Sep 10 2008
Executive Summary of “Changing Climate”
Nicolas Nierenberg has posted the executive summary of Changing Climate on a newly created website. Except for 1 or 2 of the points, it could be mistaken for a report from the IPCC.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Related Posts:
6 Responses to “Executive Summary of “Changing Climate””
To reduce spam, comments are automatically closed 30 days after the last comment. If you would like to comment on any closed thread, please use the contact form at the top of this page.
Is synopsis the same as executive summary?
[Reply: I don't have the report in front of me, so I don't know. But I would guess that they are the same. I don't recall a section in the report called a synopsis.]
To understand what went on take a look at John Mashey’s comment at DeSmogBlog where he quotes correspondence he had with George Woodall, a surviving scientist from the NAS report
“Dear Dr. Mashey:
Yes, I remember well that committee and how it was controlled and deflected by new economic influences as the environmental issues appeared to become acute. The study was under the auspices of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, not the National Science Foundation. We resorted to individual papers because we could not agree, or see any way to agree, on a single report. Even within my own paper there was systematic pressure to dilute the statements and the conclusions. I had previously written and signed along with Roger Revelle, Davide Keeling, and Gordon MacDonald a stronger statement for the CEQ at the end of the Carter administration. That statement was widely publicized by Gus Speth, then Chairman of CEQ, and ultimately used in testimony in the Congress and as bakground for the Global 2000 Report publishe by CEQ in 1980.
As far as the summary statement of the Report was concerned, as the Preface states: there were “no major dissents”. That means no one chose to fight with the chairman. It was poor, sickly job, deliberately made so for political reasons characteristic of the corruption of governmental purpose in the Reagan regime. Naomi Oreskes has it right. GMW”
As Eli says YMMV and he would not be very surprised to hear different from Yohe, Nordhaus and Schelling but it was clear from Orekes original article that this was a split committee. It shows again why one should never let a bully chair have his way
I’m on dial-up at the moment and can’t get the download to work. Frank Bi posted the following excerpt at DeSmogBlog:
_____________________________
From the copy of the executive summary on N. Nierenberg’s own site:
“(a) Research and development should give some priority to the enhancement of long-term energy options that are not based on combustion of fossil fuels. (Chapters 1, 2, 9)
“(b) We do not believe, however, that the evidence at hand about CO2-induced climate change would support steps to change current fuel-use patterns away from fossil fuels. Such steps may be necessary or desirablea t some time in the future, and we should certainly think carefully about costs and benefits of such steps; but the very near future would be better spent improving our knowledge (including knowledge of energy and other processes leading to creation of greenhouse gases) than in changing fuel mix or use. (Chapters 1, 2, 9)
“(c) It is possible that steps to control costly climate change should start with non-CO2 greenhouse gases. While our studies focused chiefly on CO2, fragmentary evidence suggests that non-CO2 greenhouse gases may be as important a set of determinants as CO2 itself. While the costs of climate change from non-CO2 gases would be the same as those from CO2, the control of emissions of some non-CO2 gases may be more easily achieved. (Chapters 1, 2, 4, 9)”
So the recommendations are more climate research plus “some priority” to development of alternative fuels, and other than that, nothing. It’s clear from this that Oreskes was right at least on one count: W. Nierenberg was prescribing inaction.
How did N. Nierenberg manage to read this as “very much in line with views [...] in the present”?
_____________________________
Also, Atmoz, you posted this extract:
_____________________________
“Results of most numerical model experiments suggest that a doubling of CO2, if maintained indefinitely, would cause a global surface air warming of between 1.5C and 4.5C. The climate record of the past hundred years and our estimates of CO2 changes over that period suggest that values in the lower half of this range are more probable.”
_____________________________
If we’re talking equilibrium sensitivity here, this starts to sound like a bit of as low-ball, especially when read together with the policy recommendations above. I suppose the next step would be to compare this stuff with the corresponding material in the Jason and Charney reports.
Another question I have is why the Nierenberg report took so long. I’m not sure what it means, but it does seem odd.
Jason said climate sensitivity of 2-3C for a doubling of CO2. Almost exactly what the NAS panel said. “…models that estimate the change in mean surface temperature for a doubling of CO2 concentration lead to an increase of 2-3C.”
Mr. Bloom
The executive summary was not the same as the synthesis. The synthesis was a longer summary of the key findings in the report. The executive summary was an even shorter summary of the synthesis. The synthesis is quite lengthy, but is completely in line with the executive summary (and the rest of the report I might add).
Mr Rabett,
I have responded to Dr. Mashey over at DeSmog blog. I feel that you are cherry picking the introduction. Here is the full relevant text.
“The CO2 issue is so diverse in its intellectual components that no individual may be considered an expert on the entire problem. For this reason, as noted above, the CDAC prepared or commissioned separately authored and separately peer-reviewed papers in each area, with no attempt to force unanimity of style or of views. For the same reason, the Committee members felt themselves incapable of judging and endorsing as a group the details of each paper’s analysis and findings. Thus, each paper should be viewed primarily as the product of its individual members and other reviewers but not enjoying the unanimity of conclusions possible in a more homogeneous and less controversial topic. However, the Committee’s work did reveal a large core of views, findings, conclusions, and recommendations on a more general level, which all members could wholeheartedly and responsibly endorse. These are presented in the Synthesis of the report. Despite the existence of some areas of continuing controversy, such as the carbon cycle, there are no major dissents with respect to the contents of this assessment.”
You focused on the phrase “no major dissents” I would focus on the phrase “wholeheartedly and responsibly endorse.” It seems to me that the dissent phrase might be tied to the carbon cycle (which was Dr. Woodwells area of expertise as I understand it). But who knows.
In any event there is no record of dissent from any of the members in the minutes. Dr. Woodwell did not choose to write a letter to the NY Times after the executive summary was published on the front page. Nor did he write a letter to anyone else as far as I can make out. He chose to have his name on the result at the time. Maybe he felt that the policy recommendations should have been stronger, but clearly he didn’t feel he needed to do anything about it.
Selective quoting… hmm I feel desperation in the air…