The IPCC Process is Good, but….. 

I worked with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1988 to 2000 on five impact analyses: Fisheries (Convening Lead Author), Polar Regions (Co-Chair), Oceans (Lead Author), and Oceans and Coastal Zones (Co-Chair/2 reports).

I support the IPCC process. It is a reasonable way to coordinate the development of policy advice on global issues. I believe the technical chair persons are able to exert enough authority to keep the reports from becoming merely political statements. However, there does appear to be “cherry picking” of science and results to advance some policy agendas or anthropogenic greenhouse warming.

I would like to see better treatment of alternative views and greater numbers of dissenting scientists participating. This latest report on the Science of Climate Change covered the key aspects of concern to those not part of the IPCC consensus, but did not involve them sufficiently, if at all, in developing the material and the result seems to be an official dismissal of the literature rather than a thorough development as is common for ideas necessary for the consensus view to be valid. IPCC should not state that the findings are supported by the thousands of scientists who participated without querying them. Many provided input on things germane to their work, such as the impact of sea level rise on a marsh. They have no idea if the sea level rise projection they were asked to address makes sense or not. People who reviewed the report and who disagreed through their comments or provided materials are included in the list of experts or authors, even if their materials were rejected. They should not all be considered part of the “consensus”.

The IPCC 2007 Climate Forecast for this Century:

• CO2 (the most important gas) has risen from 280 ppm to 379 since pre-industrial times and its growth seems to be accelerating. Whether it does or not is the basis for 7 assumptions about future temperatures.
• Temperature increase. For the next 2 decades, temperature will rise 0.2 deg. C (0.4 F) per decade, slightly higher later in most models. The models are all different and respond differently to different assumptions. For the end of this century, IPCC provides 7 best estimates (for 7 assumptions) ranging from 0.6 – 4.0 C (1.1-7.6 F). Warming is likely to lie in the range 2-4.5 deg. C (3.8-8.6 F), with a most likely value of about 3 deg. C (4.7 F). Since the 1800s the temperature has risen 0.76 deg.C (1.4 F). The warming is to be greater on land, in high northern latitudes.
• Sea level rise. For 6 sets of assumptions, the mid-points are about 0.3 meters ( 1 ft.)  Since 1850 sea level has risen about 200 mm (9 in.), a little less than 2 mm/yr. More recently the rate appears to be 3.1 mm/yr.
• Other attributes. There should be: higher ocean acidity (but still basic); more intense, less numerous hurricanes; more heat waves and heavy precipitation; less sea ice and snow cover; higher westerly winds in mid-latitudes; and more precipitation in high latitudes, less in sub-tropics inland areas.

The IPCC Projections do not Comport with Reality

• CO2 has usually been associated with temperature rise throughout the history of the Earth. It is indeed a greenhouse gas but it operates on a logarithmic function. The Earth’s natural processes also contribute, and remove, copious amounts of CO2. Since plants first appeared on the Earth, they have converted nearly all available CO2 to oxygen, fossil fuels, and other longterm removals from the atmosphere. Today less than 4/100 of 1% (379 ppm) of our atmosphere is CO2. This pales in comparison with other periods in Earth’s history. Common IPCC scenarios rely on an increasing supply of fossil fuels, yet we know that this is not possible and that production will soon peak (if not already) while prices rise in response, as they are doing already. It is absolutely unrealistic to think CO2 emissions will rise for the duration of this century.
• The projected temperature rise is unrealistic, given that the USA and global temperatures have risen by only 1 deg F (.5 C) in 100 years (revised, NOAA, 1 May 2007 ), (or 150 years using the full instrumented data set) during the height of industrial expansion. Even if all this rise is correct, and is attributable to human causes, it is a trivial amount in the natural variation of the Earth, and to suggest the rise would accelerate 5 fold (IPCC best estimate) in this century is incredible. Even after the release of the new data set and procedures by NOAA on May 1, which addressed some of the urban heat island issues and dropped the warming 44% (below IPCC 2007), significant other urban heat island issues still remain. There are also issues of calibration as measurement protocols have changed, issues about the design and placement of the temperature stations, and even the strongly held view by many skeptics that this is a natural rise as the Earth recovers from the Little Ice Age (circa 1500-1900).
• Sea level rise may have increased recently, but other studies have consistently shown no increase. Even if there is an increase, it is in the order of 1 mm per year on top of the 1-2 mm per year that  has been happening for the last century, this additional amount is 4 inches (10 cm) over the century. This is not trivial if you are in a low-lying region wrestling with land subsidence, but it is barely more than what would be coming anyway.
• The other forecasts, such as for hurricanes, rainfall, and snow cover, are not significantly different than under natural variability, and will advance more slowly than the decadal oscillations. In particular, if ocean acidity were a problem for shell formation, it would have shown up already in areas where there are naturally high levels of CO2. It has not.

The IPCC Impacts are Overstated Relative to Benefits

• The IPCC Impact Assessment significantly discounts the benefits that come with a warming climate and accentuates the negatives. Most negatives lie within the unrealistic worst case climate scenarios and this is forgotten by readers and the press. Human populations have expanded the most when the Earth warmed and turned greener, whether during the middle ages or durning the last 2 decades. Whether it is a  fish in the ocean, a shrimp in an aquaculture pond, or a bean on a  vine, it will grow faster when it is warmer, all things being equal. Humans will  be quick to take advantage of a warmer climate and to adjust if it gets too warm in an area. More crops grow where it is warm or hot than in frozen ground, and CO2 is a primary food of plants – basic facts that  seem forgotten. However, the vegetative impact is visible to NASA satellites, which have detected a 6% greening of the Earth in the last 2 decades from a warmer, wetter, higher-CO2 Earth. This is pretty much the opposite of the IPCC thrust. Positive findings are not brought forth at the level of the negatives.