Transcript The Science of Climate Change
The Science of Climate Change
Where We Are
: The Consensus, the Controversy, and the Climate
Robert Wyman Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP
The IPCC
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Established in 1988 to assess scientific basis of climate change Open to all members of UN and WMO Intended to be policy-neutral Most work performed by more than 1000 volunteer scientists Earned share of Nobel Peace Prize in 2007
Current Structure of IPCC
IPCC Panel comprised of government delegations; sets agenda IPCC Bureau (31 members) provides guidance to Lead Authors Since 2001, most work of IPCC performed by 3 Working Groups
How Climate Assessments are Made:
Assessments generated every 4-7 years
Last report in 2007; next one expected in 2014
Step 1
: IPCC evaluates lessons from previous assessments
Step 2
: Panel elects IPCC Chair, the Co-Chairs of Working Groups, and the rest of Bureau
Step 3
: Working Group Co-Chairs select the Coordinating Lead Authors (CLA’s) and Lead Authors (LA’s) CLA’s coordinate major sections of Working Group report LA’s ensure work is based on best evidence and is brought together in a consistent manner
How Climate Assessments are Made:
Step 4
: CLA’s and LA’s receive input from Contributing Authors (CA’s) CA’s prepare technical information for assimilation
Step 5
: Reviews of Reports 2 formal reviews and one or more informal reviews Informal reviews provided by small number of scientists (usually other authors) Experts then review first complete draft LA’s respond to comments, prepare second draft Review Editors ensure comments and controversial issues are handled appropriately Second Draft reviewed by same experts, government representatives
How Climate Assessments are Made:
Step 6
: Final Working Group Report Four layers main chapter texts, executive summaries, technical summaries & “Summary for Policymakers” Summary is approved, line by line, in a session chaired by WG Co Chairs and attended by government representatives After approval, entire report forwarded to Panel for acceptance Summaries for policymakers are most important because they have highest visibility
Step 7
: The Synthesis Report Combines findings of all working groups Only two layers Main report (divided into 6 topics) and a Summary for Policymakers Summary is approved line by line
Inherent Obstacles with Study of Climate
Available scientific information: Is extensive, multinational, and multidisciplinary Extends across multiple spatial and temporal scales Subject to different interpretations and a wide range of uncertainties Climate change is politically charged due to economic consequences Traditional linear science-for-policy model will not work Expert Judgment essential
Additional Difficulties for WGII and WGIII
WG I – physical climate analysis based on: Natural science disciplines Peer-reviewed literature Global models and observations WG II and WG III Because focused on the effects of and the responses to climate change, analyses based on: Social science disciplines Fewer experts Non-peer reviewed literature (gray literature)
The conclusions of IPCC drive policy decisions at home and abroad
Ex: EPA’s recent “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health Finding based on IPCC conclusions Endangerment finding sets up regulation of greenhouse gases through the Clean Air Act Ex: IPCC’s work provided scientific basis for proposed “cap and trade” legislation that recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives
Key Findings of IPCC
Second Assessment Report (1995)
“Climate has changed over the past century”
Global mean surface air temperature has increased between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees C since late 19 th century Global sea level has risen between 10 and 25 cm over the past 100 years; rise may be related to increase in global mean temperature
“ The balance of evidence suggests a
discernible human influence on global climate”
Key Findings of IPCC
Third Assessment Report (2001) Temperature increase in 20 th century in past 100 years century “likely” to have been the largest of any “Very likely” that the 1990’s was the warmest decade on record (since 1861) and 1998 was the warmest year New, stronger evidence that most warming observed over last 50 years attributable to human activities
Key Findings of IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) (2007)
Most warming of past 50 years is “very likely” (odds 9 out of 10) due to human increases in greenhouse gases
Consensus : “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal , as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level”
Other Scientific Findings:
Observed change is faster than expected Newer studies foresee greater change impacts Climate change impacts are already affecting the U.S.
Faster Change: Large Ice Sheets
IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001)
The Antarctic ice sheet as a whole is likely to increase in mass during the 21 st century.
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007)
…the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica have very likely been contributing to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003.
Shepherd & Wingham (2007)
…data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall.
14
Greater Sea Level Rise
“best estimate” 2.6 ft 15
Pew Center Science Brief 2
GCRP Report
• • •
“…by far the most up to date, comprehensive, and authoritative assessment of climate change impacts on the United States. It is focused … on what is already happening and … what is
expected
expected to happen
projected to grow to increase
going forward under take serious measures to reduce the pace and magnitude of climate change, and under higher emission scenarios in which we don’t.”
John Holdren, President’s Science Advisor GCRP Press Conference, June 2009 16
NORTHWEST •Declining snowpack affects water, hydro •Loss of coldwater fish •Increased wildfires GREAT PLAINS •Ag stresses from water availability, higher temps •Alterations of habitat NORTHEAST •More extreme heat •Declining air quality •Increase in heavy rain •Loss of sugar maple SOUTHWEST •Scarce water supplies •Incr. drought, wildfires, invasive species MIDWEST •More heat waves •Ag stresses from floods, droughts, pests ALASKA •Hotter, drier summers •Loss of sea ice •Thawing permafrost damages infrastructure SOUTHEAST •SLR and incr. hurricane intensity •Droughts, reduced water avail.
•Heat stress, extreme weather 17
Extreme Heat
US GCRP Climate Impacts Report
18
Climate on the Move
US GCRP Climate Impacts Report
19
Climate on the Move
Projected Heat Related Deaths in Chicago
US GCRP Climate Impacts Report
20
What a rise in sea level of 3.3 feet means for the Mid Atlantic region
21
The Bottom Line . . .
“I think that much of the foot dragging in addressing climate change is a reflection of the perception that climate change is way down the road … and that it only affects remote parts of the planet. And this report demonstrates … that climate change is happening now and it's happening in our own backyards and it affects the kinds of things people care about.”
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, NOAA Administrator GCRP Press Conference, June 2009 22
Or is it . . .
The Recent Controversies East Anglia CRU e-mail scandal IPCC admits errors in the 2007 assessment Independent Reviews U.K. Investigation of CRU e-mails (July 2010) U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: Minority Staff Report on CRU e-mails (Feb 2010) InterAcademy Council (IPCC review) (August 2010) Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (IPCC review) (July 2010)
The East Anglia Controversy
The Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia CRU is a small research unit which, over the last 30 years, has played an important role in climate science In November 2009, approximately 1000 e-mails from CRU scientists were hacked E mails raise question of scientists’ integrity
Why is the important?
A number of CRU scientists played important roles in generating IPCC reports In case you are falling asleep, Important to remember that the This chart is a joke . . .
CRU is not the IPCC; it is just a small unit that contributes to IPCC findings But some opponents claim it is
Roles of CRU Scientists in IPCC Reports
Author Number of e-mails Role Philip Jones Michael Mann Keith Briffa Jonathan Overpeck Tim Osborn Ben Santer Tom Wigley 174 140 117 90 59 51 35 Director, CRU, UEA and
Coordinating Lead Author IPCC 4th Assessment Report
Director, Earth System Science Centre, Pennsylvania State University (from 2005), and
Lead Author IPCC 3rd Assessment Report
Professor, CRU, UEA and
Lead Author IPCC 4th Assessment Report
Institute Director, University of Arizona and
Coordinating Lead Author IPCC 4th AR
Academic Fellow, CRU, UEA and
Contributing Author IPCC 4th AR
Researcher, Lawrence Livermore National Lab, US and
Contributing Author IPCC 4th AR
Former Director of CRU Scientist, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Contributing Author IPCC 4th AR
A sampling of the CRU allegations
Is the famous Hockey Stick chart a product of cooked science?
Hockey Stick – charts temperatures over last 1000 years
Hockey Stick Controversy
The “Divergence Problem” No thermometers pre-1850 So, use a proxy. For example, use tree ring density to chart temperatures Hockey Stick Chart based on four such proxies One created by Briffa (tree ring), one by Jones, and two by Mann Next chart shows all reconstructions – from IPCC 3 rd AR (2001)
Hockey Stick Controversy
Where did the green line go?
Hockey Stick Controversy
The green line declines around 1960 Chart below shows original unpublished data Tree ring model shows a temperature decline after 1960 – Is the earth unequivocally warming?
Also note the black lines – they represent measured temperature. They begin around 1850 Red proxy line also declines a bit … then goes back up
Hockey Stick Controversy
What to Do?
Green line decline sends Briffa, Jones, and Mann into a frenzy From: Keith Briffa [CRU] To: Chris Folland [UK Met Office]; Phil Jones [CRU]; Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia] Cc: Tom Karl [National Climatic Data Center – NOAA] September 22, 1999 Scientists are concerned that the green line
Subject: RE: IPCC revisions
. . .
I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as
decline will contradict the idea of
but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come
unprecedented warming
some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming.
. .
. Briffa responds in an e-mail
“Hide the Decline”
From: Phil Jones [CRU] To: Ray Bradley [University of Massachusetts, Amherst]; Michael E. Mann [University of Virginia]; Malcolm Hughes [University of Arizona] Cc: Keith Briffa [CRU]; Tom Osborn [CRU]52 November 16, 1999
Subject: Diagram for WMO
[World Meteorological Organization]
Statement Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the
decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH
[Northern Hemisphere]
land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray. Cheers Phil
“Hide the Decline”
Cut off tree ring data where it begins downward trend (around 1961) And merge line with recorded temperatures
“Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data. They’re apples and oranges.”
-
Phillip Scott; emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies
Decline Hidden
Fallout
Remember, the “hide the decline” trick was performed on the 2001 IPCC report, not the 2007 report UK assesses the controversy Determines that similar information concerning tree ring proxies presented in 4 th report was not misleading But the information provided in the “iconic” graph of the 3 rd report was misleading. Chart did not adequately explain methods Overall, this error does not “undermine the conclusions” of the IPCC—that climate change is happening and is probably caused by humans
Other criticisms
In addition to “hide the decline,” UK assessors determined that the e-mails revealed that: Scientists demonstrated a “consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness” CRU researchers’ responses for requests of information were “unhelpful and defensive”
Other Views
The Senate Minority Staff on the EPW Committee was more harsh in its assessment Determined the scientists tried to undermine peer review Were actively pursuing an agenda Does this mean climate change is a hoax?
The Debate
Next Controversy: IPCC Admits Errors on 4
th
AR
Reported errors are largely unrelated to the CRU e-mail controversy Jan 20, 2010 announces error: AR 4 asserted: “Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any part of the world . . . the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high.” IPCC official admits error. “It is so wrong it is not even worth discussing”
Another Error
In February 2010 IPCC admits another error in their 4 th AR Report asserted that 55% of Netherlands was currently below sea level. Report traced this figure to global warming.
IPCC later correct assertion: Only 26% of the country was below sea level, 55% is at risk of flooding
Errors Prompt Independent Review of IPCC Procedures
Review by Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Findings: Only one other major error in AR 4 Report projected a 50 to 60% decrease in productivity of anchovy fisheries on African West Coast The report should have read that there appeared to be a 50 to 60% decrease in extreme wind and seawater turbulence, which may lead to some unquantified negative effects on anchovy population
Other Dutch Findings
Summary conclusions presented in the “Summaries for Policymakers” were well founded and did not contain significant errors But some minor inaccuracies in summary conclusions, and Seven of the 32 summary conclusions on the regional impacts of global warming contain information that could not be sufficiently traced to the underlying source within the Working Group II report
More findings
In the “Summaries for Policymakers,” the WGII assessments single out
negative effects
of warming This “risk oriented approach” of focusing on the negative not sufficiently disclosed in the report Report also highlights risks at upper end of uncertainty range Does not put information in context As a result, policymakers often are not aware of potential benefits of warming Benefits often buried in technical layers of report Ex: Synthesis Report contains discussion on crop yields that are likely to be reduced in Africa, but does not mention crop yields that may increase due to global warming
Report Recommendations and Conclusions
Dutch findings do not contradict main conclusion of IPCC on impact, adaption, and vulnerability related to climate change (WG II) Findings do not contradict IPCC conclusion that: Global warming is unequivocal and “Very Likely” caused by human activity But room for improvement – recommendations: Provide public website for submission of errors found in published reports Provide stronger underpinnings for generalizations Strengthen review process More disclosure of methodology
InterAcademy Council
Multinational organization of science academies Similar findings and recommendations: Assessment reports successful overall But IPCC must structurally reform Needs more day-to-day leadership (Executive Director needed) Needs to ensure controversies adequately addressed More targeted review process to focus on specific problems Quantify uncertainty where possible (likelihood scale should be used where appropriate) Authors need to indicate scientific basis for assigning a probability that an event will occur Greater emphasis on transparency
Most Recent Developments
2010 on track to be a record hot year (running neck and neck with 1998, the hottest year on record) Recently discovered that the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Caps are melting at half the speed previously predicted
In the end . . .
Climate Change Is it happening?
Is it caused by man?
Even if it is happening, can we counter it?
Should we counter it, or should we adapt?
You decide
Special Thanks
A number of the slides in this presentation were created by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change