September 5, 2013 – Imagine you are a
member of a group that consists of 1,300 people. You have all been given an important task to
complete. In order to enhance the group’s
functionality, you are divided up into smaller groups. A work schedule has been laid out, with small
groups reporting to the heads of each group, and small group heads reporting to
the director of the entire project.
Because group members live in different countries, a great deal of
communication is handled via email.
Because group members are not paid for their work, it must somehow be
fit into already busy schedules.
This is my abbreviated, concocted idea
of how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) works. Every six or seven years, the IPCC is
mandated by the United Nations to issue a report defining global climate risks. This year’s report is due out later this month
in Stockholm. Partly as a result of
their expert analysis, climate change
science is now widely accepted.
The overall picture has become much better understood. Because of the pace at which climate change
is proceeding – faster than many had at one time thought – increasing numbers
of scientists believe it would now prove more fruitful for the IPCC’s research to
focus on specific problems.
The governing body of the IPCC will
meet in October to discuss possible changes to the report. The United States and some European countries
are pushing the hardest for re-evaluation. Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist for
the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, says “I think myself
that the IPCC has outgrown its usefulness in the way in which it does things …
we can’t wait seven years between assessments.”
Because of the observed extent of climate change, some scientists are
pressing for more specifically-targeted reports that would come out every
couple of years. The reports would focus
on certain regions or problems.
The IPCC began operation in 1988, when
it was tasked with providing the most authoritative climate change information
and analysis available, so that governments could prepare for climate change in
all its manifestations: droughts, floods, wildfires, hurricanes, straight-line
winds, and so forth. The organization
shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Al Gore. Given the overwhelming size of their job – the
colossal numbers of articles that have to be read and evaluated, for instance –
it’s likely that more specific tasks with smaller groups of scientists assigned
to them might provide more bang for the buck.
Thomas Stocker, a climate scientist at
the University of Bern (Switzerland) and a co-chair of the UN climate panel,
framed the question clearly and bluntly. “ … can the scientific community do that still
on a voluntary basis, with basically no institutional support other than the
support you have for carrying out your research as you would do normally?” We owe these scientists an enormous debt of
gratitude. Perhaps some of the panel’s
original members need to make way for younger scientists with fresh ideas. It will be very interesting to see how this
problem is addressed. Stay tuned!
With thanks to theguardian.com.
Comments
Post a Comment