A Deceptive New Report on Climate
By Paul Homewood
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/
The Federal Climate Science Special Report from the US Global Change Research Program, mandated under the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990, has now been published.
As with the draft, which I reported on in August, it is the usual mix of half truths, exaggerations, omissions and outright lies.
Let’s look at the main sections:
1) Global Temperatures
The global, long-term, and unambiguous warming trend has continued during recent years. Since the last National Climate Assessment was published, 2014 became the warmest year on record globally; 2015 surpassed 2014 by a wide margin; and 2016 surpassed 2015. Sixteen of the warmest years on record for the globe occurred in the last 17 years (1998 was the exception). (Ch. 1; Fig. ES.1)
These claims are based on surface datasets, which are extremely patchy and affected by urbanisation:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global-maps/
But according to the much more comprehensive satellite data, global temperatures last year were statistically the same as in 1998.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
The Report goes on to project large temperature increases during the 21stC of up to 5C. Yet it ignores the fact that the computer models on which these forecasts are made have consistently overestimated warming since 1980.
2) US Temperature Trends
Annual average temperature over the contiguous United States has increased by 1.8°F (1.0°C) for the period 1901–2016 and is projected to continue to rise
This claim is highly dubious.
As the Report itself admits:
In the United States, the urban heat island effect results in daytime temperatures 0.9°–7.2°F (0.5°–4.0°C) higher and nighttime temperatures 1.8°– 4.5°F (1.0°–2.5°C) higher in urban areas than in rural areas.
The UHI effect has undoubtedly increased since 1901, yet far from adjusting temperatures to reflect this, NOAA have actually done the opposite, and cooled the past:
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/08/climate-scientists-trying-to-influence-policy-through-fraud/
3) US Temperature Extremes
There have been marked changes in temperature extremes across the contiguous United States. The number of high temperature records set in the past two decades far exceeds the number of low temperature records.
The frequency of cold waves has decreased since the early 1900s, and the frequency of heat waves has increased since the mid-1960s (the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the peak period for extreme heat in the United States).
This is one of the most dishonest sections of the whole Report.
First, let’s look at the daily temperature records claim:
These records are based on GHCN data, where large numbers of US stations only have data back to around 1960. Given that the 1960s and 70s were particularly cold decades in the US, it is hardly surprising that high daily records have dominated low ones in the last couple of decades.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00103.1
Worse still, many of the GHCN stations should not be used for climatic purposes, such as airports.
USHCN stations are a much higher quality and long running dataset, and analysis of these consistently show that most daily highs occurred during the 1930s.
The Report goes on to claim that the frequency of heat waves has increased since the mid-1960s .
I wonder why they chose to start from the 1960s?
Hidden away in Chapter Six of the main report, on page 191, lies the dirty secret that they have done their best to hide. (Readers may recall that this “secret” was originally in the Draft Executive Summary, but was taken out as it was far too embarrassing).
Cold extremes have become less severe over the past century. For example, the coldest daily temperature of the year has increased at most locations in the contiguous United States (Figure 6.3).
Changes in warm extremes are more nuanced than changes in cold extremes. For instance, the warmest daily temperature of the year increased in some parts of the West over the past century (Figure 6.3), but there were decreases in almost all locations east of the Rocky Mountains. In fact, all eastern regions experienced a net decrease (Table 6.2), most notably the Midwest (about 2.2°F [1.2°C]) and the Southeast (roughly 1.5°F [0.8°C]). The decreases in the eastern half of Nation, particularly in the Great Plains, are mainly tied to the unprecedented summer heat of the 1930s Dust Bowl era, which was exacerbated by land-surface feedbacks driven by springtime precipitation deficits and land mismanagement. However, anthropogenic aerosol forcing may also have reduced summer temperatures in the Northeast and Southeast from the early 1950s to the mid-1970s, and agricultural intensification may have suppressed the hottest extremes in the Midwest. Since the mid-1960s, there has been only a very slight increase in the warmest daily temperature of the year (amidst large interannual variability).
Take particular note of the bottom two graphs of Figure 6.4. There has certainly been a rise in the number of warm days and the heat wave index since the cold 1960s, but heat waves were much more common in earlier decades.
The inference that the dustbowl era was a one off event is also misleading. High summer temperatures were also commonplace both before the 1930s, and notably during the 1950s. Heatwaves now are no more intense than in the early 1900s.
The simple truth is that, over the full period, 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.
For some reason, the authors did not want to show this in the Executive Summary.
4) US Droughts
Recent droughts and associated heat waves have reached record intensity in some regions of the United States; however, by geographical scale and duration, the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the benchmark drought and extreme heat event in the historical record
Another highly disingenuous claim. As NOAA themselves show, droughts were much more severe and frequent not only in the 1930s, but in the 1950s as well.
Indeed, prior to the 1970s, drought years were the norm.
5) US Precipitation
Heavy precipitation events in most parts of the United States have increased in both intensity and frequency since 1901
In fact, heavier rainfall is simply the other side of the coin of intense droughts.
The Report claims that “Extreme precipitation events will very likely continue to increase in frequency”
But NOAA themselves show that rainfall trends have changed little since the 1970s.
The Report also 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) Sea Level Rise
Global mean sea level (GMSL) has risen by about 7–8 inches (about 16–21 cm) since 1900, with about 3 of those inches (about 7 cm) occurring since 1993
The implication is that sea level rise is accelerating, leading to wild claims of a rise of 4 feet by 2100.
The facts show a totally different situation. As even the IPCC had to admit, sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 was similar to the recent period.
Sea levels have been rising steadily since the mid 1800s, with a slow down in between around 1960 and 1990.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/07/25/sea-level-rise-per-jevrejeva/
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.
Most of the sea level rise since then is the result of that perfectly natural process.
7) Arctic Temperatures
Annual average near-surface air temperatures across Alaska and the Arctic have increased over the last 50 years at a rate more than twice as fast as the global average temperature
Again, one has to ask why they start from such a cherry picked date, when the Arctic was entering a much colder interlude.
As HADCRUT data shows, temperatures across the Arctic were just as high as now in the 1930s and 40s.
It is well accepted that Arctic temperatures follow the AMO cycle, which is currently in warm phase.
Astonishingly, I have searched the Executive Summary, and there is not a single mention of the AMO. This is utterly dishonest.
8) Arctic Sea Ice
Since the early 1980s, annual average arctic sea ice has decreased in extent between 3.5% and 4.1% per decade, has become thinner by between 4.3 and 7.5 feet, and is melting at least 15 more days each year. September sea ice extent has decreased between 10.7% and 15.9% per decade
These deceitful statements keep piling up, don’t they?
Yet as their own graph shows, the downward trend ended in 2007, since when sea ice extent has stabilised.
And as already noted, they begin their graph in 1979, after some of the coldest years in the Arctic on record.
9) Tornadoes
Tornado activity in the United States has become more variable, particularly over the 2000s, with a decrease in the number of days per year with tornadoes and an increase in the number of tornadoes on these days
This is a particularly mealy mouthed statement, which attempts to hide the actual facts.
The claim of an increase in the number of tornadoes on these days, is in fact a fake one. As NOAA’s tornado scientists readily admit, many more tornadoes are reported nowadays because of advances in technology, such as Doppler radar, which only became widespread in the late 1990s.
As they also make clear, there has been a drastic reduction in strong tornadoes since the 1970s.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends
10) Hurricanes
Both theory and numerical modelling simulations generally indicate an increase in tropical cyclone (TC) intensity in a warmer world, and the models generally show an increase in the number of very intense TCs. For Atlantic and eastern North Pacific hurricanes and western North Pacific typhoons, increases are projected in precipitation rates (high confidence) and intensity (medium confidence). The frequency of the most intense of these storms is projected to increase in the Atlantic and western North Pacific (low confidence) and in the eastern North Pacific (medium confidence).
Yet, as the main Report goes on to reveal (on page 263!), there has been no detectable trend in tropical cyclone intensity.
Despite a busy Atlantic hurricane season this year, there is still no evident trend in global tropical cyclone activity since the start of the satellite era:
This year there have been six major Atlantic hurricanes, but NOAA’s Hurricane Research Division shows this is not unusual. The highest number recorded was eight in 1950.
Again there has been no apparent trend since regular monitoring of hurricanes began with hurricane hunter aircraft in the mid 1940s.
The dip in activity during the 1970s and 80s is clearly linked to the cold phase of the AMO, a connection which is well established scientifically.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html
CONCLUSIONS
Steve Koonin, Under Secretary for Science during President Obama’s first term, also finds the Report misleading, writing in an article for the Wall Street Journal:
The world’s response to climate changing under natural and human influences is best founded upon a complete portrayal of the science. The U.S. government’s Climate Science Special Report, to be released Friday, does not provide that foundation. Instead, it reinforces alarm with incomplete information and highlights the need for more-rigorous review of climate assessments.
A team of some 30 authors chartered by the U.S. Global Change Research Program began work in spring 2016 on the report, “designed to be an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change.” An early draft was released for public comment in January and reviewed by the National Academies this spring. I, together with thousands of other scientists, had the opportunity to scrutinize and discuss the final draft when it was publicized in August by the New York Times . While much is right in the report, it is misleading in more than a few important places.
One notable example of alarm-raising is the description of sea-level rise, one of the greatest climate concerns. The report ominously notes that while global sea level rose an average 0.05 inch a year during most of the 20th century, it has risen at about twice that rate since 1993. But it fails to mention that the rate fluctuated by comparable amounts several times during the 20th century. The same research papers the report cites show that recent rates are statistically indistinguishable from peak rates earlier in the 20th century, when human influences on the climate were much smaller. The report thus misleads by omission.
This isn’t the only example of highlighting a recent trend but failing to place it in complete historical context. The report’s executive summary declares that U.S. heat waves have become more common since the mid-1960s, although acknowledging the 1930s Dust Bowl as the peak period for extreme heat. Yet buried deep in the report is a figure showing that heat waves are no more frequent today than in 1900.
Such data misrepresentations violate basic scientific norms. In his celebrated 1974 “Cargo Cult” lecture, the late Richard Feynman admonished scientists to discuss objectively all the relevant evidence, even that which does not support the narrative. That’s the difference between science and advocacy.
These deficiencies in the new climate report are typical of many others that set the report’s tone. Consider the different perception that results from “sea level is rising no more rapidly than it did in 1940” instead of “sea level rise has accelerated in recent decades,” or from “heat waves are no more common now than they were in 1900” versus “heat waves have become more frequent since 1960.” Both statements in each pair are true, but each alone fails to tell the full story.
This new climate report is not an objective or an honest assessment of the state of the climate, particularly in relation to the US.
Instead, it is a highly partisan and politicised report, designed to promote alarmism.
There has been much talk of the need for red and blue teams, to challenge lazy consensus.
It is now time for this to happen, so that this Report can be constructively assessed and, where appropriate, criticised. One of the tasks of a counter group should be to produce their own state of the climate assessment.
The climate mafia have had it their own way for far too long.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Congratulations and thank you. Truth will out in the end but it is a long old battle with the Culture of Reinforced Ignorance in this era of mass media misinformation.
Here’s the thing. If you’re right and climate change is a hoax then there’s nothing to worry about. However if you’re wrong and we do nothing then it could be catastrophic. Which side of history would you prefer to be on?
The BBC pulled out all the stops in reporting this yesterday on the news channel.
About once an hour they wheeled out various “climate experts” in support of it, accompanied by the usual largely irrelevant video footage.
As far as I know they didn’t have one person who challenged it’s findings or offer the slightest hint of a sceptical point of view.
Of course, having had their fingers rapped over the Lord Lawson interview they were probably didn’t dare risk any more criticism.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this report and for example this UNEP report (http://www.unenvironment.org/resources/emissions-gap-report) have been published just before COP-23 opens in Bonn. But what do they hope to achieve? Change Trump’s view that the Paris Agreement “punishes the United States”? I don’t think so. Or perhaps persuade China, India and other “emerging economies” to “ramp up their national tagets”? Er … unlikely: http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/11/03/tensions-emerge-timetable-raising-climate-ambition/
I suppose it might persuade some Western economies to impose even more damage on their already weak economies. Not perhaps the most desirable outcome.
The wheels for producing both reports had been in motion long before the current POTUS announced his intention to withdraw. I doubt that anything will be “accomplished” at COP-23 that can be sold as substantive though you can be sure they will do their best to try to present something they do as an important “accomplishment” because they must.
And you can be sure that “they” will include Chinese delegates who will smile politely and join in. As I said HERE (re international climate negotiations):
I get a the e-mail news letter from Craig Rucker at CFACT. Here is what he says about COP-23:
“U.S. disbands climate propaganda
effort for UN COP 23
Robert,
What’s missing at this year’s big UN climate conference?
The American pavilion.
When President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the UN’s Paris Climate Accord, he also cut back on the American presence in the UN process. Sure, the official State Department representatives are here, but the sideshow is tellingly absent.
In past years the U.S. put on big displays where NASA trotted out its “hyperwall” which stacks nine computer monitors for multimedia presentations. CFACT’s friends may remember the time at COP 20 in Peru, when CFACT approached a group of Obama administration staff running the hyperwall. They were prepared to dismiss CFACT as “flat-Earther, climate deniers,” until they realized who had marched in at the head of our delegation and fell over themselves with respectful greetings. Colonel Walt Cunningham flew in space on Apollo VII, the mission that launched America’s quest for the moon. Walt saw the curvature of the Earth first hand from the window of his command module. No flat-Earther he.
Walt has worked diligently to reform NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies which first James Hansen and now Gavin Schmidt made into a platform for presenting politicized views of climate science. A large number of astronauts and NASA veterans co-signed a letter demanding NASA knock off the propaganda.
At COP 23, at least, the propaganda spigot has been turned off.
Like last year’s COP 22 in Marrakesh, President Trump remains the talk of the conference. Campaigners worked for years to bring America and its wealth under the UN climate regime. They were shocked when only a year later America broke free. What does this mean for their dreams of redistribution and control? They don’t know, and in the long run, neither do we.
CFACT, and our Climate Depot news and information service, will be featuring regular updates from the UN conference in Germany over the next two weeks. Follow us on Facebook as well.
Check out UN climate summit = Bonn COP massiveness, Enviros freak as Trump officials push coal at UN climate talks, UN climate talks have a ‘toxic background’ of sexual harassment, says lawyer, and “Trump effect” in Bonn climate talks? For some climate talks updates at CFACT.org.
President Obama made a huge mistake when he signed onto the Paris climate agreement and Trump did the right thing getting out. The UN climate elite are doing all they can to drag us back in. They’ve enlisted a group of American politicians led by California Governor Jerry Brown and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who are on their way to Bonn to put on their own American climate show.
CFACT is your eyes and ears at the UN talks. We’ll be speaking up and fearlessly laying out the facts as well.
Getting out of Paris was right.
Let’s work together to ensure we stay out.
For nature and people too,
Craig Rucker
Executive Director”
I am so pleased that Trump did not block this report.
By allowing it’s publication Trump has allowed to be shown how deranged and political the whole sphere of weather and climate has become.
This report will be a lasting testament for how science should not be done. Science has been deflected from studying, researching and, explaining real ‘testable’ observed phenomena, and it has become a ‘high confidence’ belief system depending on the output of unreal computer models.
‘Climate science™’ has been hijacked by purveyors of perverse computerized virtual world and become a political tool of the left — Lysenkoism in aces.
I agree. There is no science in ‘Climate science™’. It is pure political propaganda. In a world in which truth prevailed the purveyors of this false report would be in jail for fraud.
If any business put out a Propectus in a similar manner then they would be prosecuted; unless the Directors made a fast exit to a tax haven.
That this dishonest report has been prepared (‘cooked’) shows either that the authors are incompetent scientists or more likely, they are becoming very fearful that the climate scam is about to collapse. In the later case they might have been hoping that Trump banned the report letting them make claims without proof, or that it would ramp up hysteria for the coming conference.
It doesn’t matter what is alarming, true or false. The science is settled? What is not being publicized, or even acknowledged about this document are the problems and immense monetary costs with the Paris Accord plan to control the global climate and reverse all of this terrible weather. Lip service is paid to CO2 “mitigation” in a chapter where presenting the reality is buried… that net emissions must be reduced to zero. Transition to solar and wind? And then?… we MAY have to safely capture-and-store CO2. to have a 50% chance? No wonder NASA’s Jim Hansen has called it wishful thinking, and worse…”BS”.
‘The UHI effect has undoubtedly increased since 1901’
Yes, and it’s a fair bet that it has increased since 1981,1991,2001, etc. – i.e. as towns and cities expand and get busier outside daylight hours, so UHI will tend to increase in step with all that.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“This new climate report is not an objective or an honest assessment of the state of the climate, particularly in relation to the US.
Instead, it is a highly partisan and politicised report, designed to promote alarmism.
There has been much talk of the need for red and blue teams, to challenge lazy consensus.
It is now time for this to happen, so that this Report can be constructively assessed and, where appropriate, criticised. One of the tasks of a counter group should be to produce their own state of the climate assessment.
The climate mafia have had it their own way for far too long.”
Spot-on Paul. Great re-reporting to make the non-politicised version available!
The mere fact that activist “scientist” Katharine Hayhoe was a lead on the report, speaks volumes.
Corruption of climate ‘science’ by eco-activists, gobbled up by the sycophant mainstream media without any objective analysis.
Eisenhower was right, warning of the corruption of sciences by govt in 1960:
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.”
When it comes to egregious exaggerations and outright lies the Green Blob has shown it has no equal. Absolutely past due for holding these liars to account.
“This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. ”
Human activities would include UHI. Does the report specify any warming due to that and does it specify how much is due to CO2? The two need to be distinguished because reducing CO2 won’t help if UHI is a major factor.
I will say it again. When you pay a scientist to be an activist, you don’t have a scientist any more.
Paul, thank you for your diligence. I started reading the summary, and quickly realised that it was propaganda, not science. However, I lack your attention to detail, general hard work, and determination to present the other side of the story. My sole comment about the report on-line is what I posted on Unthreaded at Bishop Hill:
It contains stuff like:
“For example, global average sea level has risen by about 7–8 inches since 1900, with almost half (about 3 inches) of that rise occurring since 1993. Human-caused climate change has made a substantial contribution to this rise since 1900, contributing to a rate of rise that is greater than during any preceding century in at least 2,800 years. Global sea level rise has already affected the United States; the incidence of daily tidal flooding is accelerating in more than 25 Atlantic and Gulf Coast cities.
Global average sea levels are expected to continue to rise—by at least several inches in the next 15 years and by 1–4 feet by 2100. A rise of as much as 8 feet by 2100 cannot be ruled out.
I’ll write that again. “Sea level rise will be higher than the global average on the East and Gulf Coasts of the United States.” How convenient for raising alarm in the USA!
And “…global average sea level has risen by about 7–8 inches since 1900…” but “A rise of as much as 8 feet by 2100 cannot be ruled out.” And these are serious scientists, not propagandising alarmists?
Exhausted of Cheshire. Being in the Cheshire gap I can refute any thought of global warming. It’s hell in here. Reading the part of the report given over to sea rises I find it difficult to understand how an amorphous mass like world ocean water can be higher in one place than another. Watching rain drainage, water seems to move from a higher point to one lower. Is the sun and moon’s gravity consistently greater in some parts than others? It is as though the Pacific Islands, for instance, have a property that our own Channel Islands, Isles of Man, Scilly and Hebrides, do not. Inundation in the Faroes is rarely if ever spoken of. But I dare be, if they had direct access to the UN then despairing statistics would soon start to appear.
We are in a world that seems to have made a determination to stay the same and that mind set is propelling us away from those mindsets, investments and purposes that we need to address a burgeoning population and the apparent stalling of break -through technologies. We are of a mindset where by we would rather have Medieval proposals akin to portents that can stun us into immobility. Everywhere, and not least of all in programmes like Blue Planet (where we see man intruding into every environment pristine or otherwise) we are beset with the search for signs. When they are not immediately obvious then we have the imposition of melodrama to make the difference (it’s television, there has to be theatre).
Listening to some of the extremely un-funny BBC comedy shows nowadays (ornamented with right-on and safe participants, clones) it looks as though money has been diverted from levity and general well-being-in-happiness to a cloying form of worthiness. Diffuse earnestness masquerading as seriousness; looking into a glass darkly by habit not by accident or with equitable reason. Keep the pressure on and people, no matter what truth is to be faced, will be broken and forced to accept whatever it is that the proposal and its originators wish to achieve.
It may be a smart move by Trump to ensure that this was published as it can then be taken apart by the Red team – blue team exercise. Then all those who authored it such as Hayhoe can be shown up for what they are.
Thank you Paul for your analysis of this outlandish publication. Irrespective of the science or lack of science I cannot understand why so many have fallen into the statisticians cause and effect nightmare error scenario. The world is warming, CO2 is increasing so it must be CO2 that is causing the warming. I am sure it is possible to correlate the increasing use of glass in buildings with the increasing levels of cancer but for the one to cause the other, not impossible but highly unlikely.
One thing that did catch my eye in this and other reports that uses the same charts is the chart of the globe with temperature anomalies from the 1981 – 2001 base line and in particular the anomaly shown in southern Brazil. If the ‘scientists’ are correct then this should be an area of high industrial growth chucking out loads of greenhouse gases. But no, this is an agricultural area which in the time span has seen the destruction of the natural cerrado vegetation to be replaced in the main by GM soya. The evaporation and evapotranspiration from the original Mediterranean macquis type vegetation would have been far higher than that over soya crops, especially as the land is now left barren for many months of the year. Evaporation has a cooling effect; reducing the evaporation leads directly to increased temperatures as recorded here in southern Brazil. If you do a ‘find’ though any of the ICC literature, if you can find the word evaporation at all, it only talks about climate change affecting evaporation rates rather then the other way round. Changes in land use whether urbanisation or clearing forests for agriculture reduces the amount of water available for evaporation and temperatures will inevitably rise. The cost of re-greening the world is far less than the cost of meeting climate change accords and is more effective in controlling world temperatures.
Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.