Climate change assessments Review of the processes and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

physical climate system, covers the natural science disciplines, including meteorology, hydrology, oceanography, ecology, and cryospheric science. The assessment relies on observations, global models, and peer-reviewed literature, and can draw on large numbers of practitioners with a long history of collaboration. In contrast, Working Group II, which deals with impacts of climate change and strategies for adaptation, and Working Group III, which addresses mitigation options, cover dominantly social science disciplines, such as geography, economics, political science, and sociology. Working Groups II and III rely more heavily on non-peerreviewed literature (sometimes called gray literature) and involve a smaller, more diverse set of experts who may have less experience working on large international projects. The fact that scientific expertise for all three Working Groups resides predominantly in developed countries is an ongoing challenge for dealing with a global issue. Committee approach and methodology The IAC Committee operated independently from the UN and IPCC in conducting its review, and attempted to pursue a deliberative and consultative approach by obtaining information from a variety of sources within and outside of the IPCC, including from experts with divergent views of IPCC processes. The Committee included experts from several countries and from a variety of disciplines. Its first two meetings, held in Amsterdam and Montreal, included public webcast sessions of presentations by IPCC and U.N. officials and by scientists with different perspectives on IPCC processes and procedures. 5 Subgroups of the Committee also held meetings in Brazil, China, and the United States, and a subgroup visited the IPCC Secretariat in Geneva as well. The Committee also gathered input from experts with a variety of views on the IPCC assessment process via interviews and a widely distributed questionnaire (Appendix B). The questionnaire was sent to IPCC government representatives, scientific leaders of the fourth and upcoming fifth assessments, critics and proponents of the IPCC assessment process, and organizations with an interest in the content of the assessment reports, such as scientific societies and nongovernmental organizations. The questionnaire was also posted on the Committee’s website so the general public could comment. More than 400 individuals, listed in Appendix C, provided input. The prevailing views of the questionnaire respondents 5 Audio recordings of the presentations are available at http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/. 4 Climate change assessments | Review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC
Number of authors 1500 1200 900 600 Total WG I WG II WG III Total WG III WG II WG I 300 0 FAR SAR TAR AR4 2500 Assessment Total Number of reviewers 2000 1500 1000 WG III WG II WG I 500 0 FAR SAR TAR Assessment AR4 3000 2500 Number of pages 2000 1500 1000 500 0 FAR SAR TAR Assessment Figure 1.1 Trends in the number of authors (top) and reviewers (middle) and in the length of the Working Group (WG) reports (bottom) from the first assessment (FAR) to second (SAR), third (TAR) and fourth assessments (AR4). Authors who participated in two Working Groups for any given assessment are counted twice for that assessment. Reviewer names were not listed in the Working Group II or III reports for the first assessment. Source: Compiled from information in the assessment reports. AR4 Climate change assessments | Review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC 5
Page 1 and 2: October 2010 Climate change assessm
Page 3 and 4: Climate change assessments
Page 5 and 6: Foreword In March 2010, the InterAc
Page 7 and 8: Contents Foreword iii Committee to
Page 9 and 10: Preface Since its founding more tha
Page 11 and 12: IAC report review This report was e
Page 13 and 14: Acknowledgements Community input wa
Page 15 and 16: management structure comprises the
Page 17 and 18: amount of evidence available and th
Page 19 and 20: 1. Introduction The Intergovernment
Page 21: assessment, they must carry out the
Page 25 and 26: BOX 1.2 Roles of participants in IP
Page 27 and 28: The IPCC assessment process in brie
Page 29 and 30: Preparation of the Synthesis Report
Page 31 and 32: 2. Evaluation of IPCC’s assessmen
Page 33 and 34: authors are chosen and others are n
Page 35 and 36: efore incorporating them (Appendix
Page 37 and 38: ange of viewpoints offered and pote
Page 39 and 40: for rejected comments. In the case
Page 41 and 42: Summary for Policymakers A Summary
Page 43 and 44: in each of the three Working Group
Page 45 and 46: 3. IPCC’s evaluation of evidence
Page 47 and 48: Table 3.3 Likelihood scale used by
Page 49 and 50: models, conditional on the SRES sce
Page 51 and 52: 4. The likelihood scale used by Wor
Page 53 and 54: change. The area suitable for agric
Page 55 and 56: Fourth Assessment Report by present
Page 57 and 58: not consistently followed in the fo
Page 59 and 60: Recommendation ►The likelihood sc
Page 61 and 62: 4. Governance and management The IP
Page 63 and 64: The IPCC makes all of its major dec
Page 65 and 66: The IPCC Bureau The IPCC Bureau com
Page 67 and 68: Ismail A.R. El Gizouli (Sudan - Act
Page 69 and 70: ex officio member of the Executive
Page 71 and 72: were interviewed by the Committee o
Page 73 and 74:
Working Groups and Technical Suppor
Page 75 and 76:
Recommendation ►The IPCC should c
Page 77 and 78:
5. Conclusions IPCC’S processes a
Page 79 and 80:
Editors could help them provide the
Page 81 and 82:
Increasing transparency. Transparen
Page 83 and 84:
making the assessment reports short
Page 85 and 86:
esponded to the Committee’s quest
Page 87 and 88:
dents have suggested testing the co
Page 89 and 90:
References Agrawala, S., 1998a, Con
Page 91 and 92:
Kahan, D., 2010, Fixing the communi
Page 93 and 94:
Appendix A Letters of request to th
Page 95 and 96:
Climate change assessments | Review
Page 97 and 98:
Climate change assessments | Review
Page 99 and 100:
Appendix B Questionnaire on IPCC pr
Page 101 and 102:
F. Crooks, CSIR/SABS, South Africa
Page 103 and 104:
Girma Orssengo, University of Weste
Page 105 and 106:
Appendix D Excerpts of IPCC procedu
Page 107 and 108:
IPCC review process (IPCC, 1999, Se
Page 109 and 110:
4.2.4.2 Second review (by governmen
Page 111 and 112:
Plan to treat issues of uncertainty
Page 113 and 114:
C. An order of magnitude can be giv
Page 115 and 116:
14. Likelihood, as defined in Table
Page 117 and 118:
Appendix E Committee biographies Ha
Page 119 and 120:
to 2001, he worked at the Frontier
Page 121 and 122:
Appendix F Acronyms and abbreviatio
Page 123:
IAC Secretariat Het Trippenhuis Klo
show all

Climate change assessments Review of the processes and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?