Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
IPCC Third Assessment Report
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Reception== ===Endorsements=== In 2001, 16 national [[academy of sciences|science academies]] issued a joint statement on climate change.<ref name="2001 science academies statement">{{citation|title=The Science of Climate Change: A joint statement by 16 national science academies|date=17 May 2001|url=http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2001/10029.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150419074652/https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2001/10029.pdf|location=London|publisher=Royal Society|isbn=978-0854035588|archive-date=19 April 2015}}</ref> The joint statement was made by the [[Australian Academy of Science]], the [[Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and the Arts]], the [[Brazilian Academy of Sciences]], the [[Royal Society of Canada]], the [[Caribbean Academy of Sciences]], the [[Chinese Academy of Sciences]], the [[French Academy of Sciences]], the [[German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina|German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina]], the [[Indian National Science Academy]], the [[Indonesian Academy of Sciences]], the [[Royal Irish Academy]], [[Accademia dei Lincei|Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei]] (Italy), the [[Academy of Sciences Malaysia]], the [[Royal Society of New Zealand|Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand]], the [[Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences]], and the [[Royal Society]] (UK).<ref name="2001 science academies statement" /> The statement, also published as an editorial in the journal [[Science (journal)|''Science'']], stated "we support the [TAR's] conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8 °C above 1990 levels by 2100".<ref>{{citation|title=The Science of Climate Change (editorial)|date=18 May 2001|journal=Science|volume=292|issue=5520|page=1261|doi=10.1126/science.292.5520.1261|pmid=11360966|s2cid=129309907 |last1=Australian Academy Of |first1=Science |author2=Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts |last3=Brazilian Academy Of |first3=Sciences |author4=Royal Society of Canada |last5=Caribbean Academy Of |first5=Sciences |last6=Chinese Academy Of |first6=Sciences |last7=French Academy Of |first7=Sciences |author8=German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina |author9=Indian National Science Academy |last10=Indonesian Academy Of |first10=Sciences |last11=Royal Irish |first11=Academy |author12=Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy) |last13=Academy Of Sciences |first13=Malaysia |author14=Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand |author15=Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences |last16=Turkish Academy Of |first16=Sciences |author17=Royal Society (UK) }} </ref> The TAR has also been endorsed by the [[Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences]],<ref name="cfcas tar endorsement">{{Cite web|title=CFCAS Letter to PM, November 25, 2005|url=http://www.cfcas.org/LettertoPM19apr06e.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100821222002/http://www.cfcas.org/LettertoPM19apr06e.pdf|archive-date=21 August 2010|access-date=9 August 2019}}</ref> [[Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society]],<ref name="cmos tar endorsement">{{cite web|author=Bob Jones|title=CMOS Position Statement on Global Warming|url=http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html|access-date=25 June 2012|publisher=Cmos.ca|archive-date=9 May 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120509230106/http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html|url-status=live}}</ref> and [[European Geosciences Union]]<ref name="egu tar endorsement">{{cite web|author=European Geosciences Union Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences|date=7 July 2005|title=Position Statement on Climate Change and Recent Letters from the Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce|url=http://www.egu.eu/about/statements/position-statement-of-the-divisions-of-atmospheric-and-climate-sciences/|access-date=12 August 2021|archive-date=29 June 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170629212306/http://www.egu.eu/about/statements/position-statement-of-the-divisions-of-atmospheric-and-climate-sciences/|url-status=dead}}</ref> (refer to "[[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change#Endorsements and awards|Endorsements of the IPCC]]"). In 2001, the [[US National Research Council]] (US NRC)<ref> {{harvnb|US NRC|2001}} </ref> produced a report that assessed Working Group I's (WGI) contribution to the TAR. US NRC (2001)<ref>{{citation|title=Summary|url=http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=1|year=2001|doi=10.17226/10139|isbn=978-0309075749|access-date=2012-02-14|archive-date=2011-06-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110605132107/http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=1|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}, in {{harvnb|US NRC|2001|p=1}}</ref> "generally agrees" with the WGI assessment, and describes the full WGI report as an "admirable summary of research activities in climate science".<ref name="nap.edu">{{citation|title=Summary|url=http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=4|year=2001|doi=10.17226/10139|isbn=978-0309075749|access-date=2021-08-12|archive-date=2015-02-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150211194116/http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=4|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}, in {{harvnb|US NRC|2001|p=4}}</ref> IPCC author [[Richard Lindzen]] has made a number of criticisms of the TAR.<ref name="lindzen tar critique">{{citation|author=Lindzen, R.S.|title=Prepared Statement of Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in: S. Hrg. 107-1027 – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report. US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation|date=1 May 2001|url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action;jsessionid=YVs2R8KCJFXP2C3gFJrnBvxVXlFMnqHpQch0hJ0Qv4ZRT6n9GPTj!89600962!536161308?granuleId=CHRG-107shrg88709&packageId=CHRG-107shrg88709|location=Washington, DC|publisher=US Government Printing Office (GPO)|access-date=12 August 2021|archive-date=5 October 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181005045524/https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action;jsessionid=YVs2R8KCJFXP2C3gFJrnBvxVXlFMnqHpQch0hJ0Qv4ZRT6n9GPTj!89600962!536161308?granuleId=CHRG-107shrg88709&packageId=CHRG-107shrg88709|url-status=live}}, pp. 29–31. Available in [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107shrg88709/html/CHRG-107shrg88709.htm text] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181005022845/https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107shrg88709/html/CHRG-107shrg88709.htm |date=2018-10-05 }} and [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107shrg88709/pdf/CHRG-107shrg88709.pdf PDF] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170707205220/https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107shrg88709/pdf/CHRG-107shrg88709.pdf |date=2017-07-07 }} formats. Also available as a [http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf PDF] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200602145342/http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf |date=2020-06-02 }} from Professor Lindzen's website.</ref> Among his criticisms, Lindzen has stated that the WGI Summary for Policymakers (SPM) does not faithfully summarize the full WGI report.<ref name="lindzen tar critique" /> For example, Lindzen states that the SPM understates the uncertainty associated with [[global climate model|climate model]]s.<ref name="lindzen tar critique" /> [[John T. Houghton|John Houghton]], who was a co-chair of TAR WGI,<ref>{{citation|title=Preface|url=https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WG1_TAR_FM.pdf|df=dmy-all|access-date=2021-08-12|archive-date=2022-08-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220829124925/https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WG1_TAR_FM.pdf|url-status=live}}, in |IPCC TAR WGI 2001</ref> has responded to Lindzen's criticisms of the SPM.<ref name="houghton lindzen rebuttal">{{citation|title=The Great Global Warming Swindle. Programme directed by Martin Durkin, on Channel 4 on Thursday 8 March 2007. Critique by John Houghton, President, John Ray Initiative|url=http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Channel4_Global_Warming_Swindle.pdf|location=Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK|publisher=John Ray Initiative|access-date=12 August 2021|archive-date=5 August 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190805200016/http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Channel4_Global_Warming_Swindle.pdf|url-status=dead}}, p. 4.</ref> Houghton has stressed that the SPM is agreed upon by delegates from many of the world's governments, and that any changes to the SPM must be supported by scientific evidence.<ref name="houghton lindzen rebuttal" /> IPCC author [[Kevin Trenberth]] has also commented on the WGI SPM.<ref name="trenberth tar">{{citation|author=Trenberth K. E.|title=Stronger Evidence of Human Influence on Climate: The 2001 IPCC Assessment|date=May 2001|url=http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/human_inflEN.pdf|work=Environment|volume=43|issue=4|page=8 |publisher=Heldref|doi=10.1080/00139150109605136 |bibcode=2001ESPSD..43d...8T |access-date=2021-08-12|archive-date=2021-06-13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210613152655/https://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/human_inflEN.pdf|url-status=live}}, p. 11.</ref> Trenberth has stated that during the drafting of the WGI SPM, some government delegations attempted to "blunt, and perhaps obfuscate, the messages in the report".<ref name="trenberth tar" /> However, Trenberth concludes that the SPM is a "reasonably balanced summary".<ref name="trenberth tar" /> US NRC (2001)<ref>{{citation|title=Ch 7 Assessing Progress in Climate Science|url=http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=22|year=2001|doi=10.17226/10139|isbn=978-0-309-07574-9|access-date=2012-02-14|archive-date=2012-02-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225045922/http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=22|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}, in {{harvnb|US NRC|2001|p=22}}</ref> concluded that the WGI SPM and Technical Summary are "consistent" with the full WGI report. US NRC (2001)<ref name="nap.edu" /> stated: <blockquote>... the full [WGI] report is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary. The full WGI report and its Technical Summary are not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers reflects less emphasis on communicating the basis for uncertainty and a stronger emphasis on areas of major concern associated with human-induced climate change. This change in emphasis appears to be the result of a summary process in which scientists work with policy makers on the document. Written responses from U.S. coordinating and lead scientific authors to the committee indicate, however, that (a) no changes were made without the consent of the convening lead authors (this group represents a fraction of the lead and contributing authors) and (b) most changes that did occur lacked significant impact.</blockquote> ===IPCC process=== There are a small number of climate scientists<ref name="king climate change sceptics">{{citation|author=King, D.|date=24 February 2005|at=[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/5030102.htm Memorandum by Professor Sir David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government: THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICS]|chapter=Economic Affairs - Minutes of Evidence (Tuesday 1 March 2005)|chapter-url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/5030101.htm|title=Economic Affairs - Minutes of Evidence |access-date=31 August 2017|archive-date=29 October 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161029081002/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/5030101.htm|url-status=live}}, in {{harvnb|Economic Affairs Committee|2005}}</ref><ref> {{citation|date=18 January 2005|at=[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/5011803.htm Examination of Witnesses: Sir John Houghton's reply to Q45]|title=Economic Affairs - Minutes of Evidence}}, in {{harvnb|Economic Affairs Committee|2005}} </ref> who disagree with aspects of the IPCC's work. Perhaps the best known is [[Richard Lindzen]],<ref name="king climate change sceptics" /> professor of [[meteorology]] at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]. A report by the [[UK Parliament]]'s [[House of Lords]] Economic Affairs [[Select committees of the Parliament of the United Kingdom|Select Committee]] (EAC, 2005)<ref name="eac ipcc criticism"> {{harvnb|Economic Affairs Committee|2005}} </ref> contains criticisms of the IPCC's work, including the "[[Special Report on Emissions Scenarios|SRES]]" greenhouse gas emissions scenarios,<ref>{{citation | title=Ch. 4: Forecasting greenhouse gas emissions and Temperature Change | url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/1207.htm | access-date=2017-08-31 | archive-date=2016-10-29 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161029080955/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/1207.htm | url-status=live }}, in {{harvnb|Economic Affairs Committee|2005}}</ref> 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 (2005)<ref>{{citation | title=Ch. 7: the IPCC Process: The policy-makers' summaries, paragraphs 112-114 | url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/1210.htm#a53 | access-date=2017-08-31 | archive-date=2016-10-29 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161029080957/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/1210.htm#a53 | url-status=live }}, in {{harvnb|Economic Affairs Committee|2005}}</ref> 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]]<ref> {{harvnb|UK Government|2005}} </ref> issued a response to the report by EAC (2005).<ref name="eac ipcc criticism"/> The UK Government acknowledged the discrepancy between the WGII SPM and full WGII report which was referred to by the EAC (2005),<ref>{{citation | title=Appendix: Response to paragraphs 111 and 114 of the Report | url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/71/7104.htm | access-date=2017-08-31 | archive-date=2010-10-15 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101015221103/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/71/7104.htm | url-status=live }}, in {{harvnb|UK Government|2005|pp=19–20}}</ref> 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 (2005).<ref>e.g.: {{citation | title=Appendix: Response to paragraph 32 of the Report | url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/71/7104.htm | access-date=2017-08-31 | archive-date=2010-10-15 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101015221103/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/71/7104.htm | url-status=live }}, in {{harvnb|UK Government|2005|pp=8–9}}</ref> ===Discussion of the "hockey stick" graph=== {{Main|Hockey stick graph (global temperature)}} [[File:T comp 61-90.pdf|thumb|right|The original northern hemisphere hockey stick graph of {{harvnb|Mann|Bradley|Hughes|1999}}, smoothed curve shown in blue with its uncertainty range in light blue, overlaid with green dots showing the 30-year global average of the {{harvnb|PAGES 2k Consortium|2013}} reconstruction. The red curve shows measured global mean temperature, according to [[HadCRUT]]4 data from 1850 to 2013.]] [[File:IPCC 1996 SAR Figure 3.20.png|thumb|right|'''Figure 3.20''' on p. 175 of the [[IPCC Second Assessment Report]]]] [[File:Ipcc7.1-mann-moberg-manley.png|thumb|right|Comparison of MBH99 40-year average from proxy records, as used in IPCC TAR 2001 (blue), with [[IPCC First Assessment Report|IPCC 1990]] schematic Figure 7.1.c (red) [based on Lamb 1965 extrapolating from central England temperatures and other historical records]; central England temperatures to 2007 shown from Jones ''et al.'' 2009 (green dashed line).<ref name="Jones 09">{{Cite journal|last1=Jones|first1=P. D.|last2=Briffa|first2=K. R.|last3=Osborn|first3=T. J.|last4=Lough|first4=J. M.|last5=Van Ommen|first5=T. D.|last6=Vinther|first6=B. M.|last7=Luterbacher|first7=J.|last8=Wahl|first8=E. R.|last9=Zwiers|first9=F. W.|last10=Mann|first10=M. E.|last11=Schmidt|first11=G. A.|year=2009|title=High-resolution palaeoclimatology of the last millennium: a review of current status and future prospects|url=http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/jones09.pdf|journal=The Holocene|volume=19|issue=1|pages=3–49|bibcode=2009Holoc..19....3J|doi=10.1177/0959683608098952|first30=E.|last30=Xoplaki|first29=E.|last29=Wolff|last24=Riedwyl|first28=H.|last28=Wanner|first27=R.|last27=Villalba|first26=A. W.|last26=Tudhope|first25=M.|last25=Schulz|first24=N.|first18=E.|first23=J. T.|first16=H.|last12=Ammann|first12=C. M.|last13=Buckley|first13=B. M.|last14=Cobb|first14=K. M.|last15=Esper|first15=J.|last16=Goosse|last17=Graham|last23=Overpeck|first17=N.|last18=Jansen|last19=Kiefer|first19=T.|last20=Kull|first20=C.|last21=Kuttel|first21=M.|last22=Mosley-Thompson|first22=E.|s2cid=129606908|access-date=2021-08-12|archive-date=2015-10-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151014073536/http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/%7Ekcobb/jones09.pdf|url-status=dead}} p. 36</ref> Also shown, Moberg ''et al.'' 2005 low frequency signal (black).]] The third assessment report (TAR) prominently featured<ref>{{cite web|title=Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis|url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.pdf|access-date=2021-08-12|archive-date=2013-01-13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130113142303/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> a graph labeled "Millennial Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction" based on a 1999 paper by [[Michael E. Mann]], [[Raymond S. Bradley]] and Malcolm K. Hughes (MBH99), which has been referred to as the "[[hockey stick graph (global temperature)|hockey stick graph]]". This graph extended the similar graph in [[:File:IPCC 1996 SAR Figure 3.20.png|Figure 3.20]] from the [[IPCC Second Assessment Report]] of 1995, and differed from a schematic in the [[MWP and LIA in IPCC reports|first assessment report]] that lacked temperature units, but appeared to depict larger global temperature variations over the past 1000 years, and higher temperatures during the [[Medieval Warm Period]] than the mid 20th century. The schematic was not an actual plot of data, and was based on a diagram of temperatures in central England, with temperatures increased on the basis of documentary evidence of medieval [[Wine from the United Kingdom|vineyards in England]]. Even with this increase, the maximum it showed for the Medieval Warm Period did not reach temperatures recorded in central England in 2007.<ref name="Jones 09" /> The MBH99 finding was supported by cited reconstructions by {{harvnb|Jones|Briffa|Barnett|Tett|1998}}, {{harvnb|Pollack|Huang|Shen|1998}}, {{harvnb|Crowley|Lowery|2000}} and {{harvnb|Briffa|2000}}, using differing data and methods. The Jones et al. and Briffa reconstructions were overlaid with the MBH99 reconstruction in Figure 2.21 of the IPCC report.<ref name="TAR 2.3.2.2">{{cite book|last1=Houghton|url=http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/069.htm#fig220|title=Climate change 2001: the scientific basis|last2=Ding|last3=Griggs|last4=Noguer|last5=van der Linden|last6=Dai|last7=Maskell|last8=Johnson|date=2001|chapter=2.3.2.2 Multi-proxy synthesis of recent temperature change|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604072514/http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2F069.htm|archive-date=4 June 2011|url-status=dead}}</ref> These studies were widely presented as demonstrating that the current warming period is exceptional in comparison to temperatures between 1000 and 1900, and the MBH99 based graph featured in publicity. Even at the draft stage, this finding was disputed by contrarians: in May 2000 [[Fred Singer]]'s [[Science and Environmental Policy Project]] held a press event on Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., featuring comments on the graph [[Wibjörn Karlén]] and Singer argued against the graph at a [[United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation]] hearing on 18 July 2000. Denialist [[John Lawrence Daly]] featured a modified version of the IPCC 1990 schematic, which he mis-identified as appearing in the IPCC 1995 report, and asserted that "Overturning its own previous view in the 1995 report, the IPCC presented the 'Hockey Stick' as the new orthodoxy with hardly an apology or explanation for the abrupt U-turn since its 1995 report".{{cn|date=August 2021}} Criticism of the MBH99 reconstruction in a review paper, which was quickly discredited in the [[Soon and Baliunas controversy]], was picked up by the Bush administration, and a Senate speech by US Republican senator [[James Inhofe]] alleged that "manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people". The data and methodology used to produce the "hockey stick graph" was criticized in papers by [[Stephen McIntyre]] and [[Ross McKitrick]],<ref name="MM05a">{{Cite journal|last1=McIntyre|first1=Stephen|author1-link=Stephen McIntyre|last2=McKitrick|first2=Ross|author2-link=Ross McKitrick|year=2005|title=Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance|url=http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf|journal=[[Geophysical Research Letters]]|volume=32|issue=3|page=L03710|bibcode=2005GeoRL..32.3710M|doi=10.1029/2004GL021750|access-date=31 October 2013|doi-access=free|archive-date=19 January 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110119200854/http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> and in turn the criticisms in these papers were examined by other studies and comprehensively refuted by {{harvnb|Wahl|Ammann|2007}},<ref name="Weart fn48">{{harvnb|Weart|2011|loc=[http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm#N_48_ footnote 48]}},(p. 19, n1 in pdf).</ref> which showed errors in the methods used by McIntyre and McKitrick.<ref name="ar4-ch6">{{harvnb|Jansen|Overpeck|2007}}{{rp|466}}</ref> On 23 June 2005, Rep. [[Joe Barton]], chairman of the [[United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce|House Committee on Energy and Commerce]], wrote joint letters with [[Ed Whitfield]], chairman of the [[United States House Energy Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations|Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations]], demanding full records on climate research, as well as personal information about their finances and careers, from Mann, Bradley and Hughes.<ref name="wapo Witches">{{cite news|date=22 July 2005|title=Hunting Witches|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201658.html|access-date=12 August 2021|archive-date=24 July 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080724050436/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201658.html|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Sherwood Boehlert]], chairman of the [[United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology|House Science Committee]], said this was a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" apparently aimed at intimidating scientists, and at his request the [[United States National Academy of Sciences|U.S. National Academy of Sciences]] arranged for its [[United States National Research Council|National Research Council]] to set up a special investigation.{{cn|date=August 2021}} <!-- This: <ref name="Revkin606">{{Harvnb|Revkin, 22 June|2006}} (NYT).</ref> is not a valid reference. --> The National Research Council's report agreed that there were some statistical failings, but these had little effect on the graph, which was generally correct. In a 2006 letter to ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'', Mann, Bradley, and Hughes pointed out that their original article had said that "more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached" and that the uncertainties were "the point of the article".<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bradley|first1=Raymond S.|author1-link=Raymond S. Bradley|last2=Hughes|first2=Malcolm K.|last3=Mann|first3=Michael E.|author3-link=Michael E. Mann|year=2006|title=Authors were clear about hockey-stick uncertainties|journal=Nature|volume=442|issue=7103|page=627|bibcode=2006Natur.442..627B|doi=10.1038/442627b|pmid=16900179|doi-access=free}}</ref> ===Sea level rise predictions=== An example of scientific research which suggests that previous estimates by the IPCC, far from overstating dangers and risks, have actually understated them is a study on projected rises in sea levels. When the researchers' analysis was "applied to the possible scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the researchers found that in 2100 sea levels would be 0.5–1.4 m [50–140 cm] above 1990 levels. These values are much greater than the 9–88 cm as projected by the IPCC itself in its Third Assessment Report, published in 2001". This may have been due, in part, to the expanding human understanding of climate.<ref name="BBC 2">{{cite news |date=14 December 2006 |title=Sea level rise 'under-estimated' |work=BBC News |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6179409.stm |access-date=24 July 2007 |archive-date=12 July 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070712101359/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6179409.stm |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Telegraph">{{cite news |last=Highfield |first=Roger |date=28 December 2006 |title=London-on-Sea: the future of a city in decay |publisher=[[Telegraph.co.uk]] |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/27/nlondon27.xml |url-status=dead |access-date=24 July 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070517113134/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/27/nlondon27.xml |archive-date=17 May 2007}}</ref> Greg Holland from the [[National Center for Atmospheric Research]], who reviewed a multi-meter [[sea level rise]] study by [[James Hansen|Jim Hansen]], noted "''There is no doubt that the sea level rise, within the IPCC, is a very conservative number, so the truth lies somewhere between IPCC and Jim.''"<ref>{{cite news |year=2015 |title=James Hansen's controversial sea level rise paper has now been published online |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/23/controversial-sea-level-rise-paper-is-now-published-online/ |access-date=2022-10-27 |archive-date=2019-11-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191126005216/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/23/controversial-sea-level-rise-paper-is-now-published-online/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)