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

1. Climate Change
Assessments:
Review of the Processes
and Procedures of the
IPCC

2. IPCC
• 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
• 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
• Scientists (more than 1000 volunteers) evaluate the
available information on climate change and draft and
review the assessment reports

3. Why Review the IPCC?
• IPCC’s assessments have served society well overall
– raised public awareness of climate change
– driven policymakers to consider options for responding to
climate change
– earned IPCC a share of the Nobel Prize in 2007
• But the debate about climate change science and the
costs of proposed climate policies is becoming more
intense and contentious
– much greater public scrutiny of IPCC
– questions about the impartiality of IPCC toward climate policy
– media attention to the revelation of errors in the last
assessment
• UN and IPCC requested an independent review of
IPCC processes and procedures by the InterAcademy
Council

4. InterAcademy Council
• The InterAcademy Council (IAC) is a multinational
organization of science academies
• IAC produces reports on scientific, technological, and
health issues for national governments and
international organizations
• IAC is headquartered at the Royal Netherlands
Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) in Amsterdam.

5. IAC Board
• Academies in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, France,
Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Africa, Turkey, the
United Kingdom, and the United States
• African Academy of Sciences
• Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
• IAP: The Global Network of Science Academies
• the International Council of Academies of Engineering and
Technological Sciences (CAETS)
• and the InterAcademy Medical Panel (IAMP)
• Co-chairs: Lu Yongxiang (China) and Robbert Dijkgraaf (The
Netherlands)

8. IAC Review Committee
• Harold Shapiro, Chair, USA
• Roseanne Diab, Vice Chair, South Africa
• Carlos Henrique de Brito Cruz, Brazil
• Maureen Cropper, USA
• Jingun Fang, P.R. China
• Louise Fresco, Netherlands
• Syukuro Manabe, USA and Japan
• Goverdhan Mehta, India
• Mario Molina, USA and Mexico
• Peter Williams, United Kingdom
• Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker, Germany and France
• Abdul Hamid Zakri, Malaysia

9. Committee Approach
• Focused on processes and procedures to carry out
assessments, not climate change science
• Examined published articles on assessments and
material provided by IPCC Secretariat
• Consulted widely
– 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
• Report peer-reviewed by 12 individuals selected by
the IAC

10. IPCC Assessment Process
• Scoping and election of assessment leaders
– Determination of the scope and outline of the reports
– Bureau (particularly Working Group co-chairs) selects authors
and leads author teams through preparation and review of the
assessment report
• Report writing and review
– written by scientists
– first draft reviewed by scientists and other experts
– second draft reviewed by governments and experts
• Report approval and acceptance
– governments approve the language in the Summary for
Policymakers line by line
– Panel accepts the final reports

11. Assessment Reports
WG I Report WG II Report WG III Report Synthesis
The Physical Impacts, Mitigation of Report
Science Basis Adaptation and Climate Change
Vulnerability
• Produced every 5 or 6 years; next due in 2013
• Each report includes a Summary for Policymakers,
which highlights the key findings of the assessment

12. Committee Chair Harold Shapiro on IPCC
“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”

13. Achievements of IPCC
• Periodic assessments of our understanding of
nature, origin and impact of observed
changes in world’s climate.
• Global focus on climate change.
• Continued conversation between scientists
and policymakers.
• Innovative decentralized network of scientists
along government representatives.

14. Recommendations
• Aimed at helping IPCC manage an increasingly
complex assessment process and doing so
under the gaze of a public microscope
• Two types of recommendations:
– significant changes in management and
governance;
– strengthened and enhanced procedures for
carrying out an assessment.

15. Current Management Structure
• Panel meets annually to make decisions on
procedures and the work program of the IPCC
• IPCC Chair oversees all IPCC activities, leads writing
of the Synthesis Report, and speaks on behalf of the
IPCC
• Bureau oversees the assessment process
• Secretariat
– facilitates the work of the Panel and Bureau and the
participation of developing country scientists
– manages the website
– coordinates report production and outreach

16. Recommendations on Management
and Governance
• Appoint an Executive Committee with defined powers
to act between plenary sessions
• Elect a full-time Executive Director with appropriate
stature to lead the Secretariat and act on behalf of the
IPCC chair
• Terms of senior leadership (Chair, Executive Director,
and Working Group Co-chairs) limited to one
assessment
• Adopt a conflict of interest policy

17. Recommendations on Processes and
Procedures
• Strengthen the review process
• Improve the characterization and
communication of uncertainty
• Enhance communications
• Increase transparency

18. Review Process
Recommendations aimed at minimizing the number
of errors
• Review Editors should fully exercise their
authority to ensure that all review comments
are adequately considered
• Authors’ response to review comments should
focus on the most significant issues
(90.000 review comments in last assessment)

19. Case Study: Himalaya Glaciers
Perhaps the most talked-about error in the
fourth assessment was this statement in the
Working Group II report:
“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).”

21. Himalaya Glaciers (2)
The Committee examined the draft text and relevant
reviewer comments and concludes IPCC’s report
review process failed in two ways:
 Authors failing to carefully consider thoughtful review
comments
 Review editors failing to ensure that reviewer
comments were adequately addressed

22. Uncertainty
Each major conclusion in the Summary for
Policymakers includes a judgment about its
uncertainty, but some statements were assigned
high confidence with little evidence.
IPCC, 2007b, High confidence:
“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.”

23. Uncertainty
• Working Groups should use IPCC’s level-of-
understanding scale to communicate the
nature, number, and quality of studies
considered.
• Quantitative probabilities should be used only
when statements are well defined and
supported by sufficient evidence.

24. Level-of-understanding Scale
High agreement ... High agreement
Level of agreement
limited evidence much evidence
or consensus →
... ... ...
Low agreement ... Low agreement
limited evidence much evidence
Amount of evidence (theory, observations, models) →
Each Working Group should use the qualitative
level-of-understanding scale in its Summary for
Policymakers and Technical Summary

25. Probability Scale
• Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence
• Extremely likely > 95% probability
• Very likely > 90% probability
• Likely > 66% probability
• More likely than not > 50% probability
• About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability
• Unlikely < 33% probability
• Very unlikely < 10% probability
• Extremely unlikely < 5% probability
• Exceptionally unlikely < 1% probability
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).

26. Gray Literature
• The use of so-called gray literature from unpublished
or non-peer-reviewed sources has been
controversial.
• Such sources of information and data are often
relevant (or even the only source on certain
countries).
• Guidelines are vague and are not always followed,
and should be made more specific (including noting
what sources are not acceptable).
• Gray literature should be appropriately flagged.

27. Full Range of Scientific Views
• Document that full range of thoughtful scientific views
has been considered.
• Lead authors and review editors satisfy themselves that
due consideration has been given to properly
documented alternative views.

28. Communications
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
• IPCC’s new communications strategy should be
completed and implemented as soon as possible.
• The strategy should include a plan for responding to
crises and guidelines on how to speak on IPCC’s behalf.

29. Transparency
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.
• IPCC should establish criteria for selecting participants
in the scoping process, IPCC leaders, and authors of
assessment reports.
• Lead authors should document that they have
considered the full range of thoughtful views.

30. 30 August: Report Released at UN
The full report and other information about the
review is available at
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/

31. Press Coverage
Nature
• Climate panel must adapt to survive
NewYorkTimes
• Another Item for Climate Panel’s To-Do List
The Economist
• Must try harder- a call to reform the IPCC
Le Monde
• Climat : les experts doivent repenser leur
organisation
International Herald Tribune
• Review Finds Flaws in U.N. Climate Panel Structure

32. Steps Ahead
Key decision makers
• IPCC leadership
• National governments of member states IPCC
and UN
• 32nd Plenary session of the IPCC, 11 – 14
October, Busan, South Korea
• Scientific community

33. The Nature of (Climate) Science
• Science is the belief in the ignorance of
experts (Richard Feynman)
• Science is organized skepticism (Robert May)
• Any theory that can account for all of the facts
is wrong, because some of the facts are
always wrong (Francis Crick)

34. Building Bridges

35. Building Capacity: The World
Worldmapper.org

36. The World of Science (output 2002)
Worldmapper.org