GWPF & The Hockey Stick Curve

authordefault
on

The previous post in this series examined the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) Briefing Paper No3 โ€œThe Truth About Greenhouseย  Gasesโ€. Despite its title, Briefing Paper No3 said very little about such gases. Yet one subject (not directly to do with greenhouse gases) was discussed at some length within the paper. As it is also discussed in other GWPF papers, the subject will be examined in this fourth post of theย series.

AN IMPOSSIBLE HOCKEY STICK AVERSION
In Briefing Paper No3, perhaps the strongest accusation made by the author Professor William Happer concerns the IPCC who allegedly โ€œrewrote the climate historyโ€ by deleting the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age (MWP & LIA) from the climate record.

Happer tells us that both MWP & LIA were โ€œclearly shown in the 1990โ€ first IPCC report. Then eleven years later, according to Happer, they were both simply expunged from the climate record for no valid reason.

Indeed, within the 2001 third IPCC report the MWP & LIA are entirely absent from the graph that according to Happer is โ€œnot supported by observational data.โ€ This is the dreaded โ€œHockey Stickโ€ curve.

Can the IPCC really be responsible for suchย skulduggery?

โ€œCLIMATE HISTORYโ€ OR A STAB IN THE DARK?
The version of โ€œclimate historyโ€ preferred by Happer was actually rather ill-defined. This โ€œclimate historyโ€ that Happer is so wedded to appears in the First IPCC Assessment Report in 1990. It is a โ€œschematic diagram of global temperature variationsโ€ covering the last 1,000 years (Figure 7.1c, reproduced above). Being โ€œschematicโ€ it has an un-numbered vertical scale and the โ€œdotted line nominally represents conditions near the beginning of the twentieth century.โ€

Also the horizontal axis demonstrates the lack of care in its preparation with the unnecessary โ€œYears before presentโ€ label being copied from figs 7.1a & b. This is hardily the stuff of a well-founded and exact graphical representation.

The text of the 1990 report reinforces the tentative nature of this diagram. It makes plain that details of the MWP & LIA โ€œare often poorly known because palaeo-climate data are frequently sparse.โ€ The global extent of a MWP is questioned and the LIA is described as โ€œnot a period of continuous cold climate.โ€

So the 1990 report was far from saying the WMP & LIA were โ€œfactโ€ as Happer stronglyย implies.

THE HOCKEY STICK โ€“ PUTTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
It was well before 2001 that the MWP & LIA began to disappear from โ€œclimate history.โ€ Indeed, by the 1995 Second IPCC Report (available in its entirety as a 51MB pdf) the โ€œschematic diagramโ€ has already disappeared and been replaced by the beginnings of a hockey stick. โ€œFigure 3.20. Decadal summer temperature index for the Northern Hemisphereโ€œ spans the years 1400 to 1979. In this graph, temperatures no longer dip low during the LIA. Further, in the text this 1995 IPCC report directly questioned the existence of the MWP.

So the LIA was gone and the MWP was in serious doubt. Yet Happer makes no comment whatsoever about the 1995 IPCC report. Is he then happy with the figure 3.20? Or has he never read the 1995 IPCCย report?

Only with the 2001 report does Happer complain about his precious MWP & LIA disappearing. And yet again it can be asked – has Happer ever read the 2001 report? He talks of โ€œa graph.โ€ Yet three temperature reconstructions are presented on two graphs, figure 2.20 (the hockey stick) & figure 2.21. He says โ€œthere was no explanationโ€ for the MWP & LIA disappearing. Yet Section 2.3.3 is titled โ€œWas there a โ€œLittle Ice Ageโ€ and a โ€œMedieval Warm Periodโ€?

Perhaps Happer only managed to read the Summary for Policymakers (where there is but one graph and no explanation) and failed to readย further.


The Fourth IPCC Assessment Report of 2007 continues to featureย  the Hockey Stick data (now with a dozen other reconstructions), as well as directly refuting the very criticisms levelled by Happer against the original ‘hockey stick’ (see below Box 6.4) Yet for Happer the 2007 report isn’t even worthy of mention! Perhaps he felt it was not worthy ofย reading?

THE SUBSTANCE OF โ€œSTRONG EVIDENCEโ€
Happer says his view of the MWP & LIA is supported by โ€œstrong evidence.โ€ He fails to say what this โ€œstrong evidenceโ€ is and reasonable researches yield nothing to support his claim.

The โ€œschematic diagramโ€ of 1990 is not based on โ€œstrong evidence.โ€ The diagram comes from the work of HH Lamb reconstructing Central England temperatures who based the most recent 300 years on the Central England Temperature (CET) thermometer record. Earlier years in the reconstruction were quite speculative in nature. (Lamb’s original graph is accessible here. Also Box 6.4 here for IPCC comment on Lamb’sย work.)

If this CET temperature record used by HH Lamb is plotted up-to-date, it plots out the ‘blade’ of the ‘hockey stick,’ as would be expected. The ‘handle’ of the ‘hockey stick’ becomes straightened because it is now based on a Northern Hemisphere average, not the more variable average of a single location (or the speculations of HH Lamb). Thus the 1990 โ€œschematic diagramโ€ becomes the ‘hockeyย stick’.

The only other possible hint Happer gives of โ€œstrong evidenceโ€ is mention of historical information – wine exported from England (also considered by Lamb) and a โ€œgreenerโ€ Greenland during the MWP, plus a frozen River Thames during the LIA. Of course this data applies only to two particular locations.

Further, such data can prove to be shaky even for local temperature reconstruction. Historical circumstance can be misinterpreted and even the accuracy of the information itself needs scrupulous checking. Such data used by Lamb has been checked and found wanting.

Concerning the historical frozen River Thames, available records appear to show it freezing both during MWP and the LIA. If true, this would make the frozen Thames less than convincing as evidence for a warm MWP preceding a cold LIA, even in merry oldeย England.

WHY PUBLISH DRIVEL?
Be it presenting The Truth About Greenhouse Gases or explaining the disappearing MWP & LIA, it is impossible not to conclude that Happer’s paper is entirelyย worthless.

The disclaimer says it expresses the view of the author not the GWPF. Yet it remains difficult to understand why any UK-registered โ€œeducationalโ€ charity would wish to publish it. When examined, it is so obviously nonsense and its publication cannot have been the unfortunate result from commissioning a piece of work because the paper had already been published, twice.

After four posts examining the work of the GWPF, little has been found of the slightest merit.

Their entire reputation as a factual commentator on global warming (which they are obliged to be under their UK-registered charity status) hangs by a thread. So in the next part of this series, the GWPF will be tested once more to see if their reputation can beย redeemed.

Related Posts

on

The new leader of the opposition has regularly criticised the UKโ€™s green ambitions.

The new leader of the opposition has regularly criticised the UKโ€™s green ambitions.
on

Lucy von Sturmer and Duncan Meisel are building communities of creatives dedicated to preventing the advertising and public relations industry from casting polluters as climate saviours.

Lucy von Sturmer and Duncan Meisel are building communities of creatives dedicated to preventing the advertising and public relations industry from casting polluters as climate saviours.
Opinion
on

It's time to come together to collectively work through the anxiety, grief and overwhelm so many of us are experiencing.

It's time to come together to collectively work through the anxiety, grief and overwhelm so many of us are experiencing.
on

UCP pledges to abandon the provinceโ€™s net zero targets, and remove the designation of CO2 as a pollutant.

UCP pledges to abandon the provinceโ€™s net zero targets, and remove the designation of CO2 as a pollutant.