10 things to know about the IPCC climate panel

Sep 26, 2013 by Karl Ritter
From left, Lena Ek, Ministry of the Environment of Sweden, Prof. Thomas Stocker, IPCC working group and Prof. Dahe Qin, IPCC Working group during the IPCC meeting in Stockholm Monday Sept. 23, 2013. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is meeting in Stockholm until 27 September to prepare and present new conclusions on climate change and its scientific basis. (AP photo / Scanpix Sweden / Bertil Enevåg Ericson)

Here are 10 things to know about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N.-sponsored scientific group that will present a landmark report on global warming Friday.

___

WHAT IS THE IPCC?

A scientific body with 195 member countries, the panel was established by the U.N. in 1988 to assess the causes and . Since then, it has released four assessments, each stating the human link to with more certainty than the previous one. The IPCC doesn't conduct its own research, but appoints hundreds of experts to review and summarize the latest scientific studies on . More than 800 scientists contributed to a report set to be released Friday.

___

WHAT REPORT?

The IPCC is meeting in Stockholm this week to adopt the first of four parts of its fifth assessment report on climate change. This part deals with the physical science basis of global warming. A summary for policy-makers of about 30 pages will be published Friday, and the full 2,000-page report on Monday. Next year, the IPCC will present sections assessing the impact of climate change and strategies to fight it. A synthesis of the three reports will be adopted in October 2014.

___

SO WHAT EXACTLY IS THE IPCC DOING IN STOCKHOLM?

Delegates from member countries are meeting behind closed doors with authors of the physical science report to hammer out the summary for policy-makers. They are going through a draft line by line, which can be a frustratingly slow process because the text needs to be approved by . Governments may have problems with the text being either too complex or too vague, or they may have non-scientific concerns about grammar or word choice. Commenting on a June draft, the U.S. wanted it to read more like a narrative. Underscoring the politics involved, China wanted to remove national borders from a world map used in the draft to "avoid unnecessary disputes."

___

WHAT ARE THE ASSESSMENTS USED FOR?

They form the scientific basis for U.N. negotiations aimed at curbing global warming. The fifth assessment report will be a reference point for governments as they negotiate a new global climate agreement, which is supposed to be adopted by 2015 and to take effect in 2020.

___

WHAT DO CRITICS SAY ABOUT THE IPCC?

Some scientists say the IPCC process is so time-consuming and laborious that by the time the assessments are published they are already out of date. Policy-makers sometimes complain that the language in the reports is too scientific and difficult for non-scientists to understand. A series of errors embarrassed the authors of the 2007 assessment, including the incorrect statement that the glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear by 2035. Climate skeptics seized on those errors as evidence the IPCC process is flawed. Supporters say the fact that such errors are so rare shows how solid the process is. There has also been criticism about the IPCC's lack of openness.

___

WHAT WILL THE NEW REPORT SAY?

The final version will be adopted Friday, so changes are still possible, but leaked drafts suggest the IPCC will say it's "extremely likely" that climate change is man-made. That would be an upgrade from "very likely" in the 2007 report and would mean that scientists are now 95 percent certain of man-made warming. The report is also expected to raise the projections of sea level rise this century and analyze the human contributions to the loss of Arctic sea ice, which hit a new record in summer last year, and the retreat of glaciers and ice sheets. The June draft projected that surface temperatures will rise by 0.3-4.8 degrees C (0.5-8.6 F) this century, depending in part on whether and how much countries reduce their CO2 emissions.

___

HOW ACCURATE ARE THE IPCC'S PROJECTIONS?

The IPCC makes long-term projections about how the climate system will respond to warming temperatures over the next decades so we won't know just how accurate they are until the evidence is in at the end of this century. Scientists generally agree that the assessments offer the best available estimates of future warming, and the projections are based on a solid understanding of the factors at play in the climate system. But they also stress that there are uncertainties involved, just like knowledge about financial markets doesn't mean you will be able to predict the stock market.

___

WHAT DOES THE IPCC SAY ABOUT THE RECENT 'HIATUS' IN WARMING?

When climate scientists talk about global warming they refer to the rise in global temperatures observed in the past 100 years or so. They typically don't pay much attention to shorter time scales in which temperatures can go up or down in natural climate fluctuations. But there's been so much media attention recently to a purported slowdown in the temperature rise in the past 15 years that many governments want the IPCC to address it in the report. Some skeptics claim this "hiatus" shows that global warming has stopped, even though if you compare decadal averages, the previous decade was the warmest on record. It's an area that needs more research, but many scientists say the purported slowdown reflects random climate fluctuations and an unusually hot year, 1998, picked as a starting point for charting temperatures. Another leading hypothesis is that heat is settling temporarily in the oceans.

___

WHO HEADS THE IPCC?

Rajendra Pachauri, a scientist from India, has been the chairman of the IPCC since 2002. He is set to step down when his term expires in 2015.

___

WHERE IS THE IPCC BASED?

The secretariat of the IPCC is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, in the offices of the World Meteorological Organization, the U.N.'s weather agency.

Explore further: When the isthmus is an island: Madison's hottest, and coldest, spots

2.3 /5 (16 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

UN report to point to mounting climate challenge

Sep 21, 2013

Scientists will hike pressure next week on the UN's troubled climate talks as they release a report pointing to the dizzying challenge of meeting the international body's target for global warming.

Recommended for you

Stopping the leaks

16 hours ago

When a big old cast-iron water main blows, it certainly makes for a spectacular media event.

Alpine lifelines on the brink

17 hours ago

Only one in ten Alpine rivers are healthy enough to maintain water supply and to cope with climate impacts according to a report by WWF. The publication is the first-ever comprehensive study on the condition ...

User comments : 12

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ScooterG
1.8 / 5 (26) Sep 26, 2013
The only thing we really need to know and understand about IPCC (and AGW in general) is "Follow The Money".
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (19) Sep 26, 2013
HOW ACCURATE ARE THE IPCC'S PROJECTIONS?


"GCMs generally reproduce the broad climatic behaviours at different geographical
locations and the sequence of wet/dry or warm/cold periods on a mean monthly scale.

However, model outputs at annual and climatic (30‐year) scales are irrelevant with
reality; also, they do not reproduce the natural overyear fluctuation and, generally,
underestimate the variance and the Hurst coefficient of the observed series; none of the
models proves to be systematically better than the others.

The huge negative values of coefficients of efficiency at those scales show that model
predictions are much poorer that an elementary prediction based on the time average.

This makes future climate projections not credible."

Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series http://itia.ntua....nfo/850/
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (14) Sep 26, 2013
"The only thing we really need to know and understand about IPCC (and AGW in general) is "Follow The Money"." - ScooTard

ScooTard is jealous of all those fantastically wealthy scientists. Particularly those who are Climatologists.

Some of them actually make up to $40,000 a year.

The horror... The Horror...

Neinsense99
2.4 / 5 (17) Sep 30, 2013
"The only thing we really need to know and understand about IPCC (and AGW in general) is "Follow The Money"." - ScooTard

ScooTard is jealous of all those fantastically wealthy scientists. Particularly those who are Climatologists.

Some of them actually make up to $40,000 a year.

The horror... The Horror...


Let's follow the money from heavy industry to Scooter and Claudius.... and if they don't get any, they are even more pathetic than they already appear.
ScooterG
1.4 / 5 (18) Oct 01, 2013
Some of them actually make up to $40,000 a year.



Please cite your source that indicates their earnings.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Oct 01, 2013
"Rajendra Pachauri, a scientist from India,"
He has a PhD in industrial engineering and economics. That qualifies him as a climate scientist?
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2013
"That qualifies him as a climate scientist?" - RyggTard.

No it doesn't. You might have noticed that he doesn't claim or pretend to be one.

If you did notice, then you have no point. If you didn't notice then you are a moron.

Either way, you are an ignorant Moron.

VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2013
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (15) Oct 02, 2013
Some of them actually make up to $40,000 a year.



Please cite your source that indicates their earnings.

Why, so you can perhaps learn how to reference a reliable source for once? If that's your aim, I applaud the initiative.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2013
"CBS even aired a claim about temperatures rising "more than 200 degrees." - RyggTard

The CBS claim is correct, but it isn't the claim that RyggTard makes it out to be.

The reporter was trying to illustrate how much heat the oceans had absorbed, and stated that if all of that heat had been absorbed by the atmosphere, the temperature would rise 200'.

CNS news - a chronically dishonest right wing news service, and a favorite of RyggTard, is lying in it's statements made against CBS.

Similarly Drudge Report is reporting that 9 out of 10 IRS workers were sent home today, and that 1,350,000 of them are still on the job.

This immediately implies of course that the IRS employs 13.5 million people which of course is a lie.

In reality the IRS has a staff of approximately 75,000 people, or 180 times smaller than reported by the Drudge Report.

Dishonesty in the reporting of news by Conservative news outlets is one of the principle reasons why Conservatives like RyggTard are so ignorant.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (15) Oct 03, 2013
Number 1- "Hilarious Incoherence."
http://www.dailym...nce.html

Such is the reason for vaginatardE"s vile and repugnant attitude. Complete incoherence, clearly a product of his "education".
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2013
"Follow The Money"


Some of them actually make up to $40,000 a year.

In germany, as a scientist (post doc) you make 60k Euros (before taxes), which leaves you with roughly 33k Euros after taxes (44k dollars). IF you have a full post (half to 2/3 posts are the norm). This may seem like a lot but consider that you spent at least 10 years with no/little pay to get there.

Now the bulk of scientists is PhD students who earn roughly 20k Euros a year (Before taxes. After taxes that's about 13k Euros/17.5k dollars. And that ONLY if you have a full post - which isn't the norm. Usually you only have a half or even 1/3 post with the respective pay - at full working hours, of course. No overtime or weekend compensation, either).

And germany pays its scientists comparatively well.

[sarcasm] Yeah. We scientists certainly are on the gravy train [/sarcasm]