Assessing an IPCC assessment. An analysis of statements on projected regional impacts in the 2007 report

by

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency has found no errors that would undermine the main conclusions in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on possible future regional impacts of climate change. However, in some instances the foundations for the summary statements should have been made more transparent. The PBL believes that the IPCC should invest more in quality control in order to prevent mistakes and shortcomings, to the extent possible.

And from the presentation slides, regarding the focus of this assessment:

Media reported on errors in regional chapters of the Working Group II Report (impacts. adaptation, and vulnerability to climate change)
􀂃
Investigation focused on 8 regional chapters in Working Group II Report, and on carry-over in summary of the IPCC Synthesis Report
􀂃
Reports Working Groups I and III not investigated

Media reported on errors in regional chapters of the Working Group II Report (impacts. adaptation, and vulnerability to climate change)􀂃Investigation focused on 8 regional chapters in Working Group II Report, and on carry-over in summary of the IPCC Synthesis Report􀂃Reports Working Groups I and III not investigated

About these ads

Tags: , , ,

4 Responses to “Assessing an IPCC assessment. An analysis of statements on projected regional impacts in the 2007 report”

  1. Rattus Norvegicus Says:

    I guess the headline should be “IPCC Exonerated Again”.

    While there were certainly some weaknesses in WGII, mostly with their citation policies, the conclusions stand. You can always do better, and the IPCC is getting input (well, were getting input since the deadline for comments was 1-7 2010) on how to improved their procedures.

  2. Bam Says:

    For as far as I can read Dutch, I was quite amused by the Dutch skeptics pointing to wattsupwiththat and icecap as some kind of credible sources of information. Well, in all honesty, it was actually _sad_ to see that people with “professor” in front of their name suffer from such blatant confirmation bias.

  3. Eli Rabett Says:

    Greatly surprised that this has gathered so few comments. The most important part of it IEHO was that WGII should look at all effects of warming, and that the previous reports have emphasized only the negative ones.

    (Cue riot)

  4. Bart Says:

    True. My Dutch post focussed a bit more on that, and when I find time I plan to also discuss that in an English one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 126 other followers

%d bloggers like this: