I.P.C.C. – Yet another error in A.R.4.

from Wattsupwiththat

Several errors have been recently uncovered in the 4th Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These include problems with Himalayan glaciers, African agriculture, Amazon rainforests, Dutch geography, and attribution of damages from extreme weather events. More seem to turn up daily. Most of these errors stem from the IPCC?s reliance on non-peer reviewed sources.

The defenders of the IPCC have contended that most of these errors are minor in significance and are confined to the Working Group II Report (the one on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) of the IPCC which was put together by representatives from various regional interests and that there was not as much hard science available to call upon as there was in the Working Group I report (?The Physical Science Basis?). The IPCC defenders argue that there have been no (or practically no) problems identified in the Working Group I (WGI) report on the science.

These errors are really indefensible. We have been told ad nauseum that they have a strict peer review procedure, that people are checking and others are checking the checkers and yet we have a multitude of errors. We have non-science quoted as fact. And now we have another critical error. This time they have munged the data to show statistically insignificant increases in the extent of the Antarctic Ice. In actual fact:

This rate of increase is nearly twice as great as the value given in the AR4 (from its non-peer-reviewed source).

So, the peer reviewed literature, both extant at the time of the AR4 as well as published since the release of the AR4, shows that there has been a significant increase in the extent of sea ice around Antarctica since the time of the first satellite observations observed in the late 1970s. And yet the AR4 somehow ?assessed? the evidence and determined not only that the increase was only half the rate established in the peer-reviewed literature, but also that it was statistically insignificant as well. And thus, the increase in sea ice in the Antarctic was downplayed in preference to highlighting the observed decline in sea ice in the Arctic.

It is little wonder why, considering that the AR4 found that ?Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios.?

Trend in Antarctic ice extent, November 1978 through December 2006

Trend in Antarctic ice extent, November 1978 through December 2006 (source: Comiso and Nishio, 2008).

Taking note of this Nick “Quota” Smith, are you? You should be, if you removed all of the errors IPCC AR4 is starting to look extremely thin, almost as thin as the Italian Book of War Heroes or the Australian Book of Etiquette.