More Insidious than the Himalayan error
Guest post by: Indur M. Goklany
Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings of the Times of London this weekend spotlighted an IPCC error of Himalayan proportions, namely, that, contrary to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the Himalayan glaciers will not have melted away by 2035. This error, they attributed to a series of blunders, bad quality control and poor scholarship.
I want to spotlight another error in the IPCC report. This is an error, based not on blunders or poor scholarship but on selective reporting of results, where one side of the story is highlighted but the other side is buried in silence. In other words, it’s a sin of omission, that is, it results, literally, from being economical with the truth. It succeeds in conveying an erroneous impression of the issue — similar to what “hide the decline” did successfully (until Climategate opened and let the sunshine in).
I have written about this previously at WUWT in a post, How the IPCC Portrayed a Net Positive Impact of Climate Change as a Negative, and in a peer reviewed article on global warming and public health. Both pieces show how the IPCC Working Group II’s Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), which deals with the impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, hid the projected decline in the future global population at risk of water shortage due to climate change. Not surprisingly, news outlets (e.g., here and here) routinely report that climate change could increase the population at risk of water shortage, despite the fact that studies show exactly the opposite regarding the net global population at risk of water shortage.
First, before getting into any details, let me note that just as the hockey stick was the poster child of the IPCC’s Third Assessment report, the designers of IPCC WGII’s Figure SPM.2 probably hoped that it would be the poster child for the Fourth Assessment Report. The following are excerpts from the earlier WUWT blog:
“Arguably the most influential graphic from the latest IPCC report is Figure SPM.2 from the IPCC WG 2’s Summary for Policy Makers (on the impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change). This figure, titled “Key impacts as a function of increasing global average temperature change”, also appears as Figure SPM.7 and Figure 3.6 of the IPCC Synthesis Report (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf). Versions also appear as Table 20.8 of the WG 2 report, and Table TS.3 in the WG 2 Technical Summary. Yet other versions are also available from the IPCC WG2’s Graphics Presentations & Speeches, as well as in the WG 2’s ‘official’ Power Point presentations, e.g., the presentation at the UNFCCC in Bonn, May 2007 (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/briefing-bonn-2007-05/overview-wg2-report.pdf).
“Notably the SPMs, Technical Summary, Synthesis Report, and the versions made available as presentations are primarily for consumption by policy makers and other intelligent lay persons. As such, they are meant to be jargon-free, easy to understand, and should be designed to shed light rather than to mislead even as they stay faithful to the science.
“Let’s focus on what Figure SPM.2 tells us about the impacts of climate change on water.
“The third statement in the panel devoted to water impacts states, “Hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress.” If one traces from whence this statement came, one is led to Arnell (2004). [Figure SPM.2 misidentifies one of the sources as Table 3.3 of the IPCC WG 2 report. It ought to be Table 3.2. ]
“What is evident is that while this third statement is correct, Figure SPM.2 neglects to inform us that water stress could be reduced for many hundreds of millions more — see Table 10 from the original reference, Arnell (2004). As a result, the net global population at risk of water stress might actually be reduced. And, that is precisely what Table 9 from Arnell (2004) shows. In fact, by the 2080s the net global population at risk declines by up to 2.1 billion people (depending on which scenario one wants to emphasize)!
“And that is how a net positive impact of climate change is portrayed in Figure SPM.2 as a large negative impact. The recipe: provide numbers for the negative impact, but stay silent on the positive impact. That way no untruths are uttered, and only someone who has studied the original studies in depth will know what the true story is. It also reminds us as to why prior to testifying in court one swears to ‘tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.’
“Figure SPM.2 fails to tell us the whole truth.
“Hints of the whole truth, however, are buried in the body of the IPCC WG 2 Report …”
The entire piece can be read here.
The problem I have with what the IPCC WG II SPM did with the water impacts is best summarized by this excerpt from the US National Academy of Sciences’ book, On Being a Scientist, that I found on Professor Roger Pielke, Sr.’s website today:
“Researchers who manipulate their data in ways that deceive others, even if the manipulation seems insignificant at the time, are violating both the basic values and widely accepted professional standards of science. Researchers draw conclusions based on their observations of nature. If data are altered to present a case that is stronger than the data warrant, researchers fail to fulfill all three of the obligations described at the beginning of this guide. They mislead their colleagues and potentially impede progress in their field or research. They undermine their own authority and trustworthiness as researchers. And they introduce information into the scientific record that could cause harm to the broader society, as when the dangers of a medical treatment are understated.” [Hat tip to Professor Roger Pielke, Sr.]
As a long time science policy analyst, let me note that such conduct is reprehensible. Expert comments on the Second Order Draft of the SPM (see Items C and D on page 32 of linked document) had explicitly warned that: “It is disingenuous to report the population ‘new water stressed’ without also noting that as many, if not more, may no longer be water stressed (if Arnell’s analyses are to be trusted).” Despite that, the SPM chose to report the increase but ignored the decline.
This was clearly undertaken consciously, as opposed to being the result of a blunder. It is, therefore, more insidious than the Himalayan error.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Anticlimactic (19:16:54) :
Re “That there was a 1970s Ice Age scare, isn’t a myth”
In the UK I remember watching a BBC program in the 1970s presented by Raymond Baxter, probably a ‘Tomorrows World Special’ – the topic was whether the recent global cooling meant we were on the precipice of a new ice age, and various experts were interviewed to give their opinions.”
What scares me is that I was around then as well, and remember the hysteria of the impending approach of the new ice age. That they can so cavalierly dismiss it now indicates that the only thing true about history is that it is in the past.
But the Internet just may be the turning point, as even statements written are recorded for all posterity (or until AGW kills the internet). There is hope for man.
Anticlimactic (19:16:54) :
Re “That there was a 1970s Ice Age scare, isn’t a myth”
“In the UK I remember watching a BBC program in the 1970s presented by Raymond Baxter, probably a ‘Tomorrows World Special’ – the topic was whether the recent global cooling meant we were on the precipice of a new ice age, and various experts were interviewed to give their opinions.”
I saw that.
My recollection is that the imminent ice age was a popular theme for a few years. There were certainly respected figures appearing on TV programmes supporting it. It was something of a long-lived gee whizz scare story. It didn’t gain any serious political traction. There was nothing we’d done to cause it and there was nothing we could do, by way of personal sacrifice, to stop it.
As for whether there was a consensus or not, there were plenty of experts wheeled out to support it, but no one very visible debunking it. There was no suggestion that people who thought it was overblown were ‘deniers’. I’d guess that people who disagreed thought that it was a more or less harmless media puff, which events would show was baseless. There wasn’t any incentive to disagree very publicly and suggest everyone calm down. There was no talk of ‘all the world’s top scientists agree’ and head counts of who agreed and who disagreed. No petitions. Politicians weren’t weighing in and making statements on the mental health or sinister motives of anyone who disagreed. We didn’t have the BBC inserting a reference to it into every other programme as if it were an unassailable fact.
At the time, the question of whether or not there was a consensus didn’t really arise. It was presented as if there was a general agreement among scientists.
I see a lot of similarities between the Ice Age scare and the AGW scare, the big difference is that the AGW scare is much more a political and financial phenomenon. The Ice Age scare wasn’t examined as closely, because as I say, I don’t think anyone had the incentive.
Tom Fuller (21:23:26) :
RESPONSE:
Actually, people who die from cold have their lives shortened by a greater amount than those who (on average) die from the heat. In a very interesting paper, “EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS, MORTALITY, AND MIGRATION,” Olivier Deschênes and Enrico Moretti conclude that “The increase in mortality following extreme heat appears mostly driven by near-term displacement, while the increase in mortality following extreme cold is long lasting. We estimate that the number of annual deaths attributable to cold temperature is 0.8% of average annual deaths in our sample. The longevity gains associated with mobility from the Northeast to the Southwest account for 4% to 7% of the total gains in life expectancy experienced by the U.S. population over the past thirty years.” The paper can be downloaded here: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/rest.91.4.659 In any case I don’t think the reductions in deaths due to cold are a “red herring.” Incidentally, I had note the existence of this work (at that time available as a paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, in my comments to the “Unified Synthesis Product” being developed by the US CCSPO, but I think they kind of blew me off on that.
Tom Stark (23:11:51) :
Thanks for the link.
Mike D. (23:26:09) :
RESPONSE: Yes, that’s a great book. Imagine all those invasive species migrating northward and buggering up biodiversity!
Luboš Motl (03:25:14) :
RESPONSE: Unfortunately you are correct.
Winny (22:35:42) :
RESPONSE:
I wouldn’t accept anything published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons any more than I would something published in Science, Nature or Lancet. Nor should you. A thinking person should treat all sources with skepticism. Don’t forget that the hockey stick was first published in Nature. On the issue of climate change and human health, publication in Nature or Lancet, for example, does not guarantee a high quality paper either. See http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000674indur_goklanys_reje.html and http://www.superconductors.org/Beasley.htm and http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2809%2961655-X/fulltext (the response is here: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2809%2961656-1/fulltext).
See also: http://www.superconductors.org/Beasley.htm (although this is on semiconductors). But I’m sure you get the point. However, if you have a more substantive critique of my paper other than that you don’t like the venue, I’d be happy to respond.
Jimbo ,/b>(09:03:43) :
Thanks for these links. I was familiar with a couple of these, but not others. I am working on something on global warming and conflicts, etc., and would like to give you credit for pointing me to a couple of these. Could you contact me at igoklany at verizon.net with your full name? Thanks.
The biggest obstacle we face in changing attitudes toward overpopulation is economists. Since the field of economics was branded “the dismal science” after Malthus’ theory, economists have been adamant that they would never again consider the subject of overpopulation and continue to insist that man is ingenious enough to overcome any obstacle to further growth. Even worse, economists insist that population growth is vital to economic growth. This is why world leaders continue to ignore population growth in the face of mounting challenges like peak oil, global warming and a whole host of other environmental and resource issues.
But because they are blind to population growth, there’s one obstacle they haven’t considered: the finiteness of space available on earth. The very act of using space more efficiently creates a problem for which there is no solution: it inevitably begins to drive down per capita consumption and, consequently, per capita employment, leading to rising unemployment and poverty.
If you‘re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, then I invite you to visit my web site at http://PeteMurphy.wordpress.com.
Pete Murphy
Author, “Five Short Blasts”
This article commits a sin of omission as well. While Arnell (2004) did find that a larger population is subjected to decreased water stress than increased, as shown in Table 10. However, Indur M. Goklaney fails to point out two major caveats cited by Arnell.
1) The vast majority of those in the ‘reduced stress’ category from Table 10 are located in south and southeast Asia. Arnell says the increased precipitation occurs in the wet season in south and southeast Asia, but this will not alleviate drought during the dry season and would if anything increase flood damage.
2) Most of the ‘reduced stress’ occurs in densely populated areas while the ‘increased stress’ has a much larger areal coverage. This would have a disparate impact on agriculture, although technically more people live in the ‘reduced stress’ region.
These are two major caveats and one would think an article concerning ‘sins of omission’ would have included them. I wouldn’t be surprised if the IPCC 2007 report discusses Arnell in more detail somewhere else besides the figure Goklaney has ripped from the report.
Yep, as I suspected, IPCC WG II Ch 3.5.1 discusses Arnell (2004) in detail. It specifically states that the number of people living in ‘water stressed’ regions increases as an absolute number. But then it proceeds to note the two caveats Arnell noted as well (1. occurs in the wet season and is not useful, perhaps damaging; 2. occurs in densely populated areas, while increased stress occurs in much larger area causing more agriculture losses). The Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) is intended to present the concise basic conclusions and the conclusion that water stress will be an increasing net negative impact is thoroughly explained and justified in about 30+ pages throughout Chapter 3.
IPCC 3.5.1 then goes on to point out that decreased water stress is modeled to occur over 20-29% of the earth’s surface and to increase on 62-76% of the earth’s surface. This is based on the same models Arnell 2004 used. Arnell would laugh at the way Goklaney is using his study.
Oh wait, oh wait! I just can’t stand the irony. Nigel Arnell was the lead author in Chapter 3 of WG II. Goklaney is using his authorship in Arnell 2004 to debunk his authorship in IPCC 2007.
I respectfully suggest WUWT remove this post immediately and not invite this author back.
My response to Andrew P (10:07:38) is on this thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/20/setting-the-record-straight-on-the-ipcc-wg-ii-fourth-assessment-report/