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