Tuesday, June 22, 2010

#2 A Citizen’s Unauthorized Notes................. Science on Trial

An exploration of the recent presentation:
“A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton”
Abraham v. Monckton

Professor Abraham's presentation can be found at: http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

Planet Climate also has a complete list of links to studies and publications used in Abraham v. Monckton http://planet-climate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Abraham_presentation

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Introduction - I’m a private citizen, high school class of 1973, who learned the basics of climate science and the significance of greenhouse gases during high school science classes. I’ve spent these decades being a tradesman, yet keeping up with the fantastic parade of scientific findings has always been my hobby. I have watched with increasing dismay as AGW "skeptic" presentations have drifted deeper and deeper into political theater rather than a rational examination of evidence.

Recently, scientists have finally begun to confront the "skeptics" slander by putting more effort in communicating real science in a way regular folks can understand, digest and learn from. I believe Professor Abraham has made an exceptional contribution that deserves to be widely disseminated both for its content and for its example.

In fact, I was so impressed with Professor Abraham’s presentation that I’ve decided to create an index, with notes relating to every slide - a study guide so to speak. This is an independent undertaking, I haven’t asked for nor been granted permission from Dr. John Abraham - though he is now aware of its existence. I have striven to make these notes true to the words and the spirit of his ±90 minutes worth of 126 slides. Any mistakes are all mine and will be corrected as I’m made aware of them.

For easier navigation I have an index you can open in a separate window.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CM# = Chris Monckton’s presentation slides as he numbered them
CM = Christopher Monckton
JA = Professor PhD. John Abraham, (thermo sciences)
I use quotes where I’m sure of the wording
Other sentences are accurate summations of JA’s dialogue
{I use braces where I’ve added my own opinion, or interpretation}

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Slide #1 ~~ “A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton”
Introduction, why this presentation was put together...

Slide #2 ~~ JA: It is important to go through his slides to show how easy it is to fabricate data. “Now, I’m going to reply as a scientist would reply, with all my resources available... I’ll provide links and full citations.”

Slide #3 ~~ JA introduces himself: Professor of Mechanical Engineering (heat transfer and fluid mechanics), has published approximately 80 Journal papers, conference papers and patents.

Slide #4 ~~ Who is Chris Monckton: Degree in Classics and Journalism, speaks as an “expert” on climate change, no peer review papers published. Abraham asks: “Now does that mean he’s wrong?... Does that mean non-experts are not allowed to have an opinion on this? Absolutely not. We welcome everyone with an opinion on this topic, you can be knowledgeable about things outside your formal area of expertise. But, nevertheless we want to think about the background that people have when we ascribe credibility to the comments they make.”

Slide #5 ~~ Asks: “How is it all major science organizations have official positions on climate change that differ from Chris Monckton? What does he know that they don’t?”

Slide #6 ~~ CM#3 Quoting Sir. John Houghton: We’re all gonna lie! “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”

Slide #7 ~~ JA regarding that quote: “There is a problem with that... It didn’t happen.

Slide #8 ~~ Steve Connor news article: “Fabricated quote used to discredit climate scientist”

Slide #9 ~~ ... February 2010 Independant, “How Sir John’s words were twisted”
“Multiple people have investigated this and found that that quote never occurred.”

Slide #10 ~~ “CM#8 predicted sea level IPCC 6cm, Gore 610cm, 100x error!”

Slide #11 ~~ IPCC actually says: 20-50 cm (p.409, ch#5, WG1), but IPCC includes a caveat: “these projects do not include ice melt, these numbers are for thermo expansion.” IPCC states they leave ice melt numbers out because they were too uncertain at the time of the printing.
From p818 ch#10: ... This raises new concern about the overall stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the collapse of which would trigger another 5-6 m of sea level rise...”

Slide #12 ~~ Sea level rise? Rahmstorf et al., “Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections” Science, v#316, p709, 2007: “Although ice-sheet contribution has been small, observations are indicating that it is rapidly increasing...”
Also, Mitrovia et al., “The Sea-Level Fingerprint of West Antarctic Collapse” Science v#323, p753, 2009: “These results reinforce serious serious concerns about the impact on some coastal communities of a future instability in the West Antarctic Ice Shelf.”

Slide #13 ~~ Kopp et al., “Probabilistic Assessment of Sea Level During the Last Interglacial Stage” Nature v#462, p863-867, 2009: “The last interglacial period was only slightly warmer than present ... thus highlights the vulnerability of ice sheets to even low levels of sustained global warming.”
Meehl et al., “How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise” Science v#307, p1769-1772, 2005: “... even if concentrations are stabilized, there is a commitment to future climate changes that will be greater than those we have already observed

Slide #14 ~~ Kerr, “Antarctic Glacier Off Its Leash” Science, v#327, p409, 2010: “... last hope for stopping the now accelerating retreat of the Pine Island Glacier, a crumbling keystone of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet... To a policy-maker, the continuing list of ice-sheet surprises is not reassuring...”

Slide #15 ~~ CM#11 “The polar bears lah: A scientific study shows for the first time they’re finding polar bears that have drowned, swimming long distance up to 60 miles to find the ice.”

Slide #16 ~~ CM#12 “”The Lah nailed” uses Monnet & Gleason 2006 to claim no problem with polar bears.

Slide #17 ~~ Monnet et al., “Observations of Mortality Associated with Extended Open-Water Swimming by Polar Bears in the Alaska Beaufort Sea” Polar Biology, v29, p681-687, 2006: “We further suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.”

Slide #18 ~~ Abraham wrote Monnet, the reply: “... I do not believe that C. Monckton has read my work, or recent work of prominent polar bear biologists that is easily obtained through Goggle.”

Slide #19 ~~ CM#13 graph: “Sea ice extent in Beaufort Sea is growing” no citation. (though JA discovered it came from Melling et al.)

Slide #20 ~~ JA: Question - Is the ice growing? Melling et al., “Trends in Thickness and Extent of Seasonal Pack Ice, Canadian Beaufort Sea” Geophysical Research Letters, v24, p1-5, 2005: “No one really knows, but human influence on the atmosphere via emissions either of chloro-fluorocarbons or carbon dioxide is the prime candidate.”

Slide #21 ~~ Barber et al., “Perennial Pack Ice in the Southern Beaufort Seas was not as it Appeared in the Summer of 2009” Geophysical Research Letters, v36, 2009: “In situ observations found heavily decayed, very small remnant floes interspersed with new ice between floes, in melt ponds, thaw holes and growing over negative freeboard older ice...”

Slide #22 ~~ JA emailed Barber asking about CM’s claim: “He is wrong. Please see attached.”

Slide #23 ~~ CM#14: “Warm: more polar bears, Cool: fewer polar bears” cites Norris et al. 2002

Slide #24 ~~ JA reference the Norris 2002 report: “... polar bears in Hudson Bay are being impacted by climate change...” and goes on to list a series of climate induced impacts polar bears are being observed to suffer.

Slide #25 ~~ JA emailed author, she replied with a press release: “Human induced climate change is the number one threat to the long term survival to the worlds largest terrestrial carnivores” From the report “Polar Bears at Risk.”

Slide #26 ~~ What do other researchers say? Regehr et al., “Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea - Survival and Breeding in Relation to Sea Ice Conditions, 2001-2006” USGS, 2007: “Declining ice extent and degrading ice character has been associated with... declines in cub survival and observations of drowned or emaciated and cannibalized polar bears, declining sea ice... where the sea ice melts each year... has been associated with reduced body condition, reproduction, survival and abundance.”
Amstrup et al., “Forecasting the Range-wide Status of Polar Bears at Selected Times in the 21st Century” USGS 2007: “Polar bear populations were forecasted to decline throughout all of the range during the 21st century.”

Slide #27 ~~ CM#19: Mediaeval Warm period - now you see it - IPCC 1990 had graph showing large MWP, even warmer than today.

Slide #28 ~~ CM#20: Mediaeval Warm period - now you don’t - IPCC 2001 graph which A explains, then asks the question: “Is the IPCC fooling us?” CM claims: “The medieval period was warmer than today. Present warming is not unique.” Furthermore, the IPCC “erased” the MWP. CM presented homemade graphs.

Slide #29 ~~ JA: “The issue is this, if the MWP was warmer than today do we really have to be concerned? The second issue is: Did the IPCC “hide the data?” JA presents an up to date graph: “NH Temperature Reconstructions” that includes twelve different studies. Pointing out that all were published after the IPCC 1990 report, four went into IPCC 2001 report. The 1990 report was an estimate.

Slide #30 ~~ CM#24: “700 scientists: MWP was real” showing an assortment of 9 graphs from various studies. A asks: “Again if 700 scientist say MWP was warmer than it is today, then why are we concerned?”

Slide #31 ~~ JA asks: “What about all these researchers showing MWP was warmer than todays? Lets ask some of the authors” and lists four studies.

Slide #32 ~~ Frank et al., “Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate” Nature v#463, p527-532, 2010.

Slide #33 ~~ From reply: “Data indicate that temperatures now are much warmer than during the medieval times. Evidence for anthropogenic causes of this modern warm comes from the fact that climate models can only reproduce modern warmth by including anthropogenic forcings.”

Slide #34 ~~ Kiegwin: “You (A) are absolutely right.”

Slide #35 ~~ Noon, Leng, and Jones “Oxygen-isotope evidence of Holocene hydrological changes at Signy Island, maritime Antarctica” 53. The Holocene 13(2), 251-263. ISSN: 0959-6836

Slide #36 ~~ From Dr. Viv Jones’: “Climate change in the Arctic,” “The Arctic is currently undergoing rapid global warming... ”

Slide #37 ~~ Huang et al., “A Late Quaternary Climate Reconstruction Based on Borehole Heat Flux Data, Borehole Temperature Data, and the Instrumental Record” Geo. Res. Letters v35, 2008: “The reconstruction show temperatures... the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level and the end-of-20th century temperatures (are) about 0.5C above the reference level... consistent with the amplitudes estimated from other climate proxies as summarized by the IPCC.

Slide #38 ~~ Gupta et al., “Solar Influence on the Indian Summer Monsoon During the Holocene” Geo. Res. Letters v32, L17703, 2008. Replying to JA’s question Gupta (& coauther D. Anderson) replies: “... you are right, we never said the MWP was warmer than today.”

Slide #39 ~~ CM#25: “‘The 2500 IPCC scientists’ lie’ IPCC climate sensitivity estimate rest on just 4 scientific papers.” It appears he confuses scientists with references.

Slide #40 ~~ CM says that the number of authors was 50 and that more reviewers rejected it than wrote it!” JA: “The number of references in a single chapter of a single part of the report is 275 (Chapter 1, working group 1). There are 43 chapters. So to claim there are only four references that support IPCC assertions is nonsense.

Slide #41 ~~ JA asks: “How many papers actually dealt with sensitivity?” Then provided these papers:
Allen et al., “Quantifying the Uncertainty in Forecasts of Anthropogenic Climate Change” Nature, v407, p617-620, 2000

Andronova et al., “Objective Estimation of the Probability Density Function for Climate Sensitivity” J. Geophysical Research, v106, p22601-22611, 2001

Annan et al., “Using Multiple Observationally-Based Constraints to Estimate Climate Sensitivity” Geoph. Research Letters, v33, L06704, 2006

Boer et al., “Climate Sensitivity and Response” Climate Dynamic, v20, p415-429, 2003

Boer et al., “Dynamic Aspects of Climate Sensitivity” Geop. Research Letters, v30, p1135, 2003

Slide #42 ~~ The list continues ...
Forest et al., “Quantifying Uncertainties with Climate System Properties with the Use of Recent Climate Observations” Science, v295, p113-117, 2002

Forster et al., “Climate Forcings and Climate Sensitivities Diagnosed from Coupled Climate Model Integrations” J. of Climate, v19, p6181-6194, 2006

Forster et al., “Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data” J. of Climate, v19, p39-52, 2006

Forest et al., “Estimate PDFs of Climate System Properties Including Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings” Geo. Research Letters, v33, L01705, 2006

Frame et al., “Constraining Climate Forecasts: The Role of Prior Assumptions” Geo Research Letters, v32, L09702, 2005

Slide #43 ~~ Then, JA continues adding to the list...
Gregory et al., “An Observationally Based Estimate of Climate Sensitivity and Aerosol Radiative Forcing” J. Climate, v15, p3117-3121, 2002

Harvey et al., “Simultaneously Constraining Climate Sensitivity and Aerosol Radiative Forcing” J. of Climate, v15, p2837-2861, 2002

Hegerl et al., “Climate Sensitivity Constrained by Temperature Reconstructions over the Past Seven Centuries” Nature, v440, p1029-1032, 2006

Hansen et al., “Climate Response Times: Dependence on Climate Sensitivity and Ocean Mixing” Science, v229, p857-859, 1985

Knutti et al., “Constraints on Radiative Forcing and Future Climate Change from Observations and Climate Ensembles” Nature, v416, p719-723, 2002

Slide #44 ~~ But wait, there’s more...
Manabe et al., “Multiple-Century Response of a Coupled Ocean-Atmospheric Model to an Increase of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” J. of Climate, v7,p5-23, 1994

Meehl et al., “Factors Affecting Climate Sensitivity in Global Coupled Models” J. of Climate, v17, p1584-1596, 2004

Meehl et al., “Climate Change Projections for the Twenty-First Century and Climate Change Commitment in the CCSM3” J. of Climate, v19, p2597-2616, 2006

Murphy et al., “Quantification of Modelling Uncertainties in a Large Ensemble of Climate Change Simulations” Nature v430, p768-772, 2004

Slide #45 ~~ CM#31: “Science Policy Institute.org” graphs (SPI is CM’s own group). Fun with graphs, showing how trends can be manipulated, claiming decreasing temps over short time scale.

Slide #46 ~~ JA presents NASA data graph: “Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index” and it is definitely trending up. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

Slide #47 ~~ Discussing CM#32: “CM disparages the IPCC head as a railroad engineer without environmental experience...” A 2-2-10 literature search revealed Pachauri has published at least 41 articles in journals...” JA lists fourteen journals Pachauri has published in.

Slide #48 ~~ CM#37: “NOAA “it ain’t cooling” lie” SPI graph claiming NOAA cooling trend of ±1.3 C/century

Slide #49 ~~ CM#38: “The lie nailed” claims all data was shifted. (SPI graph) based on NCDC monthly temp anomalies indicating “downtrend 0.8C this century.”

Slide #50 ~~ JA: “Are the predictions wrong? or is it CM’s graph. JA then points out a number of consistency errors among CM’s own graphs, nor do his numbers agree with NASA’s.

Slide #51 ~~ JA then presents NOAA’s graph of Temperature anomalies, which speaks for itself http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html

Slide #52 ~~ For comparison to CM#38 chart JA gets the NCDC Temp anomalies 2001 to present graph. Looks similar to CM’s graph - but on closer inspection CM has moved the entire plotted line down ±.2C. Also focusing on just the last ten years does not do the picture justice - JA shows that NCDC graph going back to 1880, which paints a very different picture.

Slide #53 ~~ JA asks: “Does CM agree with himself? Points out inconsistence with CM’s own graph. JA: “So we see that CM doesn’t get the IPCC right, he doesn’t get his own data right, so how can you trust conclusions drawn from them.

Slide #54 ~~ CM#43: “The consensus lie: ‘Global warming will be catastrophic’ The lie nailed: “Global climate change’ papers: 539 - Evidence for “catastrophe”: 0 - (Schulte 2008)

Slide #55 ~~ CM’s search “global climate change - 2004-2007” found 539 citations. CM: “... none of those provided any evidence at all of any catastrophe arising from any anthropogenic effect on any part of the climate at any part of the world.”

Slide #56 ~~ AJ does a word search in Google Scholar for CM’s same words and years.

Slide #57 ~~ AJ: ‘What we find’. Google came up with 836,000 hits. AJ mentions three “Extinction risk from climate change”; “GCC and the emergence and re-emergence of infectious diseases”; “Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification.”

Slide #58 ~~ “Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought”
“A global dataset of Palmer Drought Severity Index for 1870-2002”
“Relationship with soil moisture and effects of surface warming”
“How much more global warming and sea level rise?”

Slide #59 ~~ CM: “No sea level rise in the Maldives (Morner et al 2004).” Church et al., “Sea-level Rise at Tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean Islands, Global and Planetary Change” v53, p155-168, 2006: “We find no evidence for the fall in sea level at the Maldives as postulated by Morner et al 2004.”

Slide #60 ~~ Woodworth, “Have there Been Large Recent Sea Level Changes in the Maldive islands, Global and Planetary Change” v49, p1-18, 2005: “This objective led a fieldwork team (Morner) to the Maldives, and resulted in a conclusion that sea level in the islands fell by ± 30 cm during the past few decades. In the present paper, the suggestion of such a fall has been examined from meteorological and oceanographic perspectives and found to be implausible... the IPCC 3rd Assessment Report, remains the most reliable scenario to employ in the future studies of the islands.”

Slide #61 ~~ AJ presents CSIDO graph: “Global Mean Sea Level 1870-2008” - “Sea level is rising as a result of increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

Slide #62 ~~ CM: “Temperature always changes first, CO2 follows.” citing Caillon et al., “Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature Changes Across Termination III” Science v299, p1728-1731, 2003. However, Caillon writes “The situation differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase... The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing (the sun) which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks that are also at work for the present day and future climate.”

Slide #63 ~~ JA: Can you calculate temperatures based on greenhouse gas levels? Shows a graph tracking Climate Change and Trace Gases during past 400,000 years
This graph ignores all other temperature forcings and simply tracks CO2 levels with observed temperature level. (It’s quite telling)

Slide #64 ~~ CM#50: “For 6000 years, it was 7C warmer than today. JA: “Sure. But, would you want to live in that world?”

Slide #65 ~~ CM#51: “4 interglacials were ~ 3C warmer than the present,” citing Petit et al., 1999. Inference being so what, its no big deal.

Slide #66 ~~ Petit et al, “Climate and Atmospheric History of the past 420,000 years from Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica” Nature v399, p429-436, 1999: “CO2 and methane are strongly correlated with Antarctic temps; this is because, overall, our results support the idea that greenhouse gases have contributed significantly... The unique elevations of these gases today is of relevance with respect to the continuing debate on the future of the Earth’s climate.”
The take away message: “When greenhouse gases are high, temps are high - when greenhouse gases are low temps are low.”

Slide #67 ~~ CM: “Ocean acidification is absolute rubbish.” Hoegh-Guidberg et al., “Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification” Science, v318, p1737-1742, 2007: “Under conditions expected in the 21st century, global warming and ocean acidification will compromise carbonate accretion, with corals becoming increasingly rare on reef systems.”

Fbary et al., “Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Marina Fauna and Ecosystems Processes” ICES J. Marine Science, v65, p414-432, 2008: “Oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxice is altering the seawater chemistry of the world’s oceans with consequence for marine biota.” http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/65/3/414

Slide #68 ~~ Anthony et al., “Ocean Acidification Causes Bleaching and Productivity Loss in Coral Reef Builders” Proc. Acad. Sciences, v105, p17442-17446, 2008: “Ocean acidification represents a key threat to coral reefs by reducing the calcification rate of framework builders.” http://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17442.abstract
Doney et al., “Ocean Acidification, the Other CO2 Problem” Ann.Rev.Marine Science, v1, p169-192, 2009: “... this process of ocean acidification is well documented in field data... “ http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834

Slide #69 ~~ Guinotte & Fabry, “Ocean Acidification and its Potential Effects on Marine Ecosystems” Ann. NY Academy of Science, v1134, p320-342, 2008: “Ocean acidification is rapidly changing the carbonate system of the world oceans.”

McNeil et al., “Southern Ocean acidification: A tipping point at 450-ppm atmospheric CO2” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., v105, p18860-18864, 2008: “Southern Ocean acidification via anthropogenic CO2 uptake is expected to be detrimental to multiple calcifying plankton species...” http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18860.full

Slide #70 ~~ CM#56: “Arctic Sea-Ice Extent Is Just Fine: steady for a decade” Presenting an IARC-JAXA graph. JA: “The question is, is CM interpreting the data right?”

Slide #71 ~~ CM: “... are reductions in sea ice having nothing to do with global warming?” Citing the International Arctic Research Center. Here’s what John Walsh IARC Chief Scientist has to say: “Our finding provides a physical basis for the extreme summer losses of the recent years.”

Slide #72 ~~ Dr. Walsh, referred to the NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center), there graph “Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice Extent March 1979 to 2010” which shows a marked down hill trend. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
JA suggests” “Surely this graph must be wrong... CM says it is. Perhaps it’s a misprint? Let me ask Mark Serreze at NSIDC.”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/: “The rate of decline through May 2010 was the fastest in the satellite record...”

Slide #73 ~~ JA emailed PhD. Serreze: “ ... CM a climate “skeptic” has been claiming no cause for concern with regard to losses in recent sea ice.” JA goes on to write: “My understanding is that there is a systematic decrease, annual variation related to oscillations, but the time smoothed trend is largely the result of arctic warming. Can you clarify who is correct?”

Slide #74 ~~ The reply: “Monckton is wrong. ... “

Slide #75 ~~ JA wrote another person at the IARC to University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). Larry Hinzman replies: “I believe we would side with you on this argument.” But who is he? He is the director of the International Arctic Research Center - from which CM got his data.

Slide #76 ~~ CM#57: “Greenland ice sheet is just fine” citing Johannessen 2005 CM claims: “Colors indicate Ice Sheet Elevation Change Rate in cm/year ... from ... satellite altimeter data, 1992 - 2003. The spatially averaged increase is 0.2cm/year.”

Slide #77 ~~ CM#57: “...paper by Johannessen et al... found that from 1992 to 2003 the average thickness of the vast thickness of Greenland’s ice sheet increased by 2 inches a year.
JA contacted Johannessen who referred to: M. van den Brooke, “Partitioning Recent Greenland Mass Loss, Science” v326, p984-986, 2009: “Since 2006, high summer melt rates have increased Greenland ice sheet mass loss to 273 gigatons.”

Slide #78 ~~ Johannessen proved a link: http//amap.no/swipa/press2009/GRIS_SCIENCE_English_Secure.pdf - p36,s3.1: “Recent observations and climate modeling results have highlighted the Arctic as a region of particular vulnerability to global climate change. The Arctic has warmed by 0.46C since 1979, a value which is twice as large as the global warming due to the polar amplification.” further on p39: “... all suggest that a response of the Greenland ice sheet to global warming may be emerging...”

Slide #79 ~~ JA’s email from Dr. Johannassen.

Slide #80 ~~ list: Zwally et al., “Mass Changes of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Shelves and Contributions to Sea-Level Rise: 1992-2002” J. of Glaciology, v51, p509-527, 2005.
Thomas et al., “Progressive Increase in Ice Loss From Greenland” Geo.Res.Lett.v33, 2006
Fettweis, “Reconstruction of the 1979-2006 Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Balance Using the Regional Climate Model MAR” Cryo. Discussions, v1, p123-168, 2007
Hall et al., “Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Temperature, Melt, and Mass Loss: 2000-2006” J. Glaciology, v54, p81-93, 2008

Slide #81 ~~ CM claims Himalayan glaciers are not losing ice mass. Berthier et al., “Remote Sensing Estimates of Glacier Mass Balances in the Himachal Pradesh (Western Himalaya, India)” Remote Sensing of Environment, v108, p327-338, 2007: “... On most glaciers, a clear thinning is measured at low elevation... This rate of ice loss is twice higher than the long-term (1977-1999) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6V-4MNYJXY-7&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F15%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1378466014&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0055b76877d593065426301b72e55d93

Slide #82 ~~ Singh et al., “Effect of Climate Change on Runoff of a Glacierized Himalayan Basin” Hydrological Processes, v20, p1979-1992, 2005: “The continuous increase in the emission of greenhouse gases has resulted in global warming, and substantial changes in the global climate are expected by the end of the current century.”

Slide #83 ~~ Ren et al. “Glacier Variations and Climate Change in the Central Himalaya Over the Past Few Decades” Annals of Glaciology, v43, p218-222, 2006: “Glacier variations is one of many indicators of climate change... Many glaciers on the south slope of the central Himalaya have been in retreat, and recently their retreat rate has accelerated... The strongest warming has occurred in the last 30 years. These data suggest that the current glacier retreat is due to the combined effect of reduced precipitation and warmer temperatures, and, if these conditions continue, the glaciers in the region will continue to shrink.”

Slide #84 ~~ Kulkarni et al. “Glacial Retreat in Himalaya Using Indian Remote Sensing Satellite Data” Current Science, v92, p69-74, 2007: “The investigation has shown an overall reduction in glacier area from 2077 sq.km in 1962 to 1628 sq.km at present, an overall deglacieration of 21%. This indicates that a combination of glacial fragmentation, higher retreat of small glaciers and climate change are influencing the sustainability of Himalayan glaciers.”

Slide #85 ~~ CM#70: “CO2 is only a trace gas - CO2 in the atmosphere as % by volume. 1750-0.03%; 2009-0.04%; =+0.01% change”
JA: “This is the danger of small numbers. People (are lead) to infer from this that there hasn’t been much of a change.”

Slide #86 ~~ CM#70: suggests that because carbon dioxide is a trace gas, it can’t affect the climate. The increase in carbon dioxide is 0.01%. JA: If we look at the math, 390 ppm over 280 ppm equals 1.39, that is a 39% increase in CO2 {a staggering amount in geophysical/evolutionary terms}
“There is a discernible isotopic signature that proves this CO2 is manmade. There is not a reputable scientist who will disagree.”

Slide #87 ~~ CM#72 “The oceans are cooling” a homemade graph showing a gentle cooling trend.

Slide #88 ~~ JA points out CM#72 is the same graph used at CM#40 (“The lie nailed”), that graph cites ARGO 2009. JA explains how CM is confused: ARGO is the name of an instrument used for ocean temp measurements. ARGO is not an institution and ARGO 2009 is no paper that ever appeared {implication being CM don’t clearly understand the science nor measuring instruments nor publication protocols.}

Slide #89 ~~ CM#73 graph “... so sea level has not risen for four years” citing Univ. of Colorado JA: example of dubious graph interpretation.

Slide #90 ~~ JA what the authors themselves say. Email: “There is indeed a leveling off over the last ca. 1.5 years, but Monckton’s conclusion that SLR is over on this basis strikes me as a bit like assuming at duck that the sun will never rise again. It’s not actually an impossible outcome, but it’s probably not worth waiting until morning to find out if you’re right.” He goes on to write: “... predictions tend to be a rash business, but if Monckton is claiming that the evidence shows that sea level rise is now over, that’s a lot more rash - and unsupported by the evidence...”

Slide #91 ~~ CM#74 “No ocean heat buildup for 50 years” - homemade graph citing Domingues and Douglass & Knox 2009. CM uses “watt’s per meter squared”, that is not a measure of heat, that is an energy flux. The proper unit of energy are Joules. (CM confused his units)

Slide #92 ~~ Show graph from Domingues et al., “Improved Estimates of Upper-Ocean Warming and Multi-Decadal Sea-Level Rise” Nature v453, p1090-1093, 2008. Graph clearly show consistent rise in ocean temp these past fifty years. Email reply from Domingues: “You (JA) are correct the upper 700 meters of the oceans has warmed.”

Slide #93 ~~ CM#67 “Grand Minimum to Grand Maximum:300 years warming” citing Hathaway 2004, CM says that the warming is due to sun’s increased energy output. JA points out another inconsistency in CM’s message: sometimes he say global warming is not happening, other times he says global warming is happening but it’s due to other factors.

Slide #94 ~~ Hathaway et al., “What the Sunspot Record Tells us About Space Climate” Solar Physics, v224, p5-19, 2004. Hathaway replies to JA’s email: “I did not then, nor did I ever, suggest that solare variability plays a dominant role in (current) climate change, Volcanic eruptions, El Nino, and greenhouse gases all appear to play more significant roles.”

Slide #95 ~~ CM#69 “Solar changes cause most climate change; The Sun caused today’s global warming; Today’s warming is normal, not unusual; Today’s global warming will end soon” citing IAU 2004 (International Astronomical Union conference 2004).

Slide #96 ~~ JA asks IAU: “There is no such formal position endorsed by the IAU. Let alone any claim from IAU that suggests that global warming can be explained by solar variability. Please pass this information to whoever might have used IAU’s name to claim otherwise.”

Slide #97 ~~ CM#68 “Solar radiance at the surface vs. mean surface temperature” cites Soon et al., 2009. (although the paper hasn’t been published)

Slide #98 ~~ Benestad et al., “Solar Trends and Global Warming” J. Geophysical Research, v114, 2009: “Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing... 7%... and is negligible since 1980.”

Slide #99 ~~ Pittock, “Can Solar Variations Explain Variations in the Earth’s Climate?” Climate Change v96, p483-486, 2009: “After reviewing more than 100 papers, I came to the conclusion that... little convincing evidence... for real correlations between sunspot cycles and the climate...” “I was... naturally skeptical of human-induced climate change... my skepticism was unjustified.”

Slide #100 ~~ Rozelot et al., “Is it Possible to Find a Solar Signature in the Current Climate Warming?” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, v31, p41-45, 2006: “Changes from 1861 to 1975 show an unexpected remarkable correlation whereas the period 1976-2000 completely deviates from the previous analysis.” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6X1W-4JKHM71-2&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1378472160&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=566d37da3b5a15ea237f08ce64580854

Slide #101 ~~ Lockwood et al., “Recent Changes in Solar Outputs and the Global Mean Surface Temperature. III. Analysis of the Contributions to Global Mean Air Surface Temperature Rise” Proc. Royal Soc. v464, p1387-1404, 2008: “It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward.”

Slide #102 ~~ Solanki et al., “Unusual Activity of the Sun During Recent Decades Compared to the Previous 11,000 Years” Nature, v431, #7012, p1084-1087, 2004 : “We point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.”


Slide #103 ~~ Damon et al., “Solar Forcing of Global Temperature Since AD 1400” Climate Change, v68, p101-111, 2005: “Our solar irradiance model accounts for about 18% of the 20th century global warming to 1997...”

Slide #104 ~~ Ammann et al., “Solar Influences on Climate During the Past Millenium: Results from Transient Simulations with the NCAR Climate System Models” Proc. Nat’l Acac. Sciences v104, p3713-3718, 2007: “... the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century.”

Slide #105 ~~ Foukal et al., “Variations in Solar Luminosity and Their Effect on the Earth’s Climate” Nature, v443, p161-166, 2006: “... brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century.”

Slide #106 ~~ Solanki et al., “Can Solar Variability Explain Global Warming Since 1970?” J Geophysical Research v108, 2003: “the sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperature increase that has taken place.” http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/

Slide #107 ~~ Lockwood et al., “Recent Oppositely Directed Trends in Solar Climate Forcing and the Global Mean Surface Air Temperature” Proc. Roy. Soc. v463, p2447-2466, 2007: “Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction...”

Slide #108 ~~ Damon et al., “Patterns of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data” EOS, v85, 2004

Slide #109 ~~ What about Willie Soon’s 2009 paper? Could he have been wrong? First, let’s ask who funds Willie Soon? Soon et al., “An Interpretation of Cycle Periods of Stellar Chromospheric Activity” Atmospheric Journal, v414, L33-L36, 1993. In that paper Soon acknowledges, among others, The American Petroleum Institute; Mobile Foundation; Electric Power Research Institute.

JA remarks: “What does this mean? It certainly doesn’t mean that Soon is preordained to give that support these organizations. It does not mean that at all.... The interesting connection though is that these organizations have a vested interest in this issue of climate change.... It does not, I want to repeat this, it does not mean Soon is publishing a report that is apriori supportive of these organizations. It is simply a point of fact..."

Slide #110 ~~ Zhang, Soon, Balliunas, “A Method of Determining Possible Brightness Variation of the Sun in Past Centuries from Observations of Solar-type Stars” Astrophysical Journal v427, pL111-L114, 1994. Also, funded by among others: The American Petroleum Institute; Mobile Foundation; Electric Power Research Institute.
{and incidentally the Richard Lounsbery Foundation who also funds famous “skeptic” Fred Singer}

Slide #111 ~~ Soon et al., “Inference of Solar Irradiance Variability from Terrestrial Temperature Changes, 1880-1993: An Astrophysical Application of the Sun-Climate Connection” Astrophysical Journal, v472, p891-902, 1996. Also, funded by The American Petroleum Institute; Mobile Foundation; Electric Power Research Institute; Texaco; Lounsbery Foundation.

Slide #112 ~~ Soon et al., “Climate Hypersensitivity to Solar Forcing” Annals Geophysicae, v18, p583-588, 2000. Received funding from Electrical Power Research Institute.

Slide #113 ~~ Soon & Baliunas, “Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A reappraisal, Energy and Environment” v14, p233-296, 2003. Again received funding from American Petroleum Institute.
{It is worth noting that he also received funding from NASA for the last two studies, putting the lie to NASA censoring funding }

Slide #114 ~~ Soon, “Variable Solar Irradiance as a Plausible Agent for Multidecadal Variation in the Arctic-Wide Surface Air Temperature Record of the Past 130 years” Geo. Research Letters, v32, 2005. “This scientific research was supported by generous grants from the Koch Foundation, American Petroleum Institute and Exxon-Mobile Foundation. {we are assured} The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and are independent of sources providing support.”

Slide #115 ~~ Willie Soon is employed by the Science and Public Policy Institute, the same organization which employs Christopher Monckton...
also see: http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute
Soon is/has been employed by or is associated with: Western Fuels; Greening Earth Society; Heartland Foundation; George C. Marshall Institute; American Petroleum Institute; Tech Station Central.

JA reminds us: “Just because someone is associated with, or funded, by an organization does not mean that immediately all their results should be viewed skeptically. But, you’ve got a situation where someone’s work is contradicted by a large number of other scientists, and so you have to try to assess the credibility of each side. I think its legitimate to ask who funds people’s research when there is a controversial issue like this.”

Slide #116 ~~ Sins of Attribution. JA: “One of the real complaints a scientist would have with Monckton presentation is he gives a lot of data without explanation or attribution. Maybe he just forgot? But he kept forgetting, and forgetting and forgetting: Slides 16, 21, 22, 23, 34, 37, 38, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55. If you don’t give attribution it’s hard for people to go and determine whether or not your right."

Slide #117 ~~ Example: CM#13: “Sea Ice Extent in the Beaufort Sea is growing.”

Slide #118 ~~ Example: CM#21: “How the UN bent the “hockey stick.”

Slide #119 ~~ Example: CM#22: “The computer always drew hockey sticks”

Slide #120 ~~ Example: CM#23: “CENSORED_DATA - and the MWP restored”

Slide #121 ~~ Example: CM#31: comparing graph sampling artifacts. JA: now on some of these CM does cite the Science and Public Policy Institute - but you can’t cite your own organization, especially when they didn’t do any of the original science.

Slide #122 ~~ Example: CM#32: “Global mean temperature - The Lie Nailed”

Slide #123 ~~ Example: CM#45: “The Making cooling ...”

Slide #124 ~~ Example: CM#46: “... into warming lie”

Slide #125 ~~ “So who can we trust? Look you’ve got two presentation given by two different people (coming to) very different conclusions. Who are we to trust? Well, I’m asking you not to trust me and not to trust CM." But, here are some organizations you might want to start out with: NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Science
NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration)
NAS (National Academy of Science)
NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research)
AMS (American Meteorological Society)
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)
NAE (National Academy of Engineering)
NWS (National Weather Service)
World Glacier Monitoring Service
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
... and many more.

JA: Everyone of these organization has come out with very clear statements about the potential problems with climate change.” What should we think when someone like CM can come in and present himself as if he knows something all these other scientists who study this every day don’t know? JA asks us to do our research among these organizations, what we’ll find is a very clear sense that there is broad agreement on the issue of climate change and human impact of climate change.

Slide #126 ~~ Who is right? How is a general audience able to discriminate? Especially when the information is given very rapid fire without citations. Who has an agenda?

JA: “I’m not going to say CM has an agenda. I can tell you this presentation I have prepared, is not funded in any way. I’m a professor at a university and this has taken time away from my research activities, and its cost me money, plus a lot of time."

"So, my agenda is to safe guard the future planet and I’m happy to volunteer this time to make sure that the real science, the accurate science gets out there. Cause I tell you what, we have some tough decisions to make and we can only make good decisions if we really know the science. And that is my agenda..."

"We really should be moving beyond this question, and we should really be dealing with mitigation efforts and not arguing about climate change and whether or not it is occurring."

No comments: