Call to streamline the massive IPCC reports

A former leading member of the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the famed IPCC, has called for changes to the panel’s regular and increasingly long reports.

In a provocative paper published in Nature, Professor Dave Griggs says the IPCC has gained a justified reputation for producing the most up-to-date, comprehensive and authoritative statements of knowledge on climate change. But this has come at a cost to the scientific community.

Setting out a series of recommendations to improve the way the IPCC reports are prepared, Griggs says they are too long and appear at too regular intervals; contributing authors should develop a short summary for policy-makers and a longer technical summary; lead authors need to be chosen with greater care; and the IPCC should resist “more complexity”.

“IPCC reports have stretched from 410 pages for the first working group report to 881 pages by the third and 1,535 by the fifth. There is more research to assess, but new science builds on old so it is not necessary to go back to the beginning to build a comprehensive account,” Griggs says.

“Limiting reports to 1,000 pages or fewer would save time, reduce workloads and make the reports more readable and focused.”

Improving the operation and products

Looking ahead to the sixth assessment, he says the IPCC has formed a task group to improve its operation and products. He argues that the panel should streamline the process and “ease the pressure on the many hundreds of scientists who write, review and produce the assessments”.

For those involved, Griggs says the IPCC work “can ruin lives”, describing how one lead author over three years had devoted months of his own time to his chapter because his university would not reduce his workload.

“He had haggled over details with other authors, responded to hundreds of reviewers’ comments and defended the account against distortion by governments. When the report came out he was attacked by deniers and the media, causing him distress and his marriage nearly ended.

“But when I asked him if he would work on the next report, he said: “Of course I will do it again, it is the most important thing I have ever done.”

Among Griggs' recommendations, he lists these:

Publish shorter, less-frequent reports

“The IPCC has produced its comprehensive reports every six years or so. From a scientific perspective, you could get the same benefit at lower cost and effort by updating them every 10 years. Emerging and fast-moving areas of science could be covered in the interim using short, targeted reports.

“Implementing these two changes would also enable the IPCC to maintain its small, efficient administrative structure. The panel’s reports are prepared by hundreds of scientists in three working groups and the process is supported by a small secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland, and four task force units each consisting of just five to seven people – and it should stay that way.”

Consult widely at the start

“By letting everyone have a say early in the process, we can improve consistency between the three reports, for example in how to treat uncertainties, and identify important new areas of focus, such as the contribution of ice sheets to sea-level rise.”

Recognise the skills lead authors need

“The selection of lead authors is probably the most crucial step in the process. Lead authors oversee the drafting of the chapters and their review, first by experts, then by experts and governments.

“It is a monumental task. Each report can draw more than 50,000 comments, from the insightful to the stupid. Lead authors must consider each one, amend their draft to take into account valid comments and document responses to all those received.”

Summarise with better graphics

“Report authors need to develop a short summary for policy-makers and a longer technical summary. It is extremely challenging to summarise often more than 1,000 pages of dense science into just 10 or 20, let alone getting all the scientists, reviewers and governments to agree on the wording. But, for busy readers, even 10 pages is too long.”

Never compromise on the science

“The final step in the IPCC process is the plenary session, or meeting of governments, at which the summary for policy-makers is agreed on word-by-word. The governments can request changes to make the summary clearer or to include things that are important for policy. They cannot change the science.”

Resist more complexity

“Adding complexity adds to the workloads of already overstretched scientists and will never eliminate errors completely. I believe that the process is already rigorous enough and that adding further complexity should be resisted.”