Missed Opportunity By The IPCC
Enlarge text
Reduce text sizeThe new IPCC Statement for Policymakers report has missed an opportunity to provide policymakers and the public with an accurate assessment of the diversity of human climate forcings. The narrow perspective of the IPCC perpetuates the perspective that they are more interested in changing energy policy and than in providing policymakers with the information needed to make effective climate policy.
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 2007 Statement for Policymakers this month (see) However, rather than broadening out the assessment of the human role within the climate system, the report continues to focus narrowly on the global-average radiative forcing to discuss the role of human climate forcings (e.g. see Figure SPM-2 on page 4 of the IPCC Report)..
This is not only misleading for policymakers and the public, but is scientifically flawed (see also).
The need to broaden the assessment of human and natural climate forcings was clearly articulated in the 2005 National Research Council Report
National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp.
Where key findings included the statements that,
“……the traditional global mean TOA [Top of the Atmosphere] radiative forcing concept has some important limitations, which have come increasingly to light over the past decade. The concept is inadequate for some forcing agents, such as absorbing aerosols and land-use changes, that may have regional climate impacts much greater than would be predicted from TOA radiative forcing. Also, it diagnoses only one measure of climate change—global mean surface temperature response—while offering little information on regional climate change or precipitation. These limitations can be addressed by expanding the radiative forcing concept and through the introduction of additional forcing metrics. In particular, the concept needs to be extended to account for (1) the vertical structure of radiative forcing, (2) regional variability in radiative forcing, and (3) nonradiative forcing.”
The Executive Summary of the Report states with respect to the need to account for the vertical structure of the radiative forcings,
“The relationship between TOA radiative forcing and surface temperature is affected by the vertical distribution of radiative forcing within the atmosphere. This effect is dramatic for absorbing aerosols such as black carbon, which may have little TOA forcing but greatly reduce solar radiation reaching the surface. It can also be important for land-use driven changes in the evapotranspiration flux at the surface, which change the energy deposited in the atmosphere without necessarily affecting the surface radiative flux...”
The Executive Summary of the Report states with respect to the need to account for the regional variations of the radiative forcings,
“Regional variations in radiative forcing may have important regional and global climatic implications that are not resolved by the concept of global mean radiative forcing. Tropospheric aerosols and landscape changes have particularly heterogeneous forcings. To date, there have been only limited studies of regional radiative forcing and response. Indeed, it is not clear how best to diagnose a regional forcing and response in the observational record; regional forcings can lead to global climate responses, while global forcings can be associated with regional climate responses. Regional diabatic heating can also cause atmospheric teleconnections that influence regional climate thousands of kilometers away from the point of forcing….”
The Executive Summary of the Report states with respect to the need to account for the importance of non-radiative forcings,
“Several types of forcings—most notably aerosols, land-use and land-cover change, and modifications to biogeochemistry—impact the climate system in nonradiative ways, in particular by modifying the hydrological cycle and vegetation dynamics. Aerosols exert a forcing on the hydrological cycle by modifying cloud condensation nuclei, ice nuclei, precipitation efficiency, and the ratio between solar direct and diffuse radiation received. Other nonradiative forcings modify the biological components of the climate system by changing the fluxes of trace gases and heat between vegetation, soils, and the atmosphere and by modifying the amount and types of vegetation.”
The failure of the IPCC Report to broaden their perspective reinforces the conclusion that this document is intended to provide support for energy policy changes, rather than a comprehensive assessment of the role of humans within the climate system (e.g. see). This also explains the outcries for major immediate energy policy changes in order to prevent catastrophic climate change in the next few years, if, as is likely, the real world climate observations deviate significantly from the model predictions.
Add to Facebook
Add to Yahoo ! MyWeb
Add to Furl
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Digg
Add to Google Bookmarks
Add to Newsvine| [1] | Comment by Adrianne
- 21 Feb, 2007 02:54 pm Prof. Pielke is right to deplore using the climate change issue as vehicle for changing energy policy. He is also rightly complaining about the narrowness of the recently released IPCC Summary for Policymaker. But the 2005 National Research Council Report is by all means not less narrow. For preparing the Report the National Academies had been asked ?to examine the current state of knowledge regarding the climate forcings associated with gases, aerosols, land use, and solar variability and to identify relevant research needs?. But climate is not that narrow. The oceans govern climate over decades and centuries, and the weather to a significant part on a daily basis. The last century offers ample opportunities to prove it, e.g. the sudden warming at Spitsbergen since winter 1918/19 for two decades. But neither IPCC nor the National Research Council shows the slightest interest to investigate principal question first. Only recently Scitizen published Prof. W..K. Dewar?s article: ?Marine Biosphere Through Mixing, by Swimming, May Have an Effect on Climate? (see: 27 Oct, 2006), other investigation has identified naval warfare for contributing to significant climatic shifts during last century. Investigating the ?forcings associated with gases, aerosols, land use, and solar variability? ignore that a three metres thick seawater layer has more heat capacity than the 10?000 metres air above the sea, and that on an annual basis the weather patters is largely determined by the sea surface of about 50 metres depths. It is a pity to see that IPCC efforts for 20 years have achieved so little. |
Alert Moderator
| |
| [2] | Comment by Vincent Gray - 3 Mar, 2007 09:17 pm The previous diagram of radiative forcings (Figure 6.6, page 392, "Climate Change 2001") had "error bars" which were decribed in the caption to the diagram, as having "no statistical basis". Now we have error bars which are claimed to be 90% confidence limits (instead of the ususal 95%) Why Also, the caption to Figure 6.6 in "Climate Change 2001" explains that the different contributions to radiative forcing could not be simply added and subtracted as they "cannot be added up". Now they have done it, but only after the circulation of the final draft. They do not explain why they have changed their mind. |
|
Alert Moderator
| |
Read more
By the same author
- The 2007 IPCC Assessment Process - Its Obvious Conflict of Interest
- The Importance of Heterogeneous Human Climate Forcings on Skillful Prediction of Regional Climate
- Confusion in the Definitions of Global Warming and Climate Change
- Scientific Errors With the IPCC Statement for Policymakers
- Missed Opportunity By The IPCC
- The European Commission has released its Climate Change Strategy -Is It A Good Plan?
