The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1990 and its first report arguably led to the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).  From this a series of annual meetings has emerged, the “Conference of the Parties (COP)”.  COP3 led to the Kyoto protocol in 1997;  in 2010 we all earnestly hope that COP15 will lead to another set of international agreements.

The IPCC is a respected body,  it does not carry out science, it reviews the work of others and publishes a summary.  Its summaries represent a global scientific consensus.  In order to manage the vast volume of papers they have to review the IPCC have to impose a cut off date. This means that the latest IPCC report is based on science that is now three years old.

In many respects this is not a big deal.  The science back then was already very clear; climate negotiators already know what they have to do.  To reduce the risk of the worst predictions political leaders must agree to rapid cuts in greenhouse gas emissions; starting in the developed world and quickly involving everyone.

But to ignore the science of the last three years would be unwise.  Sadly, as has so often been the case over the past 20 years the emerging science is “worse than they expected”. One reason for this in my view is that the IPCC consensus process leads to excessively cautious pronouncements – the scientists are so scared of making statements that turn out to be overly pessimistic that they will only opine when they are really sure of their work.  Whats wrong with that?  You might ask.  Well, I suggest it means that the IPCC reports are not a “best estimate” but are really an optimistic statement – and this is bourne out because each new report contains even worse predictions.

However, climate negotiators dont need to wait until the next IPCC report (2013) for the latest science.  A large group of world famous scientists have produced a new report “The Copenhagen Diagnosis” which contains their latest views on risk.

The news isn’t good.

Greenhouse gas emissions are now 40% higher than 1990, higher than all the scenarios considered to date. Greenland and West Antarctic Ice sheets are loosing ice at an accelerating rate (see our 360 report on this), the Arctic Sea Ice is dissapearing much more rapidly than thought.  Sea levels are rising much quicker than expected, upper limits are now set at 200cm by 2100 compared to 59cm as previously thought!  

Is there hope?

Yes.  We can change and accept lower energy allowances.  Groups are starting to imagine what the society of the future will look like; and to many in the frenzied work environment of the early 2100 century they are quite appealing.  The future doesnt have to be bleak;  we need leadership and vision to choose a future we want – rather than have one imposed which, trust me, we don’t. Our thanks as ever go to the tireless scientists who have worked to ensure the climate negotiators have the best science on which to make their deal.

Tags: Climate change

This entry was posted by Trevor Maynard on Monday, December 7th, 2009 at 10:45 am and is filed under Exposure Management.