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
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.
Fig 1. IPCC graph of temperatures. Fig. 2. Measured surface temperatures for the past decade (modified from Monckton, 2013)
From the IPCC Report
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).
Figure. 3. More than 20 periods of warming in the past 500 years. (Greenland GISP2 ice core, Easterbrook, 2011)
Figure 4. Temperatures of the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were higher than recent temperatures.
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)
Figure 6. Intensity of warming and cooling in the past 15,000 years. (Easterbrook, 2011)
From the 2013 IPCC Report
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
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).
Figure 7. Snow extent in the Northern Hemisphere since 1967.
From the 2013 IPCC Report
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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

It should be ICPP!
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.
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.
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….
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.
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
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.
Emphasis mine:
———–
GeologyJim says:
Then Pippen Kool retorts:
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.
Professor, thank you for an outstanding rebuttal of the IPCC gibberish. Very glad you hail from Bellingham, WA. Go Vikings!
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.
@Patrick Guinness –
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.
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.
“… 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.
*******************
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
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!
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.
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
“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!
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.
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
Jeff Alberts says: @ur momisugly October 3, 2013 at 6:59 pm
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
Last I think that was August 2013, the most current month at the time this article was written.