Kan vi stole på FNs klimapanel?

Kan vi stole på
FNs
klimapanel?
Knut H. Alfsen
CICERO Senter for klimaforskning
Naturfagskonferansen, Oslo, 22.10.2010
1
A mad world?
• Michael Crichton is a science fiction novelist. He draws you into a
fictional world, suspends your disbelief, and sells a lot of books.
• A 2004 Crichton novel had the premise that human-caused
climate change is a gigantic hoax, perpetrated by a sinister cabal
of scientists and environmentalists.
• Despite a lack of any formal training in climate science, Crichton
the following year was invited to testify before a Senate
committee on climate-related issues. Furthermore, he appeared
in televised debates with reputable climate scientists, and
briefed President Bush on global warming.
All the talk of global Warming is absolutely mind numbing. Out of nowhere, this science is out to scare us all. The fact
remains, the Global Warming scientists believe that humans must take the necessary steps to avoid a meltdown. It is
ignorant to think humans can save the planet. God created this world, God alone can save this world from ourselves.
Plus, do these scientists understand the ramifications of their sales pitch? The people of Earth would have to give up
everything in order to succeed. By everything I mean combustion engines, factories, electricity, all meat, dairy, etc.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:God,_Earth_and_Global_Warming
The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who
like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world. http://
www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity
2
Disposisjon
• Litt om klima og global oppvarming
• Hva er IPCC?
• Hva sier IPCC?
• Har de «rett»?
• ‘IPCC-gate’ mm
• IPCC i framtiden?
3
Drivhuseffekten
Source: NILU
4
during 1955 to 1998 [1 W year/m2 over the
full Earth È 1.61 ! 1022 J; see table S1 for
conversion factors of land, air, water, and ice
temperature changes and melting to global
energy units]. Total ocean heat storage in
that period is consistent with climate model
simulations (16–19), but the models do not
reproduce reported decadal fluctuations. The
fluctuations may be a result of variability of
agrees well with the 5.5 W year/m2 in the
analysis of Levitus et al. (21) for the upper
700 m that was based only on in situ data.
Figure 3 compares the latitude-depth profile of the observed ocean heat content
change with the five climate model runs
and the mean of the five runs. There is a
large variability among the model runs, revealing the chaotic ‘‘ocean weather’’ fluctu-
relative to that in 1880 and climate sensitivity of È2/3-C per W/m2. The observed
1880 to 2003 global warming is 0.6- to
0.7-C (11, 22), which is the full response to
nearly 1 W/m2 of forcing. Of the 1.8 W/m2
forcing, 0.85 W/m2 remains, i.e., additional
global warming of 0.85 ! 0.67 È 0.6-C is
‘‘in the pipeline’’ and will occur in the future
even if atmospheric composition and other
Jordens energibalanse
Global Climate Forcings
4
3
2
1
Surface Temperature Change
B
All Greenhouse Gases
Black Carbon (BC)
Solar Irradiance
Snow Albedo (BC effect)
Stratospheric Aerosols
Reflective Tropospheric Aerosols
Aerosol Indirect Effect
Land Use
Observations
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Run 5
5 Run Mean
.5
∆T (°C)
Forcing (W/m2)
A
0
0.
-1
-2
-.5
-3
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
Fig. 1. (A) Forcings (9) used to drive global climate simulations. (B)
Simulated and observed temperature change. Before 1900, the observed curve is based on observations at meteorological stations and
the model is sampled at the same points, whereas after 1900 the
observations include sea surface temperatures for the ocean area,
and the model is the true global mean (22). (C) Net radiation at the
top of the atmosphere in the climate simulations. Five climate
simulations are carried out that differ only in initial conditions.
1880
1900
1920
1980
2000
0
-1
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Run 5
5 Run Mean
-3
1880
3 JUNE 2005 VOL 308
1960
1
-2
1432
1940
Net Radiation at the Top of the Atmosphere
C
Flux (W/m2)
1880
SCIENCE
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
www.sciencemag.org
Source: Hansen et al (2005)
5
Mesteparten går i havet
Source: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken fromDomingues et al. 2008.
6
Utslipp av CO2
Recent trends in the global carbon cycle
Corinne Le Quéré, Michael R. Raupach, Josep G. Canadell, Gregg Marland,
Laurent Bopp, Philippe Ciais, Thomas J. Conway, Scott C. Doney, Richard Feely,
Pru Foster, Pierre Friedlingstein, Richard A. Houghton, Johanna I. House, Chris
Huntingford, Peter Levy, Mark R. Lomas, Joseph Majkut, Nicolas Metzl, Jean
Ometto, Glen P. Peters, I. Colin Prentice, James T. Randerson, Christian
Rödenbeck, Steven W. Running, Jorge L. Sarmiento, Ute Schuster, Stephen Sitch,
Taro Takahashi, Nicolas Viovy, Guido R. van der Werf, F. I. Woodward
7
LEVETIDER FOR ULIKE KLIMAGASSER
CO2 UTSLIPP ER IRREVERSIBLE
Remaining fraction (%)
100 %
75 %
50 %
25 %
0%
0
100
200
300
400
500
Years
CO2
CH4
SF6
N2O
HFC-134a
CF4
8
9
HVORDAN FORSVINNER CO2
tCICERO
Senter for klimaforskning
$
°CICERO
Senter for klimaforskning
TEMPERATURFORDELING
→ JULI 2010
11
2009: Fjerde varmeste desember
!"#$%&'()*+#,-.*,/*0-12&3&/.&%4556*7-/*,89).+#,-.*,/*0-1:$7Ͳ:$,Ͳ;$#4556*7-/*,8(<=
*7><4"7>"3*?&?@*?2&3&/.&%4556*7>::;*%&?@&=?@*7>47>A*%/&B?#,-.*,,81-%?@-B&0&%"->B(
"#$%$&'(%%#)*+$,-%#$%%#).$/%#011(/2$*)#$1&))3*''+,34'5)/%#)6$1%7)*$7)8
9#$%,11()*$3&)$77/)11)7:,%#$2$/#,4#)/7)4/))'2*'32,7)3*);&)*$(1)%#))//'/7()%'
,3*'-6+)%)16$%,$+*'5)/$4)'2-)$1(/)-)3%1&)*'-)1-(*#1-$++)/:#)3$5)/$4)7'5)/
Kilde: James Hansen, GISS
1)5)/$+<)$/1=9#)>Ͳ1,4-$)//'/,3%#)?Ͳ<)$//(33,34Ͳ-)$3%)-6)/$%(/)$3'-$+<1#':3,3
@,4(/)>;,1$&'(%$2$*%'/'2%:'1-$++)/%#$3%#)$33($+-)$3(3*)/%$,3%<;%#(1A=A>ͲA=ABCD=12
Sammenlikning med modeller
13
IPCC
=
Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change
=
FNs klimapanel
14
FNs klimapanel
•
•
•
•
•
Etablert i 1988 (etter prosess som startet i 1958)
Mandat: Rapportere fra faglitteraturen
Deltakere: WMO + UNEP nasjoner
Plenum = Nasjonale delegater
3 arbeidsgrupper (klimasystem, effekter,
bekjempelse)
15
Finnes vitenskapelige
sannheter?
• IPCC mandat: Rapportere fra
faglitteraturen. ”Policy relevant, but not
policy prescriptive”
• Men finnes ‘den vitenskapelige sannheten’?
• Vitenskap som en ”strukturert samtale”:
– Manuskript  review  Godtatt/endringer/avslått
 revidert manuskript  … publisert!
– Manus/kommentar … publisert!
– …
• IPCC rapporterer fra ‘samtalen’
16
FNs klimapanel
• Spesialrapporter + hovedrapporter
• Nominerer for hvert kapittel kandidater,
hovedsakelig forskere:
–
–
–
–
2 Coordinating lead author (CLA)
2 Review editors
5-15 Lead authors (LA)
(Contributing authors)
• Sammensetning bestemt av fagbakgrunn,
geografisk fordeling og kjønn
17
IPCC: Hovedrapporter
WG I
The Physical
Science Basis
WG II
Impacts, Adaptation
and Vulnerability
WG III
Mitigation of
Climate Change
• Technical summary
• Summary for Policymakers
• Technical summary
• Summary for Policymakers
• Technical summary
• Summary for Policymakers
Synthesis Report
Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers
(20 sider forhandlet tekst)
18
IPCC - politikk & vitenskap
PROCEDURES FOR THE
PREPARATION, REVIEW,
ACCEPTANCE, ADOPTION, APPROVAL
AND PUBLICATION OF IPCC REPORTS
Adopted at the Fifteenth Session (San Jose,
15- 18 April 1999) amended at the Twentieth
Session (Paris, 19-21 February 2003), Twentyfirst Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November
2003), and Twenty-Ninth Session (Geneva, 31
August – 4 September 2008)
19
Tre hovedresultater fra IPCCs
fjerde hovedrapport 2007 (AR4)
• Vi har et problem: Vi observerer en global
temperaturøkning og effekter av denne.
• Vi har skylden: En vesentlig del av
temperaturøkningen de siste decenniene er
høyst sannsynlig menneskeskap.
• Det er ikke dyrt å løse problemet: Det er
mulig å redusere utslippene av klimagasser
vesentlig med eksisterende og nesten modne
teknologier til en overkommelig kostnad.
20
Noen observasjoner
• IPCC vil alltid ”ligge etter” siste
forskningsresultater. Dette kan slå begge veier
• Språkbruken vil være konsensuspreget, men
vil også advare mot svært uheldige utfall
• Enkeltstudier vil ha begrenset betydning for
IPCC
• Usikkerheten tildels skjevt fordelt: Større
sannsynlighet for verre utfall
21
‘IPCC-gate’ vinteren 2009/2010
• «Climate-gate»: University of East Anglia,
Climate Research Unit (CRU), Phil Jones
– see e.g. www.realclimate.org: The CRU hack
• Freedom of Information Act (FIA)
• Senator Inhof
• Paul Erlich’s e-mail
• IPCC ‘feil’
22
Mediestorm!
•
17-22 januar: Himalaya. Sunday Times, NTB, VG, Stavanger Aftenblad
•
24 januar: Disasters. Sunday Times, forskning.no
•
26 januar: Amazonas: The Telegraph, diverse blogger, Stortinget (Kjetil
Solvik Olsen)
•
30 januar: Pachauri: The Times, Dagbladet
•
31 januar: Issmelting:Sunday Telegraph, Dagbladet (med Ellestad som
kilde)
•
3 februar: Nederland: Vrij Nederland, NTB, m.fl.
•
6 februar: Liste med ‘feil’: Sunday Telegraph, Aftenposten
•
Stans i nye avsløringer ca 10 februar, men:
•
Geir Salvesen blander alt sammen i en sak i Aftenposten Innsikt den 25.
februar
•
---
•
Februar: Senatorene Inhof og Sensenbrenner ber om svartlisting av 17
fremtredende klimaforskere i USA
•
Rettsforfølgelse av klimaforsker i en delstat
23
Frikjennelser (for det meste)
• 31. mars: UK komité fra underhuset frikjenner CRU
• April: UEA komité (Oxburgh) frikjenner CRU
• Juni: Siste komité om e-post (Muir Russel) frikjenner UEA/
CRU
• Sunday Times trekker omtale av Amazon-gate i juni
• Juli:Nederlandsk gjennomgang frikjenner i hovedsak IPCC
WGII
• August: Innstilling fra InterAcademy Council
(sammenslutning av de viktigste vitenskapsakademiene i
verden)
–
–
–
–
–
Eksekutiv komité med direktør
Reorganisere review prosessen
Felles angivelse av usikkerhet
Kommunikasjons strategi
Åpnere valg av forfattere
24
Not guilty!
House of Commons
Science and Technology
Committee
results are surprisingly insensitive to adjustments made to the data and the
number of series included.
!"#$%&'#(#&'#&)$
*+,-.)#$*".&/#$$$$
01-.,+2$3#4,#5$$
67+8$9:;:$
7. Recent public discussion of climate change and summaries and
popularizations of the work of CRU and others often contain oversimplifications that omit serious discussion of uncertainties emphasized by the
original authors. For example, CRU publications repeatedly emphasize the
discrepancy between instrumental and tree-based proxy reconstructions of
temperature during the late 20th century, but presentations of this work by the
IPCC and others have sometimes neglected to highlight this issue. While we
find this regrettable, we could find no such fault with the peer-reviewed papers
we examined
Conclusions
The disclosure of
climate data from the
Climatic Research Unit
at the University of
East Anglia
*".,<=$>,<$?7,<$3722#++$
$
3#4,#5$)#.-=$
@<AB#22A<$C#ABB<#8$DA7+)A&$
@<AB#22A<$@#)#<$*+.<E#$
F.4,'$08)A&$
@<AB#22A<$6.-#2$GA<)A&$
$
Eighth Report of Session 2009–10
1. We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work
of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely
that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if
slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of
public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures
were rather informal.
2. We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that
depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close
collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual
benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a
much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of
temperature specialists.
3. It was not the immediate concern of the Panel, but we observed that there were
important and unresolved questions that related to the availability of
environmental data sets. It was pointed out that since UK government adopted
a policy that resulted in charging for access to data sets collected by
government agencies, other countries have followed suit impeding the flow of
processed and raw data to and between researchers. This is unfortunate and
seems inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere in
government.
Report, together with formal minutes
Ordered by the House of Commons
to be printed 24 March 2010
Vol 466|8 July 2010
NEWS
Lord Oxburgh’s
Science
Assessment
Panel
4. A host of important unresolved questions also arises from the application of
Freedom of Information legislation in an academic context. We agree with the
CRU view that the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties
should stay with those who collected it.
Few fishy facts found in climate report
Submitted to the University 12 April 2010
HC 387-I
Published on 31 March 2010
by authority of the House of Commons
London: The Stationery Office Limited
£0.00
How much of the Netherlands lies
below sea level? It seems an innocuous question — but it sparked
a major review of the work of
the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC).
The investigation, commissioned
by the Dutch government, focused
on the contribution of Working
Group II — on impacts, adaptation
and vulnerability — to the IPCC’s
Dutch measures against
Fourth Assessment Report1. The
sea-level rise will not be
Dutch report’s conclusions2, released
affected by IPCC errors.
on 5 July, highlight a number of mistakes — some trivial, others more
egregious — and suggest ways to minimize former co-chair of Working Group II.
errors in the future. But they also confirm the
In 32 projected regional impacts highlighted
IPCC report’s core message: that global warm- in the IPCC report’s ‘Summary for Policying poses substantial risks to societies and eco- makers’, the PBL found only one factual
systems on all continents.
error. The number of Africans projected to
“By and large, the IPCC has delivered a be exposed to water shortage due to climate
complex research in ten-word statements there will obviously be generalization,” he says. “And when the
main projected impacts are all negative, should we really have emphasized the trivial positive impacts as
the PBL delicately implies?”
A parallel assessment of the IPCC’s
processes and procedures is currently
being conducted by the Amsterdambased InterAcademy Council, composed of representatives of national
academies of science from around
the world. It is due to deliver its recommendations to the United Nations
next month, and is likely to reinforce some of the
suggestions made by the PBL review. For example, the Dutch panel says that the next IPCC
assessment report should be more transparent
about how climate-impact researchers arrive at
their judgements and recommendations, and
M. KEIJSER/HOLLANDSE HOOGTE/EYEVINE
Dutch investigation supports key warnings from the IPCC’s most recent assessment.
5
25
Hva skjedde egentlig?
• ‘EU-referendum’ (Richard North) startet flere
av avsløringene
• Fikk først oppmerksomhet i søndagsutgavene
til konservative britiske aviser
• Kom til Norge via unge journalister
• Erfarne klimajournalister har holdt seg unna
• I Norge er problemet strukturelt
• Wikipedia ‘angrep’
• Mediekjøret påvirker opinionen
26
• 15-20 % reduksjon i amerikanere som tror det
pågår en global oppvarming i løpet av 2-3 år.
Tvil
og skepsis brer seg
som tror det er menneskeskapt klimaendring
• Også i Norge er det en markert nedgang i folk
Survey by Yale
University:
Do you think global
warming is happening?
2008: 71% yes
2010: 59% yes
7
27
In a larger perspective: This has
happened before
!"#$%#&'()*()!+,-.*#/.*#)!.%(01(&2)
3#1,&')*1#)4556)7#/- .&)8#0("*).&')9:();#%.'#$)(<)!+,-.*#)=&*,>?%,#&%#)
@(1&)8A)B.$1#2C )
!"#$%&'()*#'+*'(,%)(-./01*'0(#+*.'%)#+2"34)&./+2'.()*#'+&#5#*(.')1"&)(#+&'+&#/+%""3(/6)*1.'0(63(%+(
#+*.'%)#+2"34+/#)3(%+&#4)*#'+*'(78(*%$-%#2+9( ( :,#)(,%)()1.2'0(#+(%("/+2(*.')*'+0/(5./$(;<<=(&/(&,'(
FDFRSKRQ\RI³&OLPDWHJDWH´WKHHPDLOKDFNRIWKH8QLYHUVLW\RI(DVW$QJOLD¶V&OLPDWLF5HVHDUFK8QLW(
:,#)(;>?4-%2'(.'-/.&(0'&%#")(&,'("/+2(,#)&/.3(/5(&,')'(%&&%*@)A(#+*"10#+2(51+0#+2(5"/B)A(/.2%+#C%&#/+)A(
-'/-"'(%+0(&%*&#*)9( (D&(,#2,"#2,&)(&,'(.'%"#&3(6',#+0(%(E==?4E==F(*%$-%#2+(&,%&(-1.-/)'51""3($#)"'0(
!/+2.'))9(D&)(.')1"&)(,%G'(5/.$'0(%(-#""%.(/5(&,'(%+&#4)*#'+*'(78(*%$-%#2+(&/(&,#)(0%3A(#+*"10#+2(
!"#$%&'2%&'9( ( H"&,/12,(&,'(%1&,/.(,%)(6'+'5#&'0(5./$(5.'I1'+&(0#)*1))#/+)(B#&,("'%0#+2(.')'%.*,'.)A(&,'(
.'-/.&(#)(6%)'0(-.#$%.#"3(/+(-16"#*(#+5/.$%&#/+(4(2/G'.+$'+&(.'-/.&)A(/.2%+#C%&#/+)J(B'6)#&')A(
-''.4.'G#'B'0(%.&#*"')A()*,/"%."3(6//@)(%+0('K#)&#+2(L.''0/$(/5(D+5/.$%&#/+(H*&(MLNDHO(0%&%9(
:,#)(.'-/.&(),/B)(#+(0'&%#"P
www.desmogblog.com/crescendo--climategate--cacophony.
x) H(&#2,&(+'&B/.@(/5(/.2%+#C%&#/+)(%+0(#+0#G#01%")(51+0'0(%+0('K'*1&'0(&,'("/+2(*%$-%#2+9( ( :,'3(1)'0(
B'""4,/+'0(&%*&#*)(-#/+''.'0(63(&/6%**/(*/$-%+#')A(61&(&/(/6)*1.'(&,'(0%+2'.)(/5()'*/+04,%+0()$/@'A(
Tobacco
%*#0(.%#+A(*,"/./5"1/./*%.6/+)(%+0(2.''+,/1)'(2%)('$#))#/+)9( (
x)Acid
L./$(E==;(&/(E==?A()'G'.%"(/5(&,')'A(&,'!"#$%&'('()&!*+'&,%,(-&!.+-'('/'&0!1&#,2&!"3!45,-6577!
rain
.+-'('/'&A!8&+5'#,!95$&-!.+6#:& (%+0(%""#')(5/1+0(³QHZYRLFHV´LQ!%+%0#%+)!;#--!4<=(',(<>(Q(
Star
wars
8'&)&+!4<.+'?,& A('+*/1.%2'0(&,'$(%+0(#+&./01*'0(&,'$(&/(R%),#+2&/+A(S!9( ( T)#+2(&,'(/"0(&%*&#*)A(
Ozone
hole
&,'3(&.#'0(&/(0#)*.'0#&()-'*#5#*()*#'+&#)&)(%+0(&,'(D+&'.2/G'.+$'+&%"(7%+'"(/+(!"#$%&'(!,%+2'(MD7!!O9(
x)...
D+(E==?A(;&%,&-&+'5'()&-!9#&!@5,'#+!%+0!*A!B6(':(&7A(1+1)1%""3(0'$%+0'0(#+5/.$%&#/+(5./$(*"#$%&'(
Global warming
)*#'+&#)&)(U#*,%'"(U%++A(8%3$/+0(V.%0"'3(%+0(U%"*/$(W12,')A(/.#2#+%&/.)(/5(%(;<<<(³KRFNH\VWLFN´
2.%-,("%&'.(1)'0(#+(&,'(D7!!(E==;(.'-/.&)9( ( :,'()*#'+&#5#*(*/$$1+#&3(-1),'0(6%*@9( (@5,'#+(%+0(
B6(':(&7A(63-%))'0(&,'(X%&#/+%"(H*%0'$3(/5(Y*#'+*')A(-.'5'..#+2(%+(/00(./1&'(&/(.'%*,(*AC5,A!
28
B&2$5+(&/(5/.$(%+(³#+0'-'+0'+&A(#$-%.&#%"A('K-'.&´(-%+'"(&/('G%"1%&'(,/*@'3()&#*@()&%&#)&#*)9(
)
Ny IPCC-modell nødvendig?
• Nedlegge IPCC?
• Ekspertpanel med ‘faste’ eksperter
(vitenskapsdominert)?
• Wikipedia-modell (menigmanns mening)?
• Dagens modell (politiker innblanding evt. med
flere ‘stakeholders’)?
• Uansett behov for styrket mediahåndtering!
29
Takk for oppmerksomheten!
http://www.cicero.uio.no
30
28