Skip to content

Draft Climate Report Leaked To NYT

August 9, 2017

By Paul Homewood

 

 

Somebody has apparently leaked the latest draft federal climate change report to the NYT:

 

 

image

WASHINGTON — The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration.

 

 

The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.

 

“Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans,” a draft of the report states. A copy of it was obtained by The New York Times.

The authors note that thousands of studies, conducted by tens of thousands of scientists, have documented climate changes on land and in the air. “Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change,” they wrote.

The report was completed this year and is a special science section of the National Climate Assessment, which is congressionally mandated every four years. The National Academy of Sciences has signed off on the draft report, and the authors are awaiting permission from the Trump administration to release it.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html

 

 

As with previous National Climate Assessments, it is full of half truths, exaggerations, omissions and outright lies.

Given the list of authors, including Wuebbles and Hayhoe, none of this should come as any surprise.

This is the leaked draft:

image

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html 

 

It starts by saying that the world has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age, goes on to project much steeper rises in the next century, and claims that weather is becoming more extreme as a result.

Let’s start by examining some of the claims:

 

 

1) The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980

Why might they choose 1980 as the starting point? Quite simply because that marked the end of the coldest period since 1920.

But it gets worse. The actual temperatures measured show that the US climate is no warmer now than prior to 1960.

It is only by adjusting the measured temperatures that NOAA can come up with their “hotter than ever” claims.

 

 

Screen-Shot-2017-04-05-at-7.30.18-AM-1

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/08/climate-scientists-trying-to-influence-policy-through-fraud/

 

 

2) Global warming has continued during recent years.

image

In fact, according to the much more comprehensive satellite data, there has been little change in temperatures since 1998.

https://i0.wp.com/www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2017_v6.jpg

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

 

 

3) Current temperatures are much higher than in at least 1700 years.

image

On the contrary, there is widespread evidence that global temperatures were higher in the MWP, and higher still in previous warm periods.

Greenland ice cores are just one piece of evidence, but there is plenty more from around the world.

screen-shot-2015-06-06-at-12-34-16

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/07/31/shukman-peddles-more-greenland-nonsense/

 

 

4) Record droughts

image

In reality, the opposite is true. Droughts in recent years have been far less intense or widespread than in earlier decades. While the Report acknowledges the Dust Bowl years, it utterly fails to mention the drought years of the 1950s, arguably as bad.

multigraph

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/pdsi/ytd/12/1895-2017?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000&filter=true&filterType=binomial

 

 

5) Heavy precipitation

image

Heavier rainfall is simply the other side of the coin of intense droughts. But NOAA themselves show that rainfall trends have changed little since the 1970s.

multigraph

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/pcp/ytd/12/1895-2017?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000&filter=true&filterType=binomial

The Report implies that heavier rainfall will lead to more floods. But the USGS put that nonsense to bed in 2012, when their report found:

The coterminous US is divided into four large regions and stationary bootstrapping is used to evaluate if the patterns of these statistical associations are significantly different from what would be expected under the null hypothesis that flood magnitudes are independent of GMCO2. In none of the four regions defined in this study is there strong statistical evidence for flood magnitudes increasing with increasing GMCO2.

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70032624

 

 

6) Hurricanes and tornadoes

image

image

For some reason, they forget to mention that it is now a record breaking 12 years since the last major hurricane hit the US.

Globally, hurricane activity has not increased during the satellite era.

global_running_ace

http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php#!prettyPhoto

As for tornadoes, there has been a drastic fall in the number of violent tornadoes since proper records began to be kept in the 1970s.

image_thumb71

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/06/23/tornado-stats-for-2016-another-quiet-year/

 

 

7) Extreme heat

image

This is an extremely misleading statement, highlighted as it is in the Executive Summary.

The real truth is buried away on page 270:

image

image

In other words, the coldest days have become milder, while the hottest ones have grown less hot.

Put another way, the US climate has become much less extreme than it used to be.

[There is a back story here. Table 6.2, referred to above, originally appeared in the Third Draft Executive Summary, linked by the NYT. However, this has now been replaced by the Fifth Draft, which now no longer shows the Table – too embarrassing?)

The Report tries to tie the decreases in high temperatures to the dust bowl years. But as the State Climate Extremes Committee shows, all time record state highs also occurred frequently in years outside of the 1930s.

By contrast, there have only been two records since 1996.

image

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records

 

 

8) Sea level rise

image

In actual fact, sea levels have been rising since the mid 19thC, long before any influence from mankind.

j14_01b_thumb

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/07/25/sea-level-rise-per-jevrejeva/

 

 

And as the IPCC admitted in 2013, sea levels were rising just as fast between 1920 and 1950.

It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm/yr between 1901 and 2010 and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm/yr between 1993 and 2010. Tide gauge and satellite altimeter data are consistent regarding the higher rate during the latter period. It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950

http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_observedchanges.php#node11

 

 

There is no evidence at all that sea level rise is accelerating. There was a huge expansion in glaciers worldwide during the LIA, culminating in the 19thC.

They began retreating as early as the late 18thC, and at faster rates than in recent years, but evidence suggests that they are still more extensive than in the Middle Ages.

glacierbaymap_thumb

https://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/07/fieldwork2.html

Most of the sea level rise since then is the result of that perfectly natural process.

 

 

9) Arctic warming

image

As we have already seen, temperatures across the Arctic were higher during the MWP and previous warm periods.

And you don’t have to go back a thousand years to find similar temperatures in the Arctic. They were just as high in the 1930s

70-90N MonthlyAnomaly Since1920

http://climate4you.com/

 

 

10) Arctic sea ice

image

Despite the decline in ice extent between 1979 and 2007, it has remained stable since.

image

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php

 

 

As we know, the 1960s and 70s were exceptionally cold decades in the Arctic, by 20thC standards. 1979 itself was one of the coldest years of the whole century.

This needs to be taken into account when sea ice trends since the 1980s are reported.

 

 

Conclusion

Although the world has warmed up since the 19thC, evidence strongly shows that it is no warmer than other recent warm periods.

Far from temperatures becoming more extreme, the opposite appears to be the case.

Meanwhile weather is also not getting more extreme. Indeed, in the US evidence clearly shows that the weather has been more benign in recent decades.

The NYT reports that the draft report is written by scientists from 13 federal agencies, and this shows just how entrenched the climate mafia now are.

Their only purpose is to ramp up hysteria over climate change, in order to maintain their power, influence, and of course income.

There has been a lot of talk about red and blue teams. Perhaps the first job of the red team should be to publish their own climate change report.

Advertisements
16 Comments
  1. August 9, 2017 5:26 pm

    “the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and the ability to predict the effects is limited”

    A pretty accurate assessment of the data, I would think.

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3000932

  2. August 9, 2017 5:55 pm

    Lol it wasn’t even leaked

    The New York Times issued a correction to its Tuesday front page article, now admitting that the government climate report it “obtained” had actually been publicly available online for months.

    “An article on Tuesday about a sweeping federal climate change report referred incorrectly to the availability of the report,” TheNYT wrote in its correction issued Wednesday morning. “While it was not widely publicized, the report was uploaded by the nonprofit Internet Archive in January; it was not first made public by The New York Times.”

    http://www.dailycaller.com/2017/08/09/nyt-admits-its-front-page-climate-change-article-was-wrong/

    • dave permalink
      August 9, 2017 6:15 pm

      Re: already seven months in public domain:

      ‘News’ has to be ‘new’ by definition; if it is NOT new and therefore not news, then, logically, to treat it AS news is FRAUD – or massive incompetence.

      It is all pathetic death-rattlles.

    • John Palmer permalink
      August 9, 2017 6:27 pm

      What a bunch of desperate, attention-seeking ‘merchant bankers’ the NYT are!
      Any old pot-boiler story hyped-up as a scoop, just to keep their rapidly failing AGW hypothesis going.

  3. August 9, 2017 6:02 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  4. August 9, 2017 6:12 pm

    Seems this is what you get when the political scientist, Heyhoe tries to do actual science. Anyone more qualified than that writing this stuff?

  5. August 9, 2017 7:06 pm

    Nice takedown, Paul. I deconstructed all examples in Chapter 1 of the 2014NCA in essay Credibility Conundrums. All were misrepresentations or outright falsehoods.

  6. Athelstan permalink
    August 9, 2017 7:15 pm

    O/T but crikey had doctor Pangloss moved over the grid?

    National Grid’s set of four “core” scenarios outlining the likely potential impacts of electric vehicles found that peak demand for electricity could rise by between 4GW and 10GW by 2040.

    In its new document, the company said the Government’s bid to ban petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040 made the scenario in which the UK is taking effective steps to tackle climate emissions the most probable.

    That would mean most cars are fully electric vehicles by 2040, and they would push up peak demand by around 5GW, around an 8% increase on current levels.

    The assessment said that in such a scenario, people would be using “smart” chargers which would know how much electricity cost throughout the day and when drivers would need their vehicle to be fully charged.

    And there would be “time of use” tariffs which make electricity more expensive during peak times, so smart systems would power up car batteries out of peak hours where possible to save money, reducing the impact of car charging on the grid.

    Of course, why didn’t we see it – all along?

    FFS and you know, these eco warrior twats no doubt Marxist visionaries have no problem in making this [lecky car lunacy]………….ever so much less affordable for the ‘lowly Brits’ as they obviously deem us.

    Someone needs to remind them [Grid green geeks] of the actualite [oh no!!!] and about who pays their effin wages.

  7. Broadlands permalink
    August 9, 2017 8:09 pm

    J.L. Baldwin, US Weather Bureau wrote this is 1944:

    “The mean temperature for the year 1944, derived by weighting the averages for the varying areas of the several States, was 53.2° or the same as the average for the 1886 to 1944 period, during which time the highest mean annual temperature was 55.6° in 1921 and the lowest 51.8° in 1917.”

    According to NOAA, those values have all been “adjusted”… 1944 is now 51.83°F and 1921 has been lowered to 53.8°F…making 2012 the warmest US year on record. 1917 was also lowered (50.06°F) but remains the coldest year.

    Source: ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/docs.lib/htdocs/rescue/mwr/073/mwr-073-01-0004.pdf

    • dave permalink
      August 9, 2017 9:30 pm

      The LAW knows all about this, sort of thing and treats it with lip-curled contempt. It is called SPOLIATION – intentionally altering evidence. Jurors will be instructed that they are allowed to assume that the original would have been harmful to the person who spoiled it.

  8. Athelstan permalink
    August 9, 2017 9:11 pm

    “Somebody has apparently leaked the latest draft federal climate change report to the NYT:”

    “apparently” …………..oh yeah right.

    “latest”

    latest what?

    this [above report] is a regurgitated crock, there is nothing new here except the date of re-publishing. Once again it is schoolboyish ‘climate change for dummies’ and on that, did the goracle have aught to do with it – very much though inconvenienlty it’s his style, low and facts, relentless hyperbole and full of climastrology = crap.

  9. russellseitz permalink
    August 10, 2017 2:36 am

    Paul & Delingpole seem a little blue these days :

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/07/red-teamblue-team-day-1/

  10. Dave permalink
    August 10, 2017 2:51 am

    Statistics like voting polls can be manipulated. We have climate change – Spring to Summer – Big Deal.

  11. August 10, 2017 5:51 pm

    “Weather isn’t getting more extreme?”

    Wish you’d tell that to the weather here in the Midwest, USA, where monsoon-like deluges of 4-10″ in an afternoon are becoming common. Yet 50 years ago, that kind of drenching rain didn’t happen.
    Sorry, but don’t have any cute-looking charts, just my memory of being here during that time.

    • August 10, 2017 6:39 pm

      Tell me whereabouts you live, and I will give you some cute charts!!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: