Search Results for “easterbrook”

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook’s new book on solar climate link is out: ‘It is unequivocally clear that climate changes, large & small, are driven by fluctuations of the sun’s magnetic field’

December 3, 2019

https://www.amazon.com/SOLAR-MAGNETIC-CLIMATE-CHANGES-ORIGIN/dp/B07Y1YDYDF/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=don+easterbrook&qid=1575410949&s=apparel&sr=8-1 Note from Dr. Easterbrook: “I just competed a study of all warm and cold periods over the post 800,000 years and stumbled upon what must be the cause of the Ice Age and other climate changes. I looked at oxygen isotope temperatures, deuterium temperatures, CET temperatures, sunspot numbers, total solar irradiance, production rates of beryllium-10 and radiocarbon, and cosmic ray intensity for every warm and cold period in the past 800,000 years. The data is truly remarkable˗˗every cool period was characterized by low sunspot numbers, indicating low strength of the sun’s magnetic field, and high production rates of beryllium˗10 and radiocarbon, indicating high intensity of cosmic rays. Every warm period was coincident with high sunspot numbers and low production rates of beryllium˗10 and radiocarbon. Thus, it is unequivocally clear that climate changes, large and small, are driven by fluctuations of the sun’s magnetic field. A book with full documentation is now available on Amazon. The age old riddle of the cause of Ice Ages is finally resolved!”

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook’s new paper: ‘The West Antarctic ice sheet is NOT collapsing, the retreat of these small glaciers is NOT caused by global warming’

December 9, 2014

Special to Climate Depot ‘UNSTOPPABLE COLLAPSE’ OF THE WEST ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET?’ ‘11-FOOT RISE IN SEA LEVEL?’ MIAMI, NEW ORLEANS AND NEW YORK DROWNED? 12.8 MILLION AMERICANS SUBMERGED WITH $2.4 TRILLION PROPERTY LOSS? A REALILTY CHECK Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA [Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, a UN IPCC expert reviewer, has authored ten books and 150 journal publications. Presented 31 research papers at international meetings in 13 countries outside the US] Last May, a New York Times headline stated “Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans From Polar Melt” and goes on to say: “A large section of the mighty West Antarctica ice sheet has begun falling apart and its continued melting now appears to be unstoppable” and “the melting could destabilize neighboring parts of the ice sheet and a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more may be unavoidable in coming centuries.” Virtually every newspaper and TV news show went ballistic with dire predictions of the ‘unstoppable’ catastrophe about to unfold. The two papers on Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers in West Antarctica that triggered this avalanche of alarmism have just recently been published and have triggered a renewed outburst of catastrophic predictions. A Washington Post headline states “Research casts alarming light on decline of West Antarctic glaciers” and goes on to say that “a rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic ice sheet appears to be in an irreversible state of decline, with nothing to stop the glaciers in this area from melting into the sea” and “the region’s mile-thick ice sheet could collapse and raise sea levels as much as 11 feet.” “The consequences of such an amount of sea-level rise for the United States — or for any other coastal region — are staggering to contemplate.” “12.8 million Americans live on land less than 10 feet above their local high-tide line.” “$2.4 trillion worth of property is occupying this land, excluding Hawaii and Alaska.” “The cities that would be most affected include Miami, New Orleans, and New York.” “Within 100 to 200 years, one-third of West Antarctica could be gone.” “The effects of climate change are outpacing scientific predictions, driven in part, scientists say, by soaring levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” A bit worrisome? Start building an ark? Let’s take a look at the reality of the situation in Antarctica and put all of this into proper perspective. We’ll look at (1) the basis for these catastrophic predictions, (2) just how much ice is involved in these two outlet glaciers relative to the total Antarctic ice sheet, (3) at present melting rates, how long would it take for ‘collapse’ of the 1000-mile-wide-ice sheet, (4) is ‘unstoppable collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet’ plausible, (5) is the bedrock floor of the West Antarctic ice sheet deeper below sea level than the thickness of the ice sheet (which would necessary to cause ‘collapse’ of the ice sheet), (6) what is the geothermal heat flow under these glaciers and could it cause accelerated melting? Figure 1. Antarctica. The West Antarctic ice sheet accounts for only 8½ % of Antarctic ice and the Pine Island glacier (red dot) makes up only about 10% of that. The East Antarctic ice sheet makes up more than 90% of Antarctic ice and has been growing. (NASA image) Figure 2. West Antarctic ice sheet. WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR THESE CATASTROPHIC PREDICTIONS? The authors of the Pine Island paper, Justin Gillis and Kenneth Chang, say in their paper: “…we find no major bed obstacle that would prevent the glaciers from further retreat and draw down the entire basin.” In a second paper, “Marine Ice Sheet Collapse Potentially Underway for the Thwaites Glacier Basin, West Antarctica,” the authors, Joughin, Smith, and Medley, also infer that the entire West Antarctic ice sheet will soon disappear, resulting in a sea level rise of up to 10 feet. Both papers predict ‘collapse’ of the entire West Antarctic ice sheet based on retreat of two outlet glaciers that drain a tiny part of the ice sheet. The authors contend that recent retreat of the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers has occurred because warm ocean water has caused melting of ice on the underside of the glaciers, causing them to thin and calve more rapidly. Because the base of most of the West Antarctic ice sheet lies below sea level, the authors contend that ocean water will melt its way up several small embayments under the ice sheet, which is more than 1000 miles across, and cause it to collapse abruptly. They refer to this as “unstoppable” because the glacier base is below sea level and they claim that there is nowhere that the glacier can ground resulting in total collapse of the ice sheet into the sea. What does ‘collapse’ mean? Dictionaries define collapse as ‘to fail abruptly, come to a sudden end.’ The prediction of catastrophic collapse of the entire West Antarctic ice sheet is based on several lines of evidence: The Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers have shown recent increases in calving of the ice margin and retreat of their termini. The base of the West Antarctic ice sheet is mostly 1,000 m (3,300 ft) below sea level, so if warm ocean water can intrude under the ice, it might cause melting of basal ice at the terminus, resulting in calving and rapid retreat of the ice terminus. As the ice retreats, if there are no more grounding line positions, calving could accelerate and cause collapse of the ice sheet, raising sea level 10 feet. These assertions are not new—36 years ago, Mercer (1978) suggested that the West Antarctic ice sheet was potentially unstable and others have commented on it before and since then. Here is what some have said: Calving of large icebergs is a natural process unrelated to warming–this ice shelf and others spawn huge icebergs every 6-10 years. Releasing a huge iceberg, by itself, is a normal process. Collapse of Pine Island glacier, if it did occur, would take 1000-2000 years, but it is unlikely to contribute to more than 2.7 cm of sea level rise over the next 100 years. Every 10 years or so ice shelves calve large icebergs, which are not worrisome. This ice stream is unlikely to collapse in our lifetime. HOW MUCH ICE IS INVOLVED IN THESE GLACIERS RELATIVE TO THE TOTAL ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET? To get a perspective of what is happening now and what might or might not happen in the future requires a look at the overall geologic setting and the scale of the size and thickness of the West Antarctic ice sheet relative to the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers. The West Antarctic ice sheet (Figure 1) makes up only about 8½ % of Antarctic ice, and the Pine Island glacier makes up about 10% of the West Antarctic ice sheet. The East Antarctic ice sheet makes up more than 90% of Antarctic ice. Most of the West Antarctic ice sheet lies SE of the Pine Island glacier and at its SW margin is about 1000 miles from the Pine Island and Thwaites outlet glaciers. Ice in the SE region flows into the Ross Sea, making the Ross Ice Shelf, and has little if anything to do with the part of the ice sheet that flows through the Pine Island and Thwaites outlet glaciers far to the north beyond the ice divide. The Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers are not independent glaciers—they are ice streams from the NW part of the West Antarctic ice sheet flowing through narrow embayments bounded by mountains. Their termini calve into the Amundsen Sea, but the rest of the ice sheet is grounded and all of the southwestern part discharges into the Ross Sea (Figures 3, 4). The entire western and southern margins of the West Antarctic ice sheet are separated from the ocean by mountains so these are virtually the only outlets for the ice. The total width of the Pine Island and Thwaites outlet glaciers makes up only about 60 miles of the 2,500 miles of coastline along the western and southern margins of the ice sheet. The major ice discharge from the SW margin into the Ross ice shelf is not affected by what goes on in the northern part of the ice sheet. Scale is important–only when looking a map of the size of the West Antarctic ice sheet does it become apparent just how tiny the Pine Island and Thwaites outlet glaciers are relative to the size of the West Antarctic ice sheet (Figures 3, 4). King and colleagues latest refinement puts the Antarctic contribution to global sea level rise at a rate of about one-fifth of a millimeter per year (0.71 inches per century). Figure 3. Location of the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers (red dots) and the West Antarctic ice sheet. The ice sheet is bounded along its entire south coast by mountains so most of the ice discharges into the Ross ice shelf and several narrow gaps in the mountains where ice discharges into the Amundsen Sea. Note how much larger the ice sheet margin is at the Ross Sea outlet than that of the Amundsen Sea outlet. (Modified from Wikipedia). Figure 4. Pine Island outlet glacier and the northwestern part of the West Antarctic ice sheet. (modified from Google Earth) HOW LONG WOULD ‘COLLAPSE’ OF THE 1000-MILE-WIDE-ICE SHEET TAKE AT PRESENT MELTING RATES Figure 5 from ‘Runaway glaciers,’ by Patterson and Clark, Dec. 4, shows an interpretation of the rate of West Antarctic ice loss per year at 10 to 23 feet per year. As shown on Figure 3, the West Antarctic ice sheet is roughly 800-1000 miles (5,280,000feet) across, depending on where you measure it. So melting at 10 feet per year would take 528,000 years and at 23 feet per year would take 229,565 years. Hardly collapsing! Figure 5. West Antarctic ice low. (From ‘Runaway glaciers,’ Patterson and Clark,Dec. 4, 2014) IS ‘UNSTOPPABLE COLLAPSE OF THE WEST ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET’ CREDIBLE? The Big Picture– Geologic Setting The base of most of the West Antarctic ice sheet lies below sea level (Figure 6) and it is because of this that the West Antarctic ice sheet is predicted to collapse. The deepest parts of the subglacial basin are mostly about 1000 m (3,300 ft) deep and lie beneath the central portion of the ice sheet where the ice is the thickest (Figure 7). More important than just depth below sea level is how thick the ice is relative to the depth below sea level. Figure 6. Subglacial topography in Antarctica. Most of the West Antarctic ice sheet lies below sea level, shown in dark and light blue. (modified from Wikipedia) Thickness of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Figure 7 shows the thickness of the West Antarctic ice sheet. The ice is more than 3,000 feet thick in the darker red areas and most of the ice sheet is more than 2,000 feet thick. The importance of ice thickness is that virtually all of the ice sheet is considerably thicker than the depth below sea level to bedrock, so the ice is grounded and will not float. Figure 7. Thickness of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Also important is the source area of the outlet glaciers. Figure 8 shows ice divides and ice drainage areas. The Pine Island outlet glacier drains only a relative small portion of the West Antarctic ice sheet so it is difficult to see how events there could result in collapse of the entire Antarctic ice sheet. Figure 8. Ice divides and ice drainages in the West Antarctic ice sheet. Light green is the area of ice draining into the Pine Island glacier; dark green is ice draining into the Thwaites glacier; light and dark blue is ice draining into the Ross Sea (modified from http://icesat4.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo_data/Rignot_velocity_maps.php) The authors assert that “…we find no major bed obstacle that would prevent the glaciers from further retreat and draw down of the entire basin.” but that is contrary to what is shown on Figure 9, which is a profile of the West Antarctic ice sheet from the east coast to the Transantarctic Mts., showing thickness of the ice sheet, sea level, and the subglacial floor. At its deepest part, the subglacial floor is 2,000 m (6,500 ft) below sea level, but almost all of the subglacial floor in this profile is less than 1,000 m (3,300 ft) below sea level. The ice is mostly more than 2,500 m (8,000 ft) thick, so basic physics tells us it will not float in 1,000 m (3,300 ft) of water nor will sea water melt its way under the ice. 200 km (125 miles) up-ice from the terminus, the ice sheet is about 1600 m (5,200 ft) thick and the subglacial floor is above sea level. 300 km from the terminus, the subglacial floor is 1,000 m (3,300 ft) above sea level. About 700 km from the terminus, the ice is about 1,700 m (5,500 ft) thick and the subglacial floor is near sea level. About 1,050 to 1,150 km (650-700 miles) from the terminus, bedrock occurs at sea level. Because the depth of the subglacial floor below sea level is substantially less than the thickness of ice, it will not float and collapse! Figure 9. Profile through the West Antarctic ice sheet from the Amundsen Sea to the Transantarctic Mts. (Modified from http://antarcticglacier.org) GEOTHERMAL HEAT FLOW UNDER THE ICE SHEET In a paper “Evidence for elevated and spatially variable geothermal flux beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet” published in May, 2014, Schroeder et al. presented evidence of elevated geothermal heat flow beneath the Thwaites glacier (Figure 10) that “is likely a significant factor in local, regional, and continental-scale ice sheet stability.” “Thwaites Glacier is one of the West Antarctica’s most prominent, rapidly evolving, and potentially unstable contributors to global sea level rise. Uncertainty in the amount and spatial pattern of geothermal flux and melting beneath this glacier is a major limitation in predicting its future behavior and sea level contribution.” “Geothermal flux is one of the most dynamically critical ice sheet boundary conditions estimate the distribution of basal melting and geothermal flux beneath Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica. We show that the Thwaites Glacier catchment has a minimum average geothermal flux of ∼114 ± 10 mW/m2 with areas of high flux exceeding 200 mW/m2 consistent with hypothesized rift-associated magmatic migration and volcanism. These areas of highest geothermal flux include the westernmost tributary of Thwaites Glacier adjacent to the subaerial Mount Takahe volcano and the upper reaches of the central tributary near the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.” Figure 10. Geothermal heat flow beneath the Thwaites glacier. ‘A’ is Mt. Takahe, a volcano. Darker red colors represent areas of highest geothermal heat flow. “Large areas at the base of Thwaites Glacier are actively melting in response to geothermal flux consistent with rift-associated magma migration and volcanism. This supports the hypothesis that heterogeneous geothermal flux and local magmatic processes could be critical factors in determining the future behavior of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.” “The distribution of melt and geothermal flux (Figure 10) includes several regions with high melt that are closely related to rift structure and associated volcanism. These include the entire westernmost tributary that flanks Mount Takahe (Figure 10, location A), a subaerial volcano active in the Quaternary and several high-flux areas across the catchment adjacent to topographic features that are hypothesized to be volcanic in origin We also observe high geothermal flux in the upper reaches of the central tributaries that are relatively close to the site of the West Antarctic ice sheet Divide ice core (Figure 10, location B), where unexpectedly high melt and geothermal flux have been estimated.” “Our results produce high melt values adjacent to known volcanoes and structures that are morphologically suggestive of volcanic origin. We believe that both the magnitude and spatial pattern of geothermal flux we present reflect the geologic and glaciological reality of the Thwaites Glacier bed and that contrary to previous modeling, our results show regions of high geothermal flux that are in substantial agreement with levels inferred from the ice core drilling site near the ice divide for the Thwaites catchment.” “Our results further suggest that the subglacial water system of Thwaites Glacier may be responding to heterogeneous and temporally variable basal melting driven by the evolution of rift-associated volcanism and support the hypothesis that both heterogeneous geothermal flux and local magmatic processes could be critical factors in determining the future behavior of the WAIS.” CONCLUSIONS The evidence above shows that: The West Antarctic ice sheet makes up only about 8% of Antarctic ice, and the Pine Island glacier makes up only about 10% of the West Antarctic ice sheet. The East Antarctic ice sheet makes up more than 90% of Antarctic ice. Most of the West Antarctic ice sheet lies SE of the Pine Island glacier and at its SW margin is about 1000 miles from the Pine Island and Thwaites outlet glaciers. The Pine Island and Thwaites outlet glaciers drain less than half of the West Antarctic ice sheet, so it is not plausible that they could cause collapse of the entire ice sheet. The Pine Island and Thwaites outlet glaciers are only about 30 miles across so draining 2.2 million km3 of ice through their narrow channels or sending sea water 1,000 miles under the ice sheet isn’t plausible. Most of the ice sheet is much thicker (2,500 m (8,000 ft) than the depth of the subglacial floor below sea level (1,000 m (3,300 ft) so the ice will not float and sea water will not extend under the ice. Almost all of the West Antarctic ice sheet subglacial floor is less than 1,000 m (3,300 ft) below sea level. The ice is mostly more than 2,500 m (8,000 ft) thick, so the ice sheet will not float in 1,000 m (3,300 ft) of water nor will sea water melt its way under the ice. Studies of subglacial geotherm heat flow show that the area under the Thwaites glacier is unusually high and is the most like cause of subglacial melting, rather than ocean water. 7. The West Antarctic ice sheet is NOT collapsing, the retreat of these small glaciers is NOT caused by global warming, and sea level is NOT going to rise 10 feet. #

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook: Cause of ‘the pause’ in global warming

January 18, 2014

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook does take down of new study claiming ‘Unprecedented Recent Summer Warmth in Arctic Canada’ — ‘Bad assumptions, poor logic, and contrary to other evidence of Arctic temperatures’

November 2, 2013

Special to Climate Depot Miller et al.’s “Unprecedented Recent Summer Warmth in Arctic Canada”: Bad assumptions, poor logic, and contrary to other evidence of Arctic temperatures. Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA – Miller et al. radiocarbon dated 145 rooted tundra plants revealed by receding ice in the eastern Canadian Arctic and that it constitutes the first direct evidence that recent temperatures now exceed those of any century in the Holocene, including the Holocene Thermal Maximum. They further contend that (1) average summer temperatures of the last ~100 years were higher than any century in the past 44,000 years and suggest that present temperatures have not been exceeded in the past ~120,000 years, at or near the end of the last interglaciation, and (2) they conclude that this ‘unprecedented’ warming was caused by anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases. So let’s look at some of the assumptions that form the basis for their conclusions and compare their conclusions to other Arctic data. Figure 1 A. Baffin Island showing sample sites. Circles (color-coded by their 14C age) show the 135, <5 ka, sites where rooted plants were collected at receding ice cap margins; diamonds show sites dated >47 ka. Solid lines mark the margins of the LIS at the last glacial maximum and 9 ka [A. S. Dyke, 2004]. B. Detailed map of sites older than ~45 ka. Assertions and assumptions by Miller et al. [1] Mille el al. contend that “although glaciers are frequently associated with deep and widespread erosion, small, cold-based ice caps that mantle relatively flat terrain typically advance by lateral accretion rather than by basal flow, and are thus capable of preserving even the most delicate features of the landscape. As these ice caps recede, they often reveal rooted tundra plants that were living at the time snow and ice last covered the site.” They further contend that “Surface-elevation contours of the continental Laurentide Ice Sheet (LIS) show that all four ice caps with pre-Holocene dated plants were above the surface of the LIS at its last glacial maximum. These sites thus supported only local ice caps then as now. And, because the ice caps occupy flat summits of less than 0.2 km2 surrounded by steep slopes, ice thicknesses of more than 70 meters could not have been sustained.” The assumptions in these statements are: Miller et al. assume that the ice caps are cold-based (i.e., basal ice is frozen to the ground below) and that there is no basal sliding of the ice and no basal erosion. However, deep fiords and ice-scoured scoured bedrock in the area attest to active subglacial erosion (i.e., basal sliding rather than frozen to the ground), although most of the obvious erosion is probably related to Pleistocene glaciation. The Greenland ice sheet just across the Davis Strait at the same latitude is not frozen to its base, and the average summer temperature at Clyde (north of the sample sites) is 3°C above freezing during June, July, August, and September (Fig. 5). Summer temperatures of all of the more than half dozen weather stations along the east coast of Baffin, where the sample sites are located, are above freezing during June, July, August, and September. Thus, the Miller et al. conclusion that the small ice caps in this study are frozen to their base is highly questionable and most like not true. Miller et al. contend that the Laurentide Ice Sheet did not cover the area of the ice caps and that there has been no erosion since the Eemian Interglacial 120,000 years ago. However, the Laurentide Ice Sheet (LIS) extended eastward beyond this area to the coast (Fig. 1) and reconstructed ice surface elevations show the area to be close to the 1000 m and 2000 m contours, i.e., close to or above the present ice caps. The scale of the ice surface reconstructions is not detailed enough to show exactly how high the LIS surface was at the sites, but at least suggest a good possibility that the area was overridden by the LIS. The importance of this is their conclusion that the older sites have not been disturbed for 120,000 years, but to make this assertion they need to provide adequate evidence. Figure 2. Reconstruction of the Laurentide Ice Sheet (Dyke, 2002) The Miller et al. assertion that the ice caps were not more than 70m thick is highly questionable. The ice caps expanded noticeably during the Little Ice Age and even if the LIS didn’t overrun the ice cap sites, the ice caps must surely have thickened, especially since the surrounding lower areas were filled with LIS ice. Thus, their contention that the ice caps could not have been more than 70 m thick is most likely not valid. [2] Miller et al. claim that recent exposure of moss by melting ice proves that modern temperatures at the site were as high or higher than at any time since the moss was covered by ice and that therefore present temperatures have not been exceeded in 120,000 years. But is this necessarily true? If a block of ice is placed on the floor of a room and the thermostat is turned to 90°F, the ice will begin to melt. If the thermostat is then turned down to 40°F before all of the ice has melted, ice will continue to melt until the floor is uncovered, but to conclude that the temperature had never risen above 40°F since the floor was first covered with ice would be totally false. The same is true of the Baffin ice caps—if moss is uncovered at today’s temperatures, that doesn’t mean that higher temperatures haven’t occurred previously. Thus, the Miller et al. conclusions that “temperatures of the past century must have exceeded those of any century in more than 44 ka” and “there has been no intervening century during which warmth exceeded that of the last 100 years” are illogical and badly flawed. One wonders how this bad logic got past peer review. In addition, we know from data in the Greenland GISP2 ice core that temperatures in Greenland rose more than 20°F per century at least three times in the past 15,000 years, well within the 120,000 years claimed by Miller et al. to have never been warmer than recently. [3] Among the 145 14C dates on exposed moss in this study are10 dates ranging in age from 23,900 to 50,700 years, leading to their conclusion that temperatures today are the hottest in >50 ka and most likely in the past 120 ka. They explain the disparity between these old dates and the multitude of young Holocene dates as due to higher elevations of the older samples so the younger sites could be exposed by melting of ice while the higher, older sites remained ice covered. But as shown by their data, this really isn’t true. Figures 1 and 3 show site M10-231v as an ‘Eemian’ site with dates ranging from 23,900 to 44,300 years. But ages at two nearby sites, M10-B226v and M10-223v, whose ages are shown as 2-3,000 and 4-5,000 years old, are higher than the site with old dates (Figure 4). Figure 3. Site M10-231v, dated at 23.9 ka to 44.3 ka at an altitude of 1395m (4577 ft) and sites M10-226v at 1438m (4718 ft.) and M10-223v at 1405mm (4609 ft). (Google Earth image) Figure 4. Elevations of sites M10-223v (2-3,000 yrs) and M10-226v (4-5,000 yrs) are higher than the ‘Eemian’ site >47,000 years. This totally destroys their argument for no temperature as warm as the present since the Eemian Interglacial. All they have shown is that melting of the ice caps on Baffin Island wasn’t complete during the Holocene and recent warming has continued the melting. This totally destroys their argument for no temperature as warm as the present since the Eemian Interglacial. All they have shown is that melting of the ice caps on Baffin Island wasn’t complete during the Holocene and recent warming has continued the melting. Comparison of Miller et al. conclusons with other Arctic data. The conclusions of the Miller et al. paper are that “there has been no intervening century during which summer warmth exceeded that of the last ~100 years” and “average summer temperatures of the last ~100 years are now higher than any century in more than 44,000 years.” How do these conclusions stack up against other data concerning past Arctic temperatures? Let’s compare them with recent recorded temperatures in Greenland and with past temperatures derived from Greenland ice core data. Comparison with recent Arctic temperatures Summer temperature records at Clyde, north of the sample sites, show no warming from 1940 to 2009 (Fig. 5). How is it that “temperatures of the past century must have exceeded those of any century in more than 44 ka” when temperature records clearly show no warming over the past 70 years? This makes no sense at all! Figure 5. Summer temperatures at Clyde, north of sample sites. Temperature records from Greenland and other Arctic areas also show no unusual warming. Yes, temperatures have warmed and cooled, but the 1930s were consistently warmer than the more recent warming from 1978 to 1998 (Figs. 6, 7, 8, 9). Figure 6. Temperatures in Angmagssalk, Figure 7. Arctic temperatures (70-90 N latitude, -180 Greenland were warmer in the 1930s (before to 180 longitude) between 1880 and 2000 show that CO2 began to rise sharply) than during recent the 1930s and early 1940s were warmer than recent warming from 1978-1998. warming (1978-1998). (Modified from Chylek et al. 2004, 2006) Figure 8. Arctic temperatures in Iceland, Norway, Figure 9. Average Arctic annual temperatures were and Russia from 1890 to 2010 show that the 1930s warmer in the 1930s (before CO2 began to rise and early 1940s were warmer than recent warming sharply) than during recent warming from 1978- from 1978-1998. 1998. Comparison with temperatures recorded in Greenland GISP2 ice cores Figure 10 shows that virtually all of the period from 1500 years ago to 5000 years ago was warmer than modern temperatures. This data is directly contrary to the Miller et al. conclusion that “average summer temperatures of the last ~100 years are now higher than any century in more than 44,000 years.” Figure 10. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the rest of the time back to 5000 years ago were all warmer than the past century, directly contradicting the conclusion of Miller et al. Looking still farther back in time, about 90% of the past 10,000 years were warmer than temperatures of the past century (Fig. 11). Thus, the Miller et al. conclusion that “temperatures of the past century must have exceeded those of any century in more than 44 ka” cannot be true. Figure 10. Temperatures during ~90% of the past 10,000 years were warmer than the past century. (Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997; Alley,2000). Temperatures during the late Pleistocene fluctuated dramatically, rising 20°F in a single century at least three times. These rates of warming were far greater (~20 times greater) than warming during the past century. Thus, the Miller et al. conclusions cannot be valid. Conclusions From the foregoing data and analyses, what is abundantly clear is that the Miller et al. paper is so badly flawed with unwarranted assumptions, poorly thought out assertions, and astonishingly bad logic that their conclusion “temperatures of the past century must have exceeded those of any century in more than 44 ka” cannot be considered valid. How could reputable scientists come to such incorrect conclusions? Perhaps the last sentence in their conclusions section gives us a clue: “anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have now resulted in unprecedented recent summer warmth that is well outside the range of that attributable to natural climate variability.” Even if the conclusions in the paper were correct, they wouldn’t prove anything about CO2 as the cause of climatic warming, so this statement suggests that the real purpose of the paper was to push CO2 at the expense of objective science. # Related Links: Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry on Unprecedented (?) Arctic warming: ‘Simplistic inferences about global warming in the Arctic seem unjustified’ Analysis: New Arctic Study Claiming Unprecedented Warmth Ignores Inconvenient Facts: ‘If junk science like this can be published, it really does seriously question the role of peer reviewers in providing any sort of independent, critical review’ More critiques of Unprecedented(?) Arctic warming: ‘The arguments laid forth in this study fall short of making a strong case for their (anthropogenic factors) dominant role’ New warmist Arctic study challenged: Prof. Jim Bouldin of UC Davis ‘marvels at how the authors could state the conclusions they do, given the methods and data presented’ – ‘We have four sites clustered together at one end of the 1000km sampling transect that give very anomalous results relative to the 135 samples collected all along that transect. So why in the world are they focusing on those four sites, to the exclusion of the much more geographically extensive 135? How can the authors just blow past this fact without discussing why in any way? Reviewers, HELLO??’ Extreme Cherry-Picking “Science” Exposed In Newest Alarmist Arctic Climate Study – Moss-Picking Debunked, Unequivocally — The new ‘research focused on just four moss sample sites on Baffin Island and ignored the island’s 135 other moss sites’ samples that completely discredit the bogus “warmer than the last 44,000 to 120,000 years” claim’ Claim: Last 100 years may be warmest in 120,000 years in the Arctic — ‘but not so fast’

UN IPCC Reviewer Dr. Don Easterbrook on IPCC report: ‘It isn’t science at all—it’s dogmatic, political, propaganda’ — ‘The IPCC report must be considered the grossest misrepresentation of data ever published’

October 4, 2013

The 2013 IPCC AR5 Report: Facts -vs- Fictions Posted on October 3, 2013 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 nowarming 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 1993-2012. 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.

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook debunks ‘absurd’ new warmist study claiming 1,700 U.S. cities will be below sea level by 2100 — Easterbrook: ‘The rate used by [Lead Author] Strauss for his predictions is more than 10 times the rate over the past century!’

July 30, 2013

Climate Depot Exclusive Analysis by Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, an Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, who has authored ten books and 150 journal publications. Presented 31 research papers at international meetings in 13 countries outside the US. Easterbrook: ‘More than 1,700 U.S. cities will be partially underwater by 2100? What is going to cause sea level rise to accelerate and where will the water come from?’ More than 1,700 American cities and towns – including Boston, New York, and Miami – will be drowning by the end of this century accoroding to a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Benjamin Strauss. Twenty five percent of the populations of these 1,700 cities would be living below sea level by 2100 and 79 cities with a combined population of 835,000 would be submerged by 2023 and about half of the population of Fort Lauderdale, Hoboken, and Palm Beach would be submerged by 2023 according to Strauss. The basis for these amazing conclusions is apparently a 12 inch (222 cm) per decade rise of global sea level, the maximum IPCC estimate, which is postulated to be caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. According to Strauss, Norfolk, Virginia, the largest naval base in the U.S., would be at risk by the 2040s and the Pentagon has already begun actively planning to relocate bases. Much of Miami would be under water by 2040 and half of Palm Beach, FL would be submerged by the 2060s. Fort Lauderdale would be well below sea-level. About half the population of Cambridge, MA, across the Charles River from Boston would be submerged by the early 2060s How does this compare with sea level rise over the past century? Sea level rose 12 cm (6 ½ inches) from 1900 to 1980 (Fig. 1) or about 7 inches per century. Figure 1. Sea level rise from 1900 to 1980. Projecting this same rate over the next century would give a sea level rise of about 2 inches by 2030 and about 6 inches by the end of century. Figure 2. Sea level rise based on projection of past rates. A comparison of the projection of sea level rise over the past century with the projected sea level rise of Strauss is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3. Comparison of projected sea level rise based on rates over the past century with the IPCC rate used by Strauss (the maximum IPCC rate). The difference between the two projections is remarkable. The rate used by Strauss for his predictions of 1700 submerged cities is more than 10 times the rate over the past century! Two questions immediately arise: (1) what is going to cause such accelerated sea level rise and (2) where is all the water going to come from? The accelerated rise is based on postulated accelerated warming but there has been no warming in the past 15 years and, in fact, the climate has cooled during that time (Figure 4). So no climatic warming means no accelerated sea level rise as postulated by Strauss. Figure 4. Cooling of -0.23°C per century over the past decade. (modified from Monckton, 2013) In order to get the accelerated sea level rise postulated by Strauss, much of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets would have to melt. However the Antarctic ice cap is expanding, not meltng and the Greenland ice cap was about the same size as at present during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. In addition, Morner (2011) has shown that the maximum possible eustatic sea level rate is only 10 mm year, (i.e., 1.0 m in a century). The conclusion that we can draw from these data is that the huge rise of sea level rates proposed by Strauss are absurd and that the maximum sea level rise by 2100 will be less than one foot. Related Links: Prominent Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook: Validity of Marcott et al. new ‘Hockey Stick’ study PART II — The study’s ‘conclusion is wrong’ — ‘The Marcott et al. conclusion that “Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years” is clearly contrary to measured real-time data and thus fails the Feynman test, i.e., it is are wrong…Claim of ‘A heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years’ is clearly contrary to measured real-time data and thus fails the Feynman test, i.e., their conclusion is wrong’ Prominent geologist warns ‘global COOLING is almost a slam dunk’ for up to 30 years or more — ‘There is no single piece of real evidence that points to CO2′ as driving temps – Dr. Don Easterbrook: ‘We’ve had 27 climate changes in the last 400 years: warm, cold, warm, cold. There have been four in this past century that have nothing to do with CO2, because CO2 wasn’t a factor hundreds of thousands of years ago. We know that those are not at all related to CO2. So why would we expect climate change today to be related to CO2?’

Geologist Dr. Don Don Easterbrook’s rebuts smear by warmist professors

April 14, 2013

Former Thatcher Science Advisor & UN IPCC Reviewer Lord Christopher Monckton weighs in on warmists smear of Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook: ‘Dr. Easterbrook has been libeled. It is the rent-seeking global-warming profiteers of the WWU faculty, not Dr. Easterbrook, who are guilty of misrepresentation’

April 1, 2013

Take a look at Dr. Easterbrook’s impressive credentials here: Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, has authored ten books and 150 journal publications. Presented 31 research papers at international meetings in 13 countries outside the U.S. Meet the Western Washington University (WWU) warmist professors who smeared skeptical Dr. Easterbrook with ‘consensus’ claims: Bernard A. Housen [email protected] — Susan Debari [email protected] — Colin B. Amos [email protected] — Robert Mitchell — [email protected] Lord Monckton: (March 31, 2013) Dr. Easterbrook, to whose excellent book of scientific papers on global warming I had the honour to contribute a couple of years ago, has been libeled. It is the rent-seeking global-warming profiteers of the WWU faculty, not Dr. Easterbrook, who are guilty of misrepresentation. To take one of many examples of misrepresentation on their part, they attempt to challenge his statement to the effect that the GISP2 ice-core temperature record from Greenland shows that the temperature of air trapped in ice that formed on the summit plateau 8000 years ago was 2.5 Celsius degrees warmer than in the mid-19th century and, therefore, 1.8 Celsius degrees warmer than the present. They attempt to tamper with the truth by suggesting that the air temperature in Greenland is not global; that the record stops in 1850, not the somewhat warmer present; and that, therefore, we cannot say the Holocene climate optimum from 10,000-6000 years ago was globally warmer than the present. The racketeers of the WWU faculty either know they are wrong or are ignorant and pretending to know they are right. Either way, they are guilty of deliberate misrepresentation of the objective scientific truth. For it is well understood that temperatures in Greenland and Antarctica change by approximately twice the global average, by what is called “polar amplification”. This phenomenon occurs because the tropics cannot warm significantly. Advection takes any additional heat poleward. Therefore, if Greenland was 1.8 degrees warmer than the present 8000 years ago, the world was almost a degree warmer than the present at that time. In fact, there has been no global warming for 17 years. This is one of many facts the WWU faculty chose not to mention. For the past eight years, according to the ENVISAT sea-level monitoring satellite, sea level has been rising at a rate equivalent to just 1.3 inches per century. As an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report, I can also report that the IPCC itself plans to publish a graph showing that the predictions of global warming in all four of its previous multi-thousand-page quinquennial Assessment Reports have proven to be enormous exaggerations. The computer models it uses have failed. Dr. Easterbrook, therefore, is a great deal closer to the current state of climate science than the money-grubbing gangsters of WWU, who ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves but are too politicized on the far Left to have the grace to blush. And the Bellingham Herald should have known better than to publish their poisonously pietistic libel of Dr. Easterbrook, who deserves a handsome apology both from these grasping leeches and from the Herald. Shame on the lot of you.

Peer review vs Smear Review: Prominent Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook smeared by warmists for daring to testify at hearing

April 1, 2013

Prominent Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook attacked for Washington state testimony: Dept head says ‘it’s unfortunate that someone who really isn’t an active expert in their field is being chosen to discuss this important topic’

March 27, 2013

Search Results for: easterbrook