NZ scientists feature in next IPCC team

The IPCC has announced the new team of scientists who will prepare its 5th Assessment Report (AR5), due in late 2013 or early 2014. There were 831 scientists named, including some notable New Zealand scientists.

Despite the propoganda from denialists and a couple of glaring but insignificant errors in the AR4, the IPCC has been shown to be extremely conservative in its forecasts, as climate change is running ahead or in line with the modelling.

There are three working groups involved in the report, with the following NZ scientists on the team:

Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report  Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis

Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives

Tim NAISH, GNS Scinece, Victoria University (Antarctic Research Centre)

Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change

James RENWICK, NIWA (Energy)


Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

Climate Change 2013: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

Chapter 6: Ocean systems

Phil Boyd, NIWA

Chapter 11:  Human health

Alistair Woodward, Auckland University (Population Health)

Chapter 25:  Australasia

Andy Reisinger, Victoria University

Paul Newton, AgResearch

Andrew Tait, NIWA

Blair Fitzharris, Otago University

Working Group III Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

Climate Change 2013: Mitigation of Climate Change

Chapter 8:  Transport

Ralph SIMS, Massey University, IEA

Chapter 11:  Agriculture, Forestry and other land uses (AFOLU)

Harry CLARK, AgResearch

This is a pretty good showing for New Zealand. I won’t go on about punching above our weight and all that, I just want to congratulate some of our leading lights who are contributing to what is the most important challenge facing humanity today.

With the physics of global warming long settled and the science of when and how much a perpetual moving feast, it is truly important work.

3 Comments Posted

  1. Thanks, frog, for keeping this issue in front of us. The summary from your last link says why:

    The science of climate change has been the subject of recent harsh criticisms in the popular media, with attacks on the integrity and professionalism of scientists. There is fault on both sides of the equation, with the need for absolute transparency of information being the key issue. Adopting a more transparent approach to the dissemination of information will lead to a clearer picture of the facts.

    Science has not “proved” beyond all reasonable doubt that human activities are changing the climate. But it has clearly shown that there are multiple lines of evidence all pointing in the same direction, and this view is supported by theories that are well-founded in fundamental sciences like physics.

    Commonsense and prudence says we should respond and not ignore the evidence about climate change as it currently stands. The risks of doing nothing are too great.

    The mitigation measures suggested for climate change (reduced use of carbon-based fuels, more renewable energy sources, carbon capture and storage, less use of nitrogen-based fertilizers) are all part of a portfolio of approaches that are needed to produce a more sustainable world.

  2. Awesome. It is always great to see recognition of our leading scientists so often overlooked. Need more of this to ensure that science careers are not ignored.

Comments are closed.