Independent Summary for Policymakers

The Fraser Institute's Independent Summary for Policymakers (ISPM) was published on Feb. 5, 2007, just after the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policy Makers, part of the Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change (AR4). Economist and Fraser Institute Senior Fellow Ross McKitrick served as co-ordinator of the ISPM. The Fraser Institute's ISPM overview page contains an executive summary as well as a link to download the current version of the ISPM. The original version of the ISPM is also available (see section on errors and discrepancies below). For comparison, the various chapters of the IPCC WG1 AR4 report are available at the IPCC AR4 download page. The full citation of this IPCC report is: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

ISPM release

According to Fraser Institute news release accompanying the release of the ISPM:

"An independent review of the latest United Nations report on climate change shows that the scientific evidence about global warming remains uncertain and provides no basis for alarmism.

"In 2006, independent research organization The Fraser Institute convened a panel of 10 internationally-recognized experts to read the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draft report and produce an Independent Summary for Policymakers. The result ... is a detailed and thorough overview of the state of the science." [1]

As to the need for an "independent" summary, the Fraser Institute claimed, in another news release, that the official IPCC Summary "is neither written by nor reviewed by the scientific community." [2]

Coverage and reaction

On February 6, 2007, the Financial Post (financial section of the National Post) published extensive coverage of the ISPM, including a section entitled "Inside the Science" that covered supposed gaps between the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers and the full IPCC Working Group 1 report. [3]

In the run up to the release of the IPCC Summary in 2007, Financial Post editor [Terence Corcoran] also endorsed the notion that the IPCC summary was not written by scientists and went even further: "We have, therefore, an extraordinary operating scheme in which brief sensational summary statements are produced, while the basis for the summary is kept confidential so they can get the science to correspond to the summary." [4]

In a Newsweek magazine commentary, ISPM co-ordinating author McKitrick echoed this idea: "This is a curious and disconcerting aspect of IPCC procedures: it needs a couple of months to revise a detailed report prepared by hundreds of scientists, to ensure it agrees with a brief summary drafted by a few dozen scientists and edited by hundreds of bureaucrats and politicians." [5]

An advance copy of the ISPM was leaked by Desmogblog.com on January 31, 2007, with an accompanying press release and other background information. The press release attacked the Fraser Institute's contention that the IPCC Summary was "neither written by nor reviewed by the scientific community":

"In fact, the IPCC summary was written and reviewed by some of the most senior climate scientists in the world, without political or bureaucratic input . And the Fraser Institute’s 'scientific' staff – which is led by an economist – includes a group of junior or retired scientists, most of whom have direct connections to energy industry lobby groups." [6]

Desmogblog continued: "Dr. Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis and a lead IPCC author, called the Independent Summary 'highly ideological.' While the Fraser Institute summary says, 'There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway,' Weaver counters: 'The IPCC report presents 1,600 pages of compelling evidence, that’s the whole point.'"

Realclimate.org issued a response to the ISPM, attacking its premises and detailing several errors and biases, and also made available a detailed critique in the form of an annotated version of the ISPM. [7]

Errors and discrepancies

This section enumerates several errors and discrepancies found in the eight "bullet" paragraphs of the summarized findings from the Fraser Intitute ISPM overview page, as well as associated sections of the ISPM itself. References to the ISPM itself and the IPCC AR4 Working Group I report use the the abbreviations ISPM and AR4 respectively, with section numbers as appropriate. ES is used to donate Executive Summary, both for the overall ISPM, and for each of the AR4 chapter summaries. Links to the referenced documents are found in the opening section above.

To enable easy comparisons, emphases have been added to key quotations. These do not occur in the original quotes.

Atmospheric trends

Since 1979, satellite data has been used to analyze atmospheric trends. Most of the cited studies have been produced by two teams: Mears and Wentz at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and Christy and Spencer at the University of Alabama (UAH). [AR4 3.4.1, ISPM 2.1a]

Overall tropospheric warming: ISPM (first version)

The very first finding in the original news release for the ISPM (and the original version of ISPM overview) contains the following statement: "Data collected by weather satellites since 1979 continue to exhibit little evidence of atmospheric warming, with estimated trends ranging from nearly zero to the low end of past IPCC forecasts." [8] This was virtually identical to the statement found in the ISPM [ISPM v.1 2.1b] and echoed the summary statement: "Globally-averaged measurements of atmospheric temperatures from satellite data since 1979 show an increase of 0.04°C to 0.20°C per decade over this period" [ISPM v.1 ES].

However, the IPCC gives a range of "0.12°C to 0.19°C per decade for MSU estimates of tropospheric temperatures." [AR4 3 ES] The error in the ISPM was apparently due to the citation of of raw T2 channel satellite trends, which are uncorrected for the effect of stratospheric cooling [AR4 3.4.1.2]. Moreover, the two ISPM statements above refer to the vague term "atmospheric warming" without even distinguishing between the troposphere and stratosphere. The error was pointed out to the Fraser Institute by an anonymous Sourcewatch contributor.

In an amendment dated March 2, 2007, the ISPM overview now acknowledges "a problem in the wording of 2.1b" and goes on to state: "The trend coefficients of specific interest reflect processing to remove an estimated stratospheric component and fall in the narrower interval 0.12-0.19 C/decade. The wording of Sct 2.1b has been expanded and revised to remove any misunderstanding on this point."

The key finding in the overview, original news release and ISPM Executive Summary have all been corrected to remove the above error. The overview (and amended news release) now read: "Data collected by weather satellites since 1979 continue to exhibit some evidence of lower atmospheric warming, with estimated trends ranging near the low end of past IPCC forecasts." The news release is still dated February 5, 2007 and no indication is given that it has been amended. No acknowledgment has been made by the Fraser Instiute concerning this correction in a key finding of the ISPM.

Tropical troposphere

The ISPM overview claims: "There is no significant warming in the tropical troposphere (the lowest portion of the Earth’s atmosphere), which accounts for half the world’s atmosphere, despite model predictions that warming should be amplified there." [see also ISPM 2.1c].

However, one of the two satellite-based tropical tropospheric estimates (RSS) shows a trend of 0.18°C per decade. [AR4 Fig. 3.18] Moreover, as acknowledged in the ISPM, models predict amplified warming in the tropical upper troposphere, not the tropical troposphere as a whole. [ISPM 2.1c, AR4 10.3.4] There are no estimates for temperature trends in the upper troposphere in the satellite-based data sets found in AR4.

Moreover, models predict that amplified warming in the upper tropical troposphere would accompany long-term warming, no matter whether the forcing is anthropogenic (greenhouse gases) or natural (solar). [9] As noted in the section below, it is the combination of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling that most clearly distinguishes greenhouse gas induced warming from that resulting from natural external forcings.

The ISPM goes on: "One of the available satellite data sets shows trends consistent with increased warming at higher altitude in the tropics ... while others do not." [ISPM 2.1c]

However the IPCC states: "After 1987, when MSU channel 3 became available, Fu and Johanson (2005), using RSS data, found a systematic trend of increasing temperature with altitude throughout the tropics." [AR4 3.4.1.2.2] This is the only satellite data based study cited in AR4 that addresses the issue at all.

The ISPM also states: "Adjusting T2 data to remove an estimated contribution from the stratosphere yields tropospheric trend coefficients ranging from about 0.12 oC to 0.19 oC per decade, depending on the method." [ISPM 2.1c] In fact, the method employed makes little difference. The difference between UAH and RSS results is almost entirely due to the different T2 data filtering and adjustments prior to adjustments to remove spurious stratospheric cooling, as seen in a comparison of the "Troposphere" (RSS stratospheric removal method) and "Lower troposphere" (UAH removal method) panels. [AR4 Fig. 3.18] For example, RSS adjusted trend is 0.19 if the RSS method is employed, and 0.18 if the UAH method is employed.

Stratospheric cooling

The IPCC gives nearly equal weight to observed trends of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling (AR4 3 ES). However, as noted above, the ISPM did not even mention stratospheric trends at first, and only peripherally in the second version, but still without explicit mention of the observed cooling trend [ISPM 2.1c]. In general, the observed trends are consistent with IPCC model future projections of "relatively uniform warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere". [AR4 10.3.2.1, AR4 Fig. 10.7]

Surface temperature trends

The ISPM overview states: "Temperature data collected at the surface exhibits an upward trend from 1900 to 1940, and again from 1979 to the present. Trends in the Southern Hemisphere are small compared to those in the Northern Hemisphere."

These statements are essentially correct, but the corresponding ISPM passages contain misleading details and implications, as outlined below.

Extreme weather events

Both the ISPM overview and the ISPM itself state: "Perceptions of increased extreme weather events are potentially due to increased reporting. There is too little data to reliably confirm these perceptions." [ISPM 2.3a] In support of these assertions, the ISPM draws on several potential problems cited in the background section of the extreme weather events section of the AR4 report. These include possible increased anecdotal reporting of extreme events through increased use of technology like camcorders, or scarcity of data for certain land regions. [ISPM 2.3a, AR4 3.8.1].

However, the assertion that there is "too little data" to support any "perceptions" or, more to the point, actual trends of extreme weather events, is not borne out by the rest of section AR4 3.8 as detailed below.

Extremes of temperature and precipitation

According to AR4 tables 3.7 and 3.8, extreme weather trends documented with "very likely" confidence include:

• Decrease in low-temperature days/nightsa and frost days over 70% of global land area (1951–2003) [AR4 3.8.2.1]
• Increase in high-temperature days/nights over 70% of global land area (1951–2003) [AR4 3.8.2.1]

Other trends cited with "likely" confidence include:

• Increase in warm spells (heat waves) globally (1951-2003) [AR FAQ 3.3]
• Increase in heavy precipitation events in mid-latitudes, disproportionate with changes in mean (1951-2003) [AR4 3.8.2.2]
• Increase in total area affected by drought sinec the 1970s [AR4 3.3.4 and FAQ 3.3]

External links

• Terence Corcoran, "Politics first, science second", National Post (Canada), January 27, 2007
• Richard Littlemore, "DeSmog Leaks Advance Copy of Think Tank's IPCC Attack", Desmogblog, January 31,2007
• Terence Corcoran, "Inside the Science", National Post (Canada), February 6, 2007