IPCC Third Assessment Report


The IPCC Third Assessment Report, Climate Change 2001, is an assessment of available scientific and socio-economic information on climate change by the IPCC. The IPCC was established in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme and the UN's World Meteorological Organization "... to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation." The Third Assessment Report is the third of a series of assessments; it has been superseded by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007.
Statements of the IPCC or information from the TAR are often used as a reference showing a scientific consensus on the subject of global warming, although a small minority of scientists take issue with the UN assessments.

Working groups

The IPCC is organized as three working groups and a task force :
WG I covers the same areas as the Second Assessment Report of 1995, but WG II & III cover slightly different areas in the TAR.

Conclusions

Working Group I

The key conclusions of Working Group I were:
  1. An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system
  2. Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate
  3. Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased
  4. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities
  5. Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century
  6. Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC SRES scenarios.
The TAR estimate for the climate sensitivity is 1.5 to 4.5 °C; and the average surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius degrees over the period 1990 to 2100, and the sea level is projected to rise by 0.1 to 0.9 metres over the same period. The wide range in projections is based upon several different scenarios that assume different levels of future CO2 emissions.

Synthesis Report

The TAR Synthesis Report includes a summary of the TAR's main findings and uncertainties. "Robust findings" of the TAR include:
"Key uncertainties" in the TAR include:
Projections are used in the TAR as a guide to the possible future effects of climate change, e.g., changes in global mean temperature and sea level. In the TAR, the word "projection" is favoured over "prediction". This is because many future changes related to climate are highly uncertain. For example, climate change projections are affected by highly uncertain changes in future GHG emissions.
The TAR projects impacts according to possible future changes in global mean temperature. Other projections are based on scenarios that the IPCC has developed. In 2000, the IPCC published 40 different scenarios which contain estimates of future changes in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. The SRES scenarios project a wide range of possible changes in future social and economic development, and projected climate change impacts vary according to the scenario considered. The IPCC has not assigned probabilities to the 40 SRES scenarios. Some authors have argued that some SRES scenarios are more likely to occur than others.

Scientific opinion

The IPCC is backed by the scientific community. For example, a joint statement of support was issued in May 2001 by the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden and the UK. It states: "We recognise the IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving consensus."
In 2001, the executive branch of the US federal government asked the US National Research Council to produce an assessment of climate change science. Part of the assessment by US NRC looks at the report produced by Working Group I in the TAR. Working Group I's contribution to the TAR assesses the physical scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change. US NRC generally agrees with findings of the WG I report, for example, US NRC state that " IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue."
US NRC emphasise the need for governments to have a good understanding of uncertainties in climate change science. The example cited by US NRC is the uncertainty over future changes in GHG emissions, which may be less or more than that projected by the TAR. US NRC also state:
The most valuable contribution U.S. scientists can make is to continually question basic assumptions and conclusions, promote clear and careful appraisal and presentation of the uncertainties about climate change as well as those areas in which science is leading to robust conclusions, and work toward a significant improvement in the ability to project the future.

Criticism

The IPCC's work has been the subject of criticism, and there are a small number of climate scientists who disagree with aspects of the IPCC's work. Perhaps the best known is Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

IPCC process

A report by the UK Parliament's House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee contains criticisms of the IPCC's work, including the "SRES" greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, which are used in the TAR. The Economic Affairs Select Committee is made up of members of the House of Lords, which scrutinizes and votes on government legislation. One of the criticisms made by the EAC is an apparent inconsistency between the Working Group II Summary for Policymakers and a statement made in the full WGII report: "The IPCC Summary for policy makers says that economic studies underestimate damage, whereas the chapter says the direction of the bias is not known."
The UK Government issued a response to the report by EAC. The UK Government acknowledged the discrepancy between the WGII SPM and full WGII report which was referred to by the EAC, but remained generally supportive of the IPCC's procedures. The UK Government rebutted a number of other criticisms of the TAR which were made by the EAC.