Skip to main content
← Back to ArtiProof

Sample report — what you’d see after running an actual analysis.

Every claim, citation, and score-deduction below is real engine output captured from a representative article. Run your own at artiproof.com/register.

Shared Source Check

This is a read-only sample. Sign up to run real analyses on your own URLs, PDFs, and pasted text — 10 free per month on the free tier, no credit card.
72/ 100

A Review of Climate Sensitivity Estimates

https://example.org/articles/climate-sensitivity-2024

AI: 18% 1 misinfo 4 citations

Some recorded deductions

This score summarizes recorded findings within the analyzed sample. Inspect claims, citation signals and coverage; it does not certify accuracy or authorship.

  • 1 misinformation claim detected
  • AI style estimate: 18% in sampled paragraphs; this is separate from factual accuracy
  • 2 inaccessible citation links

Score breakdown

Starting score100
1 false claim detected-15.0
1 partially-true claim-5.0
1 broken citation (Reference 7)-5.0
1 non-academic citation-3.0
Final72.0
Evidence indicator (not calibrated accuracy)88%
3 of 8 candidate claims analysed3 claims verified3 paragraphs analyzed
Claims (3)
True92%

“Equilibrium climate sensitivity is now estimated at 3.1 K with a 90% range of 2.4 to 4.0 K.”

Consistent with the IPCC AR6 likely range and the Sherwood et al. (2020) synthesis. Multiple independent reanalyses converge on this central estimate.

Partially True70%

“The corrected sea-surface temperature reanalysis removes a systematic cooling bias.”

The HadSST4 reanalysis does correct a documented bias, but characterising it as 'systematic cooling' overstates the magnitude. The bias is regional and matters most for the WWII-era record.

Correct version:

The reanalysis corrects a regional bias in mid-century records; the overall effect on modern sensitivity estimates is small.

False88%

“Aerosol forcing has been dialled down to less than -0.5 W/m² in recent IPCC assessments.”

AR6 reports aerosol effective radiative forcing at -1.1 W/m² (best estimate, 5-95% range -1.7 to -0.4). The claim conflates the central estimate with the upper bound.

Correct version:

AR6 best estimate for aerosol effective radiative forcing is -1.1 W/m², not 'less than -0.5'.

Origin: Substack op-ed (2023) (2023-08)

AI Detection
8%

We revisit equilibrium climate sensitivity using the latest instrumental temperature record alongside the published paleoclimate constraints.

15%

Compared with the Sherwood et al. synthesis, our estimate narrows the lower tail by an order of magnitude.

31%

The combined effect repositions the central estimate at 3.1 K with a 90% range of 2.4 to 4.0 K, consistent with the IPCC AR6 likely range.

AI detection is probabilistic and should be treated as one signal among many — not as proof of authorship.

Citations (4)
Verified citation:

Sherwood, S. C., et al. (2020). An assessment of Earth's climate sensitivity. Reviews of Geophysics.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201…
Verified citation:

IPCC (2021). AR6 Working Group I Report — Chapter 7.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/
Inaccessible citation:

Reference 7 — HadSST4 bias correction paper, doi:10.1002/joc.4567 [BROKEN]

INACCESSIBLE

- DOI does not resolve

- Year mismatch (cited 2018; HadSST4 published 2021)

Inaccessible citation:

Anonymous Climate Action Blog (2023). 'The temperature record is rigged.'

INACCESSIBLE

- Non-academic source

- No author attribution

- Unsupported claim

Run this on your own source

One URL, one paste, or one PDF. The full pipeline runs in under a minute and the report you see is exactly this shape — with your source, your claims, and your score breakdown.

Start freeSee pricing