2011-09-28 23:10:35Help with reviewing any of Don Easterbrook's book?
Mark Richardson

Elsevier have got back to me, I'm being put in contact with John Fredor, the Elsevier editor for this.

Maybe he'll be interested in making some corrections. The errors I've identified are:



p4: "no tangible evidence exists that CO2 is causing global warming"
>satellite measurements (Harries, 2001) showing directly the increased CO2 warming effect, plus ground measurements (Philipona, 2004) and a cooling stratosphere.

p12: "melting of thin, floating ice there has no effect whatsoever on sea level"
 Melting sea ice freshens the ocean, changing salinity and therefore density & sea level (Jenkins & Holland, 2007).

p16: "The rise in atmospheric CO2...from 1950 to 2008 could have caused warming of only about 0.01 C"
>Using real physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann law) to perform the calculations gives you a figure about 40 times bigger, around 0.4 C. Also, the calculation of radiative forcing is wrong.

p17: "how can such a tiny, tiny increment of CO2 cause the 10oF increase in temperatures predicted by CO2 advocates?"
>The prediction is not for a 10 F rise from current CO2, but less than 3 F (IPCC, 2007) at equilibrium

p17: "there is no evidence whatsoever of an increase in atmospheric water vapor content"
>The SSM/I satellite instruments have recorded atmospheric water vapour and it is going up (Santer et al, 2007).


You can read the first chapter on Amazon, some other stuff is available elsewhere. Logicman pointed out Scafetta's is available here, but I haven't had time to assess it and I don't know if I've got the time.

2011-09-29 00:41:49
Julian Brimelow


Thanks for taking this on, it is very important IMHO.  Elsevier normally produces repsectable works, so I have no idea what went wrong here.

Re the water vapour.  Trenberth et al. (2005) have paper on this (that pape ris the origin of Trenberth's now famous "4% increase in atmospheric moisture"), and more recently Dessler and Davis (2010) published a paper using renalysis data to show that trpospheric specific humidity is going up.

Re the equilibrium temperature the ipcc estimates an increase near +3 C (or 5.4 F) for a doubling of CO2.  Even the predicted upper bound of 4.5 C for equilibrium temperature is equivalent to < 10 F (~8 F).  It seems that they are are exaggerating by cherry picking the upper range and stating that to be the best estimate.


As expected this book appears to be packed full of lies and deception and errors.

2011-09-29 01:44:22
Mark Richardson

The 10F figure is not for doubling of CO2, the book says that it is for the CO2 rise from 1950 to today!

2011-09-29 02:07:14
Julian Brimelow

Hi Mark,

Oh dear! That claim sounds very Moncktonesq...

2011-09-29 02:41:50comment
Robert Way


We should all try to get something together for this.

2011-09-29 21:17:29
Mark Richardson

Now in touch with the 'acquisitions editor' at Elsevier, John Fedor. Apparently they create a 'revisions file' with any mistakes and the relevant corrections to be added to the next edition. They also offered to put me in touch with the author of the book, but my impression from Easterbrook's writing is that he would desperately try to avoid fixing mistakes.


I plan to put together a .pdf with a list of the probable errors we found already. I could use help with references or further mistakes you spot.

2011-09-29 21:22:18
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley

I suspect the revisions file ought to end up being longer than the book itself.  It is good that you are involving Elsevier in this, so they know just how bad the book is, hopefully it will make them a bit more wary next time!

2011-09-29 21:31:24


I think the main limiting factor is that I don't know that anyone will want to spend the money to obtain the whole text!

2011-09-29 22:21:10
Mark Richardson

Anyone have tamino's email address or know an up to date temperature record for Greenland?

I want to check the claim that Greenland as a whole was warmer in the 1930s than today.