Present climate and biological change - Climate Change: Biological and Human Aspects - page 231

(Contrary to the views of climate sceptics and deniers, nearly all climate researchers
go along with the IPCC view [Oreskes, 2004], but read the small print of the IPCC's
full text and there are many caveats and views do vary, but not in the way climate
sceptics say.) Second, the IPCC have only assessed work published in peer-reviewed
journals. Preliminary work, work underway and even work that has been accepted
by eminent peer-reviewed journals but not yet published was not considered 4 .Third,
as a consequence of this personal assessment of the emerging picture, discussions
over lunch at symposia and scientists' other unpublished insights were simply not
admissible for consideration by the IPCC. Finally, IPCC researchers and leading
climate change programmes in a number of countries (such as in the UK and USA)
spent much of their research investment on constructing incomplete - but ever more
sophisticated and hence more useful - climate computer programmes.
In financial terms, 1990s investment in research on whole-organism biological
palaeo-responders to change, and even monitoring of current change, came very
much second to investment in computer models. In the UK at least, in the early 21st
century this is beginning to change, and even regarding computer use the biological
components are increasingly being incorporated into models (in contrast, the climate
models of the 1980s, on which the first IPCC assessment was based, essentially
modelled the planet's physicochemical dimensions as if it were lifeless). The 2001
report did include model outputs that incorporated some biologically determined
factors. However, there is still much biology to include in climate models. Indeed,
although policy-makers continue to place great faith in computer models, that models
still have a long way to go is emphasised occasionally in the scientific literature.
Considerable development is required before policy-makers should consider them a
reliable tool for the detailed regional analysis that is required for a nation's climate
change policy.
One recent example (from the time of this topic's first edition) of such a warning in
a high-impact journal was a letter in Nature from three US researchers (MacCracken
et al., 2004) from the Climate Institute and the H. John Heinz Center for Science,
Economics and the Environment. They concluded by saying 'We strongly agree that
much more reliable regional climate simulations and analyses are needed. However, at
present, as [the Nature news report] makes clear, such simulations are more aspiration
than reality.'
Model estimates of future warming are also only as good as the assumptions
that go into the model. As our understanding improves, so models improve. This
does not mean they are now perfect, but with greater understanding comes model
improvement. Present models will be better than older ones at forecasting the future
as atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations change. One such (of many) changes
in our appreciation of the way the global climate system works came in 2008 and in
this instance concerned the mass of warm air circulated (Pauluis et al., 2008). Global

4

The IPCC is meant to draw on peer-reviewed academic literature and nearly always does so. Its Working
Group I reports on the science in successive assessments are the most rigorous. Working Group II covers
impacts and adaptation and Working Group III covers the mitigation of climate change. Away from
Working Group I there have been some complaints regarding some of the detail in the other Working
Group reports and these seem to stem from the use of non-peer-reviewed (so-called grey) literature.
This has fuelled climate sceptic debate (especially in 2008-2010).