The fundamental flaws with IPCC – from a scientific point of view!

This post gives an overview over what I regard to be the most fundamental scientific flaws with the governance of IPCC – United Nations Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change.


The IAC review of IPCC was not independent!

I was a bit puzzled, once I had discovered that:

IPCC was misled by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) on “Qualitative expression of confidence”!


Both IPCC and it´s reviewer, InterAcademy Council, messed up on “Quantified measures of uncertainty”!

How on earth could a scientific organization mess up on these things?

The hypothesised cloud feedback – alone – is of comparable size to the current global warming!

Have you ever wondered how strong the hypothesized cloud feedback is, compared to the net surface warming?

Hang on – in about 2 minutes you will know.

As the cloud feedback is equal to the current global energy accumulations, it follows that the sum of all other terms in the radiation budget must be zero. Hence, IPPC seem to be wrong, either about their central estimate for cloud feedback or about the rest of their radiation budget.

IPCC got all bets covered!

IPCC covers a wide range of possible warming of the oceans from 0 – 2000 m, but don´t provide a best estimate.

IPCC can´t possibly miss!

This post contains relevant figures, references to the IPCC report, step by step calculations and link to a spread sheet with easy to follow calculations of:
– The deduced amount of warming
– The observed amount of warming

IPCC don´t even know how to quantify uncertainty!

Simply put, the result of an estimate should be reported by:
– giving a full description of how the measurand Y is defined
– stating the result of the measurement as Y = y ± U and give the units of y and U
– giving the approximate level of confidence associated with the interval y ± U and state how it was determined;

The IPCC report is a monument over inductivism!

“The degree of certainty in key findings is based on the author teams’ evaluations of underlying scientific understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence. (from very low to very high)

Confidence in the validity of a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement.”

IPCC didn´t even define terminology related to disagreement!

The International Panel on Climate Change made some effort to define terminology. This is how the Panel defined terms to describe the degree of agreement: Box TS.1 | Treatment of Uncertainty “The following summary terms are used to describe.. the degree of agreement: low, medium, or high.” Everything should be just fine then – or…