Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Home Arguments iPhone App Recent Comments Translations Links Support SkS
Twitter RSS Posts RSS Posts RSS Posts RSS Posts
to keep Skeptical
Science going
iPhone app
Download Nokia app
Download
It's the sun
Climate's changed before
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Ice age predicted in the 70s
We're heading into an ice age
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...
Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?
Latest Posts
* Perth event tonight: public forum on climate change
* What causes the tropospheric hot spot?
* Irregular Climate podcast: episode 5
* September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
* How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
* Ocean acidification
* How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
* How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag
* Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
* How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
* Astronomical cycles
* Peer review vs commercials and spam
* Andrew Bolt distorts again
* Podcasts, interviews and Monckton bashing
* Uncertain motives: Theil misrepresents the science
* How climate skeptics mislead
* Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
* Request for mainstream articles on climate
* Radio interview with Skeptically Speaking
* Abraham reply to Monckton
* Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
* Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
* Update of Visualisations of Carbon Dioxide
* On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
* Could global brightening be causing global warming?
* Skeptical Science now a Nokia app
* On temperature and CO2 in the past
* Websites to monitor the Arctic Sea Ice
* Latest GRACE data on Greenland ice mass
* Why Greenland's ice loss matters
Archives
Wednesday, 2 June, 2010
Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Guest post by John Abraham
Recently, our good friend Christopher Monckton has been giving public lectures showing the faults of climate science and scientists. Fortunately, his work has shown that we really don’t have anything to fear. Global warming isn’t happening and, if it is, the world will be better off. At least that is the story I heard when listening to his latest lecture. The problem for Monckton is that I am a scientist that knows a thing or two about energy and the environment. Since Monckton’s position was opposite of everything I have researched, I thought I needed to do a bit of digging. Let’s see what I discovered…
Chris Monckton showed the following graph, taken from the IARC-JAXA (International Arctic Research Center – Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency). He claims that “arctic ice extent is just fine: steady for a decade”. According to Monckton, there is no cause for concern. In fact, this image is a screen shot of Monckton’s presentation.
This was really surprising, I thought the arctic has experienced incredible ice losses over the past decades. I decided to ask the Director of the IARC, Larry Hinzman. Here is what I asked him…
“Dear Dr. Hinzman,
Pardon this question but I am a thermal sciences professor who frequently gives lectures on the dangers of climate change. Recently, a climate change skeptic, Christopher Monckton, has used information from your organization to suggest that there is no decrease in arctic sea ice. In fact, to quote Chris, Arctic sea-ice extent is just fine: steady for a decade.
I do not believe that your group’s work shows this. In fact, I believe the research from your organization indicates a clear fingerprint of global warming on ice extent.
Can you clarify whose views are more correct, mine or Mr. Monckton?”
I thought that was a fair representation. Here is Dr. Hinzman’s reply…
Maybe Larry isn’t really up to date on arctic ice. I had better get a second opinion from Dr. John Walsh, Chief Scientist at IARC. Here is his reply.
Dr. Walsh referred me to NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center). Let’s see what they say about arctic ice loss. They have year-to-year graphs of ice coverage. Here is their data showing year-to-year ice variations. Notice the continual decline over the past 30 years?
Wow, this doesn’t agree with what Monckton told me. Perhaps I am misinterpreting this graph. I had better ask who is correct, Monckton or me? Well, let’s see what Mark Serreze said…
Oh, by the way, Mark Serreze is the Director of NSIDC…. I think he might know.
You can check things out yourself. There are links to three international organizations that provide information about arctic sea ice. As of this writing, June 1, 2010, all three organizations showed the ice extent at unprecedented lows. Go see for yourself.
National Snow and Ice Data Center
Danmarks Meterologiske Institut, Centre for Ocean and Ice
IARC-JAXA
So,I guess Monckton got his facts wrong. He referenced the IARC-JAXA and two of their employees disagree with his conclusion. This is the first of Monckton’s errors that I’ll be exposing in a series of blogs. You can watch a video of my rebuttal presentation.
I have also broken my rebuttal into shortened segments and placed them online through Youtube. Please watch these and give feedback.
UPDATE FROM SKEPTICAL SCIENCE: we will be deleting any comments that personally insult Monckton. You're welcome to critique his science but ad hominem attacks and personal insults are not welcome.
Posted by John Abraham at 07:00 AM
Bookmark and Share Printable Version | Link to this page
Comments
Comments 1 to 47:
1.
Jim Eager at 07:31 AM on 2 June, 2010
Prof. Abraham, I watched your entire take-down of Monckton's nonsense and disinformation. Well done, sir!
2.
Leo G at 07:33 AM on 2 June, 2010
Thanx John. I love Lord Monckton's talks. His delivery is very good. I let myself enjoy his jokes and his excellent connection with the audience. I just have problems with his content. No biggy though. If taken for entertainment sake only, a very positive experience.
3.
Dennis at 08:57 AM on 2 June, 2010
While some may find Monckton entertaining, I do not.
He has been invited repeatedly to testify on the subject of climate science before committees of the United States Congress. His testimony appears in the record and is used by some members of the Congress to justify their beliefs that global warming is not real. Monckton's testimony has contributed to the fact that the United States has yet to pass legislation to reduce is CO2 emissions.
John Abraham, if you have time, perhaps you could watch Monckton's most recent testimony and provide the same excellent scientific critique to that as you have done above. You can find a video of his testimony here: http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0018#main_content
4.
CoalGeologist at 09:44 AM on 2 June, 2010
Leo G, and any others who might find Monckton to be amusing,
I have a problem with much more than Monckton's 'content', as I fail to find humor or entertainment value in a someone who employs deception and subterfuge to create misunderstanding. Climate change is a serious topic that demands serious and honest dialog. Anyone who has heard Monckton speak will know that he's not a stupid man, yet he says things that have no scientific foundation. He must have seen the same data as are reported here, yet chooses to misrepresent it. The question is why does he do it? And why does he retain credibility with so many people despite having a terribly biased agenda, and--in my best Queen's English--an unfortunate proclivity to dissemble.
It is these questions--and not issues of science--that lie at the heart of AGW Denialism.
Thanks to Prof. Abraham for patiently addressing Monckton's misinformation. I will again refer SkS readers to an informative set of exposes on Monckton, including an amusing discussion of the hot pink portcullis appearing on the top slide of this post. Debunking Lord Monckton Part 1 and Debunking Lord Monckton Part 2
5.
doug_bostrom at 10:07 AM on 2 June, 2010
Picking Arctic ice as a point of contention is a mystifying choice on Monckton's part, truly, especially compounded with the attached requirement of "don't believe your lying eyes."
Others have said that Monckton's appeal and reach here in the U.S. is partly down to his accent. I think it's also about his title, reverberations of our special relationship w/Great Britain.
An eye-catching feature of the graph John reproduced is Monckton's own choice of adding an oversized crowned portcullis on the graph. It's suggestive, but of what? An official imprimatur? Here's some information on that symbol, including guidelines on appropriate use. Suffice it to say, Monckton's use of the crowned portcullis is dodgy in its own right, quite apart from the content it adorns. He's not a member of either House and his communications have no official status but he's certainly trying to convey -some- impression by his selection of decorative artwork.
6.
Mythago at 10:30 AM on 2 June, 2010
Thank you John for the take down on Lord Monckton. Your time and effort is greatly appreciated.
One little bit you may like to add to the Greenland ice sheet altitude increase section to explain the increase in height is the reflex action of land masses when the load of glacial ice has been removed. The landmass will rise once this has happened and this alone would explain the altitude increase. It happens to all large landmasses and may also influence sea level rise to the negative a little. I haven't read the paper by the Danish scientist yet but will when I get time.
Apart from that you might also like to add the Hadley Institute in the UK as a source of reliable data regarding climate change.
Looking forward to the next instalment.
7.
HumanityRules at 13:30 PM on 2 June, 2010
Eschenbach would have it that the difference in Monckton and John's graphs is the scale.
Lord M seems wrong but you'd have to put that sentence in context. If it is in connection with 'death-spirals' or ice-free arctics this decade then there may be some justification for the use of steady (in that sort of context). Let be clear the data he presented isn't fake, it's just what conclusion he draws from it.
Just as an aside. I have a bit of trouble with the focus on sceptics as the biggest barrier to moving forward on climate change. While mainstream politicians might talk up climate change I don't really see any great enthusiasm to turn that into action, especially the sort of real action needed if the alarmists are to be believed. The Labour Party in Australia dropped thier ETS fairly sharpish once it appeared to have little upside for them politically.
8.
doug_bostrom at 13:40 PM on 2 June, 2010
HR, we often don't agree but I concur w/you on your third paragraph. I actually don't think most politicians are in significant disagreement with scientists on this matter, Monckton and the rest of the seemingly anti-science troops don't seem to have much real pull. Not to say there's no effect from all the chatter, more that responding to the climate issue mainly falls in the same vein as other nebulous threats such as future possible earthquakes. Our politics are dominated by short wavelength matters unpredictably spaced, "noise" as we'd call it if looking at a graph.
9.
NewYorkJ at 13:47 PM on 2 June, 2010
I'm perhaps pointing out the obvious here, but the main problem with Monckton's presentation of the data (at least it appears to be accurate in this case) is that the graph he uses is not really useful in showing trends from year to year or over a decade. It's meant to show the path of Arctic sea ice extent over the course of a single year, and compare the path with a relatively few recent years. It's rather difficult to sort out all those lines/colors for each year to discern where the trend is at the decadal level. The NSIDC graph is an obvious solution.
Since we're on the topic of obfuscating with graphs, here's a similar one by a Willis Eschenbach. It makes Monckton's presentation look almost reasonable on comparison:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/13/lies-damned-lies-statistics-and-graphs/
The WUWT alter ego site puts it nicely...
http://wotsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/lies-damned-lies-statistics-%e2%80%a6-and-graphs/
10.
chriscanaris at 15:01 PM on 2 June, 2010
WUWT vs Skeptical Science - the battle of the graphs!
11.
KeenOn350 at 16:06 PM on 2 June, 2010
Just want to say thanks for excellent, painstaking, detailed refutation of Moncton's materials/presentation.
12.
chriscanaris at 17:00 PM on 2 June, 2010
PS: From The National Snow and Ice Data Center:
'Arctic sea ice extent averaged 14.69 million square kilometers (5.67 square miles) for the month of April, just 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. The rate of ice extent decline for the month was also close to average, at 41,000 kilometers (16,000 square miles) per day. As a result, April 2010 fell well within one standard deviation of the mean for the month, and posted the highest April extent since 2001.
Ice extent remained slightly above average in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk, and slightly below average in the Barents Sea north of Scandinavia, and in Baffin Bay, where ice extent remained below average all winter.'
All sounds pretty average to me.
13.
philipm at 17:02 PM on 2 June, 2010
This ice thing is really silly. You don't have to be a professor to take it down but thanks anyway for doing so: my point is not that you needn't do this, but that the anti-science is inexpert. You'd think the multi-billion dollar fossil fuels industry would be able to defend its interests better than that. Then again, looking at what BP is currently doing, maybe not.
Recently on my blog I did a retrospective of the prediction in The Australian in April 2009 that a big drop in sunspots presaged an ice age. What's so nice about this anti-science stuff is that the predictions are so hard to take down. When they make predictions. What's not so nice is they are still winning the propaganda war, and the Laws of Physics don't play nice with people who violate them.
Aside from Arctic sea ice extent (which in the latest data is dipping below the 2007 low), Antarctic and Greenland ice volume are crashing, as reported elsewhere on this site. Even in the Antarctic, volume measures are crashing, indicating area will follow as soon as we have a warmer than average summer because there's less thick multi-seasonal ice.
14.
daisym at 17:43 PM on 2 June, 2010
An article posted on May 29, 2010 in the blog 'Watts Up With That' claims that Arctic ice has increased. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/29/arctic-ice-volume-has-increased-25-since-may-2008/?utm_source=co2hog .
The article by Steve Goddard and Anthony Watts says that, according to the U.S. Navy's PIPS sea ice forecast data, Arctic ice volume has increased by 25% since May, 2008. One of the functions of the PIPS forecasting model is to help identify ice that is too thick for penetration by the Navy's nuclear submarines. PIPS is a computer model, and as such, it could be wrong, but the Navy hangs their hat on it for operational purposes.
There appears to be some ambiguity in the way the Navy's model manipulates the data compared to the way the scientist's model does.
How can these differences be reconciled? Who's right... the Navy or the scientists? Or is WUWT off the mark?
15.
chriscanaris at 18:40 PM on 2 June, 2010
From:
Christian Haas, Stefan Hendricks, Andreas Herber: Synoptic airborne thickness surveys reveal state of Arctic sea ice cover GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L09501, 5 PP., 2010
While summer Arctic sea-ice extent has decreased over the past three decades, it is subject to large interannual and regional variations. Methodological challenges in measuring ice thickness continue to hamper our understanding of the response of the ice-thickness distribution to recent change, limiting the ability to forecast sea-ice change over the next decade. We present results from a 2400 km long pan-Arctic airborne electromagnetic (EM) ice thickness survey in April 2009, the first-ever large-scale EM thickness dataset obtained by fixed-wing aircraft over key regions of old ice in the Arctic Ocean between Svalbard and Alaska. The data provide detailed insight into ice thickness distributions characteristic for the different regions. Comparison with previous EM surveys shows that modal thicknesses of old ice had changed little since 2007, and remained within the expected range of natural variability.
I haven't splurged out to go beyond the abstract. It's just another random paper which leaves me thinking that the jury's still out.
My main reservation about some of the fascinating and informative scientific argument on this site lies in the assumption that lots of trends pointing in the same direction suggest a robust conclusion (effectively metaanalysis). Metaanalysis has numerous limitations and can obscure as much as it can illuminate (for example, comparing apples and oranges).
Equally, I have very little time for the Monckton/ Plimer modus operandi (the former claiming authority and expertise which is manifestly lacking while the latter being less than rigorous in his referencing to say the least) which equally oversimplify to the point of making sensible discussion impossible.
16.
John Russell at 18:56 PM on 2 June, 2010
I've spent some time in the past refuting some of Monckton's lectures and posting the results to various groups. I'm no scientist, but then neither is Monckton so it's not difficult to find what he's done in support of his deliberate campaign of misinformation. As a writer and director of films -- a role that also extends to producing visuals for conferences and presentations, I understand what he's doing. There are a couple of observations worth making.
1) Monckton, like many other anti-climate change lobbyists, specifically targets an audience that has limited scientific understanding of the subject. He knows the argument is not about science, it's about PR; about creating a groundswell of public opinion.
2) Monckton is not interested in addressing the counter-arguments of his more scientifically literate critics (like the people who frequent SkSc, I guess). His work is done long before we pull it apart.
3) Monckton -- for the sake of clarity he would say -- redraws ALL the graphs he uses in his presentations. He almost invariably changes the scale or truncates the timeline, or uses other tricks to change the essential message of the graph. Graph one of John's article is a perfect example of this. By concentrating on seasonal change and thus exaggerating the much more subtle annual variations in sea ice extent, he's able to give the impression to his specifically-targeted audience that all's tickety-boo.
4) If you look at a video of any of his lectures (there are plenty to find on Youtube) you'll note that he uses graphs and illustrations in rapid succession, just giving an impression and not allowing the audience to either study or think in any detail about the graph he's presented.
5) It's a well known fact in presentation that the words being spoken should follow closely any words being shown on screen. The human brain cannot read one set of words and listen to another at the same time. One either listens or reads. Monckton knows this and by talking rapidly and authoritatively he ensures the audience cannot analyse his graph. The only time the on-screen words and his voice coincide is when he reads the title at the top; in this case, "Arctic sea ice just fine... etc." One is just left with an impression. It's no accident that the titles of his graphs are the spoken word, rather than the more formal descriptive text a scientist would use.
6) He often leaves off the information one needs to authenticate the graph. He'll use enough to meet his purpose of providing credibility; not enough information for someone to be able to check out the original quickly.
7) He's a good presenter. He knows his upper-class English voice works well, particularly with people from the colonies (if you'll excuse the expression) -- which is probably why he does so many tours abroad. We working-class Brits hear it for what it is (I'll not say what, for fear of being moderated).
To sum up. Anyone attending a Monckton lecture is being manipulated with great skill. Throughout history there have been other great orators who did this. 'Nough said.
Hope that helps.
17.
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:09 PM on 2 June, 2010
Also, I think about the Arctic ice experts - should speak out, others can only cite them, but ...
"Unprecedented" ...
Monckton is not a scientist about "the ice" ... but ...
... Polish professor Marsz all his long "scientific" life deal with the Arctic ice (recently also Antarctic).
March of the first explains:
"The correlation coefficient between the average annual surface ice (extent), and the value AMOMSar a year is equal to -0.80 (p <0.00001, 1979-2008). The strongest relationship between the value AMO MSar last year [2008] and the average monthly surface ice occur during the period from December to June - during the polar night, and spring (r from -0.82 to -0.74). The higher the value AMO MSar (ie, the Sargasso Sea SST), including in all months of next year in the Arctic ice surface is smaller."
... and then says the following:
"The air temperature in the northern hemisphere has increased over this period (1979-2003, 25 years) to 0.73 ° C, which gives, also lower than in the previous period, [1917-1938 (22 years)] average increase of 0.0292 ° C • year -1. At the same time the growth rate of CO2 concentration was equal to 1565 ppm • year-1 (P <0.00001), almost four times higher than in the previous period of warming, and the same concentration of CO2 in the troposphere was also significantly higher than in the previous period and ranged are between 337 and 375 ppmv."
"In the second period of warming (the current), despite the much higher concentration of CO2 in the troposphere (about 27-65 ppmv) than in the previous period, and a much stronger trend in the concentration of CO2, the rate of temperature rise in the northern hemisphere is smaller than during the first warming. If the concentration of CO2 govern the SAT changes, it should probably be different [...]. Presumably, increased concentrations of CO2 have some impact on the course of air temperature in recent years, however, in relation to the role played in shaping the changes in the SAT - scale NH [including the impact on Arctic ice], play AMO changes, the effect of the pCO2 is secondary, and perhaps even TERTIARY."
Monckton is wrong (in principle) in detail, but his general conclusions that: the ice there is "nothing special" and even more so "UNPRECEDENTED" (for example, it was a "precedent" - by Marsz - in the years 1917 to 1938) may be the most consistent with the views of (at least) some researchers - Arctic sea research.
18.
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:12 PM on 2 June, 2010
1.565 ppm - sorry
19.
kdkd at 19:16 PM on 2 June, 2010
chriscanaris #12
A paper from Nature demonstrates how perturbations in these complex periodic systems are important. In that context, the jury seems may be still out on the Arctic ice extent, but very close to a verdict.
Full reference: Scheffer, M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W.A., Brovkin, V., Carpenter, S.R., Dakos, V. et al. (2009) Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature, 461, 53-59.
20.
Alexandre at 20:35 PM on 2 June, 2010
John Russel #16
Totally agree. Here in Brazil there´s a nearly-retired meteorologist that has made some late fame among the broader public by making contrarian statements in interviews and right-wing Economy and business conferences. Except for the accent, the tactics are much the same.
21.
CBDunkerson at 20:52 PM on 2 June, 2010
chriscanaris #12, I still can't fathom why 'skeptics' make such a big deal out of ice extent briefly approaching AVERAGE. The mere fact that 'almost hitting average' is such a big deal serves as a tacit admission that ice extent has been BELOW average continuously for years now. In any remotely 'level' system you'd see values going ABOVE average on a regular basis... rather than merely getting CLOSE to average being a rare and noteworthy event.
BTW, that report is also a month old. Since then Arctic sea ice extent has plummeted at an unprecedented rate and is now below the level for this time of year in 2007. They should have a new monthly report out by next week, but you can see the current status HERE.
22.
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:23 PM on 2 June, 2010
@CBDunkerson
arctic-warming. 26th June 2009:
"The starting point is the extreme warming at Spitsbergen in winter 1918/19. The winter temperatures exploded (see Fig. above- http://www.arctic-warming.com/hottopics/20090626/20090626_clip_image002.jpg) only here. The warming was sustained and remained for two decades, showing up in the Kara Sea and eastwards only after 1920. That is an evident aspect that the warming started at Spitsbergen. When Syun-Ichi Akasofu [2009] recently acknowledged that: "The recent rapid retreat of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, particularly in 2007, is partly caused by the inflow of warm North Atlantic (Karcher et al., 2003; Polyakov, 2006)", it would be the same situation as during the Arctic warming 90 years ago. An earlier paper by Polyakov et al., [2005], expressed it in this way:
"This study was motivated by a strong warming signal seen in mooring-based and oceanographic survey data collected in 2004 in the Eurasian Basin of the Arctic Ocean. The source of this and earlier Arctic Ocean changes lies in interactions between polar and sub-polar basins. Evidence suggests such changes are abrupt, or pulse-like, taking the form of propagating anomalies that can be traced to higher-latitudes. For example, an anomaly found in 2004 in the eastern Eurasian Basin took 1.5 years to propagate from the Norwegian Sea to the Fram Strait region, and additional 4.5–5 years to reach the Laptev Sea slope."
Many scientists have shown that the current rapid warming of the Arctic is not much "room" for CO2. For me, the most interesting works are:
- Piechura, Walczowski (2009) Warming of the West Spitsbergen Current and sea ice north of Svalbard ,
- Alekseev et al. (2007) Arctic Sea Ice Data Sets in the Context of Climate Change During the 20th Century,
- Chylek et al. (2009), Arctic air temperature change amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
23.
Ken Lambert at 23:37 PM on 2 June, 2010
Arkadiusz Semczyszak #22
Seems like AS has cited some pretty strong evidence that while the Arctic has warmed - the warming is not as strong as 90 years ago.
The most likely global cause 90 years ago was Solar variation and local cyclical warming currents like the AMO.
24.
CBDunkerson at 23:48 PM on 2 June, 2010
Arkadiusz and Ken, a novel approach... as it is clear that the Arctic sea ice is melting now insist that it isn't due to global warming.
The problem is that the 'evidence' of this isn't strong at all. You're talking about fragmentary records from a century ago. Nobody was doing surveys of the entire Arctic back then. You can't say that because Spitsbergen experienced a warm period (similar to the recent trend) that this means the entire Arctic basin did. At that we don't have any accurate >ice< data for that time period... ok, ice around Spitsbergen retreated. How much exactly? How widespread was this ice retreat? It is pure guesswork.
As to the current warming being all down to the ocean rather than CO2... the ocean is warmer BECAUSE of CO2, ergo ocean driven warming IS CO2 warming.
25.
chriscanaris at 01:47 AM on 3 June, 2010
CBDunkerson @ 21
I don't make a big deal out of things being average - I'm merely pointing citing the site quoted in the post which reads as, well, average. Moreover, IARC JAXA tracks the ice level today as being exactly at 2006 levels which was followed by what turned into the second largest sea ice extent in the data presented only to be followed by the 2007 plummet. I don't want to cherry pick so all I would say is that the divergences in the data set from the NSIDC graph illustrates the uncertainties in the science.
kdkd @ 19
Thanks for the reference. I'll have a peek behind the pay wall. As a doctor, I have a fair bit of experience with tipping points - eventually, we all confront a humongous tipping called death. At a less dramatic level, the transition from a mild to severe illness or from being a person at risk to a very sick person is often retrospectively easy to track. However, keeping people (and a human being is the epitome of a complex system) healthy is another story involving risk management decisions and my experience suggests we don't do it well.
I note the abstract says as much.
26.
dhogaza at 02:58 AM on 3 June, 2010
I would say is that the divergences in the data set from the NSIDC graph illustrates the uncertainties in the science.
NSIDC and JAXA agree closely in trend. They use different running averages (5 vs. 2 day) and of course a different algorithm processing data from different sensors.
The biggest difference of course is that the NSIDC data goes back over thirty years, and JAXA less than a decade.
So your daily tea-leaf reading of their graphic output might lead you to think that JAXA supports the notion that things are "almost average" while the longer-term data shown by NSIDC makes it clear that it's not. Greater than two sigmas down from the 1979-2000 baseline (JAXA first year is 2002) and diverging rapidly.
27.
tobyjoyce at 03:14 AM on 3 June, 2010
John Russell,
I relate to what you say. Monckton's plummy voice is probably a selling point for much of the globe because they link it with honesty and probity. However, to an Irishman or a Scotsman, he is at a definite discount!
28.
doug_bostrom at 03:43 AM on 3 June, 2010
I believe Monckton's most effective part in this drama is his ability to highlight and maintain uncertainty. Regarding uncertainties and the role they play in formulating coherent and useful policy response to AGW, it's interesting to read what the U.S. GOP pollster and thought-leader Frank Luntz wrote about the crucial role of uncertainty in public discussion of climate science.
Luntz:
Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate...
Entire Luntz memo, influential, with eerily familiar tone and content, breathtakingly cynical:
THE ENVIRONMENT: A CLEANER SAFER, HEALTHIER AMERICA
I think this key issue of promoting and maintaining a sense of uncertainty is why the IPCC has been the subject of concentrated attack by Monckton and others. As Luntz noted prior to IPCC's 2007 report, "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science." The IPCC reports represent that window, which has closed still further since Luntz wrote his memo. Whether promoters of uncertainty will be able to withstand what's becoming an overwhelming flood of similar messages (recent NRC report, for instance) is an open question.
29.
chris at 04:40 AM on 3 June, 2010
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:23 PM on 2 June, 2010
Ken Lambert at 23:37 PM on 2 June, 2010
We should be a little more careful with the scientific literature. Looking at the paper that Arkadiusz excerpts from (Polyakov, I. V., et al. (2005) [*]) reinforces CBDunkerson's point, namely that the primary source of warming has been the persistent warming trend over the 20th century. [n.b. it’s also worth reading the last sentence of the abstract which Arkadiusz omitted from his excerpt-click on my link].
Polyakov et al (2005) explicitly highlight this background warming trend. If you look at their Figure 3, the Figure legend states:
"Long-term variability of temperature of the intermediate AW of the Arctic Ocean. Prolonged warm (red shade) and cold (blue shade) periods associated with phases of multi-decadal variability and a background warming trend are apparent from the record of 6-year running mean normalized AW temperature anomalies (dashed segments represent gaps in the record)."
Also one can't really conclude that (concerning current warming) "the warming is not as strong as 90 years ago" from Arkadiusz papers. If we take the paper he excerpted from, we would conclude the opposite. Polyakov et al (2005)’s Figure 3 indicates that the current warming period has taken Arctic temperatures higher than in the early 20th century, and the more general evidence for that is strong.
In any case, despite the limited direct measures of Arctic temperatures/sea ice extent etc. from ~100 years ago, we do have independent evidence that the warming from that period was considerably less significant compared to current Arctic warming since Arctic land ice melt produces a worldwide sea level signal; the rather slow rates of sea level rise in the early parts of the 20th century compared to current rates of rise is rather strong evidence for an absence of major persistent Arctic warming in the earlier period that matches the current period.
It’s also worth pointing out that the early 20th century Arctic warming likely had a strong, and perhaps dominant influence from the effects of volcanic aerosols to which the Greenland ice sheet temperatures, in particular, seem particularly vulnerable (volcanic aerosols strongly cool these). So the evidence supports the interpretation that late 19th century, early 20th century strong volcanic activity knocked back temperatures and suppressed small solar and greenhouse-forced temperature rise in the Arctic during this period. Much of the enhanced warming from 1910/1915 (which likely was rapid) was probably a recovery from this volcanic-induced temperature suppression of accumulated solar and greenhouse-forcings which were “unleashed” rather quickly (see e.g. Box et al. (2009) [**]).
A concern with respect to current Arctic warming (especially in the case of Greenland) is that Greenland warming is expected to be “in phase” with Northern Hemisphere warming, and although it has warmed considerably during the last 20-odd years (and started to release rather significant meltwater), it hasn’t recovered this phase relationship following the temperature statis during the mid-20th century. So [see Box et al. (2009) link just above] we may have some 1-1.5 oC of warming “catch up” to come. Clearly the situation in the Arctic now is very different indeed from the situation in the early 20th century.
[*]Polyakov, I. V., et al. (2005), One more step toward a warmer Arctic Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L17605.
[**] Box, J. E. et al. (2009) Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840-2007 J. Climate 22, 4029-4049.
30.
doug_bostrom at 05:08 AM on 3 June, 2010
Amending my previous comment, it's actually "doubt" as opposed to "uncertainty" that is promoted by Monckton, Luntz et al. It's not surprising Luntz should carelessly substitute one term for the other; despite all the references to science in Luntz's memo the focus is not at all on science, it's on public optics.
31.
johnd at 07:20 AM on 3 June, 2010
This article "NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face" (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131) and "Arctic Oscillation (AO) time series, 1899 - June 2002" (http://jisao.washington.edu/ao/) may provide some historical perspective for the Arkadiusz posts
32.
Riccardo at 07:58 AM on 3 June, 2010
One of the good things of this site is that people can learn. Apparently the last successful lesson was on the Artic Oscillation impact on Arctic climate; i guess next one will be that scientists didn't discovered it today nor yesterday. And second next that they did take it into account and it does not explain current melting.
33.
johnd at 08:41 AM on 3 June, 2010
Riccardo at 07:58 AM, whilst the link between Arctic Ocean circulation and AO detected by NASA was reported just over 2 years ago, I am not as confident as you appear to be, that all that there is to learn on how the link relates with all other factors under all circumstances, has in fact been learnt.
It is more likely that the understanding has barely started.
Salinity is obviously a very important factor in understanding ice formation, not only for the present or the future, but for understanding past cycles.
As is noted in the article, "the results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming", is perhaps something to keep in mind.
34.
HumanityRules at 10:07 AM on 3 June, 2010
15.chriscanaris
I've read that paper, I'd recommend a look.It makes some interesting observations about the state of the ice, speculastes on what may have occured in the 2008 season and of course presents some thickness data for 2007 and 2009. It's general conclusion is that ice thickness has slightly increased between 2007 and 2009. They add that this is within the range of natural variability, I wonder given the pausity of ice thickness data how you quantify such a thing. Anyway apart from that it's a very interesting read. Pro-AGW, but I have to say one that doesn't let the need for headlines get in the way of the science.
24.CBDunkerson at 23:48 PM on 2 June, 2010
So you favour an idea that the 1930-40's weren't a warm period. That there wasn't some exceptional ice melt in that period and that the Arctic wasn't warm? I thought it's been established that the 1930-40s were a period of relative global warmth I don't see why the Arctic should be excluded from that. All older records are by their nature fragmentary. It would be hard to argue that the complete temperature record was truely global before recent decades (think about the oceans). Always we work with what we have. And what we have suggests that there were periods of considerable Arctic ice melt. Don't ignore this, put it into a workable AGW theory.
35.
chriscanaris at 12:49 PM on 3 June, 2010
dhogaza @ 26
Your comment about the much lengthier NSIDC measures is valid. However, the point I'm making is that we still don't have a gold standard way of measuring what the ice is doing. Consequently, different algorithms give divergent results. We don't know what the trend would have been had the JAXA algorithm been available thirty years ago. I assume the likely answer would be 'more extensive ice' but in reality we don't know.
This highlights the problems that arise from metaanalysis - we don't know whether we are comparing like with like even when we are attempting to measure the same variable.
Humanity Rules @ 34 Thanks for the tip - I'll splurge :)
36.
ubrew12 at 13:34 PM on 3 June, 2010
CoalGeologist at 09:44 AM on 2 June said: "Anyone who has heard Monckton speak will know that he's not a stupid man, yet he says things that have no scientific foundation. He must have seen the same data as are reported here, yet chooses to misrepresent it. The question is why does he do it?"
At the risk of being unscientific (and thus rejected), I must say I think this is a critically important question. Why are intelligent people rejecting GW science out of hand? Increasingly, it clearly is not about the science. If you've heard Monckton speak when the subject turns to economics, I think you'll have your answer. The passion is for a healthy free-market capitalism; they see themselves as the defenders of economic freedom in a world beset by collectivist thought. Even making the economic argument that Paul Krugman makes in a recent editorial, that GW remediation is expected to cost only half of what nonremediation is likely to cost, in the 21st century, doesn't register for people like Monckton. I believe that for him there is a fundamental tenet of individual freedom at risk here, and people who think likewise are his best audience.
Somehow, the debate on GW needs to begin to address these apparently real fears of economic collectivism. Especially here in America too many people hold such fears. There's a common-sense saying 'united we stand, divided we fall'. For people like Monckton, this saying is exactly backwards as regards economic decisionmaking. For them, the prospect of people uniting against a common threat, like GW, heralds the end of society. I wish I understood better where such extraordinary fear comes from, but its a powerful motivator. In service to the 'greater good' of combating collectivism, it literally doesn't care how strong the scientific case for GW can be made, and is certainly not above fudging data to combat it. It really is fighting a crusade, of some kind. And, unfortunately for us, it's often winning that crusade. Its not winning the science debate, but its winning the policy debate.
37.
RSVP at 19:56 PM on 3 June, 2010
ubrew12
On your comment about, "...fighting a crusade, of some kind. "....
politically speaking, that would be "the War on Heat".
Also, your use of "GW" might be confusing to some.
38.
CBDunkerson at 20:43 PM on 3 June, 2010
HumanityRules #34, odd that I didn't SAY any of the views you talk about me 'favoring'. What I DID say is that we don't have sufficient data about Arctic conditions around the 1930s to support claims that 'it was warmer then than now' and/or that 'ice loss then was comparable to current'.
Yes, we work with what we have... and nothing we have supports those claims. Indeed, there is strong evidence that the 30s/40s were nowhere nears as warm as current globally... which would tend to argue against taking the lack of Arctic data as an excuse to assume that region was hotter. We work with what he have. Not with things that somebody just 'made up'.
39.
CBDunkerson at 22:47 PM on 3 June, 2010
New study just out which says that sediment analysis suggests current Arctic sea ice levels are the lowest in at least the past few thousand years.
Study - fee site
News article
40.
dhogaza at 23:11 PM on 3 June, 2010
However, the point I'm making is that we still don't have a gold standard way of measuring what the ice is doing. Consequently, different algorithms give divergent results. We don't know what the trend would have been had the JAXA algorithm been available thirty years ago. I assume the likely answer would be 'more extensive ice' but in reality we don't know.
JAXA and NSIDC show similar trends, I don't get why you think they're significantly different. Similar trends with different algorithms applied to data from different sensors.
A "divergent result" would be a significantly different trend, and this simply isn't the case.
Area calculations by the cryosphere today people show a similar trend.
And there's evidence that if anything the satellite sensors overestimate ice when it has broken up.
If you believe that what we're seeing is an artifact of poor or reliable instrumentation, you're living in fantasy land. Those were real ships sailing the northeast passage last summer, encountering exactly the kind of ice conditions reported by the various satellite data processing groups.
41.
chris at 02:53 AM on 4 June, 2010
HumanityRules at 10:07 AM on 3 June, 2010
Kinnard et al. (2008) have used historical and contemporary records of sea ice to reconstruct an Arctic sea ice record (maximum and minimum extent) since 1870. Both the maximum and minimum sea ice extents were considerably larger during the early warming period (e.g. 1910-1940) compared to the contremporary warming period (see Figure 2 of their paper if you can access it). It simply wasn't as warm in the Arctic in the early part of the 20th century as now and the evidence indicates that sea ice regression was much less pronounced than the contemporary period.
And we have to be careful with regional effects. The Spitzbergen temperature/ice variations that Arkadiusz referred to relates to a quite well understood local effect due to periodic influx of Atlantic waters into the Nordic seas, as described by Macias Fauria et al (2009). So if one was to assume that historic sea ice dynamics around Spitzbergen was representative of the whole Arctic, one might indeed construct a fallacious AGW theory. However scientists (as opposed to Moncktons!) are trying to find stuff out. Therefore they generally address the evidence in its entirety and with some attention to detail.
So all of what we know about the warming in the early part of the 20th century is incorporated in "a workable AGW theory", some of which is described briefly on this thread here. We don't make stuff up to suit comfy scenarios. As the paper that Arkadiusz's extracted from concludes the evidence indicates that "...the Arctic is on its way to a new warmer state".
42.
KeepinItReal at 10:24 AM on 4 June, 2010
John,
Great work to go through all of Monkton's data and put together a rebuttal. However, I think that what you have done needs to be put together in a way that is more succinct and snappier. This will make it accessible to a much wider audience, one that "has better things to do with their time" as you correctly intone in your last slide.
Response: Perhaps the YouTube videos are this succinct, snappy version. We have the full presentation video, the shorter YouTube videos and now separate blog posts. Not sure how many more ways we can repackage the rebuttals.
43.
chris at 19:50 PM on 5 June, 2010
Passing Wind at 18:57 PM on 5 June, 2010
That doesn't make too much sense Passing Wind. Monckton is asserting that the MWP was warmer than now. In order to pursue this point he shows a selection of data which is either rather old or is not representative of global or hemispheric temperatures. So he's misrepresenting the evidence that bears on our understanding of the temperatures of the last 2000 years.
You single out SP Huangs work so let's look at that. You consider that Monckton's use of Huangs 2007 (not "2008" incidentally) borehole data that apparently shows greater MWP warming than contemporary warming is acceptable evidence in support of Monckton's notion.
However Huang has repeatedly pointed out that his 1997 paper has nothing to say about the relative warming of the MWP and current temperatures since there are essentially no post-19th century temperatures in his borehole record since data from the top 100 metres of the boreholes wasn't used so as to exclude artefacts due to non-climatic influences.
This could hardly be stated more clearly in one of Huang's more recent papers:
"[8] One very important aspect of data selection relevant to the debate about whether the MWP was warmer than 20th century temperatures, is mentioned explicitly in HPS97 in the section on Data:
“We excluded data with representative depths less than 100 m … [because] …the uppermost 100 meters is the depth range most susceptible to non-climatic perturbations…; moreover, subsurface temperature measurements in this range yield information principally about the most recent century”.
[9] The consequence of excluding the upper 100 meters is that the 20,000 year reconstructions in HPS97 contain virtually no information about the 20th century. As the authors of HPS97 we can be criticized for not stating explicitly in the abstract and figure caption that the ‘present’ (the zero on the time axis) really represents something like the end of the 19th century, rather than the end of the 20th century. At the time we published that paper our focus was on trying to extract a broad-brush representation of Late Quaternary surface temperature variability that might be overprinted on the ensemble of world-wide continental heat flux measurements. We did not anticipate that a comparison of late 20th century and Medieval Warm Period temperatures would later become a contentious issue.
That's pretty clear. Monckton surely knows it too. The issue is whether we are interested in what the evidence shows with respect to historical temperatures, or whether we are interested in creating an "impression" of what we would like the evidence to show. It's only in the latter case would we pretend that very well know clarification of previous work doesn't exist.
44.
chris at 20:01 PM on 5 June, 2010
O.K. so I seem to be addressing thin air... There was a rather snarky post insinuating illogic against Dr. Abrahams analysis of Monckton's treatment of paleodata....it seems to have gone AWOL
incidentally I meant:
You consider that Monckton's use of Huangs 1997 (not "1998" incidentally) borehole data that apparently shows greater MWP warming than contemporary warming is acceptable evidence in support of Monckton's notion.
45.
Passing Wind at 21:29 PM on 5 June, 2010
I am not surprised to see how much interest Abraham is receiving within the blogosphere since his attempted take down of Lord Monckton's St Paul presentation. Monckton is well know for his anti-AGW position as well as his eloquent speaking style. Some have claimed Monckton is loose with facts and high on rhetoric. A thorough fact-check seemed overdue.
Abraham starts off by explaining why he feels qualified to bring Monckton down, then compares Monckton's, Al Gore's and the IPCC's sea level claims, and then polar bears. Hardly central issues until we get to slide 24 - The MWP.
Finally, some meat. Abraham makes the following statement.
"If 700 scientists say the medieval warm period was warmer than it is today, why are we concerned? That's a legitimate [garbled] If, if it was warmer than it is today then maybe we are in a natural warming period."
Abraham's slides from 25 to 32 attempt to debunk Monckton's claim that 700 scientists believed the MWP to be warmer than today. He attempts to debunk this by looking at some of Monckton's citations, Esper and Schweingruber (2004) , Keigwin (1996), Noon et al (2003), and Huang et al (1998) by reading some of the papers and asking the authors. "Let's do something crazy, let's either read the actual papers or ask the authors..."
How well did he do? Here are some of my observations:
1. Abraham makes no mention of actually reading Esper and Schweingruber (2004). Perhaps he did, but fails to mention it. Abraham emails Schweingruber "to ask whether Monckton correctly interpreted his findings". Schweingruber tells him he's retired, so he refereed [sic] him to his mate Frank instead. Frank claims "temperatures now, are indeed much warmer than the Medieval period." This may be the case, but it clearly isn't evidence that Monckton misrepresented Esper and Schweingruber. Why didn't Schweingruber say Monckton was wrong himself? A quick look at the paper in question clearly shows a MWP (figure 10) that was much warmer than it is today.
2. Abraham emails Keigan and once again makes no mention to having read the paper in question. Keigan does not claim Monckton is misrepresenting his research or that the graph Monckton shows is incorrect. Keigan asks for a free trip so he can come down and explain himself, "if someone was willing to send me down to St. Thomas I would be delighted to explain in person", and he also agrees with Monckton regarding constructing nuclear power stations.
The abstract to Keigan et al (1996), states "Results from a radiocarbon-dated box core show that SST was ~1°C cooler than today ~400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and ~1°C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period).". This seems to support the existence of the MWP.
3. Abraham then shows the cover of Noon et al (2003) but rather than comment on the contents, he looks up the website of Viv Jones, one of the Noon et al (2003) authors instead. There he finds the following statement, "The Arctic region is currently undergoing rapid climate warming" and accordingly uses this as evidence that Monckton cited Noon et al (2003) inappropriately.
4. Finally, Abraham attempts to show Monckton's use of Huang et al (1998) graph is wrong, not by reference to that paper, but to a paper by Huang in 2008. Never mind that in the paper in question, Huang et al stated
"Temperatures were also warmer than present 500–1,000 years ago, but then cooled to a minimum some 0.2–0.7 K below present about 200 years ago."
The use of Huang by Monckton seems rather selective, especially given Huang's later work no longer supports a warmer MWP, but does not claim the MWP did not exist.
All in all, Abraham has not provided any reason not to accept Monckton's evidence for a MWP, with perhaps the minor point that Huang has partially recanted his earlier claim. However, since Monckton was, in part, suggesting the IPCC had disappeared the MWP, but does not explicitly state this, I'll call this small point a draw.
Perhaps Abraham would have been better served had he approached debunking these points by showing that the authors to the cited papers had since changed their mind and that Monckton should have been aware of this. Alas, this is not the direction he chose, even though a teenie weenie part of this argument does leak out, even though never explicitly stated.
Overall, I find that Abraham has very much failed to disprove Monckton in the most important question. I have no idea if he managed any better in other parts as I did not examine the rest as closely (yet).
Sorry for the longish post. Hopefully it was not too boring. I look forward to any comments or corrections.
46.
Passing Wind at 22:26 PM on 5 June, 2010
chris at 20:01 PM on 5 June, 2010
Monckton's slide as shown by Abrahams cites Huang et al (1998), not 1997 as you suggest. See Abraham's slide 25. In that paper, Huang et al state, "Temperatures were also warmer than present 500–1,000 years ago, but then cooled to a minimum some 0.2–0.7 K below present about 200 years ago."
If this comment, which I plucked from the abstract, is not supported in that paper, I'd like to know as I only have access to the abstract.
47.
Passing Wind at 23:05 PM on 5 June, 2010
chris at 20:01 PM on 5 June, 2010
I should also add that Huang et al paper is indeed 1997, although Monckton does cite it as 1998 (which is the point I was making above). The full citation is: Huang, S., H. N. Pollack, and P. Y. Shen (1997), Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in world‐wide continental heat flow measurements, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24(15), 1947–1950, doi:10.1029/97GL01846.
Chris, I didn't single out Huang, or any of the other references, Abraham did. He chose to debunk Monckton's claim by examining 4 of the 9 charts Monckton uses on that slide. My only interest was whether Abraham had provided evidence that Monckton misrepresented the data in his slide. Further, I only examined that proposition from Abraham's argument.
I completely agree with you regarding what Monckton should have known about CURRENT literature regarding the MWP. This most likely means Monckton "cherry picked" his citations, but that was not the point Abraham was trying to debunk.
Post a Comment
Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...
You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.
© Copyright 2010 John Cook Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us
Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
"http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-shows-Monckton-wrong-on-Arctic-sea-ice.html">Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Home Arguments iPhone App Recent Comments Translations Links Support SkS
Twitter RSS Posts RSS Posts RSS Posts RSS Posts
to keep Skeptical
Science going
iPhone app
Wednesday, 2 June, 2010
Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Guest post by John Abraham
Recently, our good friend Christopher Monckton has been giving public lectures showing the faults of climate science and scientists. Fortunately, his work has shown that we really don’t have anything to fear. Global warming isn’t happening and, if it is, the world will be better off. At least that is the story I heard when listening to his latest lecture. The problem for Monckton is that I am a scientist that knows a thing or two about energy and the environment. Since Monckton’s position was opposite of everything I have researched, I thought I needed to do a bit of digging. Let’s see what I discovered…
Chris Monckton showed the following graph, taken from the IARC-JAXA (International Arctic Research Center – Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency). He claims that “arctic ice extent is just fine: steady for a decade”. According to Monckton, there is no cause for concern. In fact, this image is a screen shot of Monckton’s presentation.
This was really surprising, I thought the arctic has experienced incredible ice losses over the past decades. I decided to ask the Director of the IARC, Larry Hinzman. Here is what I asked him…
“Dear Dr. Hinzman,
Pardon this question but I am a thermal sciences professor who frequently gives lectures on the dangers of climate change. Recently, a climate change skeptic, Christopher Monckton, has used information from your organization to suggest that there is no decrease in arctic sea ice. In fact, to quote Chris, Arctic sea-ice extent is just fine: steady for a decade.
I do not believe that your group’s work shows this. In fact, I believe the research from your organization indicates a clear fingerprint of global warming on ice extent.
Can you clarify whose views are more correct, mine or Mr. Monckton?”
I thought that was a fair representation. Here is Dr. Hinzman’s reply…
Maybe Larry isn’t really up to date on arctic ice. I had better get a second opinion from Dr. John Walsh, Chief Scientist at IARC. Here is his reply.
Dr. Walsh referred me to NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center). Let’s see what they say about arctic ice loss. They have year-to-year graphs of ice coverage. Here is their data showing year-to-year ice variations. Notice the continual decline over the past 30 years?
Wow, this doesn’t agree with what Monckton told me. Perhaps I am misinterpreting this graph. I had better ask who is correct, Monckton or me? Well, let’s see what Mark Serreze said…
Oh, by the way, Mark Serreze is the Director of NSIDC…. I think he might know.
You can check things out yourself. There are links to three international organizations that provide information about arctic sea ice. As of this writing, June 1, 2010, all three organizations showed the ice extent at unprecedented lows. Go see for yourself.
National Snow and Ice Data Center
Danmarks Meterologiske Institut, Centre for Ocean and Ice
IARC-JAXA
So,I guess Monckton got his facts wrong. He referenced the IARC-JAXA and two of their employees disagree with his conclusion. This is the first of Monckton’s errors that I’ll be exposing in a series of blogs. You can watch a video of my rebuttal presentation.
I have also broken my rebuttal into shortened segments and placed them online through Youtube. Please watch these and give feedback.
UPDATE FROM SKEPTICAL SCIENCE: we will be deleting any comments that personally insult Monckton. You're welcome to critique his science but ad hominem attacks and personal insults are not welcome.
Posted by John Abraham at 07:00 AM
Bookmark and Share Printable Version | Link to this page
Comments
Comments 1 to 47:
1.
Jim Eager at 07:31 AM on 2 June, 2010
Prof. Abraham, I watched your entire take-down of Monckton's nonsense and disinformation. Well done, sir!
2.
Leo G at 07:33 AM on 2 June, 2010
Thanx John. I love Lord Monckton's talks. His delivery is very good. I let myself enjoy his jokes and his excellent connection with the audience. I just have problems with his content. No biggy though. If taken for entertainment sake only, a very positive experience.
3.
Dennis at 08:57 AM on 2 June, 2010
While some may find Monckton entertaining, I do not.
He has been invited repeatedly to testify on the subject of climate science before committees of the United States Congress. His testimony appears in the record and is used by some members of the Congress to justify their beliefs that global warming is not real. Monckton's testimony has contributed to the fact that the United States has yet to pass legislation to reduce is CO2 emissions.
John Abraham, if you have time, perhaps you could watch Monckton's most recent testimony and provide the same excellent scientific critique to that as you have done above. You can find a video of his testimony here: http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0018#main_content
4.
CoalGeologist at 09:44 AM on 2 June, 2010
Leo G, and any others who might find Monckton to be amusing,
I have a problem with much more than Monckton's 'content', as I fail to find humor or entertainment value in a someone who employs deception and subterfuge to create misunderstanding. Climate change is a serious topic that demands serious and honest dialog. Anyone who has heard Monckton speak will know that he's not a stupid man, yet he says things that have no scientific foundation. He must have seen the same data as are reported here, yet chooses to misrepresent it. The question is why does he do it? And why does he retain credibility with so many people despite having a terribly biased agenda, and--in my best Queen's English--an unfortunate proclivity to dissemble.
It is these questions--and not issues of science--that lie at the heart of AGW Denialism.
Thanks to Prof. Abraham for patiently addressing Monckton's misinformation. I will again refer SkS readers to an informative set of exposes on Monckton, including an amusing discussion of the hot pink portcullis appearing on the top slide of this post. Debunking Lord Monckton Part 1 and Debunking Lord Monckton Part 2
5.
doug_bostrom at 10:07 AM on 2 June, 2010
Picking Arctic ice as a point of contention is a mystifying choice on Monckton's part, truly, especially compounded with the attached requirement of "don't believe your lying eyes."
Others have said that Monckton's appeal and reach here in the U.S. is partly down to his accent. I think it's also about his title, reverberations of our special relationship w/Great Britain.
An eye-catching feature of the graph John reproduced is Monckton's own choice of adding an oversized crowned portcullis on the graph. It's suggestive, but of what? An official imprimatur? Here's some information on that symbol, including guidelines on appropriate use. Suffice it to say, Monckton's use of the crowned portcullis is dodgy in its own right, quite apart from the content it adorns. He's not a member of either House and his communications have no official status but he's certainly trying to convey -some- impression by his selection of decorative artwork.
6.
Mythago at 10:30 AM on 2 June, 2010
Thank you John for the take down on Lord Monckton. Your time and effort is greatly appreciated.
One little bit you may like to add to the Greenland ice sheet altitude increase section to explain the increase in height is the reflex action of land masses when the load of glacial ice has been removed. The landmass will rise once this has happened and this alone would explain the altitude increase. It happens to all large landmasses and may also influence sea level rise to the negative a little. I haven't read the paper by the Danish scientist yet but will when I get time.
Apart from that you might also like to add the Hadley Institute in the UK as a source of reliable data regarding climate change.
Looking forward to the next instalment.
7.
HumanityRules at 13:30 PM on 2 June, 2010
Eschenbach would have it that the difference in Monckton and John's graphs is the scale.
Lord M seems wrong but you'd have to put that sentence in context. If it is in connection with 'death-spirals' or ice-free arctics this decade then there may be some justification for the use of steady (in that sort of context). Let be clear the data he presented isn't fake, it's just what conclusion he draws from it.
Just as an aside. I have a bit of trouble with the focus on sceptics as the biggest barrier to moving forward on climate change. While mainstream politicians might talk up climate change I don't really see any great enthusiasm to turn that into action, especially the sort of real action needed if the alarmists are to be believed. The Labour Party in Australia dropped thier ETS fairly sharpish once it appeared to have little upside for them politically.
8.
doug_bostrom at 13:40 PM on 2 June, 2010
HR, we often don't agree but I concur w/you on your third paragraph. I actually don't think most politicians are in significant disagreement with scientists on this matter, Monckton and the rest of the seemingly anti-science troops don't seem to have much real pull. Not to say there's no effect from all the chatter, more that responding to the climate issue mainly falls in the same vein as other nebulous threats such as future possible earthquakes. Our politics are dominated by short wavelength matters unpredictably spaced, "noise" as we'd call it if looking at a graph.
9.
NewYorkJ at 13:47 PM on 2 June, 2010
I'm perhaps pointing out the obvious here, but the main problem with Monckton's presentation of the data (at least it appears to be accurate in this case) is that the graph he uses is not really useful in showing trends from year to year or over a decade. It's meant to show the path of Arctic sea ice extent over the course of a single year, and compare the path with a relatively few recent years. It's rather difficult to sort out all those lines/colors for each year to discern where the trend is at the decadal level. The NSIDC graph is an obvious solution.
Since we're on the topic of obfuscating with graphs, here's a similar one by a Willis Eschenbach. It makes Monckton's presentation look almost reasonable on comparison:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/13/lies-damned-lies-statistics-and-graphs/
The WUWT alter ego site puts it nicely...
http://wotsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/lies-damned-lies-statistics-%e2%80%a6-and-graphs/
10.
chriscanaris at 15:01 PM on 2 June, 2010
WUWT vs Skeptical Science - the battle of the graphs!
11.
KeenOn350 at 16:06 PM on 2 June, 2010
Just want to say thanks for excellent, painstaking, detailed refutation of Moncton's materials/presentation.
12.
chriscanaris at 17:00 PM on 2 June, 2010
PS: From The National Snow and Ice Data Center:
'Arctic sea ice extent averaged 14.69 million square kilometers (5.67 square miles) for the month of April, just 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. The rate of ice extent decline for the month was also close to average, at 41,000 kilometers (16,000 square miles) per day. As a result, April 2010 fell well within one standard deviation of the mean for the month, and posted the highest April extent since 2001.
Ice extent remained slightly above average in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk, and slightly below average in the Barents Sea north of Scandinavia, and in Baffin Bay, where ice extent remained below average all winter.'
All sounds pretty average to me.
13.
philipm at 17:02 PM on 2 June, 2010
This ice thing is really silly. You don't have to be a professor to take it down but thanks anyway for doing so: my point is not that you needn't do this, but that the anti-science is inexpert. You'd think the multi-billion dollar fossil fuels industry would be able to defend its interests better than that. Then again, looking at what BP is currently doing, maybe not.
Recently on my blog I did a retrospective of the prediction in The Australian in April 2009 that a big drop in sunspots presaged an ice age. What's so nice about this anti-science stuff is that the predictions are so hard to take down. When they make predictions. What's not so nice is they are still winning the propaganda war, and the Laws of Physics don't play nice with people who violate them.
Aside from Arctic sea ice extent (which in the latest data is dipping below the 2007 low), Antarctic and Greenland ice volume are crashing, as reported elsewhere on this site. Even in the Antarctic, volume measures are crashing, indicating area will follow as soon as we have a warmer than average summer because there's less thick multi-seasonal ice.
14.
daisym at 17:43 PM on 2 June, 2010
An article posted on May 29, 2010 in the blog 'Watts Up With That' claims that Arctic ice has increased. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/29/arctic-ice-volume-has-increased-25-since-may-2008/?utm_source=co2hog .
The article by Steve Goddard and Anthony Watts says that, according to the U.S. Navy's PIPS sea ice forecast data, Arctic ice volume has increased by 25% since May, 2008. One of the functions of the PIPS forecasting model is to help identify ice that is too thick for penetration by the Navy's nuclear submarines. PIPS is a computer model, and as such, it could be wrong, but the Navy hangs their hat on it for operational purposes.
There appears to be some ambiguity in the way the Navy's model manipulates the data compared to the way the scientist's model does.
How can these differences be reconciled? Who's right... the Navy or the scientists? Or is WUWT off the mark?
15.
chriscanaris at 18:40 PM on 2 June, 2010
From:
Christian Haas, Stefan Hendricks, Andreas Herber: Synoptic airborne thickness surveys reveal state of Arctic sea ice cover GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L09501, 5 PP., 2010
While summer Arctic sea-ice extent has decreased over the past three decades, it is subject to large interannual and regional variations. Methodological challenges in measuring ice thickness continue to hamper our understanding of the response of the ice-thickness distribution to recent change, limiting the ability to forecast sea-ice change over the next decade. We present results from a 2400 km long pan-Arctic airborne electromagnetic (EM) ice thickness survey in April 2009, the first-ever large-scale EM thickness dataset obtained by fixed-wing aircraft over key regions of old ice in the Arctic Ocean between Svalbard and Alaska. The data provide detailed insight into ice thickness distributions characteristic for the different regions. Comparison with previous EM surveys shows that modal thicknesses of old ice had changed little since 2007, and remained within the expected range of natural variability.
I haven't splurged out to go beyond the abstract. It's just another random paper which leaves me thinking that the jury's still out.
My main reservation about some of the fascinating and informative scientific argument on this site lies in the assumption that lots of trends pointing in the same direction suggest a robust conclusion (effectively metaanalysis). Metaanalysis has numerous limitations and can obscure as much as it can illuminate (for example, comparing apples and oranges).
Equally, I have very little time for the Monckton/ Plimer modus operandi (the former claiming authority and expertise which is manifestly lacking while the latter being less than rigorous in his referencing to say the least) which equally oversimplify to the point of making sensible discussion impossible.
16.
John Russell at 18:56 PM on 2 June, 2010
I've spent some time in the past refuting some of Monckton's lectures and posting the results to various groups. I'm no scientist, but then neither is Monckton so it's not difficult to find what he's done in support of his deliberate campaign of misinformation. As a writer and director of films -- a role that also extends to producing visuals for conferences and presentations, I understand what he's doing. There are a couple of observations worth making.
1) Monckton, like many other anti-climate change lobbyists, specifically targets an audience that has limited scientific understanding of the subject. He knows the argument is not about science, it's about PR; about creating a groundswell of public opinion.
2) Monckton is not interested in addressing the counter-arguments of his more scientifically literate critics (like the people who frequent SkSc, I guess). His work is done long before we pull it apart.
3) Monckton -- for the sake of clarity he would say -- redraws ALL the graphs he uses in his presentations. He almost invariably changes the scale or truncates the timeline, or uses other tricks to change the essential message of the graph. Graph one of John's article is a perfect example of this. By concentrating on seasonal change and thus exaggerating the much more subtle annual variations in sea ice extent, he's able to give the impression to his specifically-targeted audience that all's tickety-boo.
4) If you look at a video of any of his lectures (there are plenty to find on Youtube) you'll note that he uses graphs and illustrations in rapid succession, just giving an impression and not allowing the audience to either study or think in any detail about the graph he's presented.
5) It's a well known fact in presentation that the words being spoken should follow closely any words being shown on screen. The human brain cannot read one set of words and listen to another at the same time. One either listens or reads. Monckton knows this and by talking rapidly and authoritatively he ensures the audience cannot analyse his graph. The only time the on-screen words and his voice coincide is when he reads the title at the top; in this case, "Arctic sea ice just fine... etc." One is just left with an impression. It's no accident that the titles of his graphs are the spoken word, rather than the more formal descriptive text a scientist would use.
6) He often leaves off the information one needs to authenticate the graph. He'll use enough to meet his purpose of providing credibility; not enough information for someone to be able to check out the original quickly.
7) He's a good presenter. He knows his upper-class English voice works well, particularly with people from the colonies (if you'll excuse the expression) -- which is probably why he does so many tours abroad. We working-class Brits hear it for what it is (I'll not say what, for fear of being moderated).
To sum up. Anyone attending a Monckton lecture is being manipulated with great skill. Throughout history there have been other great orators who did this. 'Nough said.
Hope that helps.
17.
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:09 PM on 2 June, 2010
Also, I think about the Arctic ice experts - should speak out, others can only cite them, but ...
"Unprecedented" ...
Monckton is not a scientist about "the ice" ... but ...
... Polish professor Marsz all his long "scientific" life deal with the Arctic ice (recently also Antarctic).
March of the first explains:
"The correlation coefficient between the average annual surface ice (extent), and the value AMOMSar a year is equal to -0.80 (p <0.00001,>ice< data for that time period... ok, ice around Spitsbergen retreated. How much exactly? How widespread was this ice retreat? It is pure guesswork.
As to the current warming being all down to the ocean rather than CO2... the ocean is warmer BECAUSE of CO2, ergo ocean driven warming IS CO2 warming.
25.
chriscanaris at 01:47 AM on 3 June, 2010
CBDunkerson @ 21
I don't make a big deal out of things being average - I'm merely pointing citing the site quoted in the post which reads as, well, average. Moreover, IARC JAXA tracks the ice level today as being exactly at 2006 levels which was followed by what turned into the second largest sea ice extent in the data presented only to be followed by the 2007 plummet. I don't want to cherry pick so all I would say is that the divergences in the data set from the NSIDC graph illustrates the uncertainties in the science.
kdkd @ 19
Thanks for the reference. I'll have a peek behind the pay wall. As a doctor, I have a fair bit of experience with tipping points - eventually, we all confront a humongous tipping called death. At a less dramatic level, the transition from a mild to severe illness or from being a person at risk to a very sick person is often retrospectively easy to track. However, keeping people (and a human being is the epitome of a complex system) healthy is another story involving risk management decisions and my experience suggests we don't do it well.
I note the abstract says as much.
26.
dhogaza at 02:58 AM on 3 June, 2010
I would say is that the divergences in the data set from the NSIDC graph illustrates the uncertainties in the science.
NSIDC and JAXA agree closely in trend. They use different running averages (5 vs. 2 day) and of course a different algorithm processing data from different sensors.
The biggest difference of course is that the NSIDC data goes back over thirty years, and JAXA less than a decade.
So your daily tea-leaf reading of their graphic output might lead you to think that JAXA supports the notion that things are "almost average" while the longer-term data shown by NSIDC makes it clear that it's not. Greater than two sigmas down from the 1979-2000 baseline (JAXA first year is 2002) and diverging rapidly.
27.
tobyjoyce at 03:14 AM on 3 June, 2010
John Russell,
I relate to what you say. Monckton's plummy voice is probably a selling point for much of the globe because they link it with honesty and probity. However, to an Irishman or a Scotsman, he is at a definite discount!
28.
doug_bostrom at 03:43 AM on 3 June, 2010
I believe Monckton's most effective part in this drama is his ability to highlight and maintain uncertainty. Regarding uncertainties and the role they play in formulating coherent and useful policy response to AGW, it's interesting to read what the U.S. GOP pollster and thought-leader Frank Luntz wrote about the crucial role of uncertainty in public discussion of climate science.
Luntz:
Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate...
Entire Luntz memo, influential, with eerily familiar tone and content, breathtakingly cynical:
THE ENVIRONMENT: A CLEANER SAFER, HEALTHIER AMERICA
I think this key issue of promoting and maintaining a sense of uncertainty is why the IPCC has been the subject of concentrated attack by Monckton and others. As Luntz noted prior to IPCC's 2007 report, "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science." The IPCC reports represent that window, which has closed still further since Luntz wrote his memo. Whether promoters of uncertainty will be able to withstand what's becoming an overwhelming flood of similar messages (recent NRC report, for instance) is an open question.
29.
chris at 04:40 AM on 3 June, 2010
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:23 PM on 2 June, 2010
Ken Lambert at 23:37 PM on 2 June, 2010
We should be a little more careful with the scientific literature. Looking at the paper that Arkadiusz excerpts from (Polyakov, I. V., et al. (2005) [*]) reinforces CBDunkerson's point, namely that the primary source of warming has been the persistent warming trend over the 20th century. [n.b. it’s also worth reading the last sentence of the abstract which Arkadiusz omitted from his excerpt-click on my link].
Polyakov et al (2005) explicitly highlight this background warming trend. If you look at their Figure 3, the Figure legend states:
"Long-term variability of temperature of the intermediate AW of the Arctic Ocean. Prolonged warm (red shade) and cold (blue shade) periods associated with phases of multi-decadal variability and a background warming trend are apparent from the record of 6-year running mean normalized AW temperature anomalies (dashed segments represent gaps in the record)."
Also one can't really conclude that (concerning current warming) "the warming is not as strong as 90 years ago" from Arkadiusz papers. If we take the paper he excerpted from, we would conclude the opposite. Polyakov et al (2005)’s Figure 3 indicates that the current warming period has taken Arctic temperatures higher than in the early 20th century, and the more general evidence for that is strong.
In any case, despite the limited direct measures of Arctic temperatures/sea ice extent etc. from ~100 years ago, we do have independent evidence that the warming from that period was considerably less significant compared to current Arctic warming since Arctic land ice melt produces a worldwide sea level signal; the rather slow rates of sea level rise in the early parts of the 20th century compared to current rates of rise is rather strong evidence for an absence of major persistent Arctic warming in the earlier period that matches the current period.
It’s also worth pointing out that the early 20th century Arctic warming likely had a strong, and perhaps dominant influence from the effects of volcanic aerosols to which the Greenland ice sheet temperatures, in particular, seem particularly vulnerable (volcanic aerosols strongly cool these). So the evidence supports the interpretation that late 19th century, early 20th century strong volcanic activity knocked back temperatures and suppressed small solar and greenhouse-forced temperature rise in the Arctic during this period. Much of the enhanced warming from 1910/1915 (which likely was rapid) was probably a recovery from this volcanic-induced temperature suppression of accumulated solar and greenhouse-forcings which were “unleashed” rather quickly (see e.g. Box et al. (2009) [**]).
A concern with respect to current Arctic warming (especially in the case of Greenland) is that Greenland warming is expected to be “in phase” with Northern Hemisphere warming, and although it has warmed considerably during the last 20-odd years (and started to release rather significant meltwater), it hasn’t recovered this phase relationship following the temperature statis during the mid-20th century. So [see Box et al. (2009) link just above] we may have some 1-1.5 oC of warming “catch up” to come. Clearly the situation in the Arctic now is very different indeed from the situation in the early 20th century.
[*]Polyakov, I. V., et al. (2005), One more step toward a warmer Arctic Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L17605.
[**] Box, J. E. et al. (2009) Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840-2007 J. Climate 22, 4029-4049.
30.
doug_bostrom at 05:08 AM on 3 June, 2010
Amending my previous comment, it's actually "doubt" as opposed to "uncertainty" that is promoted by Monckton, Luntz et al. It's not surprising Luntz should carelessly substitute one term for the other; despite all the references to science in Luntz's memo the focus is not at all on science, it's on public optics.
31.
johnd at 07:20 AM on 3 June, 2010
This article "NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face" (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131) and "Arctic Oscillation (AO) time series, 1899 - June 2002" (http://jisao.washington.edu/ao/) may provide some historical perspective for the Arkadiusz posts
32.
Riccardo at 07:58 AM on 3 June, 2010
One of the good things of this site is that people can learn. Apparently the last successful lesson was on the Artic Oscillation impact on Arctic climate; i guess next one will be that scientists didn't discovered it today nor yesterday. And second next that they did take it into account and it does not explain current melting.
33.
johnd at 08:41 AM on 3 June, 2010
Riccardo at 07:58 AM, whilst the link between Arctic Ocean circulation and AO detected by NASA was reported just over 2 years ago, I am not as confident as you appear to be, that all that there is to learn on how the link relates with all other factors under all circumstances, has in fact been learnt.
It is more likely that the understanding has barely started.
Salinity is obviously a very important factor in understanding ice formation, not only for the present or the future, but for understanding past cycles.
As is noted in the article, "the results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming", is perhaps something to keep in mind.
34.
You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.
© Copyright 2010 John Cook Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us
Home Arguments iPhone App Recent Comments Translations Links Support SkS
Twitter RSS Posts RSS Posts RSS Posts RSS Posts
to keep Skeptical
Science going
iPhone app
Wednesday, 2 June, 2010
Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Guest post by John Abraham
Recently, our good friend Christopher Monckton has been giving public lectures showing the faults of climate science and scientists. Fortunately, his work has shown that we really don’t have anything to fear. Global warming isn’t happening and, if it is, the world will be better off. At least that is the story I heard when listening to his latest lecture. The problem for Monckton is that I am a scientist that knows a thing or two about energy and the environment. Since Monckton’s position was opposite of everything I have researched, I thought I needed to do a bit of digging. Let’s see what I discovered…
Chris Monckton showed the following graph, taken from the IARC-JAXA (International Arctic Research Center – Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency). He claims that “arctic ice extent is just fine: steady for a decade”. According to Monckton, there is no cause for concern. In fact, this image is a screen shot of Monckton’s presentation.
This was really surprising, I thought the arctic has experienced incredible ice losses over the past decades. I decided to ask the Director of the IARC, Larry Hinzman. Here is what I asked him…
“Dear Dr. Hinzman,
Pardon this question but I am a thermal sciences professor who frequently gives lectures on the dangers of climate change. Recently, a climate change skeptic, Christopher Monckton, has used information from your organization to suggest that there is no decrease in arctic sea ice. In fact, to quote Chris, Arctic sea-ice extent is just fine: steady for a decade.
I do not believe that your group’s work shows this. In fact, I believe the research from your organization indicates a clear fingerprint of global warming on ice extent.
Can you clarify whose views are more correct, mine or Mr. Monckton?”
I thought that was a fair representation. Here is Dr. Hinzman’s reply…
Maybe Larry isn’t really up to date on arctic ice. I had better get a second opinion from Dr. John Walsh, Chief Scientist at IARC. Here is his reply.
Dr. Walsh referred me to NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center). Let’s see what they say about arctic ice loss. They have year-to-year graphs of ice coverage. Here is their data showing year-to-year ice variations. Notice the continual decline over the past 30 years?
Wow, this doesn’t agree with what Monckton told me. Perhaps I am misinterpreting this graph. I had better ask who is correct, Monckton or me? Well, let’s see what Mark Serreze said…
Oh, by the way, Mark Serreze is the Director of NSIDC…. I think he might know.
You can check things out yourself. There are links to three international organizations that provide information about arctic sea ice. As of this writing, June 1, 2010, all three organizations showed the ice extent at unprecedented lows. Go see for yourself.
National Snow and Ice Data Center
Danmarks Meterologiske Institut, Centre for Ocean and Ice
IARC-JAXA
So,I guess Monckton got his facts wrong. He referenced the IARC-JAXA and two of their employees disagree with his conclusion. This is the first of Monckton’s errors that I’ll be exposing in a series of blogs. You can watch a video of my rebuttal presentation.
I have also broken my rebuttal into shortened segments and placed them online through Youtube. Please watch these and give feedback.
UPDATE FROM SKEPTICAL SCIENCE: we will be deleting any comments that personally insult Monckton. You're welcome to critique his science but ad hominem attacks and personal insults are not welcome.
Posted by John Abraham at 07:00 AM
Bookmark and Share Printable Version | Link to this page
Comments
Comments 1 to 47:
1.
Jim Eager at 07:31 AM on 2 June, 2010
Prof. Abraham, I watched your entire take-down of Monckton's nonsense and disinformation. Well done, sir!
2.
Leo G at 07:33 AM on 2 June, 2010
Thanx John. I love Lord Monckton's talks. His delivery is very good. I let myself enjoy his jokes and his excellent connection with the audience. I just have problems with his content. No biggy though. If taken for entertainment sake only, a very positive experience.
3.
Dennis at 08:57 AM on 2 June, 2010
While some may find Monckton entertaining, I do not.
He has been invited repeatedly to testify on the subject of climate science before committees of the United States Congress. His testimony appears in the record and is used by some members of the Congress to justify their beliefs that global warming is not real. Monckton's testimony has contributed to the fact that the United States has yet to pass legislation to reduce is CO2 emissions.
John Abraham, if you have time, perhaps you could watch Monckton's most recent testimony and provide the same excellent scientific critique to that as you have done above. You can find a video of his testimony here: http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0018#main_content
4.
CoalGeologist at 09:44 AM on 2 June, 2010
Leo G, and any others who might find Monckton to be amusing,
I have a problem with much more than Monckton's 'content', as I fail to find humor or entertainment value in a someone who employs deception and subterfuge to create misunderstanding. Climate change is a serious topic that demands serious and honest dialog. Anyone who has heard Monckton speak will know that he's not a stupid man, yet he says things that have no scientific foundation. He must have seen the same data as are reported here, yet chooses to misrepresent it. The question is why does he do it? And why does he retain credibility with so many people despite having a terribly biased agenda, and--in my best Queen's English--an unfortunate proclivity to dissemble.
It is these questions--and not issues of science--that lie at the heart of AGW Denialism.
Thanks to Prof. Abraham for patiently addressing Monckton's misinformation. I will again refer SkS readers to an informative set of exposes on Monckton, including an amusing discussion of the hot pink portcullis appearing on the top slide of this post. Debunking Lord Monckton Part 1 and Debunking Lord Monckton Part 2
5.
doug_bostrom at 10:07 AM on 2 June, 2010
Picking Arctic ice as a point of contention is a mystifying choice on Monckton's part, truly, especially compounded with the attached requirement of "don't believe your lying eyes."
Others have said that Monckton's appeal and reach here in the U.S. is partly down to his accent. I think it's also about his title, reverberations of our special relationship w/Great Britain.
An eye-catching feature of the graph John reproduced is Monckton's own choice of adding an oversized crowned portcullis on the graph. It's suggestive, but of what? An official imprimatur? Here's some information on that symbol, including guidelines on appropriate use. Suffice it to say, Monckton's use of the crowned portcullis is dodgy in its own right, quite apart from the content it adorns. He's not a member of either House and his communications have no official status but he's certainly trying to convey -some- impression by his selection of decorative artwork.
6.
Mythago at 10:30 AM on 2 June, 2010
Thank you John for the take down on Lord Monckton. Your time and effort is greatly appreciated.
One little bit you may like to add to the Greenland ice sheet altitude increase section to explain the increase in height is the reflex action of land masses when the load of glacial ice has been removed. The landmass will rise once this has happened and this alone would explain the altitude increase. It happens to all large landmasses and may also influence sea level rise to the negative a little. I haven't read the paper by the Danish scientist yet but will when I get time.
Apart from that you might also like to add the Hadley Institute in the UK as a source of reliable data regarding climate change.
Looking forward to the next instalment.
7.
HumanityRules at 13:30 PM on 2 June, 2010
Eschenbach would have it that the difference in Monckton and John's graphs is the scale.
Lord M seems wrong but you'd have to put that sentence in context. If it is in connection with 'death-spirals' or ice-free arctics this decade then there may be some justification for the use of steady (in that sort of context). Let be clear the data he presented isn't fake, it's just what conclusion he draws from it.
Just as an aside. I have a bit of trouble with the focus on sceptics as the biggest barrier to moving forward on climate change. While mainstream politicians might talk up climate change I don't really see any great enthusiasm to turn that into action, especially the sort of real action needed if the alarmists are to be believed. The Labour Party in Australia dropped thier ETS fairly sharpish once it appeared to have little upside for them politically.
8.
doug_bostrom at 13:40 PM on 2 June, 2010
HR, we often don't agree but I concur w/you on your third paragraph. I actually don't think most politicians are in significant disagreement with scientists on this matter, Monckton and the rest of the seemingly anti-science troops don't seem to have much real pull. Not to say there's no effect from all the chatter, more that responding to the climate issue mainly falls in the same vein as other nebulous threats such as future possible earthquakes. Our politics are dominated by short wavelength matters unpredictably spaced, "noise" as we'd call it if looking at a graph.
9.
NewYorkJ at 13:47 PM on 2 June, 2010
I'm perhaps pointing out the obvious here, but the main problem with Monckton's presentation of the data (at least it appears to be accurate in this case) is that the graph he uses is not really useful in showing trends from year to year or over a decade. It's meant to show the path of Arctic sea ice extent over the course of a single year, and compare the path with a relatively few recent years. It's rather difficult to sort out all those lines/colors for each year to discern where the trend is at the decadal level. The NSIDC graph is an obvious solution.
Since we're on the topic of obfuscating with graphs, here's a similar one by a Willis Eschenbach. It makes Monckton's presentation look almost reasonable on comparison:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/13/lies-damned-lies-statistics-and-graphs/
The WUWT alter ego site puts it nicely...
http://wotsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/lies-damned-lies-statistics-%e2%80%a6-and-graphs/
10.
chriscanaris at 15:01 PM on 2 June, 2010
WUWT vs Skeptical Science - the battle of the graphs!
11.
KeenOn350 at 16:06 PM on 2 June, 2010
Just want to say thanks for excellent, painstaking, detailed refutation of Moncton's materials/presentation.
12.
chriscanaris at 17:00 PM on 2 June, 2010
PS: From The National Snow and Ice Data Center:
'Arctic sea ice extent averaged 14.69 million square kilometers (5.67 square miles) for the month of April, just 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. The rate of ice extent decline for the month was also close to average, at 41,000 kilometers (16,000 square miles) per day. As a result, April 2010 fell well within one standard deviation of the mean for the month, and posted the highest April extent since 2001.
Ice extent remained slightly above average in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk, and slightly below average in the Barents Sea north of Scandinavia, and in Baffin Bay, where ice extent remained below average all winter.'
All sounds pretty average to me.
13.
philipm at 17:02 PM on 2 June, 2010
This ice thing is really silly. You don't have to be a professor to take it down but thanks anyway for doing so: my point is not that you needn't do this, but that the anti-science is inexpert. You'd think the multi-billion dollar fossil fuels industry would be able to defend its interests better than that. Then again, looking at what BP is currently doing, maybe not.
Recently on my blog I did a retrospective of the prediction in The Australian in April 2009 that a big drop in sunspots presaged an ice age. What's so nice about this anti-science stuff is that the predictions are so hard to take down. When they make predictions. What's not so nice is they are still winning the propaganda war, and the Laws of Physics don't play nice with people who violate them.
Aside from Arctic sea ice extent (which in the latest data is dipping below the 2007 low), Antarctic and Greenland ice volume are crashing, as reported elsewhere on this site. Even in the Antarctic, volume measures are crashing, indicating area will follow as soon as we have a warmer than average summer because there's less thick multi-seasonal ice.
14.
daisym at 17:43 PM on 2 June, 2010
An article posted on May 29, 2010 in the blog 'Watts Up With That' claims that Arctic ice has increased. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/29/arctic-ice-volume-has-increased-25-since-may-2008/?utm_source=co2hog .
The article by Steve Goddard and Anthony Watts says that, according to the U.S. Navy's PIPS sea ice forecast data, Arctic ice volume has increased by 25% since May, 2008. One of the functions of the PIPS forecasting model is to help identify ice that is too thick for penetration by the Navy's nuclear submarines. PIPS is a computer model, and as such, it could be wrong, but the Navy hangs their hat on it for operational purposes.
There appears to be some ambiguity in the way the Navy's model manipulates the data compared to the way the scientist's model does.
How can these differences be reconciled? Who's right... the Navy or the scientists? Or is WUWT off the mark?
15.
chriscanaris at 18:40 PM on 2 June, 2010
From:
Christian Haas, Stefan Hendricks, Andreas Herber: Synoptic airborne thickness surveys reveal state of Arctic sea ice cover GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L09501, 5 PP., 2010
While summer Arctic sea-ice extent has decreased over the past three decades, it is subject to large interannual and regional variations. Methodological challenges in measuring ice thickness continue to hamper our understanding of the response of the ice-thickness distribution to recent change, limiting the ability to forecast sea-ice change over the next decade. We present results from a 2400 km long pan-Arctic airborne electromagnetic (EM) ice thickness survey in April 2009, the first-ever large-scale EM thickness dataset obtained by fixed-wing aircraft over key regions of old ice in the Arctic Ocean between Svalbard and Alaska. The data provide detailed insight into ice thickness distributions characteristic for the different regions. Comparison with previous EM surveys shows that modal thicknesses of old ice had changed little since 2007, and remained within the expected range of natural variability.
I haven't splurged out to go beyond the abstract. It's just another random paper which leaves me thinking that the jury's still out.
My main reservation about some of the fascinating and informative scientific argument on this site lies in the assumption that lots of trends pointing in the same direction suggest a robust conclusion (effectively metaanalysis). Metaanalysis has numerous limitations and can obscure as much as it can illuminate (for example, comparing apples and oranges).
Equally, I have very little time for the Monckton/ Plimer modus operandi (the former claiming authority and expertise which is manifestly lacking while the latter being less than rigorous in his referencing to say the least) which equally oversimplify to the point of making sensible discussion impossible.
16.
John Russell at 18:56 PM on 2 June, 2010
I've spent some time in the past refuting some of Monckton's lectures and posting the results to various groups. I'm no scientist, but then neither is Monckton so it's not difficult to find what he's done in support of his deliberate campaign of misinformation. As a writer and director of films -- a role that also extends to producing visuals for conferences and presentations, I understand what he's doing. There are a couple of observations worth making.
1) Monckton, like many other anti-climate change lobbyists, specifically targets an audience that has limited scientific understanding of the subject. He knows the argument is not about science, it's about PR; about creating a groundswell of public opinion.
2) Monckton is not interested in addressing the counter-arguments of his more scientifically literate critics (like the people who frequent SkSc, I guess). His work is done long before we pull it apart.
3) Monckton -- for the sake of clarity he would say -- redraws ALL the graphs he uses in his presentations. He almost invariably changes the scale or truncates the timeline, or uses other tricks to change the essential message of the graph. Graph one of John's article is a perfect example of this. By concentrating on seasonal change and thus exaggerating the much more subtle annual variations in sea ice extent, he's able to give the impression to his specifically-targeted audience that all's tickety-boo.
4) If you look at a video of any of his lectures (there are plenty to find on Youtube) you'll note that he uses graphs and illustrations in rapid succession, just giving an impression and not allowing the audience to either study or think in any detail about the graph he's presented.
5) It's a well known fact in presentation that the words being spoken should follow closely any words being shown on screen. The human brain cannot read one set of words and listen to another at the same time. One either listens or reads. Monckton knows this and by talking rapidly and authoritatively he ensures the audience cannot analyse his graph. The only time the on-screen words and his voice coincide is when he reads the title at the top; in this case, "Arctic sea ice just fine... etc." One is just left with an impression. It's no accident that the titles of his graphs are the spoken word, rather than the more formal descriptive text a scientist would use.
6) He often leaves off the information one needs to authenticate the graph. He'll use enough to meet his purpose of providing credibility; not enough information for someone to be able to check out the original quickly.
7) He's a good presenter. He knows his upper-class English voice works well, particularly with people from the colonies (if you'll excuse the expression) -- which is probably why he does so many tours abroad. We working-class Brits hear it for what it is (I'll not say what, for fear of being moderated).
To sum up. Anyone attending a Monckton lecture is being manipulated with great skill. Throughout history there have been other great orators who did this. 'Nough said.
Hope that helps.
17.
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:09 PM on 2 June, 2010
Also, I think about the Arctic ice experts - should speak out, others can only cite them, but ...
"Unprecedented" ...
Monckton is not a scientist about "the ice" ... but ...
... Polish professor Marsz all his long "scientific" life deal with the Arctic ice (recently also Antarctic).
March of the first explains:
"The correlation coefficient between the average annual surface ice (extent), and the value AMOMSar a year is equal to -0.80 (p <0.00001,>ice< data for that time period... ok, ice around Spitsbergen retreated. How much exactly? How widespread was this ice retreat? It is pure guesswork.
As to the current warming being all down to the ocean rather than CO2... the ocean is warmer BECAUSE of CO2, ergo ocean driven warming IS CO2 warming.
25.
chriscanaris at 01:47 AM on 3 June, 2010
CBDunkerson @ 21
I don't make a big deal out of things being average - I'm merely pointing citing the site quoted in the post which reads as, well, average. Moreover, IARC JAXA tracks the ice level today as being exactly at 2006 levels which was followed by what turned into the second largest sea ice extent in the data presented only to be followed by the 2007 plummet. I don't want to cherry pick so all I would say is that the divergences in the data set from the NSIDC graph illustrates the uncertainties in the science.
kdkd @ 19
Thanks for the reference. I'll have a peek behind the pay wall. As a doctor, I have a fair bit of experience with tipping points - eventually, we all confront a humongous tipping called death. At a less dramatic level, the transition from a mild to severe illness or from being a person at risk to a very sick person is often retrospectively easy to track. However, keeping people (and a human being is the epitome of a complex system) healthy is another story involving risk management decisions and my experience suggests we don't do it well.
I note the abstract says as much.
26.
dhogaza at 02:58 AM on 3 June, 2010
I would say is that the divergences in the data set from the NSIDC graph illustrates the uncertainties in the science.
NSIDC and JAXA agree closely in trend. They use different running averages (5 vs. 2 day) and of course a different algorithm processing data from different sensors.
The biggest difference of course is that the NSIDC data goes back over thirty years, and JAXA less than a decade.
So your daily tea-leaf reading of their graphic output might lead you to think that JAXA supports the notion that things are "almost average" while the longer-term data shown by NSIDC makes it clear that it's not. Greater than two sigmas down from the 1979-2000 baseline (JAXA first year is 2002) and diverging rapidly.
27.
tobyjoyce at 03:14 AM on 3 June, 2010
John Russell,
I relate to what you say. Monckton's plummy voice is probably a selling point for much of the globe because they link it with honesty and probity. However, to an Irishman or a Scotsman, he is at a definite discount!
28.
doug_bostrom at 03:43 AM on 3 June, 2010
I believe Monckton's most effective part in this drama is his ability to highlight and maintain uncertainty. Regarding uncertainties and the role they play in formulating coherent and useful policy response to AGW, it's interesting to read what the U.S. GOP pollster and thought-leader Frank Luntz wrote about the crucial role of uncertainty in public discussion of climate science.
Luntz:
Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate...
Entire Luntz memo, influential, with eerily familiar tone and content, breathtakingly cynical:
THE ENVIRONMENT: A CLEANER SAFER, HEALTHIER AMERICA
I think this key issue of promoting and maintaining a sense of uncertainty is why the IPCC has been the subject of concentrated attack by Monckton and others. As Luntz noted prior to IPCC's 2007 report, "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science." The IPCC reports represent that window, which has closed still further since Luntz wrote his memo. Whether promoters of uncertainty will be able to withstand what's becoming an overwhelming flood of similar messages (recent NRC report, for instance) is an open question.
29.
chris at 04:40 AM on 3 June, 2010
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:23 PM on 2 June, 2010
Ken Lambert at 23:37 PM on 2 June, 2010
We should be a little more careful with the scientific literature. Looking at the paper that Arkadiusz excerpts from (Polyakov, I. V., et al. (2005) [*]) reinforces CBDunkerson's point, namely that the primary source of warming has been the persistent warming trend over the 20th century. [n.b. it’s also worth reading the last sentence of the abstract which Arkadiusz omitted from his excerpt-click on my link].
Polyakov et al (2005) explicitly highlight this background warming trend. If you look at their Figure 3, the Figure legend states:
"Long-term variability of temperature of the intermediate AW of the Arctic Ocean. Prolonged warm (red shade) and cold (blue shade) periods associated with phases of multi-decadal variability and a background warming trend are apparent from the record of 6-year running mean normalized AW temperature anomalies (dashed segments represent gaps in the record)."
Also one can't really conclude that (concerning current warming) "the warming is not as strong as 90 years ago" from Arkadiusz papers. If we take the paper he excerpted from, we would conclude the opposite. Polyakov et al (2005)’s Figure 3 indicates that the current warming period has taken Arctic temperatures higher than in the early 20th century, and the more general evidence for that is strong.
In any case, despite the limited direct measures of Arctic temperatures/sea ice extent etc. from ~100 years ago, we do have independent evidence that the warming from that period was considerably less significant compared to current Arctic warming since Arctic land ice melt produces a worldwide sea level signal; the rather slow rates of sea level rise in the early parts of the 20th century compared to current rates of rise is rather strong evidence for an absence of major persistent Arctic warming in the earlier period that matches the current period.
It’s also worth pointing out that the early 20th century Arctic warming likely had a strong, and perhaps dominant influence from the effects of volcanic aerosols to which the Greenland ice sheet temperatures, in particular, seem particularly vulnerable (volcanic aerosols strongly cool these). So the evidence supports the interpretation that late 19th century, early 20th century strong volcanic activity knocked back temperatures and suppressed small solar and greenhouse-forced temperature rise in the Arctic during this period. Much of the enhanced warming from 1910/1915 (which likely was rapid) was probably a recovery from this volcanic-induced temperature suppression of accumulated solar and greenhouse-forcings which were “unleashed” rather quickly (see e.g. Box et al. (2009) [**]).
A concern with respect to current Arctic warming (especially in the case of Greenland) is that Greenland warming is expected to be “in phase” with Northern Hemisphere warming, and although it has warmed considerably during the last 20-odd years (and started to release rather significant meltwater), it hasn’t recovered this phase relationship following the temperature statis during the mid-20th century. So [see Box et al. (2009) link just above] we may have some 1-1.5 oC of warming “catch up” to come. Clearly the situation in the Arctic now is very different indeed from the situation in the early 20th century.
[*]Polyakov, I. V., et al. (2005), One more step toward a warmer Arctic Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L17605.
[**] Box, J. E. et al. (2009) Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840-2007 J. Climate 22, 4029-4049.
30.
doug_bostrom at 05:08 AM on 3 June, 2010
Amending my previous comment, it's actually "doubt" as opposed to "uncertainty" that is promoted by Monckton, Luntz et al. It's not surprising Luntz should carelessly substitute one term for the other; despite all the references to science in Luntz's memo the focus is not at all on science, it's on public optics.
31.
johnd at 07:20 AM on 3 June, 2010
This article "NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face" (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131) and "Arctic Oscillation (AO) time series, 1899 - June 2002" (http://jisao.washington.edu/ao/) may provide some historical perspective for the Arkadiusz posts
32.
Riccardo at 07:58 AM on 3 June, 2010
One of the good things of this site is that people can learn. Apparently the last successful lesson was on the Artic Oscillation impact on Arctic climate; i guess next one will be that scientists didn't discovered it today nor yesterday. And second next that they did take it into account and it does not explain current melting.
33.
johnd at 08:41 AM on 3 June, 2010
Riccardo at 07:58 AM, whilst the link between Arctic Ocean circulation and AO detected by NASA was reported just over 2 years ago, I am not as confident as you appear to be, that all that there is to learn on how the link relates with all other factors under all circumstances, has in fact been learnt.
It is more likely that the understanding has barely started.
Salinity is obviously a very important factor in understanding ice formation, not only for the present or the future, but for understanding past cycles.
As is noted in the article, "the results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming", is perhaps something to keep in mind.
34.
You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.
© Copyright 2010 John Cook Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us
Open letter to Rt Hon Nicholas Clegg MP
from John Redwood by John Redwood
1 person liked this - you
Shared by you
Dear Mr Clegg,
Congratulations on your appointment as Deputy Prime Minister. I was pleased to read a copy of your first speech in that role, where you set out an excellent agenda for strengthening our civil liberties and repealing measures taken by the last government.
You have invited contributions of items to include in your Great Repeal Bill. As one who argued strongly over the last decade that we needed substantial repeals, to reverse the flow of law and regulation that is damaging both our liberties and our prosperity, I welcome this. I have pleasure in submitting a few examples of items that should be included in the first Bill. Many of these are taken from “Freeing Britain to compete”, the study of Economic Policy I wrote in the last Parliament. It is available as the last listed download on www.johnredwood.com on the right hand side of the site. Some are taken from suggestions contributed to www.johnredwood.com in my latest consultation.
1. Repeal Working Time Regulations – people should be free to work overtime if they wish. This single item was the biggest extra burden on business in the last 13 years.
2. Repeal Data Protection Act. Keep a requirement on data haolders to look after data, and keep a citizen’s right to their data and its fair handling, but eliminate the quango and licensing regime.
3. Money laundering regulations. Make them less costly and ineffective. Requiring people to supply a passport and utility bill does not stop money laundering but does create a lot of extra cost in the system.
4. Abolish compulsory Home Information Packs – as planned by the Coalition government
5. Mortgage regulation – remove the last government’s detailed mortgage regulation which clearly failed, and strengthen cash and capital regulation of banks and other mortgage providers to avoid future crashes.
6. Remove Gaming licenses for charities
7. Abolish Mandatory horse passports
8. Remove recent over the top regulation of herbal medicines
9.Opt out of Food Supplements Directive
10.Restore statutory dismissal procedures to pre 2000 position
11.Restore social chapter opt out and define UK rules in these araes
12. Repeal compulsory metrication
13. Combine disclosure to the Inland Revenue and Companies House for smaller companies – one form fits all
14 Repeal IR 35
15 Abolish Best Value regime for local government
16 Abolish Comprehensive Performance Assessment regime for Councils
17 Abolish Regional Housing Boards and regional targets
18 Abolish Regional Development Agencies
19 Repeal Legislative and Regulatory reform Act
20 Amend Waste Incineration Regulations 2002 to allow more recycling
21 Amend Health and safety regime to make it more proportionate and effective
22 Repeal Digital Economy Act 2010 cl 11-18
23 Repeal Investigatory powers Act 2000 – too intrusive
24 Repeal Charities Act 2006 – too bureaucratic
25 Repeal Labour’s Terrorism Acts and replace with simpler system which damages the civil liberties of the innocent majority less.
26 Cut the use of surveillance cameras and design safer and less congested roads and junctions instead.
27 Repeal the SI requiring 11 million people to have CRB checks before helping children.
These measures would not only restore civil liberties and free more companies to create extra jobs and compete more successfully, but they would also cut public spending on regional and regulatory overhead. More of the detail explanation is available in “Freeing Britian to compete”, pp 53-65 and pp 153-189.
The most popular repeal from contributors to my website would be to repeal the section in the Health Act that bans smoking in all public places, to allow smoking again in specified rooms and areas
Yours sincerely
John Redwood
from John Redwood by John Redwood
1 person liked this - you
Shared by you
Dear Mr Clegg,
Congratulations on your appointment as Deputy Prime Minister. I was pleased to read a copy of your first speech in that role, where you set out an excellent agenda for strengthening our civil liberties and repealing measures taken by the last government.
You have invited contributions of items to include in your Great Repeal Bill. As one who argued strongly over the last decade that we needed substantial repeals, to reverse the flow of law and regulation that is damaging both our liberties and our prosperity, I welcome this. I have pleasure in submitting a few examples of items that should be included in the first Bill. Many of these are taken from “Freeing Britain to compete”, the study of Economic Policy I wrote in the last Parliament. It is available as the last listed download on www.johnredwood.com on the right hand side of the site. Some are taken from suggestions contributed to www.johnredwood.com in my latest consultation.
1. Repeal Working Time Regulations – people should be free to work overtime if they wish. This single item was the biggest extra burden on business in the last 13 years.
2. Repeal Data Protection Act. Keep a requirement on data haolders to look after data, and keep a citizen’s right to their data and its fair handling, but eliminate the quango and licensing regime.
3. Money laundering regulations. Make them less costly and ineffective. Requiring people to supply a passport and utility bill does not stop money laundering but does create a lot of extra cost in the system.
4. Abolish compulsory Home Information Packs – as planned by the Coalition government
5. Mortgage regulation – remove the last government’s detailed mortgage regulation which clearly failed, and strengthen cash and capital regulation of banks and other mortgage providers to avoid future crashes.
6. Remove Gaming licenses for charities
7. Abolish Mandatory horse passports
8. Remove recent over the top regulation of herbal medicines
9.Opt out of Food Supplements Directive
10.Restore statutory dismissal procedures to pre 2000 position
11.Restore social chapter opt out and define UK rules in these araes
12. Repeal compulsory metrication
13. Combine disclosure to the Inland Revenue and Companies House for smaller companies – one form fits all
14 Repeal IR 35
15 Abolish Best Value regime for local government
16 Abolish Comprehensive Performance Assessment regime for Councils
17 Abolish Regional Housing Boards and regional targets
18 Abolish Regional Development Agencies
19 Repeal Legislative and Regulatory reform Act
20 Amend Waste Incineration Regulations 2002 to allow more recycling
21 Amend Health and safety regime to make it more proportionate and effective
22 Repeal Digital Economy Act 2010 cl 11-18
23 Repeal Investigatory powers Act 2000 – too intrusive
24 Repeal Charities Act 2006 – too bureaucratic
25 Repeal Labour’s Terrorism Acts and replace with simpler system which damages the civil liberties of the innocent majority less.
26 Cut the use of surveillance cameras and design safer and less congested roads and junctions instead.
27 Repeal the SI requiring 11 million people to have CRB checks before helping children.
These measures would not only restore civil liberties and free more companies to create extra jobs and compete more successfully, but they would also cut public spending on regional and regulatory overhead. More of the detail explanation is available in “Freeing Britian to compete”, pp 53-65 and pp 153-189.
The most popular repeal from contributors to my website would be to repeal the section in the Health Act that bans smoking in all public places, to allow smoking again in specified rooms and areas
Yours sincerely
John Redwood
Man of Depravity: Dobson V. Obama: The Battle Begins
Man of Depravity: Dobson V. Obama: The Battle Begins
* Home
* ABOUT
* CONTACT
* LINKS
* MUSIC
* MY WRITING
Dobson V. Obama: The Battle Begins
2008 June 25
8 Comments »
by Tyler
One of the top news stories of the past couple days has been Dobson’s attack on Barack Obama’s speech from 2 years ago. This whole thing has intriguiged me for 2 reasons:
1. I would say a majority of young Christians either don’t know who Dobson is or they could careless about what he has to say. At the same time, many Christians value the opinions of Dobson greatly.
2. Obama has a 50% chance of being the next President.
James Dobson and Barack ObamaThe news is that Dobson has accused Obama of dragging his confused theology into the political forefront. He also said that is he “dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.” Harsh words to say the least. In the speech, Obama was discussing how both liberal and conservative Christians can be a part of the political process without trying to mandate things illegal that they view as sin. The topic was and always will be a poignant one and I think Obama made a lot of great points.
Some great sources:
* Here is a good, informative, ABC News video on the story.
* Jim Wallis (undecided) has called Dobson’s words distorted.
* “The clear purpose of the show was to attack Barack Obama. On the show, Dobson says of himself, ‘I’m not a reverend. I’m not a minister. I’m not a theologian. I’m not an evangelist. I’m a psychologist. I have a Ph.D. in child development.’”
* Wallis said, “I have decided to respond to Dobson’s attacks. In most every case they are themselves clear distortions of what Obama said in that speech.”
* Scot McKnight (undecided) has also shared his thoughts and took part in a great conversation at Jesus Creed.
* “Dobson and his companion commentator routinely distorted what Obama was saying by rephrasing and capturing what he said in their own context and for their own agendas.”
* “What they miss here is that Obama is talking about how to live in a pluralistic society.”
My thoughts:
* Dobson’s criticism comes from a speech that Obama gave 2 years ago. It is one thing for a guy with no formal theological education to attack one man’s theology, but can’t we at least be current here. I’m not saying what Obama said 2 years ago shouldn’t count, but if he was truly upset about what Obama said then he should he said something earlier.
* One area where I will give Dobson credit is that he has come out with questions and areas that give him pause for both McCain and Obama. I don’t think he is being one sided which is nice to see.
* I don’t see how anything is accomplished here. Dobson has confused many Christians and put himself directly against the man who could be the leader of our country in 6 months.
* I think this whole thing is petty. It is fine for Dobson to not support Obama, but to nit pick on the details of a speech from so long ago seems very pointless.
I’d love to hear your thoughts, especially those who agree with what Dobson said.
Post to Twitter Post to Facebook
Filed under: Uncategorized Tags: Christianity, politics
Similar Posts (automatically generated):
* Make Love Not War June 27, 2008
* Election Madness November 11, 2008
* Sarah Palin Puts Alaska on the Map September 5, 2008
* We the Purple .3 May 26, 2008
8 Responses to “Dobson V. Obama: The Battle Begins”
1.
Lindsey says:
June 25, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Well, let me first say that I haven’t heard the entirety of either the Obama speech or Dobson’s comments, only bits and pieces of each. I’m going to listen to both and then maybe I’ll have more to say.
That being said, I did want to touch on your 1st point. I disagree that most young Christians don’t know who Dobson is. I don’t know what your definition of “young” is, but I’m 20 and I know who he is. I just checked with my 16 year old sister and so does she. Most of my Christian friends do. Obviously, that’s a really small sample and not the least bit scientific. But my point being, most young-ish Christians I know are familiar with Dobson.
I took an American federal government course my freshman year, and for one assignment we had to read two opposing arguments on gay marriage from on-line articles. The “conservative” argument was from Focus on the Family’s web site. So I’d argue that a lot of young non-Christians are at least a little familiar with him as well.
I do, however, agree with you that most young Christian’s couldn’t care less what Dobson has to say. I don’t care. I grew up listening to these Focus on the Family commercials on our local Christian radio station, and even as a really young girl I didn’t think anything he had to say was particularly interesting or helpful to say. Other people might disagree, but I don’t think he has a lot to say that is particularly relevant or helpful for me.
I like what Laura had to say here: http://texasinafrica.blogspot.com/2008/06/couldnt-have-said-it-better.html
Reply
2.
Tyler says:
June 25, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Maybe I worded that wrong Lindsey. What I meant was that I thought most young Christians either didn’t know him or didn’t care what he said. I do think a lot of “young” people know who he is, but many of those (like you) who do know him, don’t think he has much that applies to how they think. Hopefully that makes sense.
Reply
3.
amoslanka says:
June 25, 2008 at 7:47 PM
i think anyone who knows who dobson is probably could have guessed what he thinks of obama.
Reply
4.
Tyler says:
June 25, 2008 at 7:51 PM
good point.
Reply
5.
Darin says:
June 26, 2008 at 5:57 PM
What floored me was that he told the news he was going to be talking about Obama. He should have planned what he wanted to say a lot better. I agree Dobson twisted much of what was said. He chose his words poorly.
While I have my concerns this didn’t do anyone any favors.
Reply
6.
Rhett Smith says:
July 1, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Tyler,
Great post. I’m so glad people are talking about this issue.
I’m pretty tired of some major evangelical figures acting as if they speak for all of evangelicalism.
Those who listen to Dobson weren’t going to vote for Obama anyways. And those who were going to vote for Obama, don’t even know who he is, or care what he has to say…as you put it.
rhett
Reply
7.
» James Dobson’s Attack On Obama: When Major Evangelical Figures Act Like They Speak for You and I, but They Don’t. says:
July 1, 2008 at 3:43 PM
[...] Tyler has a good post on Dobson v. Obama: The Battle Begins, and besides some of the posts I found on this issue, Tyler has some pretty good links to the back and forth arguments. [...]
Reply
8.
Shane says:
September 9, 2008 at 9:52 AM
[Saw this shocking thought-provoker on the worldwide you-know-what. Shane]
OBAMA SUPPORTS PUBLIC DEPRAVITY
(& supports the “rights” of little kids to view it!)
Google “Americans for Truth,” click on “Zombietime” [or go directly to: http://www.zombietime.com, then click on “Up Your Alley Fair.” After recovering from the uncensored photos (!), Yahoo “God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up” on the “ucmpage” or “clericalwhispers” listings (even Jesus told Judas to hurry up – John 13:27). Also Yahoo “Dangerous Radicals of the Religious Right.” See all of this before the predicted California earthquake happens a la Rev. 16:19 (“the cities of the nations fell”) – and before hurricanes and other conscience-stirring disasters occur elsewhere! The fast-moving agenda of Gaydom is to quietly sneak its depravity on to every Main Street on earth while normal folks stay asleep and do nothing! PS – Here’s a new pro-life slogan: “Unborn babies should have the right to keep and bear arms – and legs and ears and eyes etc.!”
(Obama and his porn-protecting collaborators, Pelosi and Newsom, did NOT approve of this message.)
Reply
Leave a Reply
Click here to cancel reply.
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
Notify me of follow-up comments via e-mail
© 2009 by Tyler Braun. Powered by Wordpress. Designed and coded by Paul Bae.
Subscribe to the RSS feed
RSS: Articles
RSS: Comments
o RECENT COMMENTS
o RECENT POSTS
o TAGS
o said: Diane and I have only been apart for 2 days in the last 8 years since we married. That’s changing tomorrow when I...
o said: Tyler, what a great reminder of the delicate balance we live in. I think I still take it for granted. But, really...
o said: Today’s topic at my 12-step meeting? Tolerance. I wonder how many people drove through that gridlock thinking what...
o said: thanks for making me tear up when i read this. i love you babe and i am happy to be home!
o said: 20 days? I’m on year 42 and still going strong!
o said: Tyler, I had a similar incident occur a few years ago except I barely escaped being a fatality as well. I was not...
o
o Fortuitous Bouncing
o The Bachelor Life
o Life is Fragile
o The Chance to Compete
o Fortuitous Bouncing
o Social Media Is About Me
* blogging books Christianity church emerging church God Jesus life music oregon pictures politics questions seminary sovereignty Sunset theology twitter worship youth ministry
RECENT PHOTOS
ABOUT TYLER
Tyler Braun.
Sinner.
Saved by God's grace and mercy.
25 years old. INTJ.
Live in Portland. Love Portland.
Married to Rose.
Attend Multnomah Biblical Seminary.
Student Ministry Worship and Praise Band Director at Sunset Presbyterian Church
Who Are You?
* Home
* ABOUT
* CONTACT
* LINKS
* MUSIC
* MY WRITING
Dobson V. Obama: The Battle Begins
2008 June 25
8 Comments »
by Tyler
One of the top news stories of the past couple days has been Dobson’s attack on Barack Obama’s speech from 2 years ago. This whole thing has intriguiged me for 2 reasons:
1. I would say a majority of young Christians either don’t know who Dobson is or they could careless about what he has to say. At the same time, many Christians value the opinions of Dobson greatly.
2. Obama has a 50% chance of being the next President.
James Dobson and Barack ObamaThe news is that Dobson has accused Obama of dragging his confused theology into the political forefront. He also said that is he “dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.” Harsh words to say the least. In the speech, Obama was discussing how both liberal and conservative Christians can be a part of the political process without trying to mandate things illegal that they view as sin. The topic was and always will be a poignant one and I think Obama made a lot of great points.
Some great sources:
* Here is a good, informative, ABC News video on the story.
* Jim Wallis (undecided) has called Dobson’s words distorted.
* “The clear purpose of the show was to attack Barack Obama. On the show, Dobson says of himself, ‘I’m not a reverend. I’m not a minister. I’m not a theologian. I’m not an evangelist. I’m a psychologist. I have a Ph.D. in child development.’”
* Wallis said, “I have decided to respond to Dobson’s attacks. In most every case they are themselves clear distortions of what Obama said in that speech.”
* Scot McKnight (undecided) has also shared his thoughts and took part in a great conversation at Jesus Creed.
* “Dobson and his companion commentator routinely distorted what Obama was saying by rephrasing and capturing what he said in their own context and for their own agendas.”
* “What they miss here is that Obama is talking about how to live in a pluralistic society.”
My thoughts:
* Dobson’s criticism comes from a speech that Obama gave 2 years ago. It is one thing for a guy with no formal theological education to attack one man’s theology, but can’t we at least be current here. I’m not saying what Obama said 2 years ago shouldn’t count, but if he was truly upset about what Obama said then he should he said something earlier.
* One area where I will give Dobson credit is that he has come out with questions and areas that give him pause for both McCain and Obama. I don’t think he is being one sided which is nice to see.
* I don’t see how anything is accomplished here. Dobson has confused many Christians and put himself directly against the man who could be the leader of our country in 6 months.
* I think this whole thing is petty. It is fine for Dobson to not support Obama, but to nit pick on the details of a speech from so long ago seems very pointless.
I’d love to hear your thoughts, especially those who agree with what Dobson said.
Post to Twitter Post to Facebook
Filed under: Uncategorized Tags: Christianity, politics
Similar Posts (automatically generated):
* Make Love Not War June 27, 2008
* Election Madness November 11, 2008
* Sarah Palin Puts Alaska on the Map September 5, 2008
* We the Purple .3 May 26, 2008
8 Responses to “Dobson V. Obama: The Battle Begins”
1.
Lindsey says:
June 25, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Well, let me first say that I haven’t heard the entirety of either the Obama speech or Dobson’s comments, only bits and pieces of each. I’m going to listen to both and then maybe I’ll have more to say.
That being said, I did want to touch on your 1st point. I disagree that most young Christians don’t know who Dobson is. I don’t know what your definition of “young” is, but I’m 20 and I know who he is. I just checked with my 16 year old sister and so does she. Most of my Christian friends do. Obviously, that’s a really small sample and not the least bit scientific. But my point being, most young-ish Christians I know are familiar with Dobson.
I took an American federal government course my freshman year, and for one assignment we had to read two opposing arguments on gay marriage from on-line articles. The “conservative” argument was from Focus on the Family’s web site. So I’d argue that a lot of young non-Christians are at least a little familiar with him as well.
I do, however, agree with you that most young Christian’s couldn’t care less what Dobson has to say. I don’t care. I grew up listening to these Focus on the Family commercials on our local Christian radio station, and even as a really young girl I didn’t think anything he had to say was particularly interesting or helpful to say. Other people might disagree, but I don’t think he has a lot to say that is particularly relevant or helpful for me.
I like what Laura had to say here: http://texasinafrica.blogspot.com/2008/06/couldnt-have-said-it-better.html
Reply
2.
Tyler says:
June 25, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Maybe I worded that wrong Lindsey. What I meant was that I thought most young Christians either didn’t know him or didn’t care what he said. I do think a lot of “young” people know who he is, but many of those (like you) who do know him, don’t think he has much that applies to how they think. Hopefully that makes sense.
Reply
3.
amoslanka says:
June 25, 2008 at 7:47 PM
i think anyone who knows who dobson is probably could have guessed what he thinks of obama.
Reply
4.
Tyler says:
June 25, 2008 at 7:51 PM
good point.
Reply
5.
Darin says:
June 26, 2008 at 5:57 PM
What floored me was that he told the news he was going to be talking about Obama. He should have planned what he wanted to say a lot better. I agree Dobson twisted much of what was said. He chose his words poorly.
While I have my concerns this didn’t do anyone any favors.
Reply
6.
Rhett Smith says:
July 1, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Tyler,
Great post. I’m so glad people are talking about this issue.
I’m pretty tired of some major evangelical figures acting as if they speak for all of evangelicalism.
Those who listen to Dobson weren’t going to vote for Obama anyways. And those who were going to vote for Obama, don’t even know who he is, or care what he has to say…as you put it.
rhett
Reply
7.
» James Dobson’s Attack On Obama: When Major Evangelical Figures Act Like They Speak for You and I, but They Don’t. says:
July 1, 2008 at 3:43 PM
[...] Tyler has a good post on Dobson v. Obama: The Battle Begins, and besides some of the posts I found on this issue, Tyler has some pretty good links to the back and forth arguments. [...]
Reply
8.
Shane says:
September 9, 2008 at 9:52 AM
[Saw this shocking thought-provoker on the worldwide you-know-what. Shane]
OBAMA SUPPORTS PUBLIC DEPRAVITY
(& supports the “rights” of little kids to view it!)
Google “Americans for Truth,” click on “Zombietime” [or go directly to: http://www.zombietime.com, then click on “Up Your Alley Fair.” After recovering from the uncensored photos (!), Yahoo “God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up” on the “ucmpage” or “clericalwhispers” listings (even Jesus told Judas to hurry up – John 13:27). Also Yahoo “Dangerous Radicals of the Religious Right.” See all of this before the predicted California earthquake happens a la Rev. 16:19 (“the cities of the nations fell”) – and before hurricanes and other conscience-stirring disasters occur elsewhere! The fast-moving agenda of Gaydom is to quietly sneak its depravity on to every Main Street on earth while normal folks stay asleep and do nothing! PS – Here’s a new pro-life slogan: “Unborn babies should have the right to keep and bear arms – and legs and ears and eyes etc.!”
(Obama and his porn-protecting collaborators, Pelosi and Newsom, did NOT approve of this message.)
Reply
Leave a Reply
Click here to cancel reply.
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
Notify me of follow-up comments via e-mail
© 2009 by Tyler Braun. Powered by Wordpress. Designed and coded by Paul Bae.
Subscribe to the RSS feed
RSS: Articles
RSS: Comments
o RECENT COMMENTS
o RECENT POSTS
o TAGS
o said: Diane and I have only been apart for 2 days in the last 8 years since we married. That’s changing tomorrow when I...
o said: Tyler, what a great reminder of the delicate balance we live in. I think I still take it for granted. But, really...
o said: Today’s topic at my 12-step meeting? Tolerance. I wonder how many people drove through that gridlock thinking what...
o said: thanks for making me tear up when i read this. i love you babe and i am happy to be home!
o said: 20 days? I’m on year 42 and still going strong!
o said: Tyler, I had a similar incident occur a few years ago except I barely escaped being a fatality as well. I was not...
o
o Fortuitous Bouncing
o The Bachelor Life
o Life is Fragile
o The Chance to Compete
o Fortuitous Bouncing
o Social Media Is About Me
* blogging books Christianity church emerging church God Jesus life music oregon pictures politics questions seminary sovereignty Sunset theology twitter worship youth ministry
RECENT PHOTOS
ABOUT TYLER
Tyler Braun.
Sinner.
Saved by God's grace and mercy.
25 years old. INTJ.
Live in Portland. Love Portland.
Married to Rose.
Attend Multnomah Biblical Seminary.
Student Ministry Worship and Praise Band Director at Sunset Presbyterian Church
Who Are You?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)