Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Difference between revisions
m Reverted edits by Unconcerned (talk) to last version by William M. Connolley |
Unconcerned (talk | contribs) rv - are you kiddin me? thats an advocacy groups opinion on a blog, put it on your user page if you like but not in the "Criticism" section of this article |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=== AR4 overstates the dangers of climate change === |
=== AR4 overstates the dangers of climate change === |
||
*Shortly after publication of the AR4 Summary for Policymakers, The libertarian [[Fraser Institute]] issued an alternative "Independent Summary for Policymakers" (ISPM) drawing skeptical conclusions <ref>[http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/Independent%20Summary5.pdf] Independent Summary for Policymakers</ref>: ''There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing.'' |
*Shortly after publication of the AR4 Summary for Policymakers, The libertarian [[Fraser Institute]] issued an alternative "Independent Summary for Policymakers" (ISPM) drawing skeptical conclusions <ref>[http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/Independent%20Summary5.pdf] Independent Summary for Policymakers</ref>: ''There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing.''. |
||
== Process criticism == |
== Process criticism == |
Revision as of 20:24, 24 June 2009
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change |
---|
![]() |
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) has been subjected to both scientific and non scientific (process based) criticism. Scientific criticism can broadly be broken down into criticism that the report either greatly understates or greatly overstates the dangers of climate change. Process criticism does not concern the science, but it can affect the science.
Scientific criticism
Scientific criticism can broadly be broken down into two criticisms: that the report is too conservative or that it overstates the dangers of climate change. The view that the IPCC is too conservative means the IPCC did not go far enough and it understated the state of the science or the consequences of global warming. Conversely, those who view the IPCC as alarmist think that the IPCC overstated the state of the science and oversold the consequences of global warming. In addition, some scientists are concerned about potential biases of the report's lead authors, who have been shown to favor their own research.
AR4 understates the danger of climate change
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Arctic_September_Sea_Ice_Extent.png/250px-Arctic_September_Sea_Ice_Extent.png)
- Former U.S. Department of Energy member Joseph Romm has claimed that the report underestimates positive feedbacks that could lead to runaway climate change, thus greatly underestimating the future warming and its effects. The report is also said to be out of date because it omits recent observations such as the release of greenhouse gases, including methane, from thawing tundra.[1]
- Arctic Sea ice is melting faster than predicted by climate models. Research conducted by the U.S.-based National Center for Atmospheric Research and the National Snow and Ice Data Center demonstrates that the 18 models on which the IPCC has based its current recommendations could already be out of date, and that the retreat of the ice could already be 30 years ahead of the IPCC's worst case scenario.[2]
- The IPCC AR4 estimates explicitly exclude the influence of the melting of ice sheets.[3] These ice sheets include most notably the Greenland ice sheet, and both the east and west Antarctic ice sheets, as well as numerous glaciers. This results in a major underestimate of the upper limit for sea level rise. Due to Arctic melting the Greenland ice sheet is particularly vulnerable, and "we cannot rule out large changes on decadal time-scales once wide-scale surface melt is underway."[4], the melting of the Greenland ice sheet would result in an increase in sea level rise of over 7m [5]. Melting of the west Antarctic ice sheet would cause a similar, if slightly smaller rise in sea levels due to being grounded below sea level, whilst the affect of the melting of the east Antarctic, although less probable would be an order of magnitude greater.
AR4 overstates the dangers of climate change
- Shortly after publication of the AR4 Summary for Policymakers, The libertarian Fraser Institute issued an alternative "Independent Summary for Policymakers" (ISPM) drawing skeptical conclusions [6]: There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing..
Process criticism
- Critics contend that the IPCC is an unusual organisation in that the evidence is supplied by scientists, but the summaries of its reports are agreed between scientists and representatives of governments.[7]
- In January 2005, Dr. Chris Landsea who was already an author on the 2001 report (TAR), withdrew his participation in the Fourth Assessment Report claiming that the portion of the IPCC to which he contributed had become "politicized" and that the IPCC leadership simply dismissed his concerns. He published an open letter explaining why he was resigning and to "bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process"[8]. The conflict centers around Dr. Kevin Trenberth's public contention that global warming was contributing to "recent hurricane activity", which Landsea described as a "misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC". He has stated that the process of producing the Fourth Assessment Report is "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and "scientifically unsound". Landsea writes that "the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author."
References
- ^ For example, see Joseph Romm's December 2006 book, Hell and High Water: Global Warming, pp. 65-72, and his interview on Fox News on January 31 2007.
- ^ CNN "Arctic melt worse than predictions"
- ^ This contrasts with the IPCC AR3, which included earlier estimates of these ice dynamics, and had a higher top end sea level rise estimate, although much lower than some new estimates. The report states that recent observations suggest that ice flow dynamics could lead to additional rise: "Dynamical processes related to ice flow not included in current models but suggested by recent observations could increase the vulnerability of the ice sheets to warming, increasing future sea level rise. Understanding of these processes is limited and there is no consensus on their magnitude."
- ^ Climate change and trace gases. By James Hansen, Makiko Sato, et.al. Phil.Trans.R.Soc.A (2007)365,1925–1954, doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052. Published online 18 May 2007, [1]
- ^ Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [Houghton, J.T.,Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881pp. [2],[3], and [4].
- ^ [5] Independent Summary for Policymakers
- ^ BBC "Stark picture of a warming world"
- ^ Prometheus: Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC Archives
Further reading
- [http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol4/vol4_no4_trainer_critique_stern.htm "A critique of the Stern and IPCC analyses of CO2 mitigation: Consumer-capitalist society cannot solve the problem" Ted Trainer, The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, vol 4, no 4, october 2008.