IPCC reform (not)

The IPCC meeting in Busan is over.
The first message was from Chris Field, co-chair of WG2, reassuring all authors that the decisions made were in the best interest of the IPCC -- without even explaining what those decisions were. Although one could interpret this as a classic example of paternalism, let's give Chris the benefit of doubt and assume that he was tired after an intense meeting and in a rush to the airport.

BBC and Reuters offer some detail into the decisions made: a committee was formed to look into the matter.

Another day, another farce in climate land.

Cheers in all the wrong places (four blogs who are no friend of the IPCC, and one blog on par with Pachauri). More sober stuff here, and bitter stuff here and here.

Chills down my spine

10:10 on YouTube

The Outline

We are now working on an annotated outline of Chapter 10, to be agreed at a later stage in coordination with the other 29 chapters.
Reaching agreement will be hard, partly because there are so many people around the table, and partly because the starting point is a fine example of writing by committee.
Ten chapters have a regional focus, and two are introductory so that the substance of "impacts, adaptation and vulnerability" are spread over 18 chapters only.
Chapter 10 covers networked infrastructure, industry and manufacturing, tourist, social and other services, market impacts and perhaps food production. That is, the secondary, tertiary, and quartery sectors and their interactions, and perhaps the primary sectors too -- the whole economy so.
The problem is that there are two chapters on water resources. Changes in the water avaiable for drinking, sewage, irrigation, cooling, and navigation is important to the economy. Where do these chapters end and Chapter 10 start? How to ensure consistency? Ditto for the chapter of food and agriculture, and the chapter on health (the largest sector of the economy). And then there is a chapter on sea level rise and coastal zones, where a lot of economic activity is concentrated. And of course the chapters on rural and urban areas, and the one on poverty.
There are four (!) chapters on adaptation. However, the economic impacts of climate change are mostly about people and companies responding to changed circumstances -- that is, adaptation.
To top it all up, there are two chapters that synthesize the impacts, look at different metrics of aggregation, study interactions between sectors and estimate higher-order effects -- just like you would expect in an economic paper on the impacts of climate change.
I expect the discussions on which chapter does what and why to drag on and on, right up till be final draft. There'll be a lot of heat and little light.

Klimazwiebel challenges Edenhofer

See here

Regulating Knowledge Monopolies: The Case of the IPCC

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has a monopoly on the provision of climate policy advice at the international level and a strong market position in national policy advice. This may have been the intention of the founders of the IPCC. I argue that the IPCC has a natural monopoly, as a new entrant would have to invest time and effort over a longer period to perhaps match the reputation, trust, goodwill, and network of the IPCC. The IPCC is a not-for-profit organization, and it is run by nominal volunteers; it therefore cannot engage in the price-gouging that is typical of monopolies. However, the IPCC has certainly taken up tasks outside its mandate; the IPCC has been accused of haughtiness; innovation is slow; quality may have declined; and the IPCC may have used its power to hinder competitors. There are all things that monopolies tend to do, against the public interest. The IPCC would perform better if it were regulated by an independent body which audits the IPCC procedures and assesses its performance; if outside organizations would be allowed to bid for the production of reports and the provision of services under the IPCC brand; and if policy makers would encourage potential competitors to the IPCC.

Full paper

Letter from Pachauri

Edward Carr blogged on the recent letter from Rajendra Pachauri to the authors and editors of AR5. This created something of a buzz (see, e.g., Dot Earth) which may have lead to a clarification (see, again, Dot Earth). The reason: In the first letter, Pachauri issued a fatwa: Thou Shalt Not Speak To Journalists. This came on top of an earlier letter by Pachauri which had: Thou Shalt Not Blog. Fortunately, what Pachauri really meant to say was that we are not supposed to pretend that we speak on behalf of the IPCC, as indeed we do not.

Carr lamented the apparent "bunker mentality" of the IPCC with regard to communications with the outside world. I share that regret.

I would add two things, though. Firstly, Pachauri apparently does not trust IPCC authors and editors to be mature enough to say sensible things to journalists. Most of us have PhDs, after all, and many are full professors. We might just slip into juvenile language and compare people to Hitler, accuse them of practicing voodoo, or recommend they rub asbestos in their faces. Better to leave communication to the IPCC leadership, who would never say such things.

Secondly, Pachauri describes the IPCC as a "family". I had always thought that the IPCC was a professional organization. The word "family" evokes a sense of loyalty that is too strong (bunker mentality again). It implies that the composition of the team is determined, somewhat randomly, by a higher power. A family does not invite outside experts to fill gaps in knowledge, and it does not release weaker members from their duties.

Ed Carr was right so: We have learned nothing.

IPCC Scholars

The IPCC is meant to assess the academic literature on climate change and policy so as to inform decision makers. This is important. It has also proven to be difficult to keep policy advocacy out of the IPCC.

There are two further issues. Some of the authors seem to have built a career on their involvement in the IPCC rather than on the strength of their research. This is just wrong. The IPCC should use the best people available, rather than the best IPCC people.

In some areas, the IPCC has deemed the available research to be insufficient and stepped in to develop the field. Scenario development is the prime example. Filling research gaps is always good, but in this case it led to the IPCC assessing its own work. The unsurprising result is that the IPCC declared that its own research is wonderful. I disagree, as documented here and here.

Now, there is a new development: The IPCC has started a scholarschip programme, seed-funded with the Nobel Peace Prize money. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, although one should wonder whether it is appropriate to lure bright young things in developing countries into climate research as that implies that they will not investigate other problems that may be more urgent. For the IPCC, there is the danger that the IPCC scholars of today will be preferred IPCC authors of tomorrow; and that their publications will be given preferential treatment in future IPCC assessments.