The 2013 IPCC AR5 Report: Facts -vs- Fictions

Guest essay by Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Mark Twain popularized the saying “There are liars, damn liars, and statisticians.” After reading the recently-released [IPCC AR5] report, we can now add, ‘there are liars, damn liars, and IPCC.” When compared to the also recently published NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) 1000+-page volume of data on climate change with thousands of peer-reviewed references, the inescapable conclusion is that the IPCC report must be considered the grossest misrepresentation of data ever published. As MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen stated, “The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to the level of hilarious incoherence—it is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.”

From the IPCC 2013 Report

clip_image002

After all these years, IPCC still doesn’t get it—we’ve been thawing out from the Little Ice Age for several hundred years but still are not yet back to pre-Little Ice Age temperatures that prevailed for 90% of the past 10,000 years. Warming and cooling has been going on for millions of years, long before CO2 could have had anything to do with it, so warming in itself certainly doesn’t prove that it was caused by CO2.

Their misrepresentation of data is ridiculous. In Fig. 1, the IPCC report purports to show warming of 0.5°C (0.9°F) since 1980, yet surface temperature measurements indicate no warming over the past 17 years (Fig. 2) and satellite temperature data shows the August 13 temperature only 0.12°C (0.21°F) above the 1908 temperature (Spencer, 2013). IPCC shows a decadal warming of 0.6°C (1°F) since 1980 but the temperature over the past decade has actually cooled, not warmed.

clip_image004 clip_image006

Fig 1. IPCC graph of temperatures. Fig. 2. Measured surface temperatures for the past decade (modified from Monckton, 2013)

From the IPCC Report

clip_image007

There just isn’t any nice way to say this—it’s is an outright lie. A vast published literature exists showing that recent warming is not only not unusual, but more intense warming has occurred many times in the past centuries and millennia. As a reviewer of the IPCC report, I called this to their attention, so they cannot have been unaware of it. For example, more than 20 periods of warming in the past five centuries can be found in the Greenland GISP2 ice core (Fig. 3) (Easterbrook, 2011), the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were warmer than recent warming (Fig. 4), and about 90% of the past 10,000 years were warmer than present (Fig. 5).

clip_image009

Figure. 3. More than 20 periods of warming in the past 500 years. (Greenland GISP2 ice core, Easterbrook, 2011)

clip_image011

Figure 4. Temperatures of the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were higher than recent temperatures.

clip_image013

Figure 5. ~90 of temperatures during the past 10,000 years were significantly warmer than recent warming.

(Cuffy and Clow, 1997; Alley, 2000).

Not only was recent warming not unusual, there have been at least three periods of warming/cooling in the past 15,000 years that have been 20 times more intense, and at least 15 have been 5 times as intense. (Easterbrook, 2011)

clip_image015

Figure 6. Intensity of warming and cooling in the past 15,000 years. (Easterbrook, 2011)

From the 2013 IPCC Report

clip_image017

As shown by the figures above from peer-reviewed, published literature, this statement is false. No one disputes that the climate has warmed since the little ice age 1300-1915 AD—we are still thawing out from the Little Ice Age. Virtually all of this warming occurred long before CO2 could possibly have a causal factor.

From the 2013 IPCC Report

clip_image019

This is a gross misrepresentation of data. The Antarctic ice sheet has not been losing mass—the East Antarctic ice sheet, which contains about 90% of the world’s fresh water, is not melting–it’s growing! The same is true for Antarctic shelf ice. The only part of Antarctica that may be losing ice is the West Antarctic Peninsula, which contains less than 10% of Antarctic ice. Temperature records at the South Pole show no warming since records began in 1957.

Some melting has occurred in Greenland during the 1978-1998 warming, but that is not at all unusual. Temperatures in Greenland were warmer in the 1930s than during the recent warming and Greenland seems to be following global warming and cooling periods.

Arctic sea ice declined during the 1978-1998 warm period, but has waxed and waned in this way with every period of warming and cooling so that is not in any way unusual. Arctic sea ice expanded by 60% in 2013. Antarctic sea ice has increased by about 1 million km2 (but IPCC makes no mention of this!). The total extent of global sea ice has not diminished in recent decades.

The statement that Northern Hemisphere snow cover has “continued to decrease in extent extent” is false (despite the IPCC claim of ‘high confidence’ is false. Snow extent in the Northern Hemisphere shows no decline since 1967 and five of the six snowiest winters have occurred since 2003 (Fig. 7).

clip_image021

Figure 7. Snow extent in the Northern Hemisphere since 1967.

From the 2013 IPCC Report

clip_image023

Sea level rise over the past century has varied from 1-3mm/yr, averaging 1.7mm/yr (7 inches/yr)from 1900-2000 (Fig.8.) Sea level rose at a fairly constant rate from 1993 to about 2005 but the rate of rise has flattened out since then (Fig. 9). What is obvious from these curves is that sea level is continuing to rise at a rate of about 7 inches per century, and there is no evidence of accelerating sea level rise. Nor is there any basis for blaming it on CO2 because sea level has been rising on for 150 years, long before CO2 levels began to rise after 1945.

clip_image025Sealevel_rise_2013_UColo

Figure 8. Past sea level rise. Figure 9. Sea level rise from 1993-2013. (Note: SLR graph updated on 10/4/13 to reflect recent version 7 release from University of Colorado)

Conclusions

These are only a few examples of the highly biased, misrepresentations of material in the 2013 IPCC report. As seen by the examples above, it isn’t science at all—it’s dogmatic, political, propaganda.

About these ads

145 thoughts on “The 2013 IPCC AR5 Report: Facts -vs- Fictions

  1. Excellent article. It will probably take months if not years to expose the outright lies and distortions that U.N. IPCC AR5 report contains. What is astounding is that this obvious propaganda is never uncovered by the main stream media who are so blinded by their clear bias in climate alarmist beliefs that they are a actually a major part of this global wide scientific scandal. The deapth of this scandal is reflected in that it is supported actively by the President of the U.S.

  2. Sea level rise over the past century has varied from 1-3mm/yr, averaging 1.7mm/yr (7 inches/yr)from 1900-2000 (Fig.8.)

    Maybe 0.07 inches/yr?

  3. Brilliant summation. It’s a good idea to address the big flaws in the claims and theories of the alarmists. Too often people are drawn into technical minutia regarding localised precipitation events or obscure papers full of maths and measurements trying to reveal small anomalies and get confused by the barrage of information coming out.
    I’m wondering if it’s possible to have links to all the graphs provided tracing them back to the measurement source because if you show one of these graphs the alarmists will claim it’s made up.

    Anthony, I’m also wondering if perhaps you might release the equivalent of ‘The skeptic’s handbook’ a comprehensive compendium of all the evidence against CAGW for the layman. Dr David Evans has done a phenomenal job summarising the case against CAGW but perhaps a more in depth version also debunking the IPCC reports might be required.

    I apologise for my laziness if it already exists in some form on your site (no doubt the entirety of articles is precisely this). I believe a well-resourced, centralised, structured knowledge-base is essential in addressing the views of alarmists.

  4. a sceptic on BBC must not be tolerated!

    2 Oct: Guardian: John Ashton: The BBC betrayed its values by giving Professor Carter this climate platform
    How can letting a geologist appear as a legitimate climate scientist to ridicule the IPCC report be in the public interest?…
    By the most generous standards it is a serious lapse if not a betrayal of the editorial professionalism on which the BBC’s reputation has been built over generations…
    As Danny Boyle recognised in his much-applauded Olympic ceremony last year, the BBC is part of who we are in Britain. For some time, and unconnected with climate change, vultures have been circling around it. The BBC should now explain how its decision to give such a platform to Carter serves the public interest. Otherwise it will be undermining its friends when it needs them most, and throwing the scavengers a piece of its own flesh.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/01/bbc-betrayed-values-carter-scorn-ipcc

    Guardian: John Ashton
    John Ashton is a director of E3G and a fellow of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College. From 2006-12 he was special representative for climate change for three successive foreign secretaries.

    http://www.theguardian.com/profile/john-ashton

    2 Oct: Guardian: Fiona Harvey: BBC coverage of IPCC climate report criticised for sceptics’ airtime
    Earlier in the day, the Today programme had said it could not find any British climate scientists who disagreed with the IPCC’s core findings.
    (John) Ashton, who has been trenchant in his criticism of government on climate change since leaving the civil service, said: “The BBC should now explain how its decision to give a platform to Carter serves the public interest…
    On Twitter, on Friday, the BBC’s coverage of the IPCC stirred up a storm, with many followers unhappy about the extent of the airtime given sceptics.
    Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace, told the Guardian: “With the exception of Newsnight and the science unit, the BBC’s coverage of the recent climate report seems to have been compromised by its fear of certain newspapers. Media coverage of contested issues is all about narratives and whose you adopt…
    (Bob Ward,Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment): …”In particular, the World At One on Friday provided a stunning display of false balance when it devoted less airtime to IPCC scientists than it did to Bob Carter, a sceptic who is funded by a free-market lobby group in the US, the Heartland Institute. Carter was allowed to make a number of inaccurate and misleading statements unchallenged.”
    “In science, those viewpoints that are supported by robust reasoning and evidence are accorded greater weight, but the BBC does not always reflect this.
    “Listeners to the World At One on Friday would not have gathered that there is overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that it is driven by greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation. More than 99% of journal papers and all major scientific organisations around the world are part of this consensus.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/01/bbc-coverage-climate-report-ipcc-sceptics

  5. philjourdan says:
    October 3, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    “BTW: First paragraph, you have IPPC instead of IPCC.”
    ================================================
    Nahhh… he’s got it right. There’s a whole lot of Pee-Pee in the IPCC.

  6. Mark Twain said it best: A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. In this day and age, thanks to the soporific leftist media, I’m not sure the truth ever gets out of bed.

  7. “After all these years, IPCC still doesn’t get it—we’ve been thawing out from the Little Ice Age for several hundred years but still are not yet back to pre-Little Ice Age temperatures that prevailed for 90% of the past 10,000 years.”

    But isn’t this complete BS? Based on the recent Marcott paper, we should be heading for another ice age many many many years ahead. But actually , what with present temps as high as anything in the last 8000 years, your claim sounds like complete nonsense, which most of the people on this blog prob’ly won’t really recognize.

    Quoting you, your “misrepresentation of data is ridiculous.”

  8. H.R. says:
    October 3, 2013 at 5:57 pm
    philjourdan says:
    October 3, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    “BTW: First paragraph, you have IPPC instead of IPCC.”
    ================================================
    Nahhh… he’s got it right. There’s a whole lot of Pee-Pee in the IPCC.
    =====================================================================
    Not Pee Pee, Poo Poo

    [Fixed. Thank you. mod]

  9. Oops.

    Actually that should read:

    Quoting you, your “misrepresentation of data is (sic) ridiculous.”

  10. Pippen Fool says:

    “…what with present temps as high as anything in the last 8000 years…”

    Pippen, you are a lunatic. R.B. Alley is a warmist, and even he knows the current climate is nothing unusual or unprecedented. Where do you get your misinformation? From fortune cookies? Or from the Pseudo-skeptical pseudo-science blog? Same-same.

  11. Kerry and Obama say AGW is the biggest problem the world has ever faced. The IPCC says it is the biggest problem the world has faced. How can it be possible that the facts do not fit the politics? Well I guess you just have to believe. Really?

  12. In Fig. 1, the IPCC report purports to show warming of 0.5°C (0.9°F) since 1980, yet surface temperature measurements indicate no warming over the past 17 years (Fig. 2) and satellite temperature data shows the August 13 temperature only 0.12°C (0.21°F) above the 1908 temperature (Spencer, 2013).

    Whether or not there has been warming [of] .5c since 1980 is not answered by “yet surface temperature measurements indicate no warming over the past 17 years”.

    And you’re comparing the temp of a single day (august 13th) against some non-specific 1908 temperature? Very weak argument. Perhaps you meant to write this differently, but as a skeptic, it’s laughable.

  13. Don,
    Nice post with lots of interesting information that is very credible.

    However, your use of the 60% recovery of artic sea ice damages the crediblity of the rest of your post. Yes, it is true. But it is a cherry pick. It is weather, just like the 2012 low was just weather.

    Much more interesting, was that summer Artic sea ice extent has been flat since 2007.

    The sceptic case is strong enough without exaggerating by cherry picking.

    Thanks for a very good post.

    /ikh

  14. Pippen Kool – seriously, are you THAT ignorant??

    How do you explain all of the Medieval artifacts that are exposed at retreating glacier fronts?

    These artifacts attest to long-term warmer conditions than today where they lie. That is, in places that have been buried by glacial ice during the Little Ice Age, which are ONLY NOW being exposed by slight 20th century warming.

    It requires centuries of warmth for people to colonise land, farm it, build structures and irrigation networks. Then, it takes centuries of climate cooling for them to abandon the lands and structures which are no longer inhabitable. Only then do such human artifacts get buried by glacial ice.

    Jeez, study a little geology before making a fool of yourself.

  15. Ferret Fool says: “using the Marcott paper as evidence? Seriously?”

    Well, a real published paper is worth what, 1000x a blog entries. or is it 1000 000 posts?

    It’s hard to say, since blog posts are less than zero, the math is….imaginary.

  16. Pippen Fool,

    There is a “Climategate” link above. Click on it and learn how climate pal-review has been thoroughly corrupted. Here is where you will find legitimate peer review in climate discussions.

    Your comments are based on nothing more than an appeal to a corrupt authority.

  17. GeologyJim says: “seriously, are you THAT ignorant?? These artifacts attest to long-term warmer conditions than today where they lie. That is, in places that have been buried by glacial ice during the Little Ice Age, which are ONLY NOW being exposed by slight 20th century warming.”

    Which means we are warmer now than then? And much quicker? and we are finding things that have been frozen for 6000 years in the siberian arctic or in the alps?

    Yes, ignorance is a problem, I agree. For thee, not for me.

  18. David says:
    October 3, 2013 at 5:39 pm

    Anthony, I’m also wondering if perhaps you might release the equivalent of ‘The skeptic’s handbook’ a comprehensive compendium of all the evidence against CAGW for the layman. Dr David Evans has done a phenomenal job summarising the case against CAGW but perhaps a more in depth version also debunking the IPCC reports might be required.

    I apologise for my laziness if it already exists in some form on your site (no doubt the entirety of articles is precisely this). I believe a well-resourced, centralised, structured knowledge-base is essential in addressing the views of alarmists.

    +100!

  19. philjourdan says:
    October 3, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    BTW: First paragraph, you have IPPC instead of IPCC.

    It should be ICPP!

  20. dbstealey says:“Climategate!” “Climategate!”

    Your comments are based on nothing more than an appeal to a conspiracy theory. I am not impressed.

    You know, you used to be a little more more interesting. Must have been a tough week for ya, what with the IPCC stuff and all being so well received.

    Cheers.

    Bud.

  21. Pippen Kool says:
    …your “misrepresentation of data is (sic) ridiculous.”

    Are you implying bad grammar because “data” is plural? The subject of the sentence is not “data,” it’s “misrepresentation,” which is singular. Therefore the verb should be singular. There’s nothing wrong with the sentence. Your knowledge of grammar and science IS sorely lacking.

  22. This needs to be sent to every politician in every country.
    I am sending it to the folks in Washington Stte, USA. We have some of the loudest climate screamers in the world….

  23. john piccirilli says: “Pippen tell us, what is marcott paper, and give evidence it is proven . I believe the blogs and posts
    On wuwt . The ipcc’s report is total b.s. agw is total b.s.”

    I realize that. You guys would believe Stata Claus if he was on a wuwt blog post.

    But b.s?

    It is pretty clear you do not recognize it.

  24. fact or fiction? certainly sounds EXTREME!

    3 Oct: Guardian: Ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years
    In the starkest warning yet of the threat to ocean health, the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) said: “This [acidification] is unprecedented in the Earth’s known history. We are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change, and exposing organisms to intolerable evolutionary pressure. The next mass extinction may have already begun.” It published its findings in the State of the Oceans report, collated every two years from global monitoring and other research studies.
    Alex Rogers, professor of biology at Oxford University, said: “The health of the ocean is spiralling downwards far more rapidly than we had thought. We are seeing greater change, happening faster, and the effects are more imminent than previously anticipated. The situation should be of the gravest concern to everyone since everyone will be affected by changes in the ability of the ocean to support life on Earth.”…

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/03/ocean-acidification-carbon-dioxide-emissions-levels

    3 Oct: BBC: Health of oceans ‘declining fast’
    “Whilst terrestrial temperature increases may be experiencing a pause, the ocean continues to warm regardless. For the most part, however, the public and policymakers are failing to recognise – or choosing to ignore – the severity of the situation.”…
    IPSO, funded by charitable foundations, is publishing a set of five papers based on workshops in 2011 and 2012 in partnership with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN’s) World Commission on Protected Areas.
    The reports call for world governments to halt CO2 increase at 450ppm…
    (Prof Dan Laffoley IUCN): “The UN climate report confirmed that the ocean is bearing the brunt of human-induced changes to our planet. These findings give us more cause for alarm – but also a roadmap for action. We must use it.”…
    The co-coordinator, Prof Alex Rogers from Oxford University has been asked to advise the UN’s own oceans assessment but he told BBC News he had led the IPSO initiative because: “It’s important to have something which is completely independent in any way from state influence and to say things which experts in the field felt was really needed to be said.”…

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24369244

  25. I would add to Don’s excellent summary the substantial anecdotal evidence of past warm periods in the general historical record, for at least four prior warm periods, Egypt in the 3rd millennium BC, the Hittite-Minoan-Mycenean warm period, 1800-1400 BC, the Roman Climate Optimum, 100 BC-300 AD, and the Medieval Warm Period, 900-1300 AD, all of which were much warmer than the modern period, and each less warm than the one preceding it. There is more than enough there to prove those periods happened even without any physical science. No amount of pseudoscience can erase this record, Michael Mann’s denials to the contrary notwithstanding. Somehow, I doubt that even he would attempt to go to the libraries preserving this documentation and attempt to destroy it.

    Pippen, do you think you’re up to doing that? I’d like to see you try – of course that would involve a lot of effort, expensive travel, etc., on your part, and you might wind up in jail since the authorities in those places wouldn’t take kindly to having their collections messed with.

  26. Emphasis mine:
    ———–
    GeologyJim says:

    “seriously, are you THAT ignorant?? These artifacts attest to long-term warmer conditions than today where they lie. That is, in places that have been buried by glacial ice during the Little Ice Age, which are ONLY NOW being exposed by slight 20th century warming.”

    Then Pippen Kool retorts:

    “Which means we are warmer now than then? And much quicker? and we are finding things that have been frozen for 6000 years in the siberian arctic or in the alps?

    Yes, ignorance is a problem, I agree. For thee, not for me.”

    Wow! First of all, even if nothing what GeologyJim wrote was verified and you just went with his argument as a way to refute him…that was a swing and a miss of epic proportions. How on earth could you possibly write what you just did as a rebuttal? How can you suggest that we were warmer now than then, by using GeologyJim’s quote as a preface for your argument, and then follow it up by admitting that we are now not as warm as 6000 years ago? You’re now arguing against yourself.

    Amazing.

  27. Professor, thank you for an outstanding rebuttal of the IPCC gibberish. Very glad you hail from Bellingham, WA. Go Vikings!

  28. Chad Wozniak says: “Pippen, do you think you’re up to doing that? I’d like to see you try – of course that would involve a lot of effort, expensive travel, etc., on your part, and you might wind up in jail”

    Cool. I mean Kool.

  29. @pat –
    Isn’t it amazing, the level of ignorance academics can demonstrate in their own fields? Sometimes I think the man in the street knows more about all kinds of things than the academics and “experts.”
    I recall a study many years ago where the predictions of economists as to certain key criteria, such as inflation, unemployment and GDP growth were compared to those of ordinary people of all levels of education. The economists were right 20 percent of the time, wrong in the other 80 percent, whereas the ordinary John Q. Publics were right 80 percent of the time and wrong 20 percent of the time.

    I daresay we have a similar situation with climate “scientists” of the IPCC sort – except that their predictions are skewed even more to the wrong side – they’re wrong 100 percent of the time.

  30. From Marcott (once hand has been caught in cookie jar)

    “20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.” CA

    Troll elsewhere Pippen Kool.

  31. “… still are not yet back to pre-Little Ice Age temperatures that prevailed for 90% of the past 10,000 years.” (Dr. Easterbrook)

    Well said. Your entire report is excellent. Submit it to the Wall St. Journal and other prominent newspapers. Yes, you correctly represent the truth that well.

    Oh, and, ignore the Pippens of the world. “Bud” has put forth NO evidence, no plausible arguments. His posts demonstrate to the world that he does not care about knowledge, only propaganda.

    Refute any Pippen-type false assertions to prevent him from fooling uneducated readers of WUWT, but, until he exhibits a genuine desire to learn, ignore HIM.

    I am so PROUD that you are from my home state! A shining star in the murky Envirostalinist night that prevails, here, in western Washington.

    *******************
    @ D. B. Stealey — “fortune cookies” — LOL.

    Aaaand, that may not be too far from the truth; China would LOVE it if the rest of the world’s nations shanghaied their own economies….. guess who will be there to pick up the pieces.

  32. Donald,

    There’s a saying: “Sweep in front of your own door before you sweep in front of other people’s”

    We could call this “the (credibility) gap”

  33. Wow Don.

    Here is what you tried to debunk

    Please everybody Note that it says SPRING SNOW COVER

    And how did Don debunk this?

    “The statement that Northern Hemisphere snow cover has “continued to decrease in extent extent” is false (despite the IPCC claim of ‘high confidence’ is false. Snow extent in the Northern Hemisphere shows no decline since 1967 and five of the six snowiest winters have occurred since 2003 (Fig. 7).”

    An then he Shows WINTER SNOW EXTENT.

    Anthony, I think this needs a correction.
    Willis what do you think?

    Spring extent is not the same as winter extent.

  34. Pippen,

    The Marcott paper was thoroughly covered here long ago. It’s not a ‘peer’ review paper that carries much respect on this blog and in fact is so faulty, that you bringing it up here will basically give you the strong reaction you are getting. I’d recommend reading the many discussions that paper brought with it once it was published and realize that there are much better peer reviewed reconstructions available than that propaganda piece was.

    The peer reviewed ice core reconstructions from both hemispheres, various sediment studies, historical writings that describe climate from the past all collaborate that we are not in anything extraordinary in terms of warming in the current time frame.

    And weighing this blog as a balance to that one peer reviewed paper using a fallacious argument from authority ignores the many other peer reviewed papers that contradict the Marcott paper. Those multiple papers were all discussed here and thus my recommendation that you educate yourself and review the prior discussions here.

    In the mean time, as you keep using that one outlier paper to support your ideas, expect to get thrashed here.

    Have fun!

  35. The statement that Northern Hemisphere snow cover has “continued to decrease in extent extent” is false (despite the IPCC claim of ‘high confidence’ is false.

    Apart from the glaring typos, (extent, extent ,is false, is false, missing parenthesis) this statement is itself incorrect. IPCC’s claim was explicitly about spring snow cover. The figure 7 offered as rebuttal presents winter snow cover. Apples to oranges.

  36. “Susie says:

    October 3, 2013 at 10:03 pm”

    I really cannot believe Tim Flannery is publishing this utter garbage. But I rather like this “The ocean continues to acidify. The pH (a measure of acidity/alkalinity) of seawater has decreased by 0.1 since the beginning of the industrial era, corresponding to an increase in acidity of 26%.”

    The sad thing is there are people in Australia who believe this!

  37. Pippen Kool says:
    October 3, 2013 at 6:25 pm

    “After all these years, IPCC still doesn’t get it—we’ve been thawing out from the Little Ice Age for several hundred years but still are not yet back to pre-Little Ice Age temperatures that prevailed for 90% of the past 10,000 years.”

    But isn’t this complete BS? Based on the recent Marcott paper, we should be heading for another ice age many many many years ahead. But actually , what with present temps as high as anything in the last 8000 years……
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Still trying to FOOL people?

    Since the peak summer energy levels in the Northern Hemisphere started dropping 9,000 years ago, the earth has started cooling. This is shown in all of the Greenland and Vorstok ice core data. GRAPH

    Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic…

    A 9% drop in solar energy beats the crap out of what ever piddling little weak infrared energy a trace amount of CO2 manages to reflect back at the earth.

    The only surprise is that the earth’s climate has managed to stay so darn stable for the last 10,000 years. To put it bluntly I find it completely astonishing that anyone with a half a brain could fall for the CAGW propaganda.

  38. excellent article…we need to see articles like this in the mainstream media…i think those who know editors personally should approach them…otherwise they will be rejected out of hand

  39. Jeff Alberts says: @ October 3, 2013 at 6:59 pm

    In Fig. 1, the IPCC report purports to show warming of 0.5°C (0.9°F) since 1980, yet surface temperature measurements indicate no warming over the past 17 years (Fig. 2) and satellite temperature data shows the August 13 temperature only 0.12°C (0.21°F) above the 1908 temperature (Spencer, 2013).

    Whether or not there has been warming [of] .5c since 1980 is not answered by “yet surface temperature measurements indicate no warming over the past 17 years”.

    And you’re comparing the temp of a single day (august 13th) against some non-specific 1908 temperature?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You are correct It is not well written. He would have been better off with three separate paragraphs.
    Use Dr Lindzen’s favorite comparison to show the temperature trend before and after CO2 rose are nearly identical. A second paragraph showing no statistical warming in the last ~15 to 17 year meets the falsification criteria

    NOAA:
    “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    American Geophysical Union:
    “A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature. ”

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
    “The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.”

    https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

    Last I think that was August 2013, the most current month at the time this article was written.

  40. Chad Wozniak says: @ October 3, 2013 at 8:28 pm

    …. There is more than enough there to prove those periods happened even without any physical science. No amount of pseudoscience can erase this record, Michael Mann’s denials to the contrary notwithstanding. Somehow, I doubt that even he would attempt to go to the libraries preserving this documentation and attempt to destroy it…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    If Mann did he would run into Tony (ClimateReason) who haunts libraries ferreting out all those records and Tony already has information up on the internet.

    http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/

    Besides, destroy a BOOK? in a LIBRARY? You would be lucky to make it out alive!

  41. Chad Wozniak says: @ October 3, 2013 at 8:43 pm

    @pat –
    Isn’t it amazing, the level of ignorance academics can demonstrate in their own fields?….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>..
    Yes, It was the first think I learned in industry.

    I had the reputation of being a great problem solver mostly because I would go on the plant floor and ASK the factory workers and foreman what was wrong. They might not know the fancy words or math but it doesn’t mean they do not have eyes, ears and a brain.

    The scientists who sat on their fat rears in their cozy offices and polished their high level credentials generally didn’t have a clue. (Lord save me from lazy idiots with Phds)

  42. Janice Moore says: @ October 3, 2013 at 8:50 pm
    ….Aaaand, that may not be too far from the truth; China would LOVE it if the rest of the world’s nations shanghaied their own economies….. guess who will be there to pick up the pieces.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Lately I have been suggesting to my little customers and their parents they should start studying Mandarin instead of Spanish…

  43. Mr Easterbrook, you do realise you are debunking the IPCC’s spring ice claim with the winter ice record? And very smugly too. Well that just makes you look even more foolish I’m afraid. Epic fail, but you will probably get hundreds of comments cheering you on from the sceptics so keep it up.

  44. Dr. Easterbrook,
    After you have your draft run the gauntlet here at WUWT, it should be submitted to a major publication like the WSJ.

    As far as the spring vs winter ice records, seems like the IPCC is cherry picking so both should be pointed out. (The fall/winter NH snow records are also interesting)

  45. … and science fights back. In truth, it couldn’t be any other way. Eventually the IPCC will disappear and nothing but a smear on today’s politics will remain.

  46. Gail the fact that both should be pointed out is fine, but totally irrelevant. Mr Easterbrook used one to debunk the other, different entirely. Run the gauntlet here? lol you all just cheer him on staring fatal schoolboy errors in the face, then make rubbish excuses for them.

  47. Nick Kermode says: @ October 3, 2013 at 11:37 pm
    Run the gauntlet here? lol you all just cheer him on….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You obviously haven seen some of the knockdown drag out fights here such as the one that has been running in the last few days HERE.

    It is late (after 3AM for me) and the heavy guns haven’t hit yet, I am just a light weight with a good memory.

  48. “Epic fail, but you will probably get hundreds of comments cheering you on from the sceptics so keep it up.”

    He’s already got two corrections from us contrarians.

  49. … warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia …
    —————————————————————
    Good grief even the temperature series pre-satellite (such as they are) show that the warming trend ~1910 – 1945, which could not have been caused by fossil fuel emissions, almost identical in slope to ~1975 – 2000.

  50. Nick Kermode says: @ October 3, 2013 at 11:37 pm….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I should also mention that I think Dr. Robert Brown (Duke Univ.) has the best criticism of the IPCC that I have seen but unfortunately it is not all that good for those without science and math backgrounds.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/02/ipcc-climate-a-product-of-lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-built-on-inadequate-data/#comment-1433981

    Curiously, I just posted a list of four statistical “sins” committed in AR5 with regard to figure 1.4 (and in AR4′s SPM as well), on CA in the thread Steve just opened on statistical problems with this figure. They are a bit more specific than the general essay above:

    * Cherrypicking (presenting single model runs without telling us how those particular model runs were selected or constructed, permitting them to be selected out of an ENSEMBLE of runs from slightly variable initial conditions per model).

    * Data Dredging in the worst possible way and concealing the fact in a plateful of spaghetti.

    * Applying the concept of the statistical mean of an ensemble of models as if it has any meaning whatsoever, especially when the models individually fail or do very poorly on an ordinary hypothesis test compared to the actual data, once you remove the illusion of the plate of spaghetti and display the results, one model at a time, compared to the actual data.

    * Applying the concept of the statistical variance/standard deviation to the results from an enemble of models as if it has any meaning whatsoever. This is the only rational basis for statements such as “95%” confidence or “high confidence” and is based on the central limit theorem, which does not apply to ensembles of model predictions because the general circulation models used in the ensemble are not randomly selected independent and identically distributed samples drawn from a probability distribution of correct general circulation models.

    Steve also added the fact that they cherrypicked and shifted the start date for figure comparison to maximize the overlap of their spaghetti with the actual climate data, certainly compared to the earlier AR5 draft. I’d add another feature of 1.4 I pointed out back in the originally leaked draft — the error bars shown on the current temperatures are utterly meaningless — somebody just made them up at plus or minus 0.1C. HADCRUT4 doesn’t even claim to be accurate to better than 0.15C across the contemporary time frame. As usual, the graphic adds an error bar onto individual points that are what they are (conveying a false sense of precision beyond that represented by the data itself) and omits any sort of error estimate or analysis of fluctuations in the individual GCMs represented in the spaghetti. Finally, one should really look AT the fluctuations in the spaghetti — in particular, how does the autocorrelation of the GAST produced by the GCMs compare to the observed climate autocorrelation. Hmmm, not so well, not so well.

    I’d add further that performing the most cursory of fits of the form T(t) = a t + b sin(ct) + d to the 165 year HADCRUT4 data, one obtains a result with vastly smaller a (the linear rate of warming), b around 0.2 C, c around 1/70 inverse years, and d set by the need to optimize the slope and oscillation relative to the data. This curve explains almost all of the visible variation in the data remarkably accurately, including the rapid warming of both the early and late 20th century and the “pause/cooling” in the middle and end of the 20th century, as WELL as a similar cycle visible even in the 19th century data with its presumably large uncertainties. In fact, I think I could pretty easily make up a stochastic function such as:

    T(t) = a t + b sin(ct) + d + F(t)

    where F(t) is trendless, exponentially correlated or power correlated noise and produce temperature curves that are ALMOST indistinguishable from the HADCRUT4 observed 165 year temperature series, and could do even better if I cherrypicked a different start and (say) threw out all data before 1880 or whatever as being too imprecisely known.

    If this curve (which is pure numerology — I have no idea what the physical basis of a and d are beyond mumblings about Milankovitch cycles that add up to “I don’t really know”, might GUESS that c is the inverse of the PDO period with b an empirical amplitude, and of course F(t) is noise because, well, the climate system is empirically noisy as all hell in ways we cannot predict or understand) has any meaning at all, it is that making egregious claims about the “unprecedented” nature of the warming trend in the late 20th century is ridiculous — no trend explainable by a four parameter sinusoidal fit is “unprecedented”, and as Dick Lindzen has shown, no audience that is shown early and late 20th century temperature variations at the same scale and asked to pick which one is with and which without CO_2 can do this unless they are enormously familiar with the data and can pick out individual FINGERPRINTS in the data such as the late 20th ENSO/Pinatubo bobble. The curves are qualitatively and quantitatively identical to within this sort of feature specific noise. What isn’t appreciated is that the curve actually extends decently back into the 19th century as well, at least as far as HADCRUT4 is concerned.

    Personally, I’d like to see AR5 criticism be a little less general and a little more specific, and think that one can pick figure 1.4 completely to pieces in a way that is most embarrassing to the IPCC. I’d start by simply separating out the contributing GCMs, one at a time, from the spaghetti. Look at the one in orange near the very top! It doesn’t come within MILES of the empirical curve. To hell with it, it fails an INDIVIDUAL hypothesis test regardless of how you massage starting points and so on. Remove it from the contributing ensemble as a falsified model. Look at another. Yes, it dips down as low as the empirical curve — for less than 10% of its overall values — and it has UTTERLY incorrect autocorrelation, showing wild spikes of warming that really ARE unprecedented in the data. To hell with it — remove it from the contributing ensemble.

    In the end, you might have a handful of GCMs that survive this winnowing not because they are CORRECT, but because they at least spend SOME significant fraction of their time at or below the actual temperature record and have at least approximately the right autocorrelation and heating/cooling fluctuation range. Better yet, run entire Monte Carlo ensembles of runs per model and see what fraction of the models have EXACTLY the right mean and autocorrelation behavior. If the answer is “less than 5%” chuck the model. Even fewer of the GCMs would make the cut here.

    When you are done, don’t present a pile of spaghetti and don’t data dredge a conclusion. The non-data dredged conclusion one SHOULD draw from considering the GCMs as if they WERE iid samples would be “throw them all out”, because one has to apply MUCH MORE STRINGENT STATISTICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNIFICANCE if you have many jars of jellybeans you are trying to correlate with acne, and commit even more grevious sins that mere data dredging if one PIECES TOGETHER regions where individual models HAPPEN to descend to barely reach the data in order to be able to claim “the models embrace the data”.

    Of course, if one does this one ends up with the conclusion that the rate of warming is highly exaggerated in AR4 and AR5 alike by any of the ensembles of GCMs. You might even end up with a rate of warming that is surprisingly close to a, the slope of the linear trend in my numerological fit. That’s order of a half degree per century, completely independent of any presumed cause such as CO_2.

    rgb

  51. Gail, copy pasting a long passage that has absolutely nothing to do with my point is strange to say the least. I will give you the benefit of the doubt as it’s late there.

  52. Pippen Kool says: October 3, 2013 at 7:44 pm

    Which means we are warmer now than then? And much quicker? and we are finding things that have been frozen for 6000 years in the siberian arctic or in the alps?

    Pippen, you need to read a little more, perhaps:

    An ancient forest has thawed from under a melting glacier in Alaska and is now exposed to the world for the first time in more than 1,000 years.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/science/still-standing-ancient-alaskan-forest-thaws-melting-glacial-tomb-4B11215106

    Canadian researchers from the University of Alberta were exploring the area around Teardrop Glacier in the Canadian Arctic when they found plants that had been frozen for over 400 years during the period known as the Little Ice Age (1550-1850).
    Regeneration of Little Ice Age bryophytes emerging from a polar glacier with implications of totipotency in extreme environments
    Catherine La Farge, Krista H. Williams, john H. England

    Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7,000 years old where the region’s rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum,

    http://www.livescience.com/4702-melting-glacier-reveals-ancient-tree-stumps.html

    Die Welte, Nov. 14, 2005
    Stone Age trade routes yield spectacular finds on alpine pass – clothes, weapons and devices also from Roman time and the Middle Ages
    A glacier near Berne releases finds from the Stone Age – remnants of a forgotten alpine pass…..
    ……..they discovered a birchbark arrow-quiver. A dating with the archaeological service of the canton Berne showed that the birchbark is nearly 5000 years old.

  53. Pippen Kool says: October 3, 2013 at 6:25 pm

    “…..Based on the recent Marcott paper, we should be heading for another ice age many many many years ahead….”

    Marcott et al does have a very smoothed view of the Holocene temperature.
    But note the paper clearly points out that for at least 25% of the time the Holocene was warmer than today. The so called Holocene climate optimum. I wonder why they call it that?

    Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. ….. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Marcott et al

    And I’m not sure even Pippen would like a return to “Little Ice Age” temperatures ; (From Wikipedia…yeah, I know…but I was in a hurry…):

    The population of Iceland fell by half, ……. Iceland also suffered failures of cereal crops, and people moved away from a grain-based diet. The Norse colonies in Greenland starved and vanished (by the early fifteenth century), …. In North America, American Indians formed leagues in response to food shortages……..

    ……. Crop practices throughout Europe had to be altered to adapt to the shortened, less reliable growing season, and there were many years of dearth and famine (such as the Great Famine of 1315–1317, ……. Famines in France 1693–94, Norway 1695–96 and Sweden 1696–97 claimed roughly 10% of the population of each country. In Estonia and Finland in 1696–97, losses have been estimated at a fifth and a third of the national populations, respectively.”…

    …..Violent storms caused serious flooding and loss of life. Some of these resulted in permanent loss of large areas of land from the Danish, German and Dutch coasts.

    …….Timbuktu, an important city on the trans-Saharan caravan route, was flooded at least 13 times by the Niger River; there are no records of similar flooding before or since………. two periods of most frequent typhoon strikes in Guangdong coincide with two of the coldest and driest periods in northern and central China (AD 1660-1680, 1850–1880).

  54. The leveling off of sea level rise in figure 9 is very significant. It points to a large scale thermal change in the ocean. It also directly contradicts claims of continued OHC increase in the oceans. Instead, there appears to be a downward trend in ocean thermal energy. It could signal an oceanic regime change of long term significance.

  55. For me, the biggest sin was in how the IPCC dishonestly moved the scale in the models/reality comparison chart to fraudulently get the reality to fit inside the spaghetti and then tell a flat out lie that the models were right.

    The TRUTH, as we regular WUWT readers will be very familiar with, is that none of the models projected the current global temperatures, and all but 2 of them are so far out from reality, that they projected the current actual global mean temperature to be phyisically impossible.

    The true fact that these models, all based on the runaway CO2 driven warming hypothesis, stated with certainty that the current temperatures are IMPOSSIBLE, proves only one thing. That the CAGW hypothesis is entirely falsified.

    End of story!

  56. Friends:

    Easterbrook provides a clear, powerful and cogent scientific destruction of the latest piece of political propaganda from the IPCC.

    The effectiveness and clarity of that destruction is demonstrated by the rapidity of trolls running to fill ‘the breach’.

    Pippen Kool, Village Idiot and Nick Kermode all piling in on the same post. They have one minor point which does need correction but that was first pointed out in this thread by Steven Mosher at October 3, 2013 at 9:23 pm.

    Other than Mosher’s point they have nothing but snark. They are reduced to citing as their only ‘evidence’ their claim that contents of the laughable and multiply discredited Marcott paper have meaning when there is a host of other papers and other evidence which refute it.

    The IPCC AR5 is political propaganda masked as being ‘science’ which is rubbish. Easterbrook provides a list of corrections which show the propaganda is scientific rubbish. True believers in AR5 are pained by facing the reality that the AR5 is rubbish.

    Richard

  57. satellite temperature data shows the August 13 temperature only 0.12°C (0.21°F) above the 1908 temperature (Spencer, 2013).

    S/be 1980, not 1908.

    Also make clear it is August 2013, not August 13th as one commenter thought!

  58. Pippen Fool refers to Climategate as a “conspiracy theory”. As if.

    That is ignorance on display: in fact, the Climategate emails were the words of corrupt scientists conniving on scamming the public with their fabricated data. They admit what they are doing in no uncertain terms: lying for money.

    Climategate was the turning point in the catastrophic runaway global warming debate. Before Mann, Jones, and the rest of their ilk were caught out, the public wasn’t sure about their assertions.

    But things are different now, which explains the ratcheting up of Mann’s name-calling, and the anguish displayed by those who are losing the argument.

  59. There is a notable difference between the GMSL graph provided here:

    and the current display (apparently the same thing) from Colorado:

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2013rel7-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-retained

    Visual inspection does not seem to suggest any (further) tampering with 2009-2012 but 2012-2013 make the fitted red line no longer credible.

    In fact that red line does NOT appear to be provided on the original graph and is not in the legend. That graph is credited University of Colorado 2012 yet seems to have been tampered with.

    I have never seen CU do anything more subtle than a linear regression. They certainly would not publish a anything suggesting such a radical slow down.

    What is the model of this this red line, what parameters were fitted and most importantly by whom?

  60. Guest essayist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook said,

    From the IPCC Report

    Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.

    There just isn’t any nice way to say this—it’s is an outright lie. A vast published literature exists showing that recent warming is not only not unusual, but more intense warming has occurred many times in the past centuries and millennia. As a reviewer of the IPCC report, I called this to their attention, so they cannot have been unaware of it. . . .

    – – – – – – – – –

    The IPCC intellectuals have done something profoundly worse than just lying with that AR5 statement.

    The IPCC intellectuals are openly flaunting their irrational thought systems before those of us with rational thought systems, and they are doing so in the name of our rational thought systems; they are being epistemically irrational in the name of our epistemically rational physical science systems.

    An irrational world view with plenty of support within academia, but not outside of academia. That is the weakness which skeptics can exploit, namely few normal rational members of our generally rational culture would accept the irrationality if clearly pointed out to them.

    John

  61. Steven Mosher says: (October 3, 2013 at 9:23 pm) “Spring extent is not the same as winter extent.”
    You are right, but if one is looking for evidence of warmer winters then Winter snow is the obvious thing to look at, isn’t it? The only reason the IPCC ingored the data on winter snow and picked Spring snow instead, is that only the spring data supported their ideology. If needed they might even have presented the July snow data for the northern Hemisphere ;)

  62. Mark Twain popularized the saying “There are liars, damn liars, and statisticians.”

    http://www.twainquotes.com/Statistics.html

    Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics .”
    – Mark Twain’s Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the North American Review

    First thing to do is check your sources Don. Maybe you should do that for the GMSL graph.

  63. Roger Pielke Sr shows all 3 fall, winter, spring snow charts here.

    I think there is a criticism to be made of the IPCC’s lack of focus on the bigger picture, but their claim isn’t wrong per se.

  64. Greg Goodman on October 4, 2013 at 4:23 am

    – – – – – – –

    Greg Goodman,

    The English language just became more conveniently dynamic with your redefinition of ‘popularized’ as being ‘created’.

    One less thing to worry about in the dark watches of the night . . .

    John

  65. I’m so glad to see geologists discussing climate change. Living most of my life in Colorado, I’ve traveled its mountains, though U-shaped valleys, cut by glaciers dozens of miles long, now gone, and V-shaped canyons where ice never flowed. I can think of no field more than climate science that requires a healthy, humble and circumspect understanding of the power of geological time frames, natural variability, and a sense of awe and humility that comes with such perspectives. Yet these post-modern statisticians, correlators, computer modelers, and political best guess artists eschew geologists, apparently because they haven’t uniformly adopted the narrative of CO2 based AGW catastrophism.

  66. So, I have a question for pippen.

    Do you actually believe that you’re smarter / cleverer / more informed than this community, which consists of hundreds or thousands of scientists, science-oriented people, people who have worked with science and academia for most of their lives, and people who have been following this debate for years, even decades?

    Point: previously frozen settlements and forests that are only now becoming visible are not an indication that we are experiencing any sort of unusual melting. Remember, we’re only seeing the edges of these things, but where they are was open and habitable and warmer for a long time before being covered by ice. Massive logic fail on this one.

    Point: call it what you will, but Climategate was nothing remotely resembling a “skeptics conspiracy theory”. It is the actual emails of the people you seem to believe, discussing ways to bully their ideology into the science journals while conspiring to keep contrary evidence out. While fretting over the fact that their predictions are just not coming true. Maybe you object to the method in which it was obtained and released. Eventually you will recognize that the whistle-blower in this case is an international hero, unlike the idiots who revealed strategic classified documents on wikileaks.

    I’m not sure what you think you’re accomplishing here, but whatever you think it is is probably wrong. You actual accomplishment here is to make yourself look like a fool. A brainwashed fool, actually. And a very uneducated fool.

  67. A good piece from Don Easterbrook – and a perfect illustration of the IPCC and the warmistas abject failure to look at the data properly and honestly. Worse, the IPCC are not even ‘hiding the decline’ anymore, but have moved onto simply ‘ignoring the facts’ in their assessments.

  68. Satellite based IR devices DO NOT measure “temperature”. NOTHING does. It is however the most “reliable” record we have for “global temperature”, which its not!

  69. richardscourtney says:
    October 4, 2013 at 2:00 am

    Hi Richard, this post is pretty indefensible. Defending it, in my opinion, spoils your credibility for when you are defending something that may be worth while defending. Calling this a “powerful and cogent scientific destruction of the latest piece of political propaganda from the IPCC.” is ridiculous bordering on hilarious. I mean where have you got to go with the hyperbole when RGB or Willis etc chimes in with something actually worthwhile?? There have been some good pieces here, this is not one of them. It has SEVERAL catastrophic flaws that completely undermine the whole point of the piece.
    Calling me a troll for merely pointing out an error and including me in with “they” “citing” “Marcott” is childish and then dishonest. I never have or would site Marcott, and I don’t troll I quietly read and observe only make a rare comment or two when I think I see an error or have a question. I’ve seen the others you mention make more comments in a day here over several articles than I have made here, ever. So grow up and cop a bit of criticism on the chin, hey it’s not even aimed at you.

  70. IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri said: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s many of the observed changes are unprecedented. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.”
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/29/sunpower-programme-climate-change

    OR

    IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri said in 1940:
    “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since 1910 many of the observed changes are unprecedented. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.”

    “…since the 1950s many of the observed changes are unprecedented….” Of course. Now go back 2,000 years and see if you can make the same statement. Smoke and mirrors.

  71. The GREENLAND thermageddon is unprecedented.

    Abstract
    ….The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001–2010). Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years, a period that seems to include part of the Holocene…..
    [Takuro Kobashi et. al.]
    ——-
    Abstract
    An aerial view of 80 years of climate-related glacier fluctuations in southeast Greenland
    …………the recent retreat was matched in its vigour during a period of warming in the 1930s with comparable increases in air temperature. We show that many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s,……
    [Anders A. Bjørk et. al.]
    ——-
    Abstract
    “…the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005….”
    [Petr Chylek et. al.]
    ——-
    Abstract
    “…The annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming….”
    [Jason E. Box et. al.]
    ——-
    Abstract
    “…The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades….”
    [B. M. Vinther et. al.]
    ——-
    Abstract
    The State of the West Greenland Current up to 1944
    “….It is found that warmer conditions existed during the decade of 1880, followed by a colder period up to about 1920, when the present warm period began. The peak of the present warm period appears to have been reached in the middle 1930’s,…..”
    [M. J. Dunbar]

  72. Prof. Easterbrook, I have been trying to find sea level data covering the Medieval Warm Period, but have been unsuccessful. Your long term sea level graph stops in the middle of the LIA. Is there any proxy data that would show that in the medieval Warm Period a similar sea level rise occurred as we have seen during the last centuries of warming? All I can find is that the sea level during the Roman Warm Period was about similar to the one today ( Roman Fish Tanks carved out in rocks)

  73. pat says:
    October 3, 2013 at 5:45 pm
    a sceptic on BBC must not be tolerated!

    2 Oct: Guardian: John Ashton: The BBC betrayed its values by giving Professor Carter this climate platform
    How can letting a geologist appear as a legitimate climate scientist to ridicule the IPCC report be in the public interest?…

    A brave new world, indeed. Should the BBC decide to make a report on astrology, it is not in the public interest to let anyone other than certified astrologists express their opinion on the subject. Similarly, no one can speak about homeopathy but homeopaths or only spoonbenders about spoon bending, for that matter.

    At the end of the road, of course, only government bureaucrats are allowed to talk about government policies. The Soviet Union was overwhelmingly successful after all, was not it?

  74. 2 Oct: Guardian: John Ashton: The BBC betrayed its values by giving Professor Carter this climate platform
    How can letting a geologist appear as a legitimate climate scientist to ridicule the IPCC report be in the public interest?…

    OR

    2 Oct: Guardian: John Ashton: The BBC betrayed its values by giving Dr. James Hansen this climate platform
    How can letting an astronomer appear as a legitimate climate scientist to ridicule the NIPCC report be in the public interest?…

    LOL, LOL, LOL.

  75. Oh Pippen Kool Aid, what is the matter with you. Have you heard of the Roman Warm Period? You are the one talking nonsense and most of your ilk “prob’ly won’t really recognize”.

    Pippen Kool says:
    October 3, 2013 at 6:25 pm

    “After all these years, IPCC still doesn’t get it—we’ve been thawing out from the Little Ice Age for several hundred years but still are not yet back to pre-Little Ice Age temperatures that prevailed for 90% of the past 10,000 years.”

    But isn’t this complete BS? Based on the recent Marcott paper, we should be heading for another ice age many many many years ahead. But actually , what with present temps as high as anything in the last 8000 years, your claim sounds like complete nonsense, which most of the people on this blog prob’ly won’t really recognize.

    Quoting you, your “misrepresentation of data is ridiculous.”

  76. Ken Kermode at 5:55 am says: ” [I am] merely pointing out an error”

    The word “merely” sounds too innocent for a post where you use words like “smugly”, “foolish and “epic fail”. And, in passing, you claim there are “SEVERAL catastrophic flaws” whereas you just said you were “merely pointing out AN error”. Please substantiate!

  77. Sea level rise over the past century has varied from 1-3mm/yr, averaging 1.7mm/yr (7 inches/yr)from 1900-2000 (Fig.8.)

    Think he meant 7 inch / century

  78. ikh says:
    October 3, 2013 at 7:02 pm
    …………
    Much more interesting, was that summer Artic sea ice extent has been flat since 2007.

    No it hasn’t been flat.

    As for Pippen Kool Aid I want him to go to Germany and pick olives grown outside. Can Pippen do this? What about fig trees? Does Pippen realise that retreating NH glaciers are revealing old forests? First the IPCC 1990.

    [Medieval Warm Period]
    “This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence that it was accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases”

    …….Thus some of the global warming since 1850 could be a recovery from the Little Ice Age rather than a direct result of human activities. So it is important to recognize that natural variations of climate are appreciate and will modulate any future changes induced by man……
    IPCC WG1 Report 1990 (p202)

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

    Medieval Climatic Optimum
    Michael E Mann – University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    It is evident that Europe experienced, on the whole, relatively mild climate conditions during the earliest centuries of the second millennium (i.e., the early Medieval period). Agriculture was possible at higher latitudes (and higher elevations in the mountains) than is currently possible in many regions, and there are numerous anecdotal reports of especially bountiful harvests (e.g., documented yields of grain) throughout Europe during this interval of time. Grapes were grown in England several hundred kilometers north of their current limits of growth, and subtropical flora such as fig trees and olive trees grew in regions of Europe (northern Italy and parts of Germany) well north of their current range. Geological evidence indicates that mountain glaciers throughout Europe retreated substantially at this time, relative to the glacial advances of later centuries (Grove and Switsur, 1994). A host of historical documentary proxy information such as records of frost dates, freezing of water bodies, duration of snowcover, and phenological evidence (e.g., the dates of flowering of plants) indicates that severe winters were less frequent and less extreme at times during the period from about 900 – 1300 AD in central Europe……………………

    Some of the most dramatic evidence for Medieval warmth has been argued to come from Iceland and Greenland (see Ogilvie, 1991). In Greenland, the Norse settlers, arriving around AD 1000, maintained a settlement, raising dairy cattle and sheep. Greenland existed, in effect, as a thriving European colony for several centuries. While a deteriorating climate and the onset of the Little Ice Age are broadly blamed for the demise of these settlements around AD 1400,

    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf

  79. Pippen Kool says:
    October 3, 2013 at 7:44 pm

    GeologyJim says: “seriously, are you THAT ignorant?? These artifacts attest to long-term warmer conditions than today where they lie. That is, in places that have been buried by glacial ice during the Little Ice Age, which are ONLY NOW being exposed by slight 20th century warming.”

    Which means we are warmer now than then?

    What about the artifacts uphill? You are suffering from a logic bypass.

    Climate change and the northern Russian treeline zone
    Abstract
    …..Dendroecological studies indicate enhanced conifer recruitment during the twentieth century. However, conifers have not yet recolonized many areas where trees were present during the Medieval Warm period (ca AD 800–1300) or the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM; ca 10 000–3000 years ago)……

    http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1501/2283.short

  80. But…. Kermode is right in pointing out this error because SPRING snow cover loss between 2008-2012 period is shown to exceed even the climate model projections. Paper in GRL by Derksen and Brown (2012). However, the fact that the increase in winter snow cover is not mentioned by the IPCC reeks of cherry picking, don’t you think so Ken?

  81. I think most people would naturally think of winter snow when they read the heading for “Northern Hemisphere snow cover “graph on Figure SPM3 in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers and not read about it in the very small print at the bottom of the sheet.. That was my first reaction. If it is not winter snow cover it should clearly states so on the graph title . I think it is another example in the use deceptive graphs by IPCC. Who is interested in spring snow extent more than winter snow extent ?. The winter snow graph should have been included by Ipcc. Another example of hide any reference to any cooling. I think the fact that DON missed it is an innocent mistake. He is right in pointing out that the winter snow extent increased, a fact that was hid by IPCC.
    I applaud Don for a fine article

  82. Isn’t it odd that the IPCC mentions the decline in Spring snow extent, yet does not mention the period commonly associated with snow – Winter. Does this look like cherry picking? If you are going to mention declining Spring extent then why not inform policy makers that Winter and Fall snow extent has remained unchanged since 1967?

    PS: Does anyone know the CAUSE of the Spring extent decline since 1967?

  83. Steven Mosher, on the winter/spring snow extent error, I agree this should be corrected. I’ll give Don the benefit of the doubt, and assume this was an honest mistake or a poorly elucidated countherpoint. That does not obviate the suggestions of the winter graph, itself. Why didn’t the IPCC include both items, as they both seem germain? Did the IPCC cherry pick? Was the winter graph omitted because it contradicted the desired narrative?

    Oh, as I was looking for other Mosher comments to see if he’d already answered this, I see twil had already submitted this almost exact same point. I could have saved a few keystrokes by typeing “What TWIL said.”

  84. A very good assessment. The source is hard to read in some of the figures and would be helpful if clearly noted.

    A couple of errors:

    “…temperature only 0.12°C (0.21°F) above the 1908 temperature (Spencer, 2013). IPCC shows a decadal warming of 0.6°C (1°F) since 1980 but the temperature over the past decade has actually cooled, not warmed.”

    The 1908 should read 1980.

    However, I would still not go along with that as it seems too much of a cherry pick. The period 1979 to Sept 2013 would show an increase of about 0.65 oC which is (Spencer 2013) more in line with the IPCC total increase.

    I think the IPCC decadal warming should read about 0.2 oC rather than 0.6 oC which is the total increase rather than decadal.

  85. I’m fully aware of the difference between spring snow cover and winter snow cover. Spring snow cover includes March-April, while winter snow cover includes November-April. IPCC used the spring snow cover data to contend that because of CO2-caused global warming, less snow is occurring on Earth. It is this broad contention that I attempted to address with the winter snow graph but didn’t expand the discussion in order to keep the text short.
    The amount of snow cover at any time is always a contest between the amount of snow and rate of melting. Thus, winter snow cover is likely to be most affected by the amount of snow. Not many areas at low elevations get a lot of snow in March and April, so the spring snow cover is likely to be most affected by the rate of snow melt. (Yes, it does snow in March/April and it does melt in Nov-April, but, overall, the dominant processes controlling snow cover are somewhat different). We have all seen bitter winters with large snowfall followed by a warm spring—you can’t really judge how snowy the winter was by how much snow remains at the end of spring. The question is, if you want to judge whether or not snow is disappearing from the Earth, which would you choose, spring snow cover or winter snow cover? The IPCC looked only at the spring snow cover over a two month period and totally ignored the winter snow cover over a six month period. The spring snow cover is more a reflection of how warm the spring was whereas the winter snow cover is likely a better measure of how snowy the winter was. Keeping in mind that the question we are asking is whether or not snow is going to be a thing of the past (as contended by some CO2 advocates), I think considering the winter snow cover is critical, so I showed the winter snow cover graph.
    And you can’t fail to take into account that during the past 100+ years we have had two periods of global warming (~1915 to ~1945 and 1978-1998) and two periods of global cooling (~1890 to ~1915 and ~1945-1977), so we shouldn’t be surprised to see trends change with time. We only have satellite coverage for the past 3-4 decades, which happens to coincide with the most recent warm period, so we shouldn’t be surprised to see a declining snow cover trend during that period. But what about the preceding cool periods (1880-1915 and 1945-1977) and the warm period from 1915 to 1945? How reliable is the snow cover data from 1920 to 1980? I don’t know, but I doubt that it is anywhere near as good as during the satellite era.
    The point I was trying to make is that by using only the spring snow cover to contend that snow is declining does not tell the whole story. What I would have preferred to see in the IPCC report is inclusion of winter snow data and a much fuller discussion of the data.
    In all scientific endeavors, I think it’s important to keep an open mind.
    “Dogma is an impediment to the free exercise of thought. It paralyses the intelligence. Conclusions based upon preconceived ideas are valueless. It is only the open mind that really thinks.” (Patricia Wentworth, 1949)

  86. yet surface temperature measurements indicate no warming over the past 17 years (Fig. 2) and satellite temperature data shows the August 13 temperature only 0.12°C (0.21°F) above the 1908 temperature

    I know that issues with this have been pointed out by others. As we now know, the UAH went up by about 0.2 from August to September and if RSS does likewise, the report would look out of date extremely quickly. You obviously meant 1980, but the range during that year was about 0.3. It is not clear if you were comparing the average for all of 1980 with the single month of August 2013. The average for 1980 on RSS was 0.015. The average to date for January to August 2013 on RSS is 0.235 although this may go up when when the September number comes out. So considering the above, my suggestion would be to reword the above to say:

    RSS satellite temperature data shows the average temperature anomaly for 2013 to the end of August is only 0.22°C (0.40°F) above the average 1980 temperature anomaly. This anomaly average for 2013 to date happens to be lower than the average for the period from April 1997 to March 1998. In fact, RSS has been flat for almost 17 years.

  87. While not adding substantively to the science, I must correct the grammar of Pippen Kool.

    Pippen Kool says:
    October 3, 2013 at 6:34 pm
    Oops.
    Actually that should read:
    Quoting you, your “misrepresentation of data is (sic)(sic) ridiculous.”

    While it would be the data are ridiculous; the misrepresentation is ridiculous.

  88. Pippen Kool says:
    October 3, 2013 at 7:44 pm

    “Which means we are warmer now than then? And much quicker? and we are finding things that have been frozen for 6000 years in the siberian arctic or in the alps?

    Yes, ignorance is a problem, I agree. For thee, not for me.”

    Pippen, do you realize what you have said? How did things that have been frozen in ice for 6000 years get there in the first place? It must have been a lot warmer then where they fell, apparently hunting (man) or grazing (wooly mammoth). If temp goes up further and more of these beasties appear, aren’t we just returning to the climate that they lived in? You see, when all you have is a fast lip you make these kind of slips.

  89. Prof Easterbrook, In the paper of Derksen and Brown (2012) on spring snow cover reference is made to the April to June period as opposed to your March/April period. I assume that the April June period is of more significance with respect to the albido effect.
    Could I respectfully remind you of my question whether you could give me any reference to sea level data spanning the MWP?

  90. @Gail Combs –
    Both as a history professor (PhD history, 1970) and then as a business executive (MBA finance, 1975) I learned very quickly to respect opinions of rank and file people. My experience with my colleagues in the universities where I taught was such as to convince me that they were the most profoundly ignorant people I ever came across. And then in business (I was an auditor for 1o years, then a CFO for 13 years) I always got the real scoop from the worker bees and first-line supervision – who almost always had a better idea of what needed to be done than the CEOs of their companies.

    At least in business you couldn’t go too wrong, if you wanted to stay in business, but there is no such constraint in academia. There is nothing to stop academics from, for example, creating the AGW mythology.

  91. “Which means we are warmer now than then? And much quicker? and we are finding things that have been frozen for 6000 years in the siberian arctic or in the alps?”

    I couldn’t stop laughing at this. You don’t actually believe we’ve experienced warming at unprecedented speed do you? That is projected to happen but it certainly hasn’t happened yet. Many other issues with your posts, but this one had me laughing when someone who believes science backs their stance is under such a silly impression.

  92. A 9% drop in solar energy beats the crap out of what ever piddling little weak infrared energy a trace amount of CO2 manages to reflect back at the earth.

    Gail, there hasn’t been a 9% drop in global insolation. You are misinterpreting the article. The article refers to the variation of the insolation OF THE ARCTIC, due to Milankovitch stuff, where simply the precession of the equinoxes causes different parts of the arctic to be heated/cooled at different points in the calendar year. I downloaded the whole thing (having the good luck to be associated with an institution that can get through the paywall) and will read it later, but actual insolation of the Earth doesn’t vary by anything like 9% on this kind of timescale, and where the arctic might be getting less energy, some other part of the planet might be getting more.

    It’s also important to note that the energy CO_2 reflects back to earth is not piddling or weak, and the fact that it is a “trace” is irrelevant compared to the fact that the atmosphere is optically opaque in its absorption bands. Trace or not, look at the spectrographs in e.g. Petty, figures 8.1 to 8.3, and tell me that it is piddling or weak. It is actually quite important.

    What is at issue is not the total average power in backradiation from the atmosphere at the Earth’s surface per se, what is at issue is how it varies with CO_2 concentration around its current values, where most of the effect is already saturated. Opaque is opaque, you can’t really get much “opaquer”, and the direct effect of increases in CO_2 at this point is logarithmic at best. The other thing at issue is feedbacks and natural variations in things like circulation patterns or albedo that could completely or mostly cancel the CO_2 linked warming or could, as the IPCC and its many GCMs assert, augment it.

    Figure 1.4 of AR5, either version, is pretty much direct evidence that the GCMs overestimate this feedback from all sources. It makes it IMplausible that any of the higher climate sensitivities are correct, and indeed “sensitivity” is in free fall and will continue to fall as long as the GASTA stubbornly refuses to rise or exhibit any of the OTHER traits the GCM curves have that the real climate record does not.

    I think it is sufficient unto the day to pitch out the GCMs that do not, in fact, individually pass a perfectly reasonable hypothesis test when compared to the actual climate post the date that they were run. I’m planning to replot the AR5 1.4 data one strand of spaghetti at a time (when I have time) and then perhaps we can judge the performance of each model, one at a time, and decide which ones ought to be summarily rejected not because they somehow failed to account for arctic insolation correctly (unlikely given the simple physics formulae implemented in all of the GCMs that includes this) or because they have too much “greenhouse effect” as if there is a knob that controls that, but because they get the wrong answer in half a dozen ways INCLUDING GASTA (but hardly limited to it) when compared to reality.

    And by “reject” I don’t even mean throw in the trash can. I mean fix. If it weren’t for the politics here, the figure in AR5 would be used as wry proof that the climate community has work to do before their models can be taken seriously. That’s a reasonable part of real science. Yes they do.

    It’s just a shame that they didn’t have the honesty and guts to state that clearly in AR5, and weather the inevitable pitchforks and torches that might have come their way. All they’ve done is put off the day of reckoning on the prayer that GASTA is about to spike up 0.5C this year or next year to put it back on the track they predict. Personally, I think that is really unlikely. I suspect that they think so too. But one more year, two more years, that much closer to retirement, I suppose.

    rgb

  93. Jimbo says:
    October 4, 2013 at 8:11 am

    “Isn’t it odd that the IPCC mentions the decline in Spring snow extent, yet does not mention the period commonly associated with snow – Winter. Does this look like cherry picking? If you are going to mention declining Spring extent then why not inform policy makers that Winter and Fall snow extent has remained unchanged since 1967?

    PS: Does anyone know the CAUSE of the Spring extent decline since 1967?”`

    Snowboarding. With alpine skiers, snow has always enjoyed the gentle fluffing and scuffing you get from civilized schussing, but with snowboarders it’s all grind, pound and scrape. Snow got tired of it and went to Antarctica, where life for snow is much more sublime. Things are so good for snow there, I hear it’s reproducing prodigiously…

    Snow and winter extent… seems to me that, like the abysmal tree-ring fiasco, these are pretty coarse proxies. Back to the weather vs climate thingy, with the uncontrolled variables very much in control of the results…

  94. Mickey Reno says:
    October 4, 2013 at 5:02 am
    I’m so glad to see geologists discussing climate change.
    =========================================================================

    I live near this – http://www.esta-uk.net/tedbury_camp_carboniferous.html ; we walk the hounds of Hades up there, there are ancient woods around it and the very overgrown ramparts of an old Iron Age camp, there; Tedbury Camp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tedbury_Camp).

    There are two layers of limestone at this quarry; the higher one from the Jurassic, the lower one some 200 million years earlier. Nothing in between them . Consequently, there are a lot of geologist’s field trips there, as it is so special, and every couple of years a gang turn up and clear the rapidly growing vegetation (Silver Birches). Talking to them a few days back; they explained the above to me, so I said to them – “So I guess you guys take a much longer term view of planet earth than some do?” – they said they did, and were to a man and woman (four of them), sceptical that what has happened to planet Earth since the LIA is anything out of the ordinary.

    By the way, there’s a fantastic book about the guy – from near here – who mapped the geology of the UK. Simon Winchester’s “The Map That Changed The World”. Yet to read it, but his books on the SF earthquake and Krakatoa are fascinating and both cracking good reads. He’s a Geology Grad himself.

    As you were.

  95. Not 6,000 years, Pippen Kool.

    http://archaeology.org/news/686-130321-norway-glaciers-organic-artifacts

    Roman artifact, dated AD300.

    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/swiss-glacier-finely-tuned-climate-changes

    Swiss glaciers have been retreating for 150 years. Note Joerg Schaffer’s comments, very worried about the implications of that!

    Schnidejoch Glacier,

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jq06XaBVeoFDw8ema5tW2JrEl1mg

    “Some 5,000 years ago, on a day with weather much like today’s, a prehistoric person tread high up in what is now the Swiss Alps, wearing goat leather pants, leather shoes and armed with a bow and arrows”

    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/McCormick_RomanClimate2012.pdf

    “Alpine glaciers were retreating and, in the ªrst and second century
    a.d., relatively small, comparable probably to their extent
    c. 2000 a.d.”

  96. Gary Pearse, Adam Gallon, Jimbo and others own Pippen Kool in this thread. I don’t understand why someone like PK would want to keep coming back to display his ignorance of the planet’s history during and prior to the Holocene.

    PK probably gets all his thoughts and talking points from alarmist blogs. That would explain his total misunderstanding of the ice core data.

    We are fortunate to be living in a true “Goldilocks” climate. But it won’t last forever. And the threat is not from CO2, or warming. The real threat is another ice age.

    The alarmist crowd has gotten everything wrong. Why should we believe anything PK predicts now?

  97. Dr. Don J. Easterbrook,

    I believe that

    (7 inches/yr)from 1900-2000 (Fig.8.)

    is in error. You might want to correct it. The number I get is about .0669 inches a year – roughly 0.7 inches per decade and 7 inches a century.

  98. Thanks to you folks who pointed out several typos–just goes to show that you shouldn’t proof-read your own writing!

    Here are responses to a few direct questions:

    Chad Wozniak says:
    “I would add to Don’s excellent summary the substantial anecdotal evidence of past warm periods in the general historical record, for at least four prior warm periods, Egypt in the 3rd millennium BC, the Hittite-Minoan-Mycenean warm period, 1800-1400 BC, the Roman Climate Optimum, 100 BC-300 AD, and the Medieval Warm Period, 900-1300 AD, all of which were much warmer than the modern period, and each less warm than the one preceding it. There is more than enough there to prove those periods happened even without any physical science. No amount of pseudoscience can erase this record, Michael Mann’s denials to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    Chad—Your reference to anecdotal history is intriguing. Might be fun to compare this with the geologic record. Can you suggest a few references where I could read about the historic record?

    Chris Schoneveld says:
    “Prof. Easterbrook, I have been trying to find sea level data covering the Medieval Warm Period, but have been unsuccessful. Your long term sea level graph stops in the middle of the LIA. Is there any proxy data that would show that in the medieval Warm Period a similar sea level rise occurred as we have seen during the last centuries of warming? All I can find is that the sea level during the Roman Warm Period was about similar to the one today ( Roman Fish Tanks carved out in rocks)”

    Chris—Yes, there is sea level data for the Medieval Warm Period. You could start with this post and follow the references therein.

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/07/sea-levels-higher-during-medieval-warming-period-research-shows-current-sea-level-rise-began-by-1750.html

    “Prof Easterbrook, In the paper of Derksen and Brown (2012) on spring snow cover reference is made to the April to June period as opposed to your March/April period. I assume that the April June period is of more significance with respect to the albido effect.”

    The spring snow cover graph used by the IPCC on page 4-94 is labeled March-April. Other combinations of months can be found elsewhere, e.g. June, April-June, etc. As I pointed out in an earlier response, winter snow cover (Nov-April) is likely most affected by snowfall, whereas spring snow cove is likely most affected by melting rates.

    Don

  99. Otzi died around 3,000 B.C. at 3,500 m in the Alps.

    Boy! They must have had a lot of Chevy Suburbans
    and coal-fired plants
    and stuff
    back then…

    Oh, dear, what if the earth keeps warming? WHAT WILL WE DO WITH ALL THE OTZIS?!! Where will we store them? This is a planetary emergency. Stop the CO2 factories, now!!! Wait a minute…….

    Global CO2 rise lags temperature increase by a quarter cycle…. So…………………..,

    there ain’t nothin’ we can do about it. LAUGH — OUT — LOUD, let’s jump in our pick-ups and head down to the ol’ barbecue pit for dinner (driving 10 over all the way)!

    (I think that is exactly what Otzi would have done, too #(:))

    Oh, knock it off, Al Bore. DON’T TELL ME OTZI CAME FROM OUTER SPACE. That one is getting old. Try something else.

  100. John Whitman says:

    Greg Goodman,

    The English language just became more conveniently dynamic with your redefinition of ‘popularized’ as being ‘created’.

    One less thing to worry about in the dark watches of the night . . .
    ===

    My point was that he completely misquoted as well as attributed to who (allegedly) “popularised” rather than who actually said it.

    The thing about checking your his sources. Like checking the source of the graph which has a spurious unexplained, unattributed red line fitted.

    It looks like he got that second hand too and the he’s playing chinese whispers with the data like he is with the citation.

    One more thing to worry about in endless back and forth of data misrepresentation.

    Thanks for missing the point.

  101. Greg Goodman on October 5, 2013 at 12:20 am

    John Whitman said,

    Greg Goodman,

    The English language just became more conveniently dynamic with your redefinition of ‘popularized’ as being ‘created’.

    One less thing to worry about in the dark watches of the night . . .

    My point was that he completely misquoted as well as attributed to who (allegedly) “popularised” rather than who actually said it.

    The thing about checking your his sources. Like checking the source of the graph which has a spurious unexplained, unattributed red line fitted.

    It looks like he got that second hand too and the he’s playing chinese whispers with the data like he is with the citation.

    One more thing to worry about in endless back and forth of data misrepresentation.

    Thanks for missing the point.

    – – – – – – – –

    Greg Goodman,

    Thanks for your response to my rejoinder. Always appreciated.

    There is no doubt that Twain said what Easterbrook quoted, but there is apparently reasonable doubt about Twain’s claim later in his autobiography that he was paraphrasing a similar phrase of Disraeli.

    ‘Popularized’ is a quite reasonable word for Easterbrook to use and he does not appear to be claiming Twain created the idea or style of the phrase.

    And it was quite reasonable for Easterbrook to apply it for introducing the problem of falseness in AR5 .

    John

  102. Don J. Easterbrook says:
    October 4, 2013 at 8:30 am

    “The question is, if you want to judge whether or not snow is disappearing from the Earth, which would you choose, spring snow cover or winter snow cover?”

    I think you misunderstand the point why IPCC is showing spring snow cover. They are discussing evidence of warming, i.e. higher temperatures.

    Winter snow doesn’t say much about temperature (except in areas where it rarely snows). It is a measure of precipitation. Snow falls when temperatures fall below the freezing point and thaws when temperature rises above 0C. If we want a measure of temperature, spring snow is the thing to look at. The warmer the spring the more the snow melts.

    Another point to mention is that warmer air leads to evaporation leading to more precipitation, so in fact we should expect more snow in winter in many Northern Hemisphere areas as temperatures rise.

  103. Climate agnostic says:

    “The question is, if you want to judge whether or not snow is disappearing from the Earth, which would you choose, spring snow cover or winter snow cover?”

    “I think you misunderstand the point why IPCC is showing spring snow cover. They are discussing evidence of warming, i.e. higher temperatures.”
    “Winter snow doesn’t say much about temperature (except in areas where it rarely snows). It is a measure of precipitation. Snow falls when temperatures fall below the freezing point and thaws when temperature rises above 0C. If we want a measure of temperature, spring snow is the thing to look at. The warmer the spring the more the snow melts.”

    ATTEMPTING TO MEASURE TEMPERATURE BY LOOKING AT SPRING SNOW COVER WOULD BE A NONSTARTER BECAUSE LOW SPRING SNOW COVER COULD JUST AS EASILY BE DUE TO A LOW SNOW WINTER. SPRING SNOW COVER DOESN’T TELL YOU ANYTHING ABOUT TEMPERATURE BY ITSELF, SO WHY WOULD YOU TRY TO MEASURE TEMP THAT WAY? YOU DETERMINE TEMPERATURE BY DIRECT SURFACE AND/OR SATELLITE MEASUREMENTS, NOT BY HOW MUCH REMAINS IN THE SPRING.

    “Another point to mention is that warmer air leads to evaporation leading to more precipitation, so in fact we should expect more snow in winter in many Northern Hemisphere areas as temperatures rise.

    BETTER CHECK YOUR DATA BEFORE MAKING CLAIMS LIKE THIS. ATMOSPHERIC WATER VAPOR HAS ACTUALLY DECREASED SINCE 1947, NOT INCREASED. DATA ALSO SHOW NO SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN PRECIPITATION. DATA SPEAKS LOUDER THAN ASSUMPTIONS!

  104. adam.s,

    As usual, the “Science of Doom” blog is putting out misinformation.

    Both specific humidity and relative humidity have been flat to decreasing for decades.

    Increasing humidity is yet another alarmist prediction that has not happened. In fact, none of the alarmist predictions have ever happened. Not one of them has come true. So why should anyone believe them now?

  105. After reading the back and forth about the significance of the human artifacts uncovered by retreating glaciers, I think this is a fact best left out of a “it used to be just as warm as it is, now”. It looks like a fact that could support the warmists or the non-warmists, depending on assumptions about the rates of snow accumulation and melting. All it says to me is that humans were there before the snow became a year-round feature of that particular landscape.

  106. Don J. Easterbrook says:

    October 5, 2013 at 10:03 am

    “ATTEMPTING TO MEASURE TEMPERATURE BY LOOKING AT SPRING SNOW COVER WOULD BE A NONSTARTER BECAUSE LOW SPRING SNOW COVER COULD JUST AS EASILY BE DUE TO A LOW SNOW WINTER.”

    Whether the snow cover is thick or thin it thaws when the temperature is above 0C. It takes a bit longer of course if it is thick.

    “ATMOSPHERIC WATER VAPOR HAS ACTUALLY DECREASED SINCE 1947,”

    I think you are talking about global values here, whereas areas with snow cover are mainly found in high latitudes. In Arctic regions warmer temperatures in autumn and winter keep sea and lakes free of ice longer, thus increasing evaporation and precipitation in the form of snow.

  107. Wrecked a Fire, at least, Otzi does prove that warming is not a problem (in addition to proving that human CO2 is climatologically irrelevant). Thus, Envirostalinism is stopped dead in its tracks.

    Thus, we should not cripple our economies by taxing profits in order to subsidize perpetually negative R.O.I. junk like those wretched bird-slaughtering (for no net benefit) windmills. Nor should we limit anyone’s freedom to eat as many hamburgers or to get as low gas mileage (Ha! The metric system hasn’t taken THAT term over, yet:)) as one wants. FREE MARKETS FOREVER!

    And, don’t sweat the typos. Even the best among us do it, sometimes (and non-scientists like I msiteihp;y al theiw tim #), imean #(:))

  108. wrecktafire says:

    October 5, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    “All it says to me is that humans were there before the snow became a year-round feature of that particular landscape.”

    Quite right and it WAS warmer in the mid Holocene, at least by 2C. There’s no question about that. The point is that if it had been warmer than now during the Roman Warm Period and MWP these artifacts and the 5000 year old Otsi would have been exposed and decomposed. There have been 9000 year old pieces of birch bark found in a thawing glacier in the Swedish Scandes. Why weren’t they exposed during earlier warm periods?

  109. Don, thanks for the reply about the winter/spring issue. After Mosh sought to make this into a big flap, I suspected that you might have fully intended to have used the winter graph. I notice he wasn’t too interested in actually discussing that issue. But he sure was interested in turning a molehill into a mountain. Unfortunately, this area is so politically charged, there are always those who wish to focus on minor errors to score points in a propaganda battle. I also appreciate your impulse toward brevity. I myself have been accused by alarmists of being long-winded when I’m only trying to be precise so as to make it more difficult for them to misinterpret my arguments. :-) Thanks for a very interesting analysis.

  110. Climate Agnostic, you say: “In Arctic regions warmer temperatures in autumn and winter keep sea and lakes free of ice longer, thus increasing evaporation and precipitation in the form of snow.” But a post later you say: “Quite right and it WAS warmer in the mid Holocene, at least by 2C. There’s no question about that. The point is that if it had been warmer than now during the Roman Warm Period and MWP these artifacts and the 5000 year old Otsi would have been exposed and decomposed.”

    Why would the artifacts be exposed if warming arctic regions (as you say) have more precipitation due to increase evaporation? Aren’t you contradicting yourself?

  111. The thing that bothers me about the spring snow vs. winter snow question, as well as the meaning of the un-buried artifacts is my experience as a “spring skier” and drinker of the snowpack (via the Hetch Hetchy water system). I have watched–nay, obsessed about–spring snowpack for 35 years in the Lake Tahoe and San Bernardino mountain areas, and it seems that the main drivers are the jetstream and the California current, plus the firehose of moisture that we can get from Hawaii. Kicking the dead horse that died in my previous post, I think these are very localized/regionalized patterns, and say nothing about global temperatures.

  112. Chris Schoneveld says:

    October 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm

    “Why would the artifacts be exposed if warming arctic regions (as you say) have more precipitation due to increase evaporation? Aren’t you contradicting yourself?”

    We are discussing two different things here. Snow which falls in winter and melts during spring and summer vs. glacier melt. Otzi and many artifacts have been exposed in melting and receeding glaciers, especially in the Alps. These glaciers are not affected by more precipitation in Arctic regions. Glaciers were formed by snow which didn’t melt for thousands of years due to colder conditions. When the climate warms the glacier ice melts. Otzi was well preserved in glacier ice for 5000 years and had it been warmer since then he would have been exposed.

    • I don’t believe the inference in your last sentence is valid, i.e., that if it been warmer since [when he was buried] then he would have been exposed”.

      Wasn’t Otzi’s exposure a function of many things:
      * how deeply he was buried
      * duration of warm periods since then
      * cloud cover during warm periods since then
      * rain during warm periods since then?

      In short, aren’t you assuming a lot?

  113. “In Fig. 1, the IPCC report purports to show warming of 0.5°C (0.9°F) since 1980, yet surface temperature measurements indicate no warming over the past 17 years (Fig. 2) and satellite temperature data shows the August 13 temperature only 0.12°C (0.21°F) above the 1908 temperature (Spencer, 2013). IPCC shows a decadal warming of 0.6°C (1°F) since 1980 but the temperature over the past decade has actually cooled, not warmed.”

    Then Jeff Alberts concludes:

    “And you’re comparing the temp of a single day (august 13th) against some non-specific 1908 temperature? Very weak argument. Perhaps you meant to write this differently, but as a skeptic, it’s laughable.”

    From the above-yes typos are (still today….10/6/2013) present. But some people actually think that Don’s reference to “August 13 temperature” actually referred to ONE DAY-August 13th??? These people had no problem ASSUMING he meant August 13th of SOME YEAR….but weren’t sharp enough to ASSUME (like a normal person) that he must have been referring to August OF 2013???

    You know as in “…and satellite temperature data shows the August 2013 temperature only 0.12 C(0.21F) above the 1980 (NOT 1908) temperature (Spencer 2013).”

    I don’t know Mr. Easterbrook or his credentials well. Apparently he didn’t have anyone review his essay for typos etc, which isn’t a crime or high treason in science as far as I’m concerned. As a skeptic on his side however, I would beg him to be more careful in the future, as each little typo and innocent mistake becomes a club with which idiots will attempt to beat his arguments to death. Especially when the typos are NUMBERS regarding dates and temps-which are vital to any climate discussion.

    Perhaps Anthony or Dr Easterbrook would take a moment to go over the entire essay or ask someone to edit it fully and then repost it? Just a suggestion.

  114. wrecktafire says:

    October 6, 2013 at 9:46 am

    “Wasn’t Otzi’s exposure a function of many things:
    * how deeply he was buried
    * duration of warm periods since then
    * cloud cover during warm periods since then
    * rain during warm periods since then?”

    How deeply Otzi was buried nobody can tell. There have been several cold periods during the last 5000 years when glaciers in the Alps advanced and grew in thickness, for instance LIA, which would have buried the corpse deeper.

    Warm periods like Roman WP and MWP in Europe lasted 200-300 years at least . Our own Modern WP has lasted no more than 100 years.

    Whether there was more cloud cover or rain during those warm periods is naturally difficult to know but according to paleo reconstructions the climate was similar to our own warm period.
    There’s an interesting study published in May this year, a reconstruction of temperatures 2000 years back in most of the continents (except Africa), which concludes:

    “Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period AD 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html

  115. wrecktafire says:

    October 6, 2013 at 2:20 pm

    “You just made my point. Otzi tells us zero about how warm it has been.”

    Well, if that’s how you interpret my comment it is fine with me. I’m not trying to “convert” you.

  116. No wonder the IPCC didn’t want to focus your attention on winter snow extent.

    Climate Change 2001:
    Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
    Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.

    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/569.htm

    Since then the Northern Hemisphere has had five of the six snowiest winters on record.

  117. I don’t really care if Climate change is real – I just want to begin investing early on into the carbon-trading market. While you guys are busy arguing, I’m going to get rich! suckers!

    Besides – if the world cleans itself up and treats the environment better as a result of a possible lie – who cares? The world needs to pollute less and this is a good way to get people to do it.

    Now excuse me while I exhale some carbon and pay for a licence for the right to do so.

  118. Jon’s point is apt and incisive. Even if the IPCC is alarmist and exaggerating, in what kind of world is the process of curtailing human wastage and despoilment somehow a danger to be avoided? How is the IPCC’s message to be negatively construed as politicized propaganda, when the money and resources available to ‘green’ campaigning and awareness is dwarfed by the hundreds of billions of dollars of CO2-pumping oil-interests? What have we to gain from listening to climate-change alarmists? A more ecologically-conscious, less polluted world? Oh dear! Let’s avoid that path of ruin!

    Civilization has flourished for less than 1% of higher primate evolution because of relatively stable climates. Many previous civilizations have already all but erased themselves from history simply by overloading the ecologies they depended on. It’s possible the IPCC is alarmist because their warnings have been ignored by the population or obfuscated by big-oil and politics, and the possible collapse of a global civilization would be impossible to stop if it started. We have to get working on solutions…. and eco-imperialist finance capitalism is NOT sustainable in the long term.

    What would you climate skeptics advocate? Continue on the same path and just ignore the possibility of climate change? Keep pumping out the CO2 and methane; keep clearing away the jungles and forests; keep watching arable land get blown into the ocean; keep watching the deserts grow; keep birthing millions of new people a year and demanding more and more production from a thinning, emptying environment? Yes, let’s ignore the IPCC, pretend humanity is technologically invulnerable, and keep doing all of that until God returns to earth and restocks the oceans, replants the trees, refills the aquifers with unpolluted water, and shits good soil back over all the deserts. Good plan, skeptics. Because that IS your plan when you’re so determined to discredit the only large-scale voices for environmental conservatism. Climate change WILL happen, whether it is human driven or not, and the world is currently filled with billions of dependent people with no survival skills.

    • Thanks, dbstealy.

      To which I would add: David J., you need to catch up. Have you not noticed that BP is in the solar panel business? That oil giants are in the biofuel business? That lightbulb makers are spending millions trying to get lightbulb mandates written into law? That you are being bombarded with green messages by corporate America and the multinational green energy lobby? That the rich countries with all the green technology are trying to force poor countries to buy this stuff? Yes, conservation is a good thing, but if you think it is a pure, unadulterated, unalloyed good thing to do, whatever the cost, you have fallen into the trap of (a) the redistributionists (b) the anti-human crowd (starvation is good!) and (c) the part of the business community that is going to get filthy rich making you think you are saving the planet by buying their stuff.

      As Mr. Stealey says, we have to use our heads as well as our emotions. We also need to do the math–add up the costs and benefits of everything that is proposed. And telling the truth is an essential part of that.

  119. David J. says:

    Even if the IPCC is alarmist and exaggerating, in what kind of world is the process of curtailing human wastage and despoilment somehow a danger to be avoided?

    Try to keep one issue at a time in mind. The IPCC is alarmist and exaggerating. That means they are not truthful. If they are lying to ‘save the planet’ it is called Noble Cause Corruption.

    David J. continues:

    How is the IPCC’s message to be negatively construed as politicized propaganda, when the money and resources available to ‘green’ campaigning and awareness is dwarfed by the hundreds of billions of dollars of CO2-pumping oil-interests?

    David, you make it too easy. You certainly are a fossil fuel consumer, therefore you directly contribute to those hundreds of $billions. You voluntarily pay to support them — but then you criticize them for what they provide for you.

    Next, you write: Civilization has flourished for less than 1% of higher primate evolution because of relatively stable climates.

    Not really, David. Evolution was taking place long before the Holocene. True, humans proliferated during warm periods. But so what? It is a fact that those warm periods were not caused by rising CO2, so the entire “carbon” scare is grant-propelled nonsense. As CO2 rises, global temperatures have been falling. Next, you ask:

    What would you climate skeptics advocate? Continue on the same path and just ignore the possibility of climate change? Keep pumping out the CO2 and methane; keep clearing away the jungles and forests; keep watching arable land get blown into the ocean; keep watching the deserts grow; keep birthing millions of new people a year and demanding more and more production from a thinning, emptying environment?

    First, the climate always changes. Always has, always will. Only Michael Mann says otherwise: his hokey stick chart shows unchanging temperatures until the industrial revolution. But of course, Mann’s chart has been so thoroughly debunked that it is an embarassment that the IPCC can no longer publish.

    Next, we are on the right path, no thanks to the self-serving enviro-lobby. The U.S. refused to sign Kyoto, but we are reducing our “carbon” emissions. So we certainly do not need to be preached at by do-gooders.

    Finally, your wild-eyed Chicken Little rant about the ‘ocean, jungles and forests’ is simply an emotional outburst that accomplishes nothing productive. In reality, modern industrial society has done more to protect the environment and people than anything done by the eco crowd. You literally owe your health, wealth and longevity to industry. Whales exist because of industrial activity; there is no “thinning, emptying environment”, and your “large-scale voices for environmental conservatism” is a bunch of nonsense. The IPCC was set up and exists for ulterior reasons:

    “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
    ~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG3

    Well meaning folks like yourself are being used to advance the UN’s agenda. I know you will probably not agree. But I am writing this to speak to other readers, and give them a rational skeptic’s view. Human nature being what it is, you will probably keep drinking that Kool Aid. Because Noble Cause Corruption is a feel-good fallacy, which requires critical thinking to overcome. But alarmists act based on feelings, not on thinking, as your comments show.

Comments are closed.