </li></ul><ul><li>Lead authors should document that they have considered the full range of thoughtful views. </li></ul>Given the intense public scrutiny, transparency is essential for maintaining confidence in the assessment process. The process is difficult to understand, often even for those involved.
  27. 30. 30 August: Report Released at UN The full report and other information about the review is available at http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/
  28. 31. Press Coverage <ul><li>Nature </li></ul><ul><li>Climate panel must adapt to survive </li></ul><ul><li>NewYorkTimes </li></ul><ul><li>Another Item for Climate Panel’s To-Do List </li></ul><ul><li>The Economist </li></ul><ul><li>Must try harder- a call to reform the IPCC </li></ul><ul><li>Le Monde </li></ul><ul><li>Climat : les experts doivent repenser leur organisation </li></ul><ul><li>International Herald Tribune </li></ul><ul><li>Review Finds Flaws in U.N. Climate Panel Structure </li></ul>
  29. 32. Steps Ahead <ul><li>Key decision makers </li></ul><ul><li>IPCC leadership </li></ul><ul><li>National governments of member states IPCC and UN </li></ul><ul><li>32nd Plenary session of the IPCC, 11 – 14 October, Busan, South Korea </li></ul><ul><li>Scientific community </li></ul>
  30. 33. The Nature of (Climate) Science <ul><li>Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts (Richard Feynman) </li></ul><ul><li>Science is organized skepticism (Robert May) </li></ul><ul><li>Any theory that can account for all of the facts is wrong, because some of the facts are always wrong (Francis Crick) </li></ul>
  31. 34. Building Bridges
  32. 35. Building Capacity: The World Worldmapper.org
  33. 36. The World of Science (output 2002) Worldmapper.org

×