CTV News

The 6 pm promo for the 11pm CTV news (a Canadian national network) featured – guess who. You’ll recognize some graphics. The 11pm news is online here (only up to yesterday at present – I’m not sure whether they stream it at 11 pm or whether it’s just an archive.)

I’m on at the very end of the segment at about 28 minutes. A reader says that my segment is here

My Washington radio interview yesterday is online here.


63 Comments

  1. Larry Sheldon
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 6:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Apparently reserved only for real Canadians, eh?

  2. Ian McLeod
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 7:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, as I type this out, I have eight “mates” over this evening playing some cards, euchre. We are in my garage (how Canadian eh?) with the TV on. We are anticipating the eleven o’clock news on CTV and plan to watch. I have my lap top available, so we can, between hands, have a look at your web blog and other news stories covering this fascinating development. We will be raising our glasses in cheer when your segment comes on. Hip, hip, hurray …

  3. TCO
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 7:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s like Robert Sawyer. The frigging TV is government subsidized. And the people seem to get so excited that they actually have a Canadian in the news. Buncha 51st staters…

  4. Ian McLeod
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 8:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Hey TCO, we are having some fun watching the global warmers go red in the face. You do not need to be Canadian to enjoy that.

  5. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 8:19 PM | Permalink | Reply

    This is a private sector news network, not CBC. But I was on CBC radio as well.

  6. TCO
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 8:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

    figures…just like out of a Sawyer novel.

  7. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 8:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I got negligible coverage in Canada for the Hockey Stick other than the National Post, although I got lots of coverage in Europe.

  8. Larry Sheldon
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 8:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It will let me see the videos now, but I couldn’t find the one you are talking about.

  9. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 8:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/16/1

    Gavin Schmidt is quoted as saying that the net result: “The sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings” . U.S. changes are not a “couple of hunderdths of degrees.”

    Gavin denied that they were “faking” things – did anyone say that they were?

  10. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 8:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #8.. It’s not 11 pm Eastern yet.

  11. Anthony Watts
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 8:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The CTV live feed is pay subscription only, they’ll have the recorded version later or perhaps tomorrow at this link:

    http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/bplayer/ElevenP.html

  12. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 9:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Hey TCO,

    Robert Sawyer is a good writer. I have several of his novels. (And I’m not Canadian.) If I recall he used to show up at the CompuServe SF forum when I hung out there. And since that’s where I met my wife, I have fond feelings for Compuserve.

  13. TCO
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 9:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Well, gee.

  14. Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 9:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Hi Steve- I just saw you on the CTV news (I hadn’t heard of this site before that) and I think what you are doing is great. I was automatically reminded of this Discover article, which could explain the high temperatures in the 1930s: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark

    [snip]

    Keep up the good work!

    -Trent

  15. paminator
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 9:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Anthony- The CTV news for this evening is now available at the link you provided. Good show, Steve!

  16. Shamrock
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 10:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I just watched the little segment on CTV about the error. I would just like to know what that error was in the data, seeing as they do not mention it on the news. I would also like to know what the difference between the 2 years where. If I remember correctly it was not a lot that separated them seeing as that year was originally one of the years with high temperatures and 1998 is still listed as a hot year (just not the hottest in the US)

    Thanks!

  17. Jim B
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 10:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Here is the 2 minute video clip:

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg&hub=SciTech&video_link_high=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2007/08/15/ctvvideologger2_500kbps_2007_08_15_1187231780.wmv&video_link_low=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2007/08/15/ctvvideologger2_218kbps_2007_08_15_1187229794.wmv&clip_start=00:01:34.32&clip_end=00:01:58.11&clip_caption=CTV%20News:%20John%20Vennavally-Rao%20covers%20the%20mistake&clip_id=ctvnews.20070815.00208000-00208766-clip2&subhub=video&no_ads=&sortdate=20070815&slug=nasa_blogger_070815&archive=CTVNews

  18. Robert
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Congrats Steve,

    That CTV report was well done, and nicely balanced.

    cheers,
    Robert.

  19. John
    Posted Aug 15, 2007 at 11:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The glaciers are retreating. I’ve been to the Athabasca Glacier a few times, and have seen the markers which show the extent of the glacier over the years…definitely getting smaller. Of course, there could be a conspiracy – people coming in the night and moving the markers…in any case, don’t get me wrong, I’m no great supporter of Al Gore and his huge appetite for power in his palatial mansion (he uses “green” power – give me a break). Anyway, if we haven’t trashed the planet through other means, I’m sure my great-grandkids will have some great summer holidays on Baffin Island.

  20. Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 12:35 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Glaciers have been receding for some time now.

  21. mccall
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 1:30 AM | Permalink | Reply

    No scientific rebuttal in the report — just a Greenpeace spokesperson attempting to perfume the pig?

  22. Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 1:31 AM | Permalink | Reply

    John,

    Glaciers were retreating in 1922.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070814/NATION02/108140063

  23. STAFFAN LINDSTRÖM
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 4:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Regarding the video, anybody who has succeded in streaming
    it down to HDD?? I´ve only got the FORD ad in wmv Steve I
    had to use Camstudio…to get! Sound OK but video intermittent…
    Time to upgrade computer?…The best thing is the Greenpeace
    spokes-personne Steve Guilbeault, nice PQ accent”you can´t
    just look at the US…You gotta look at it globally…”
    almost falsetto…looking desperate poor guy…

    Vous avez raison M Guilbeault MAIS VOUS ALLEZ MANGER
    CES MOTS MAINTES FOIS…!!! BTW All the big media in
    Sweden are quiet, but a possible hurricane hit by
    Flossie on Hawaii got some 15 lines in SVD web edition
    yesterday morning, by then she already had gone from Cat 3-4
    to TS or cat 1…You know Swedish media are like snails,
    slow…(I didn´t say anything about reproduction, LOL!)

  24. Gunnar
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 9:19 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I watched the ctv segment. Steve, you were great. It’s great to be able to picture you finally.

  25. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 1:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m interviewing with BBC radio tonight at 11 pm Eastern for tomorrow’s Today program.

  26. Gary
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 1:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Don’t forget to plug Anthony’s surface stations project, both US and worldwide. More volunteers are needed to cover the gaps.

  27. PHE
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 2:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    You don’t look like what I imagined you. You look younger!

  28. Roger Dueck
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 2:23 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #19 John
    Go to the other side of the mountain from the Athabasca Glacier. The Columbia is ADVANCING.

  29. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 2:43 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Actually, Steve M. looks exactly as I expected. Of course, he’s given a few descriptions throughout the blog from time to time (or at least, others have). His voice, while it fits his look, is different than I expected, however.

    I liked the quote from the Greenpeace guy “… the 90s are the hottest year ever overall.” Hehe. :) Of course, even if his mistake of not pluralizing year is ignored, it’s still utterly incorrect.

    Mark

  30. Steve Moore
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 2:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE #21:

    I liked the Greenpeacer’s comment: “The 90′s are still the hottest year.”

    He looks (and sounds) just like the GP drones I dealt with 30 years ago.

  31. Stan Palmer
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 4:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    In reference to the interiview with the BBC

    I would suggest that you go to the BBC website and listen to some of the previous broadcasts of Today. This is a huighly partisan program with the world divided into white hats and black hats. Balance is not a word that one easily assiciates with them

  32. Jeff Norman
    Posted Aug 16, 2007 at 9:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re:#19 John,

    You say:

    I’ve been to the Athabasca Glacier a few times, and have seen the markers which show the extent of the glacier over the years…definitely getting smaller.

    Check out this Ministry of Natural Resources web page that shows historical aerial photography of the Asthbasca Glacier taken in 1939, 1958, 1966 and 1993. Certainly this glacier retreated between 1939 and 1993. The greatest retreat took place between 1939 and 1958 and given the location of the terminal moraines there must have been an extensive retreat prior to the 1939 photo.

    Now go check out Google Earth and look at the Athabasca Glacier. It looks to me as though the leading edge of the glacier is not substantially different from the 1993 photo. Interesting…

    This all comes back to Steve’s (and others’) points about temperature records and historical reconstructions of temperature trends. Sure its hotter now than it was 30 years ago. Beyond that we have no certainty about how exactly we may or may not be affecting the climate on local, regional or global scale. None.

    Don’t get me started about Toronto’s temperature record.

    BTW, it nice to see that new people have been drawn here by Steve’s exposure in the news.

    Jeff

  33. Bill Tarver
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 5:32 AM | Permalink | Reply

    To Steve McIntyre.

    When Global Warming kicks in with a vengeance, will you be able to live with yourself for creating so much mis-placed complacency? If any meaningful steps are to be taken to prevent AGW’s worst effects, then they must be taken as soon as possible. There is the very real possibility that the Greenland ice cover could begin to melt prolifically within the next few years, so raising sea level by 7 metres: once that starts it may be impossible to stop. Even if your analysis is correct, you have not changed the overall trend of global temperature increase and the over-reaction of your acolytes simply indicates how much ignorance there is of the truth. It is simply wrong to dismiss the IPCC’s 20-year findings as an artifact of measurement: at best, it is stupid and at worst, wicked. I don’t know what motivates you, but you are so blinded in your crusade to wrong-foot the climatologists at RC that you have lost sight of the bigger picture – if you ever saw it in the first place.

  34. fFreddy
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 5:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #33, Bill Tarver

    When Global Warming kicks in with a vengeance,

    How do you know that it will ?

    There is the very real possibility that the Greenland ice cover could begin to melt prolifically within the next few years

    How do you know ? Hint : I’m not taking Al Gore’s word for it.

    you have not changed the overall trend of global temperature increase

    Trends go one way, then they turn around and go the other way. How do you know the same will not happen with the climate? Here in the UK, it already has.

    how much ignorance there is of the truth.

    How are you deciding what is the truth ?

    It is simply wrong to dismiss the IPCC’s 20-year findings as an artifact of measurement

    That is not what he has done. If you read more of this blog, you will find that Steve is always very restrained in what he does and does not dismiss. He has, however, also dismissed a large part of the IPCC’s last set of findings as an artifact of bogus statistics.

    I don’t know what motivates you,

    Science, I suspect.

    you have lost sight of the bigger picture – if you ever saw it in the first place.

    I probably didn’t. Enlighten me – what is that bigger picture ?

  35. Carter
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 6:21 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve,

    Good show. I’ve been a lurker for a while, but have finally had enough. Time to start acting instead of doing the typically Canadian act of just b*tching about things.

    When I first heard about the data adjustment on Monday, I emailed CTV to ask them where their coverage was. You are a Canadian, after all. And it’s not like the issue of global warming is inconsequential. I have yet to hear back from anyone at CTV, but I hope my email, in some small way, made them more aware of your existence. I still think it’s shameful that it took them this long to act.

    I’ve also been very concerned with the audit of U.S. weather stations taking place by the good folks at surfacestations.org. It seems to me that data generated by weather stations located in parking lots and on roof tops, beside air conditioners, burn barrels, and BBQ’s, over lava rock ground cover and beside runways, can’t be entirely trusted. Unfortunately, the link on the Meteorological Service of Canada website for the locations of the Canadian climate stations is broken (http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/climate/station_catalogue/index_e.cfm). I’ve emailed them to get the list, and I plan on taking my own little survey of stations in southern Ontario.

  36. RomanM
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 6:46 AM | Permalink | Reply

    My guess is that Mr. Tarver probably kicked the shins of whoever first told him that this Santa Claus thing was also somewhat exagerated.

  37. Bill Tarver
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 7:02 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Hello fFreddy, (#34)

    Like you, I was sceptical about AGW until about 15 months ago. There is, however, now just too much in the way of sound science to dismiss it all as hysterical nonsense. I cannot be absolutely sure that AGW will kick in – but then, scientifically, you cannot be sure of anything: you cannot be 100% sure that the sun will rise tomorrow, but the probablity that it will is extremely high. You don’t need to listen to Al Gore, and I don’t take anyone’s word for anything, but I can read a report and assess the quality of the evidence. When it comes to the interpretation of the data underlying climatology I prefer to trust climatologists, not mining engineers. When you say that “trends go one way, then the other”, in nature they undoubtedly do. But humans have swamped any natural trend with anthropogenic input. I don’t know on what basis you conclude that the warming trend in the UK has gone into reverse: it has been alternately very warm then very wet, then warm and now it’s about average for August. Don’t make the mistake of confusing weather in a localised area with climate globally. The long-term temperature trend in the UK, as elsewhere, is up.

    How do I decide what is true? Balance of probablity. 20 years of research by a coterie of internationally renowned climate scientists backed by authoratitive reports weighs heavily against an amateur who has done nothing original. He may have identified a set of mis-measurements (well done) but that doesn’t invalidate the IPCC’s research to any significant extent. He certainly isn’t motivated by science, because he hasn’t done any (stats yes, but not science). McIntyre may well be restrained, but so too are the IPCC. The part of the latest report which explores the extent of sea level rise does NOT include any contribution from either Greenland or Antarctica. The reason is that the glaciology of those areas is too complex to model, so rather than resort to guesswork, the IPCC chose to omit it altogether. The quoted sea level rise of 30-88 cm by 2100 is ONLY as a result of meltwater from other glaciers. But you don’t need to be a climatologist to realise that Greenland will have an effect, even if that effect cannot immediately be quantified.

    And that’s the bigger picture.

    Regards

    BT

  38. fFreddy
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 7:26 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Hi Bill. I’m surprised that you say :

    I was sceptical about AGW until about 15 months ago

    What happened at that point to change your mind ?

  39. Bill Tarver
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 7:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Hi fFreddy,

    “What happened at that point to change your mind ?”

    The evidence. Just too many nails got hammered into my coffin of denial. I originally thought that the sun was mostly responsible, but then new research showed that it couldn’t contribute more than about 30% to the observed warming. That was the beginning of the end. Believe me, I’d love to be proved wrong.

    Regards

    BT

  40. MarkW
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 7:58 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I can’t find a single piece of evidence to support the notion of catastrophic AGW. On the other hand the evidence that AGW is small and insignificant does keep piling up.

    What was the evidence that convinced you. Saying that it was the preponderance is just a cop out. Name the evidence.

  41. fFreddy
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #37 Bill Tarver

    There is, however, now just too much in the way of sound science to dismiss it all as hysterical nonsense.

    Well, like what ?

    but I can read a report and assess the quality of the evidence.

    OK, which reports have persuaded you ?

    When it comes to the interpretation of the data underlying climatology I prefer to trust climatologists, not mining engineers.

    When I was at university (a couple of decades ago) I don’t think there were any courses in climatology. It is a very new area of study, and most of the older so-called “climatologists” would be people who graduated in something else.
    In terms of area of expertise, Steve is very careful about restricting himself to areas where he is definitely expert, such as maths and statistics (in which he graduated very impressively). Since this was my own area of expertise (now very rusty) I am happy to judge that he knows what he is talking about. But don’t take my word for it – I commend you to read the posts about Edward Wegman’s review of Steve’s work. (Wegman is the Chairman of the American Academy of Sciences Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and a general monster of stats. He agreed with Steve.)

    When you say that “trends go one way, then the other”, in nature they undoubtedly do. But humans have swamped any natural trend with anthropogenic input.

    Again, how do you know ?

    I don’t know on what basis you conclude that the warming trend in the UK has gone into reverse: it has been alternately very warm then very wet, then warm and now it’s about average for August.

    It has not been very warm at any point this summer, in Central London, at any rate. Plenty of very wet …

    Don’t make the mistake of confusing weather in a localised area with climate globally.

    OK, so how do you know that a few warm years is not just weather ?

    The long-term temperature trend in the UK, as elsewhere, is up.

    Since the Little Ice Age, true. Since the Medieval Warm Period, false. Over the next ten years ? To be determined …

    How do I decide what is true? Balance of probablity. 20 years of research by a coterie of internationally renowned climate scientists backed by authoratitive reports weighs heavily against an amateur who has done nothing original.

    Sorry, but this is just repeating propaganda and argument to authority. How do you know they are any more internationally renowned than the large number of other scientists who disagree with them ?
    And I do not care about this “do domething original” nonsense. Steve has been very clear from the start, he is doing an audit (the clue is in the site title). Reproducibility is a core part of the scientific method, and an absolutely key part of the process of deciding what we can believe. The climatologists are failing this test in far too many places.

    He may have identified a set of mis-measurements (well done) but that doesn’t invalidate the IPCC’s research to any significant extent.

    You need to read a lot more of this site. This recent temperature mis-measurement is very small beer besides what else you will find here.
    Incidentally, you should be aware that Steve is the guy who showed that the hockey stick was rubbish, thereby invalidating the poster child of the IPCC’s third report. Read the site. It’s all here.

    He certainly isn’t motivated by science, because he hasn’t done any (stats yes, but not science).

    You need to pay more attention to the work presented by the AGW crowd. You will perhaps be surprised by how much of it is statistics. Certainly, there is not an awful lot of science in terms of hypothesis, falsifiable prediction, reproducible experiment, etc.

    McIntyre may well be restrained, but so too are the IPCC.

    A matter of opinion. Certainly, their press officers are not.

    The part of the latest report which explores the extent of sea level rise does NOT include any contribution from either Greenland or Antarctica. The reason is that the glaciology of those areas is too complex to model,

    In other words, they haven’t a clue. So why do you refer to Greenland melting as “a real possibility”

    But you don’t need to be a climatologist to realise that Greenland will have an effect, even if that effect cannot immediately be quantified.

    Greenland would have an effect if the whole ice sheet melted. But why sould I believe this is any more likely than an invasion from Mars ?

    Enough blather from me. Bill, you have chosen to believe the side with the biggest PR machine. You really need to read more than RealClimate and come to a judgement based on the science.

  42. fFreddy
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 8:09 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #39, Bill Tarver

    Just too many nails got hammered into my coffin of denial. I originally thought that the sun was mostly responsible, but then new research showed that it couldn’t contribute more than about 30% to the observed warming.

    That report, and the RealClimate meme-thingummy about nails in the coffin of denial is a lot more recent than 15 months ago.

  43. A Camp
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 8:41 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I originally thought that the sun was mostly responsible, but then new research showed that it couldn’t contribute more than about 30% to the observed warming.

    From whence the other 70%?

  44. Bill Tarver
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 9:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Hi fFreddy,

    “OK, which reports have persuaded you ?”

    There were general reports from several sources admittedly mostly obtained second-hand via Scientific American, New Scientist, Science, Nature and even, occasionally Sky & Telescope. All these reported bits of research that tended to suggest that AGW was real. By contrast, there was very little that was convincing from the opposite camp and the quality from the denial camp was very poor, based mostly on factoids, feelings, bad science and politics. Take for example, the Great Global Warming Swindle broadcast a few months ago. This was nothing more than a disguised piece of polemic written by an avowed Marxist who sees AGW as a method of keeping poor countries trapped in poverty. Then there is the interesting but irrelevant fact that a CO2 increase historically follows a warming period, as if that somehow precludes humans from doing things the other way round. There are other examples which space precludes me from mentioning. Suffice it to say, I looked at all the pro-evidence and anti-evidence and reluctantly concluded that the pro-AGW won. The IPCC report (please read it if you haven’t) is the latest.

    “When I was at university (a couple of decades ago) I don’t think there were any courses in climatology. It is a very new area of study, and most of the older so-called “climatologists” would be people who graduated in something else.”

    No, you’re right, I don’t recall any courses either. But I don’t recall any in Forensic science but it is a recognised discipline and a valued one. Science moves on.

    How do I know that humans have swamped natural trends? Firstly owing to the extra CO2, which is a recognised green house gas (Arrhenius 1896), secondly because the models constructed by the IPCC match the data and thirdly because it is as warm now as it has been for the entire interglacial and there is nothing that can cause it to stop. Only if you wish to magic yourself into a state of total denial and ignore all the science can you say that adding extra CO2 will have no further effect. So too with Greenland ice cap. Yes,they “haven’t a clue”, so they chose NOT to factor it into their equations. Nor is the entire ice sheet required to melt before we see an effect. If the entire ice sheet is worth 7 metres of sea rise, then just 10% is worth 70 cms – and this, don’t forget, is excluded from the IPCC report.

    “Enough blather from me. Bill, you have chosen to believe the side with the biggest PR machine.”

    I don’t regard your input as blather. But neither do I have many beliefs (I try to eliminate them as far as possible – it makes life simpler). From my PoV, PR is irrelevant. The evidence alone is too one-sided to be dismissed.

    Regards and have a good weekend

    BT

  45. TCO
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Reply

    fFreddy: I think Traver has a fair point, even one that Steve agrees with. In terms of people with limited time, trusting the experts more.

    Myself, I think one gets a skewed view of things by reading too much of this blog (which has the disadvantages both of inormality and controll by one side). When I took a step back and read the Huybers comment on it’s own, rather than through a lense of Steve’s 3(!) long blog posts on it, I got a different impression of it. This guy cleared away a lot of confusion around correlation versus covariance (it’s standard deviation dividing) and Mannian centering/decentering. In addition, I think the lack of publications by Steve is an indictment of his position. I realize that a good part of the reason may be his not liking to write formally, but perhaps a part of it is hesitancy to make thoughtful scientific/mathematical hypotheses that are falsifiable (rather than kitchen sink compilations of rhetoric-based flaws for effect, like the rain in Spain.) In any case, it’s incumbent on Steve to communicate properly so that his views can be examined. We don’t even have good white papers to look at. Just these crappy, argumentative, blog posts.

  46. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 10:37 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re: #37

    Like you, I was sceptical about AGW until about 15 months ago.

    ..How do I decide what is true? Balance of probablity. 20 years of research by a coterie of internationally renowned climate scientists backed by authoratitive reports weighs heavily against an amateur who has done nothing original. He may have identified a set of mis-measurements (well done) but that doesn’t invalidate the IPCC’s research to any significant extent. He certainly isn’t motivated by science, because he hasn’t done any (stats yes, but not science). McIntyre may well be restrained, but so too are the IPCC. The part of the latest report which explores the extent of sea level rise does NOT include any contribution from either Greenland or Antarctica. The reason is that the glaciology of those areas is too complex to model, so rather than resort to guesswork, the IPCC chose to omit it altogether. The quoted sea level rise of 30-88 cm by 2100 is ONLY as a result of meltwater from other glaciers. But you don’t need to be a climatologist to realise that Greenland will have an effect, even if that effect cannot immediately be quantified.

    That was quite a 15 month conversion and appears to have left you with a bitter taste of a Steve M in your mouth. I remain a skeptic (even though a show of a significant future AGW would leave me with even more skepticism that government mitigation would be effective and not more likely to make the situation worse than the potential adversities from AGW) and primarily because I fail to see how the probabilities (uncertainties and likelihood of the reported conclusions) of IPCC reviews (not research) as reported in the AR4 were determined. If you could explain how they were determined, perhaps I could then better understand your conversion.

    Oh, and by the way, Steve M does not consider himself a skeptic on AGW. He has simply found and pointed to some problems in the statistical handling of data by climate scientists — which in my judgment is sufficient to give one pause about the conclusions attached to these sloppy works.

  47. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Can someone make a copy of this before the link gets stale? I haven’t figured out how to save it.

  48. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Which link? Also, if it is a streaming link, I don’t know if there is a way to save it (which, I would assume, is intentional).

    Mark

  49. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 10:55 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The CTV link in the main post

  50. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Ah, OK, I think it is a streaming link, which probably means it is not downloadable without special software. Someone that is more proficient with such web things may have a better answer. A quick search on alltheweb.com using the terms “streaming video” and download yields a bunch of links on the matter, as well as some products that will download streaming content. The file is probably HUGE.

    Mark

  51. MarkW
    Posted Aug 17, 2007 at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Bill,

    Why don’t you try reading the actual science. From both sides.

    Instead of just reading the pre-digested bits that make it to you through the medias filters.

    Scientific American: Lost all credibility with me when they tried to railroad Lomberg.
    New Scientist: Never had any credibility to lose.

    Science: Once was a good magazine, but in recent years decided that they could sell more issues by being controversial, vs being balanced.

    Nature: Not as bad as the others.

    Sky and Telescope: You’ve got to be kidding.

    In addition, you made a big point of declaring that you would rather believe the scientists. But the evidence you presented shows that you would rather believe the reporters.

  52. Posted Aug 18, 2007 at 8:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #44,

    Bill said:

    How do I know that humans have swamped natural trends? Firstly owing to the extra CO2, which is a recognised green house gas (Arrhenius 1896), secondly because the models constructed by the IPCC match the data and thirdly because it is as warm now as it has been for the entire interglacial and there is nothing that can cause it to stop. Only if you wish to magic yourself into a state of total denial and ignore all the science can you say that adding extra CO2 will have no further effect. So too with Greenland ice cap. Yes,they “haven’t a clue”, so they chose NOT to factor it into their equations. Nor is the entire ice sheet required to melt before we see an effect. If the entire ice sheet is worth 7 metres of sea rise, then just 10% is worth 70 cms – and this, don’t forget, is excluded from the IPCC report.

    A few remarks on this:

    While Arrhenius was right (about the IR absorbing properties of CO2), he was wrong about the magnitude (because of wrong spectra). Modern spectral analyses give about 0.85°C temperature increase for 2xCO2. With water vapor feedback, some 1°C. Far from the average 3°C, which is proposed by climate models. The models include a lot of positive feedbacks, especially cloud feedback. The latter is probably wrong, see the weblog of Roger Pielke Sr.. That means that there still is an effect of CO2 on temperature, but (much) less than current models estimate.

    That models match the past (century) data is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. The problem is that we only have one temperature record (with all its problems) and four (more or less) independent variables which influence the temperature. Any combination is possible. One can halve the influence of CO2 in a simple model, if the influence of (human made) aerosols is less than expected (which is more and more obvious). See here.

    And it is warmer now than 400 years ago, that we may accept within reasonable borders. Farther in the past, the proxy data are so sparse that we can’t say that some periods were warmer of less warm for sure. That is the conclusion of the NAS report…

    About the Greenland ice sheet: there is no more melting of the ice sheet now than in the 1930-1945 period (when GHGs played a minor role). To the contrary, the retreat of the break-up point of the largest Greenland glacier in the previous warm period was faster than in the current period. See here. Summer (melting) temperatures were higher in the 1930-1940′s than today, see here.

    And sea level rise didn’t increase in speed, if you take intervals of 30 years: 1940-1970-2000. All alarming stories use different (shorter) intervals, which include start/end bias of a cyclic behaviour…

  53. Bill Tarver
    Posted Aug 18, 2007 at 10:53 AM | Permalink | Reply

    “That was quite a 15 month conversion and appears to have left you with a bitter taste of a Steve M in your mouth. I remain a skeptic (even though a show of a significant future AGW would leave me with even more skepticism that government mitigation would be effective and not more likely to make the situation worse than the potential adversities from AGW) and primarily because I fail to see how the probabilities (uncertainties and likelihood of the reported conclusions) of IPCC reviews (not research) as reported in the AR4 were determined. If you could explain how they were determined, perhaps I could then better understand your conversion.”

    Hi Kenneth,

    I have no bitter taste. But I think it’s desperately important that people with influence in the media – no matter who they are – do not paint a false picture. AGW is to important to be trifled with.

    How were IPCC reports obtained? Nothing that isn’t peer-reviewed science gets in.

    Regards

    BT

  54. John F. Pittman
    Posted Aug 18, 2007 at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #53 Bill Traver: Your statement

    How were IPCC reports obtained? Nothing that isn’t peer-reviewed science gets in.

    is incorrect. The rules allow the authors of a work group (WG) to include unpublished materials. At the time of comments for AR4, there were unpublished, papers have not finished peer-review, papers that were included. In fact, a paper need never be peer reveiwed or published to be included in the IPCC reports. This is in their rules. http://www.ipcc.ch/about/procd.htm if you wish to see the details.

  55. John M
    Posted Aug 18, 2007 at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #53 #54

    “Nothing that isn’t peer-reviewed science gets in.”

    In addition to the selective use of non-published citations mentioned in #54, there are a lot of peer-reviewed studies that didn’t make it into the IPCC reports. And it’s not clear to me that the summary is what one would call “peer-reviewed”. From what I recall, the all-important summary, with some of the most memorable “sound bites”, was more the result of negotiation and bureaucratic rangling than of peer-review.

  56. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 22, 2007 at 3:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Another TV appearance today – on San Francisco KPIX at 11 am PAcific. I was interviewed by Lawrence Karnow – I was in the CBC studio in downtown Toronto.

  57. John F. Pittman
    Posted Aug 22, 2007 at 5:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Yes #55 That is Procedure 10: Concensus. You can throw science out, even good science if it does not meet the consensus of the Work Group. Note that the lead authors get to help select the work group by the rules. So just how hard would it be to get concensus if you get to stack the deck.

  58. SteveSadlov
    Posted Aug 22, 2007 at 6:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE: #56 – You hit a media market with over 7 million people (of course, only a fraction watching any given show at a given time). We’re the number 4 media market in the US (even though the dumb .gov breaks us up into 5 MSAs!)

  59. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 22, 2007 at 7:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    re 56.

    did you get B roll of your gig?

    I’m sensing a docudrama here. An inconvient bug…

  60. Will Richardson
    Posted Aug 22, 2007 at 8:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    To save a streaming video file. Find the /temp directory to which your browser downloads. Clear the temp directory of all of the existing temp files. Watch the video, if you want you can leave the window displaying the temp directory open and watch the file download. When the video is finished rename and save the file in the temp directory with the appropriate file extension to a directory of your choice.

    Regards

  61. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Aug 22, 2007 at 8:43 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re: #53

    How were IPCC reports obtained? Nothing that isn’t peer-reviewed science gets in.

    You are either avoiding my question or are unaware of the details of it. The authors of the IPCC reports (AR4) use terms such as likelihood (very likely, likely, etc.) and levels of uncertainties that are given percentage ranges and explained in the reports. The authors are directed to have constructed a documented and traceable account of how they arrived at the likelihood and uncertainty measures for their conclusions. My question to you was, in effect, do you understand how this was done by each of the authors. My problem is that I do not understand how it was accomplished and that is why I put in a failed request to the IPCC for copies of the traceable accounts.

  62. gdn
    Posted Aug 22, 2007 at 10:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Balance of probablity. 20 years of research by a coterie of internationally renowned climate scientists backed by authoratitive reports weighs heavily against an amateur who has done nothing original. He may have identified a set of mis-measurements (well done) but that doesn’t invalidate the IPCC’s research to any significant extent. He certainly isn’t motivated by science, because he hasn’t done any (stats yes, but not science).

    #34
    Mr. Tarver,
    You do realize that a very large portion of the studies on AGW are statistical exercises, and not empirical science, yes? Statisticians are entirely relevant. Climate scientists should be more likely to discern real-world reasons for various effects, but statisticians help them pin down which ones are real, so they can have a reasonable measure of confidence in their current footing, and going forward; otherwise it is like the IPCCs TAR, where thousands of scientists sat and discussed what it might mean if MHB98/99 were correct, and where Mann was allowed to paste his work all over the document, but no one ever really checked his work. Mann spent 8 years teaching others in the field to use a stupendously flawed statistical method (in addition to other errors)…because no one in climate science checked his math.

    Mann’s breakthrough wasn’t his efforts as a data collector, or his determination of a chemical reaction – it was his statistical treatment of existing data collected by others.

    Adjusting the temperature records? That seems to be something that would theoretically have its basis in statistics. Does it seem that way to you? If the adjustments are of uncertain accuracy, then epistemologically, how do you get to the point of deciding that they should be the basis for further extrapolation? And how do you determine the accuracy without statistical treatment?

  63. Campbell Martin
    Posted Aug 23, 2007 at 6:45 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Way to go Steve!!! I am a comp sci grad and had a heavy course load of mathematics …what you are doing is way beyond mere mortals. I’m glad that we have people such as you who keep an eye on the stats we are being fed. You are amazing!!! Good luck in all of your endeavours.

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,116 other followers

%d bloggers like this: