Steve McIntyre attempts to defend Martin Durkin against Bob Ward's criticism:
In a legal complaint about inaccuracies in Swindle, one would expect meticulous accuracy, but once again in their statements about sulphates, RMS and the 37 profs [actually Bob Ward -TL] make claims in their complaint that are inaccurate according to the recent IPCC AR4. They say:
It has been well-established in the scientific literature that the period of cooling that was most evident over North America and Europe between about 1940 and 1976 was largely due to increased concentrations of aerosols (particularly sulphates) released into the atmosphere by industrial processes, such as the combustion of coal. These aerosols lowered the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface, for instance by scattering sunlight. The concentrations of these aerosols have been shown to be highest in the Northern Hemisphere, close to their industrial sources. A paper by David Stern, published in the journal 'Chemosphere' in 2005, showed that sulphurous emissions around the world increased sharply between 1945 and about 1989, since when they have declined markedly. Sulphuruous emissions peaked in North America and Europe during the 1970s.
However the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Second Draft chapter 2, page 30, says:
However, over the same period SO2 emissions have been increasing significantly from Asia which is estimated to currently emit 17TgSyr-1 (Streets et al., 2003) and from developing countries (e.g., Boucher and Pham, 2002). The net result of these combined regional reductions and increases leads to uncertainty in whether the global SO2 has increased or decreased since the 1980s (Lefohn et al., 1999; Van Aardenne et al., 2001; Boucher and Pham, 2002),
Why would RMS [actually Bob Ward -TL] allege so categorically that sulphate emissions "declined markedly" after 1989, when the contemporary AR4 report says that no one can say whether there has been an increase or decrease. This is the sort of over-reaching that discredits their complaint.
Something else that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Second Draft says, and it's on every single page:
Do Not Cite or Quote
There's a reason why it says that. Let's see what the actual report rather than the draft says:
The most recent study (Stern,
2005) suggests a decrease in global anthropogenic emissions
from approximately 73 to 54 TgS yr-1 over the period 1980
to 2000, with NH emission falling from 64 to 43 TgS yr-1 and
SH emissions increasing from 9 to 11 TgS yr-1.
The AR4 report supports Ward. This is why you are not supposed to quote from the draft, since it may contain errors or omissions that are corrected in the final report.
Um....what the hell is going on here? Tim Curtin, TomB and nanny_gov_sucks...this blog has become troll bait.
Can we get a few posts from Hans Erren, John A or others from Climate Audit to confirm, please?
Apples and oranges, Tim?
The RMS quote talks about emissions since 1989, and the Stern study covers 1980-2000.
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, just that it looks like we need more detailed information.
In that link McIntyre says that he "had nothing to do with the Swindle presentation". Then why was he thanked in the credits?
As I read it, the relevant phrase quoted is "the contemporary AR4 report"
Was the final AR4 report available at the time of Swindle? If not, Steve's point is still valid.
Glen,
As valid as a point may be and still be completely wrong.
That he defends Durkin's crap in any way says everything that needs to be said about McIntyre.
Mr. Bloom, you are far too kind. So very sweet and gentle. There is so much, so very much more....that could be said about McIntyre.
"Was the final AR4 report available at the time of Swindle? If not, Steve's point is still valid."
How is it valid to quote from something that explicity says not to? Furthermore, McIntyre says that Bob Ward's comments are inaccurate according to the IPCC AR4, then proceeds to quote from the draft.
LogicallySpeaking and luminous:
You're both missing some context here, possibly because you only read Tim's summary rather than the original note on ClimateAudit. Bob Ward was making a LEGAL complaint. The "27 profs" are claiming Swindle was irresponsible journalism because it ignored a piece of information that they allege was common scientific knowledge at the time. What's in the 2nd draft is some evidence of whether it was, in fact, general scientific knowledge at the time.
There are two distinct arguments here:
(1) The information in Swindle is now thought incorrect.
(2) The information in Swindle was *at the time* so obviously incorrect as to be irresponsible.
IPCC AR4 can only speak to (1). The draft can speak to (2). Since they differ, it's possible to conclude that (2) is false even if one believes (as Tim does) that (1) is true.
Thus, Tim isn't really disagreeing with the substance of Steve's remarks. Rather, Tim appears to be using an argument about assertion (2) as a launching point to argue about assertion (1). (Unless he, too, didn't notice these were distinct assertions, which I suppose is possible...)
>"27 profs"
Er, make that 37. Whatever... :-)
What context am I missing? I'm not talking about McIntyre's intentions, nor commenting on whether Ward is correct on any count. I'm saying that McIntyre's comment:
"make claims in their complaint that are inaccurate according to the recent IPCC AR4."
is a false statement given that he then proceeds to quote from the draft of the document. If he had simply said "inaccurate according to a draft version of the AR4", I'd have no qualms.
Whether he is right or not in his argument is entirely irrelevant. It's either carelessness or needless exaggeration which is all too common in his and certain of his peer's writing.
Nice attempt to bail McIntyre out, Glen, but here, is in own words, is what McIntyre says was his point:
>My main point here is that the RMS letter, publicly endorsed by the 37 profs, all supposedly experts in climate science, contains a statement about the course of sulphate emissions that is trivially seen to be inconsistent with the recently expressed IPCC AR4 view on the matter.
McIntyre's point is trivially seen to be entirely wrong if you look at the actual IPCC AR4 report.
An interesting discussion here. Just to clarify, in preparing my complaint to Ofcom I referred to neither AR4 early or final drafts - just the published scientific literature (as AR4 is essentially a review of the published literature).
I have just completed an exchange of e-mail correspondence with Martin Durkin about the misrepresentations in his programme. I will be posting the entire correspondence shortly at www.climateofdenial.net. Mid-way through the correspondence, Durkin himself quotes the draft AR4 report, so somebody had obviously leaked a copy to him. I pointed out that the draft was obviously prepared a few years ago as it appears not to refer to any literature published after 2003.
Glen also misses the point Bob mentions that the IPCC ARs are just syntheses of the state of the science about year before they're published. There was no sudden gain in understanding between the draft and final AR4, it was just a mistake that is not unexpected at the draft stage of any report - thus, the do not cite provision.
I don't think one can defend whatever mistake by quoting a not-for-quote draft and claiming that it was the "contemporary report". The final report refers to Stern 2005 for the sulphur emissions:
Stern, D.I., 2005: Global sulfur emissions from 1850 to 2000. Chemosphere, 58, 163-175.
That paper is available since 2005, and whoever only looked into the second order draft of the 4AR did not do a thorough review of the scientific literature. Btw: Exactly because such texts may be missing from an earlier draft, you're not supposed to quote them!
#111. In the lead-in to the post, I had referred to the
the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Second Draft. In the citation I referred to the IPCC Second Draft chapter 2, page 30 which is shown in Tim's excerpt above.
I've amended the remaining reference - the one in the above quotation - to add in Second Draft as well, consistent with the other references. The intent of the post was to say that the complaint was inaccurate according to the Second Draft. The Second Draft has been online at http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/ since the issuance of the SPM.
It is interesting that the inability of the Second Draft to say whether sulphate emissions were increasing or decreasing is absent from the Final Report. I guess that we shall see over time whether that represents an actual advance in knowledge or merely a change in viewpoint.
Even the draft IPCC line that we can't tell for sure whether sulphates have risen or fallen isn't enough for Durkin. He wrote in the Sunday Telegraph on March 17:
"During the post-war economic boom, while industrial emissions of CO2 went up, the temperature went down (hence the great global-cooling scare in the 1970s). Why? They say maybe the cooling was caused by SO2 (sulphur dioxide) produced by industry. But they say it mumbling under their breath, because they know it makes no sense. Thanks to China and the rest, SO2 levels are far, far higher now than they were back then."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/18/ngreen2…
No source (of course)
David
McIntyre, comment #16: I guess that we shall see over time whether that represents an actual advance in knowledge or merely a change in viewpoint.
Ah, yes....such a change could be an "advance in knowledge," but wait....because changes in the assessment might indicate "merely a change in viewpoint."
Apparently we should be suspicious of the IPCC....
Me? I'll just call out McIntyre for spreading more FUD.
Steve doesn't seem to understand what a draft is.
From the telegraph article:
"The ice-core data was the jewel in the global-warming crown, cited again and again as evidence that carbon dioxide 'drives' the earth's climate. In fact, as its advocates have been forced to admit, the ice-core data says the opposite. Temperature change always precedes changes in CO2 by several hundred years. Temperature drives CO2, not the other way round. The global-warmers do not deny this. They cannot."
What's wrong with these people and why is such an obvious strawman and non-sequitor given any credence? As far as I'm aware, no serious paleoclimatologist cites the ice core data as evidence that CO2 'drives' the natural glacial/interglacial cycle, but is a feedback affecting the rate of temperature increase. The most robust natural driving force is the Milankovich Cycles. Given that the Milankovich pattern is currently moving toward a cooling trend, this is evidence that industrial effluence of CO2 into the atmosphere is serving as an unnatural forcing in the present era, not any kind of evidence against it.
I would love to hear Dr. McIntyre's defense of this blatant mischaractization and faulty logic
Ah, yes everybody, it's clearly evidence of leftist governments and eco-NGO's tampering with the IPCC report. Real evidence is being supressed by this large scale hoax/consipiracy. Who will save us from these evil liberal elitist academics and their crazy theories?
Ah, yes everybody, it's clearly evidence of leftist governments and eco-NGO's tampering with the IPCC report. Real evidence is being supressed by this large scale hoax/consipiracy. Who will save us from these evil liberal elitist academics and their crazy theories?
Maybe we could get Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick to do an audit of changes made to the draft.
#20. I've never commented on the CO2-temperature lead-lag issue. I had no input into Durkin's presentation. Indeed, I have corresponded with him subsequent to the presentation and urged him to make certain corrections e.g. on the Friis-Christensen graphic, and he's agreed to do so.
The reason for my post was that I thought that the Risk Management Solutions complaint was poorly written for something that starts a form of legal proceeding and that this was itself an interesting thing to examine, quite separately from the Durkin movie.
I have limited time to spend on this matter and thought it would be interesting to examine a couple of RMS claims, some of which seemed like some questionable issues to put into play. Since the IPCC Second Draft (April 2006) is unsure whether sulphate emissions are increasing or decreasing, I don't see that a tribunal would be view Durkin's omission of the entire topic of sulphate emissions as being a misrepresentation of facts or views within the meaning of the governing act. But it's climate and you never know.
McIntyre: I don't see that a tribunal would view Durkin's omission of the entire topic of sulphate emissions as being a misrepresentation of facts or views within the meaning of the governing act.
Normal. Straightforward.
McIntyre continues: But it's climate and you never know.
FUD
It's just amazing what a pile of human trash all of you are. McIntyre is completely right. The evidence about the direction of SO2 emissions is shaky even today, and it was certainly shaky when TGGWS was being made. It doesn't matter whether one uses the second IPCC draft or not. One can use directly the papers that are referred to in the second draft because they were the best evidence about SO2 at the time, and the conclusion about the sign was clearly uncertain. It, in fact, remains uncertain. The "scientists" who attack Durkin for this point are politically driven zealots and I am ashamed to be the same species.
Mass dude...troll...cites no sources....troll....
...at least nanny-gov-sucks attempts cleverness.
"The intent of the post was to say that the complaint was inaccurate according to the Second Draft. The Second Draft has been online at http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/ since the issuance of the SPM."
Ward cited Stern, not any version of AR4. The final version of AR4 also cites Stern. The inaccuracy is contained in the second draft of AR4, which everyone is specifically told not to cite for exactly these reasons.
I also have to wonder about what kind of scientists and journlists use junkscience.com as a goto place for these kinds of things. Makes me a bit, hmm, skeptical.
FWIW,
Here's an online copy of Stern 2005:
http://www.rpi.edu/~sternd/Chemosphere2005.pdf
On page 6 there's a nice graphic showing the huge increase of SO2 from the '30s to the '70s tapering off until the late '80s and then declining in the '90s (data ends in 2000).