After Not-Even-Close Projections On CO2 Increase, Ice Loss, Some Scientists Call For IPCC Reform

[hatrack]

No sooner is the Nobel prize in the bag than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is coming under fire for not being quick enough on its feet. Levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are rising faster than any climate models predict, and this has prompted some climate scientists to call for an urgent overhaul of the IPCC.

Key conclusions in the final part of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report on climate change, which it publishes next month, are based on research that is several years old, says Inez Fung at the Berkeley Institute of the Environment, California. For her research to be considered in this year's report, she had to complete it by 2004. "There is an awful lag in the IPCC process," she says.

EDIT

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19626274.800;jsessionid=KLMINLJPEHOG

Ed. - paywall.

[FormerDittoHead]

1. This non-scientist predicts things are actually much worse than expected...

After having had to check their work 300 times and STILL be under attack from corporations, well financed "authorities", and government itself, scientists in this field have made it a habit of being "conservative" (in the literal sense) in their predictions (and again, STILL come under attack)...

The result works perfectly, however, because as corporations have put the burden of proof upon the climatologists, (as opposed to the carbon producers having to prove what they're doing is safe), when the shit starts REALLY hitting the fan, no one will have to stand to blame because "no one" was able to predict such (dramatic) results....

[GreenGreenLimaBean]

2. sounds like everyone was thinking linearly

when they should have been thinking exponentially....

[tom_paine]

3. Ah, the great cry of the soon-to-be-extinct.

You want to know what the last Easter Islander who cut down the last tree was thinking?

You're thinking it.

[amandabeech]

4. I skimmed the latest IPCC report on the energy facet of GW.

I think that their predictions of the amount of oil available for burning in the future is off.

They use EIA and IEA numbers, which show world production going up to at least 125,000,000 barrels a day, including heavy stuff like tar sands. The EIA and IEA numbers are considered by some to be politically manipulated, particularly EIA.

Production for the past 3-4 years has plateaued in the 85,000,000 barrels a day range. Some fields will come on line, some small, some larger (Caspian Sea), but there are current declines in many major fields like Mexico's Cantarell and the North Sea. No one really knows whether or when the Saudis will go into decline, but they don't release official production numbers. Many speculate that they are close to peak production or just over the hump. Russia, the #2 producer, is holding its own, but its primary fields are very old, and the Russians may need additional know-how to explore and exploit other fields in harsh climates. It's not clear who will do business with them or who they will do business with since Putin essentially re-nationalized the Russian oil and gas industry.

If the IPCC relies on debatable numbers in other facets of its report, the report itself may be of questionable value.

For those who are interested, I recommend theoildrum.com