[转帖] 中国官员：IPCC要进行自身改革，增强其可信度 [推广有奖]

吕学都
国家气候中心副主任， 原科学技术部全球环境办公室 副主任     
    联合国气候变化框架公约京都议定书清洁发展机制执行理事会 副主席  工程博士
    1991年开始，主管气候变化的科学研究计划、气候变化政策及气候变化国际谈判。从1996年开始，成为中国参加联合国气候变化框架公约和政府间气候变化专门委员会谈判的中国代表团的主要成员，在制定中国气候变化政策方面发挥重要作用。
    2001年，当选为联合国气候变化框架公约京都议定书清洁发展机制执行理事会候补委员，2003年任期满后，竞选为清洁发展机制执行理事会委员。2005 年当选为清洁发展机制执行理事会副主席。2004年6月，在德国科隆召开的世界银行碳融资东道国委员会会议上，被推选为碳融资东道国委员会主席，领导54 个东道国与世界银行及出资国和出资机构合作。2005年，当选为碳融资东道国委员碳交易价格委员会主席。还担任亚太全球变化研究网（APN）中国协调员，碳收集领导人论坛中国协调员等职务、国际地圈生物圈计划中国全国委员会常委等职务。
    2002年考入清华大学攻读博士学位，多年从事研究气候变化政策，已经发表或者联合发表的著作有书籍《清洁发展机制在中国》和《全球气候变化研究：进展与展望》，以及有关气候变化和清洁发展机制的学术论文若干篇。

一、IPCC的建立和作用
　　人类活动的规模已开始对复杂的自然系统，如全球气候产生干扰。许多人认为气候变化会造成严重的或不可逆转的破坏风险，并认为缺乏充分的科学确定性不应成为推迟采取行动的借口。决策者们需要有关气候变化成因、其潜在环境和社会经济影响，以及可能的对策等客观的信息来源。 因此，WMO（世界气象组织）和UNEP（联合国环境规划署）于1988年建立了政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）。它的作用是在全面、客观、公开和透明的基础上，对世界上有关全球气候变化的最好的现有科学、技术和社会经济信息进行评估。这些评估吸收了世界上所有地区的数百位专家的工作成果。IPCC的报告力求确保平衡地反映现有各种观点，并具有政策相关性，但不具有政策指示性。IPCC已编写了一系列出版物，这些出版物现已成为决策者、科学家、其他专家和学生广泛使用的参考书目。
　　二、 IPCC的组成
　　IPCC是一个政府间机构，它向UNEP和WMO所有成员国开放。在大约每年一次的委员会全会上，就它的结构、原则、程序和工作计划作出决定，并选举主席和主席团。全会使用六种联合国官方语言。 IPCC设有三个工作组：第一工作组评估气候系统和气候变化的科学问题；第二工作组的工作针对气候变化导致社会经济和自然系统的脆弱性、气候变化的正负两方面后果及其适应方案；第三工作组评估限制温室气体排放和减缓气候变化的方案。另外还设立一个国家温室气体清单专题组。每个工作组（专题组）设两名联合主席，分别来自发展中国家和发达国家，其下设一个技术支持组。
　　三、IPCC的产品
　　主要产品是：评估报告、特别报告、方法报告和技术报告。每份评估报告都 包括决策者摘要。摘要反映了对主题的最新认识，并以非专业人士易于理解的方式编写。 1、评估报告提供有关气候变化、其成因、可能产生的影响及有关对策的全面的科学、技术和社会经济信息。 IPCC《第一次评估报告》于1990年发表，报告确认了对有关气候变化问题的科学基础。它促使联合国大会作出制定联合国气候变化框架公约（UNFCCC）的决定。该公约于1994年3月生效。 《第二次评估报告》“气候变化1995”提交给了UNFCCC第二次缔约方大会，并为公约的京都议定书会议谈判作出了贡献。 《第三次评估报告》（IPCC TRA）“气候变化2001”也包括三个工作组的有关“科学基础”、“影响、适应性和脆弱性”和“减缓”的报告，以及侧重于各种与政策有关的科学与技术问题的综合报告。 按委员会的决定，《第四次评估报告》（IPCC AR4）于2007年完成。 2、特别报告提供对具体问题的评估。1995年以来发表了： 气候变化的区域影响（1997）， 航空与全球大气（1999）， 技术转让的方法和技术问题（2000）， 排放前景（2000）， 土地利用、土地利用变化和林业（2000）， 保护臭氧层和全球气候系统（2005、4、）。 3、方法报告描述了制定国家温室气体清单的方法与作法，新版《IPCC国家温室气体清单指南》可望于2006年问世。此外还出版了一些其它方面的方法报告。 4、技术报告提供对有关某个具体专题的科学或技术观点，它们以IPCC报告的内容为基础。已出的有： 减缓气候变化的技术、政策和措施（1996）， IPCC第二次评估报告使用的简单气候模式介绍（1997）， 稳定大气温室气体：物理、生物和社会经济意义（1997）， 限制CO2排放建议的意义（1997）， 气候变化与生物多样性（2002）。 5、组织各种研讨会、专家会议、出版文献和提供资料等等。 四、2005—2007年间将完成的报告有： 2005、9、 二氧化碳捕获与封存特别报告 2006、4、 IPCC国家温室气体清单指南 2007、1、 第一工作组第四次评估报告—气候变化2007：物理科学基础 2007、4、 第二工作组第四次评估报告—气候变化2007：影响、适应性和脆弱性 2007、5、 第三工作组第四次评估报告—气候变化2007：减缓气候变化 2007、10、第四次评估报告的综合报告 2007、12、关于气候变化和水的技术报告。

1# zhang3you 谢谢分享。支持吕学都

联合国启动独立委员会审视IPCC报告及其产生程序

World's top scientists to review climate panel
By JOHN HEILPRIN and SETH BORENSTEIN, Associated Press Writers John Heilprin And Seth Borenstein, Associated Press Writers
Wed Mar 10, 5:32 pm ET

.UNITED NATIONS – At a tumultuous time in U.N.-led climate negotiations, one of the world's most credible scientific groups agreed Wednesday to plug the recent cracks in the authoritative reports of the United Nations' Nobel Prize-winning global warming panel.

"We enter this process with no preconceived conclusions," said Robbert Dijkgraaf, a Dutch mathematical physicist who co-chairs the group, the InterAcademy Council of 15 nations' national academies of science.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon asserted "there were a very small number of errors" in the 3,000 pages of the beleaguered U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's last major synthesis of climate data in 2007.

But those errors, which include projections of retreats in Himalayan glaciers, have put public confidence in the panel's work at risk, and have been seized on by climate skeptics opposed to the U.N.-led efforts to conclude a legal international agreement on global warming this year.

The nonbinding Copenhagen accord brokered by President Barack Obama in the final hours of the December climate change summit in the Danish capital has the support of major polluters and economies such as the U.S., China and India. But it fell well short of its original ambition of a legally binding treaty controlling the world's emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming.

Dijkgraaf said his Netherlands-based group, which agreed to the U.N.'s request to review the panel's work, "will definitely not go over all the data, the vast amount of data in climate science," but will instead focus on how the panel does its job, in light of the unsettling errors that have surfaced recently.

The review is being paid for by the United Nations, but Dijkgraaf said his group will operate completely independently. Its peer-reviewed final report, he said, is intended "to ensure the quality of IPCC reports in the future" including the U.N. panel's next scientific assessment report due in 2014.

The group will first pick a panel of outside experts and wrap up its independent review by the end of August, said Dijkgraaf, also president of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Chris Field, a Stanford University professor who in 2008 took over as head of an IPCC group studying climate impacts, said the InterAcademy faces a challenge picking outside experts for the review since "almost anybody who has been involved in climate science has some connection with the IPCC."

Among the questions are: Whether the U.N. climate panel should consider non-peer reviewed literature? How governments review IPCC material? And even, how the IPCC communicates with the public?

No errors surfaced in the earlier and most well-known of the reports, which said the physics of a warming atmosphere and rising seas is man-made and incontrovertible.

But several mistakes have been discovered in the second of the four climate research reports produced in 2007, mainly owing to the use of reports by governments and advocacy groups instead of peer-reviewed research — resulting in fierce criticism of the U.N. panel's work.

For example, in the Asian chapter, five errors were spotted in a single entry saying Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — hundreds of years earlier than other information suggests — with no research backing it up. The chapter on Europe states 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level, when it's really about half that amount.

And a section in the Africa chapter that talks about northern African agriculture says climate change and normal variability could reduce crop yields. But it gets oversimplified in later summaries so that lower projected crop yields are blamed solely on climate change.

Ban said the mistakes in the IPCC reports, found in recent months, don't undercut the broad consensus on global warming.

"Nothing that has been alleged or revealed in the media recently alters the fundamental scientific consensus on climate change," the secretary-general said. "Nor does it diminish the unique importance of the IPCC's work."

That view was bolstered Wednesday by more than 150 U.S. scientists who wrote federal agencies and lawmakers to express support for the U.N. panel's work and main findings.

Ban did not respond to a question about how the errors might be affecting U.N.-led negotiations. IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri said the panel is "receptive and sensitive to" criticism of its work.

Pachauri told The Associated Press in a telephone interview he was surprised at the intensity of the criticism, which he said did not refute the U.N. panel's main findings.

He acknowledged, however, other errors might still be found, slowing lagging efforts to achieve a binding global climate treaty, since "clearly it has been driven substantially" by the IPCC's findings.

The errors have shaken the credibility of climate scientists and given skeptics of global warming ammunition.

Longtime climate skeptic John Christy of the University of Alabama said he wasn't familiar with the InterAcademy, but he cheered the outside review.

"I hope people like me have input, otherwise it's just the usual members of the establishment defending to themselves what's been done," said Christy, a researcher.

Global warming skeptic Patrick Michaels, a scholar at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, had dim expectations.

"The whitewash that will be produced is predictable, because there is no mention of the problem of how systematic bias creeps into apparently objective science," he said.

The review will involve a mix of outside experts and climate scientists who have worked with the IPCC before but are "far enough removed to be truly independent," Dijkgraaf said in a telephone interview. The idea is to have expertise and insight into how IPCC works without including current leaders, he said.

"The full panel needs gravitas and I think scientific stature," Dijkgraaf said. The members of the panel haven't been chosen, but they likely will be 10 scientists. "The panel will have great liberty to function and work and write a report with an open mind."

The evaluation group will be chosen when the InterAcademy's board meets on March 22, Dijkgraaf said. The InterAcademy has done science reviews before for the United Nations.

The IPCC was formed in 1989 by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization to study global warming and its causes and effects.

Prominent mainstream climate scientist Kevin Trenberth at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research said "climate science has become a political hot potato." He said the reviewers should not just look at the IPCC but the standards of its critics.

The IPCC, which is mostly a collection of volunteer scientists, shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with former Vice President Al Gore.

AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein reported from Washington.

寻找其《全球气候变化研究：进展与展望》一书