I gather that the IPCC plans to continue in a manner similar to how it’s operated in the past. It seems that Stoat thinks they should be considering shorter, more focused, reports. Judith Curry illustrates her subjectivity by suggesting it needs to regain it’s scientific objectivity.
Given that I don’t really have a great deal of knowledge of the long history of the IPCC and what’s worked and what hasn’t, I don’t have particularly strong views. One of my views, though, is that what I would like to know more about is the actual impacts of climate change. I understand the physical science quite well: if we continue to increase our emissions, temperatures will rise, sea levels will rise, sea ice and ice sheets will melt, precipitation patterns will change (the hydrological cycle will intensify). What I have less of a handle on is what actual impact this will have on us and on the biosphere. I know that there is a lot of work about this, and I am aware of some of it, but it seems to be much less clear than the actual physical science.
So if I had a say – which of course I don’t – I would think that ensuring that there’s a focus on the actual impacts – and that this information is both noticed and accessible – would seem sensible. This is probably related to the view expressed by Stoat: there just seems to be an immense amount of information released in a very short space of time, and so lots of interesting – and relevant – things can just end up lost in the noise. So, I’m sure it’s all there, it’s just quite hard to find and to notice (okay, I am also lazy). It also seems that this is ultimately what’s relevant and where I sometimes struggle in discussions: I’m never quite sure how best to respond to comments of the type – “okay, so temperatures will go up, sea levels will rise, oceans will acidify, ice will melt, precipitation patterns will change; so what?”