The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 (AR4) contained various errors, including the well publicised overestimate of the speed at which Himalayan glaciers would melt. However, the IPCC’s defenders point out that such errors were inadvertent and inconsequential: they did not undermine the scientific basis of AR4. Here I demonstrate an error in the core scientific report (WGI) that came about through the IPCC’s alteration of a peer-reviewed result. This error is highly consequential, since it involves the only instrumental evidence that is climate-model independent cited by the IPCC as to the probability distribution of climate sensitivity, and it substantially increases the apparent risk of high warming from increases in CO2 concentration.
Search
Denizens
Recent comments
- AK on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy
- Jim D on Open thread weekend
- AK on Open thread weekend
- Peter Lang on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy
- stefanthedenier on Open thread weekend
- Peter Lang on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy
- Peter Lang on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy
- Jim D on Open thread weekend
- AK on ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy
- Chief Hydrologist on Mainstreaming ECS ~ 2 C
-
Recent Posts
- Open thread weekend
- Storm surge hockey stick (?)
- ‘All-of-the-above’ approach to energy policy
- How to humble a wing nut
- Mainstreaming ECS ~ 2 C
- On academics, abstraction, and model addiction
- Open thread weekend
- DocMartyn’s estimate of climate sensitivity and forecast of future global temperatures
- Pasteur’s quadrant
- Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change
- Open thread weekend
- More on the ‘pause’
- Consensus and controversy
- Open thread weekend
- The art and science of effective science advice
Categories
Blogroll
Previous Posts
Meta
