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.
- Mark Silbert on Blog topics discussion thread
- Don Monfort on Blog topics discussion thread
- Karl Hallowell on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem?
- ianl8888 on Blog topics discussion thread
- Peter Lang on Blog topics discussion thread
- Wagathon on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem?
- Peter Lang on Week in review
- angech2014 on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem?
- Turbulent Eddie on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem?
- Brandon Shollenberger on Blog topics discussion thread
- Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem?
- Blog topics discussion thread
- Week in review
- Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry
- Whats up with the Atlantic?
- The stupid party
- Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail
- Taking Melbourne’s temperature
- Blog discussions
- Week in review
- Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity
- On the social contract between science and society
- Temperature adjustments in Australia
- Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme
- Blog moderation etc.