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.
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.
– – – – – – –
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
OR
“…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.
The GREENLAND thermageddon is unprecedented.
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)
An ice free Arctic is thing of the past. Children won’t know what an ice-free Arctic is.
The Arctic Warm Period – 1920s to 1940s was caused by man-made greenhouse gases released after 1950. It’s unprecedented.
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?
OR
LOL, LOL, LOL.
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”.
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!
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
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.
What about the artifacts uphill? You are suffering from a logic bypass.
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?
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
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?
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.”
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.
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)
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.