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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Bob

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

Larry Hamlin

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.

Mike Smith

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

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

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

Outstanding point by point rebuttal!

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

H.R.

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.

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

Jim

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

minarchist

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

“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.”

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

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

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

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

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

OssQss

Just the tip of the iceberg!

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

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

ikh

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

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

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.

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

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

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!

rogerknights

philjourdan says:
October 3, 2013 at 5:52 pm
BTW: First paragraph, you have IPPC instead of IPCC.

It should be ICPP!

Pippen Kool

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.

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.

Louis

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.

BW2013

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….

Pippen Kool

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.

pat

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

Chad Wozniak

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.

Adam B.

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.

Don

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

Pippen Kool

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.

Chad Wozniak

@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.

Resources Wire

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.

Janice Moore

“… 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.

Village Idiot

Donald,
There’s a saying: “Sweep in front of your own door before you sweep in front of other people’s”
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/agu2.png
We could call this “the (credibility) gap”

Wow Don.
Here is what you tried to debunk
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/clip_image019.png
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.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/clip_image021.jpg
Anthony, I think this needs a correction.
Willis what do you think?
Spring extent is not the same as winter extent.

John Mason

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!

JJ

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.

Janice Moore….submit the article to newspapers….
I am sure the San Diego Union Tribune would print it…

@Vern Cornell – the ORANGE Paper? 😉

Go to …..icecap.us
And read “IPCC 5th Assessment is Very Sure They’re Not Sure”
It’s dated October 3rd.

Susie

Meanwhile back in Australia, the now defunct climate commission (now crowd funded and rebadged as The Climate Council) has produced a report on the latest IPCC report which is even more alarmist than the original report:
http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/CC.report.1.2.pdf

Patrick

“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!

Gail Combs

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.

gopal panicker

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

Gail Combs

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.