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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

145 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bob
October 3, 2013 5:29 pm

averaging 1.7mm/yr (7 inches/yr). 7 inches, not 7 inches per year.

October 3, 2013 5:31 pm

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.

October 3, 2013 5:38 pm

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?

David
October 3, 2013 5:39 pm

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.

pat
October 3, 2013 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?…
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

October 3, 2013 5:51 pm

Outstanding point by point rebuttal!

October 3, 2013 5:52 pm

BTW: First paragraph, you have IPPC instead of IPCC.
[Done. Mod]

H.R.
October 3, 2013 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.

Reply to  H.R.
October 4, 2013 6:13 am

@H.R. – LOL! Thank you for the clarification!

Jim
October 3, 2013 6:09 pm

OT, but what the heck has happened to NORSEX sea ice data????

minarchist
October 3, 2013 6:25 pm

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.

Pippen Kool
October 3, 2013 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.”

October 3, 2013 6:28 pm

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]

Pippen Kool
October 3, 2013 6:34 pm

Oops.
Actually that should read:
Quoting you, your “misrepresentation of data is (sic) ridiculous.”

October 3, 2013 6:38 pm

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.

TRBixler
October 3, 2013 6:40 pm

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?

Ferret
October 3, 2013 6:51 pm

Pippen Fool, using the Marcott paper as evidence? Seriously?

OssQss
October 3, 2013 6:57 pm

Just the tip of the iceberg!

Jeff Alberts
October 3, 2013 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? Very weak argument. Perhaps you meant to write this differently, but as a skeptic, it’s laughable.

Fabi
October 3, 2013 7:01 pm

Thank you, Dr. Easterbrook, for labeling their outright lies as such. Refreshing…

ikh
October 3, 2013 7:02 pm

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

GeologyJim
October 3, 2013 7:30 pm

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.

Pippen Kool
October 3, 2013 7:34 pm

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.

October 3, 2013 7:39 pm

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.

Pippen Kool
October 3, 2013 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? 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.

rogerknights
October 3, 2013 7:45 pm

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!

1 2 3 6
Verified by MonsterInsights