Diplomatically Pissing into the Well of Truth.

I just found the time to read the two different versions of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II's summary for policymakers, and I'm pissed as hell. I'd heard the reports about the epic battle between scientists and diplomats (the final score on that one was a 1-0 victory for the lions), but I wasn't prepared to believe that the report had been screwed with as badly as it was.

The language that's been used in most of the reports has been pretty mild - most commonly, the diplomats are accused of "diluting" or "watering down" the language used in the report. I've now read both the "official" IPCC version (pdf) and the leaked original draft (pdf). The original scientific report was definitely diluted, but they sure as hell weren't thinning that sucker down with water.

A few people here, including Carl Zimmer and James Hrynyshyn, have already discussed some of the differences between the two drafts. So have a number of other websites - particularly climate science watch.org. In this post, I'm going to try and put together a more comprehensive look at the differences between the "scientific" report and the more reality-challenged "diplomatic view." In the next post, I'm going to try and convince you that outrage is the mildest emotion you should be feeling once you see these changes.

Sadly, there are so many substantive differences between scientific reality and diplomatic fantasy-land that this will necessarily be a very long post.

Page 1 of both versions of the report is a cover page. Substantive changes begin before we get halfway down page 2, in the section labeled: Current knowledge about observed impacts of climate

change on the natural and human environment.

Change 1: Adding uncertainty to the scientific data that underlies the report.

The scientists wanted to say:

The number of studies of observed trends in the physical and biological environment and their relationship to regional climate changes has increased greatly in the past five years, as has the quality of the data sets.

The final report actually reads (additions in bold):

The statements presented here are based largely on data sets that cover the period since 1970. The number of studies of observed trends in the physical and biological environment and their relationship to regional climate changes has increased greatly since the Third Assessment in 2001. The quality of the data sets has also improved. There is, however, a notable lack of geographic balance in data and literature on observed changes, with marked scarcity in developing countries.

The effect here is to make it appear that the data sets that are being used aren't great, and that the conclusions are therefore doubtful. Both additions, however, are somewhat misleading. Yes, most of the data sets cover the period since 1970. That's because most of the work in this field has taken place since 1970. It doesn't mean that there is no pre-1970 data, or that we can't reach conclusions about what was happening pre-1970. It is also true that we know more about what's been happening in the developed world. That's the inevitable effect of having the majority of the active researchers based out of institutions in the developed world. Here, again, a focus on that bias is misleading. There is data available about the developing world. There is also little reason - either theoretical or empirical - to believe that the effects will be less in the developing world. Finally, the report's conclusion that we are already seeing effects of global warming can hardly be weakened by noting that we aren't looking everywhere.

Change 2: Deleting the confidence rating:

The scientists wanted the next heading to read:

Many natural systems, on all continents and in some oceans, are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases [very high confidence].

It wound up reading:

Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases.

The deletion of the phrase "very high confidence" was reportedly one of the most contentious issues during the process of revising the summary. Believe it or not, that's not because scientists are irrationally picky about language choices. In this document, the phrase "very high confidence" has a specific meaning - that scientists are more than 90% sure that they are right. The Chinese and Indian delegations reportedly pressed hard to have this changed to "high confidence" - a phrase that, in the context of this document, means that scientists are more than 80% sure that they are right. Although it is technically accurate that "more than 80%" would include things that we are 90+% confident about, that change would definitely have been misleading.

Dropping any mention of the confidence level was reportedly a US-brokered "compromise" solution.

Change 3: Deleting a threat:

The scientists originally included this statement about changes caused by retreating glaciers:

enlargement and increased numbers of glacial lakes, with increased risk of outburst floods

The final draft wound up reading:

enlargement and increased numbers of glacial lakes

This is one of the most egregious deletions in the document. The diplomats removed, from a document that is supposed to be used to shape international policies and responses to global climate change, the mention of a significant threat that can potentially result in major losses of life and property.

For those of you not familiar with glaciers and what they can do, here's what we are talking about. Glacial lakes can form when a body of meltwater is trapped behind part of the glacier. As the glacier continues to melt, the part of the glacier that forms the dam weakens. If the dam weakens enough - and remember, the dam we're talking about is essentially a really big ice cube that's warming up - it could burst. When dams burst - whether they are natural or artificial - the same thing happens. The water that was behind the dam moves downstream very, very quickly, and all at once. We're not talking about a nice, slow, gradual increase in stream flow here. We're talking about a big, fast moving wall of water, ice, rock, mud, and debris.

Change 4: The next line:

In the original:

Increasing ground instability in mountain and other permafrost regions, and ice and rock avalanches in mountain regions.

In the final:

increasing ground instability in permafrost regions, and rock avalanches in mountain regions

This is another instance where a real threat was dropped from the report.

Change 5: If we don't talk about it, it isn't real:

In the original:

Based on satellite observations since the early 1980s, there is high confidence that there has been a trend in many regions towards earlier 'greening' of vegetation in the spring and increased net primary production linked to longer growing seasons and increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

In the alternate diplomatic reality:

Based on satellite observations since the early 1980s, there is high confidence that there has been a trend in many regions towards earlier 'greening' of vegetation in the spring linked to longer thermal growing seasons due to recent warming.

Carbon dioxide? We ain't gonna mention no stinkin' carbon dioxide.

Change 6: What's in a word?

In the original:

extensive changes observed in marine and freshwater biological systems

In the final:

observed changes in marine and freshwater biological systems

Hey, a change is a change, so who cares how much change is happening, right?

Change 7: A Big Loss of Confidence:

The original:

At the global scale the anthropogenic component of warming over the last three decades has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems [high confidence].

The final:

A global assessment of data since 1970 has shown it is likely that anthropogenic warming has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems.

In the context of this report, "high confidence" means an 80% level of confidence. "Likely" means that the level of confidence is greater than 66%.

Change 8: Something's giving me a sinking feeling...

The original section listing the (medium confidence) effects from regional temperature increases included the following line:

some coastal zones affected by erosion due to sea-level rise

The final draft omits this statement entirely.

Change 9: But it's got more colors! Colors are good, right?

Figure one, in the original, looked like this:

In the final, it looks like this:

(Click on the images for larger versions.)

The white in the original includes all areas where the scientists didn't think there was enough data to make a good conclusion about what is happening. As you can see, there's not as much white in the final version. That's because it looks like the criteria for "good enough" were loosened, creating a lot more areas of "cool" colors. (The light green on the new map indicates areas where there is a -0.2 to +0.2 degree change in the temperature.) The implication of the new map is that there are a lot more places where the temperature isn't changing much. The implication of the old map was that there are a lot more places where we're not really sure whether or not the temperature is changing.

This demonstrates, really, really well that the diplomats weren't trying to decrease the scientific certainty expressed in the report because they weren't confident in the scientists. They were very, very clearly reducing the certainty where they didn't want certainty, and increasing the certainty where they did want more.

Change 10: Water, water, somewhere - and not a drop to drink elsewhere:

There was clearly some give and take on the section that covered freshwater resources. The original section read:

Runoff and water availability are very likely to increase at higher latitudes and in some wet tropics, including populous areas in E and SE Asia, and decrease over much of the mid-latitudes and dry tropics, which are presently water-stressed areas. ** D

Drought-affected areas will likely increase and extreme precipitation events, which are likely to increase in frequency and intensity, will augment flood risk. Increase of frequency and severity of floods and droughts will have implications on sustainable development. **

Water volumes stored in glaciers and snow cover are very likely to decline, reducing summer and autumn flows in regions where more than one sixth of the world population currently live. **

The final version came out like this:

By mid-century, annual average river runoff and water availability are projected to increase by 10-40% at high latitudes and in some wet tropical areas, and decrease by 10-30% over some dry regions at mid-latitudes and in the dry tropics, some of which are presently water stressed areas. In some places and in particular seasons, changes differ from these annual figures. **

Drought-affected areas will likely increase in extent. Heavy precipitation events, which are very likely to increase in frequency, will augment flood risk. **

Adaptation procedures and risk management practices for the water sector are being developed in some countries and regions that have recognised projected hydrological changes with related uncertainties. ***

In the course of the century, water supplies stored in glaciers and snow cover are projected to decline, reducing water availability in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges, where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives. **

I don't know what that "Adaptation procedures..." statement is supposed to mean, but the *** after it indicates "very high confidence" - so it's nice to see that the diplomats are OK with having very high confidence in something. Aside from the increase in the expressed confidence about big rain events, the effect of all the changes is to reduce the expressed confidence of the statements (from "likely" or "very likely" to "projected") and to remove statements about potential effects to real people.

Changes 11 - XX:

That was hardly the last case where the two documents differ, but documenting all of them has rapidly turned into a much more extensive project than I had originally anticipated. The ten changes that I documented all occur within the first six pages of the original 21-page scientific draft. The vast majority of the changes - and the net effect of the changes as a whole - acted to vastly reduce the power of what the scientists were trying to say. The rest of the analysis would just be more of the same.

By all means, though, don't take my word for this. Go look at both of the drafts yourself. When you're done, take some time and think about just how dangerous - and tragic - letting the diplomats screw with this assessment might turn out to be.