Showing posts with label Steven Milloy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steven Milloy. Show all posts

Thursday, November 29, 2018

Dotard Is A High Level "Genius" For Disbelieving National Climate Assessment ? ROTFL!



Image result for images of Puerto Rico damage



"My gut tells me more sometimes than anyone else's brain can ever tell me"

"One of the problems of many people like myself is we have very high levels of intelligence but we're not necessarily such believers".
 
Dotard Donnie's assorted brain farts in the past week.

By now, virtually everyone not living under a rock is aware of the recently released congressionally- mandated National Climate Assessment.    The report-  compiled by 300 scientists and 13 federal agencies-  ought to make every sentient being on the planet sit up and take notice.  This is given that it forecasts "record wildfires in California, crop failures in the Midwest and crumbling infrastructure in the South," as well as the disruption of "American exports and supply chains,".  Also,  the decline of "agricultural yields" (possibly "to 1980s levels by mid-century"), and a "fire season [that] could spread to the Southeast."

All told the losses could come to "hundreds of billions of dollars"  - which is definitely lowballed given we are on track to break all existing climate warming records. Nevertheless, one finds e.g.  long time WSJ resident  climate change denier, Holman Jenkins Jr.,  all in for his latest BS contribution: 'Climate Change Is Affordable', p. A15 yesterday).  Jenkins insists the latest assessment "adopts the RCP 8.5 high emission scenario" despite which - get this:  "we still arrive at a manageable $510 billion in estimated climate-related costs by 2090".

Do not believe that jabberwocky for one microsecond. As I noted in my post of October 10th, after the original IPCC report came out:

"The cost of doing nothing until 2040 and allowing the now forecast 4C rise (more likely 6C) by 2100 will be well over $100 trillion in worldwide costs - from the mega-disasters including massive flooding, fires, to loss of jobs, homes, infrastructure - including power stations."

I still stand by that, and it doesn't matter if little Holman J. Jr. still believes his own codswallop that:

"The new U.S. report, as well as a United Nations report issued in October...aim at frightening the public - exactly the approach that so manifestly has failed to move the needle for 35 years.

Maybe it's because voters are skeptical of doom-mongering. Maybe they have grown fatalistic about climate change. Or maybe, reflecting the folly of climate campaigners, they've gotten a message that acting on greenhouse gases requires giving up prosperity."


Which may well be valid to an extent (at least for Right wing  troublemakers), especially given the riots and mayhem that's erupted in France after a relatively small fuel tax was imposed.  In that episode, French police had to fire tear gas and water cannons to "disperse violent demonstrators" (Denver Post, Nov. 25, p. 2A).   They also had to impose road blockades "as thousands gathered in the capital to vent anger against rising fuel taxes." 

One demonstrator quoted actually vowed (ibid.):

"It's going to trigger a civil war and we're going to be ready"

A civil war? Really?  Early indications are that the violent outbursts were instigated by the French far right (Marine LePen's cadre), which would put them right into Holman Jenkins' screed 'wheelhouse' or ideology. Don't give up a fucking thing, keep the planet burning on schedule, and let your kids and grandkids figure it all out or fry.

But the larger reason for inertia and even inattention cited by Holman is simply that too many of the "voters" Jenkins invokes are  inundated with too much 24/7 news from a 24/7 media. They are no longer able to sustain the information load and hence their brains can't process what's coming at them - especially after the political tumult of the past two years.  Oh,  and that in the case of making this planet less inhabitable in the near future material sacrifices will have to be made. Unless they actually want the planet to be unlivable for their kids and grandkids. 

As I wrote in that same Oct. 10 post, I have ten great nieces and nephews who will reach a youngish middle age by 2040. I am pondering now what kind of world awaits them. Will they, indeed, be able to find shelter and prosper in the world?   I don't know, but I refuse to believe the majority of our people have become so innately self-absorbed and focused on their own immediate "prosperity"  they refuse to look down the road at the welfare of their own offspring and their offspring. 

Jenkins insists that:  "the biggest holdup to direct action on climate is showing that preventing these changes would be cheaper than enduring them."

Seriously, mate? You are prepared to "endure" temperatures reaching 110- 115F  in 40-day heat waves, even as power grids crash and a/c in millions of homes ceases to function? Think Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria when thousands died because their meds couldn't be kept cool in the smoldering temperatures, and food spoiled...oh yeah, and fresh potable water ceased to be available. Many Puerto Ricans had to dredge water from chemically -fouled pools and small ponds. Think that would be sport to endure? Think again!

Speaking of a/c (which we know is one of the major contributors to global warming),  according to a WSJ Review piece ('Can India Afford to Cool Down?',  Nov. 24-25, p.C3) -   it is expected  that there'll be a global addition of:  "from 2.5 billion  to 3.7 billion air conditioning  room units by 2050".  Already, India  "is the fastest growing market for air conditioners."     

Indeed, "annual electricity consumption from air conditioning is expected to multiply 30 times, from just eight terawatt hours in 2010 to 238 terawatt hours by 2030".

Which begs the question of what all those denizens will do when climate change - approaching the runaway threshold - renders all those a/c units the equivalent of useless junk. Fortunately, I will be long gone before then.

If people were rational beings, as opposed to pawns manipulated by the media pundits and BS'ers like Jenkins and his WSJ op-ed cohort, fear would not be necessary . Able -minded citizens could examine the climate news and data dispassionately e.g.

Climate report understates threat

And arrive at the same conclusion as climate scientists like Myles Allen.  Prof. Allen,  an Oxford University climate scientist and an author of the IPCC report. was quoted in one NY  Times piece after the release of the UN report:

"It’s telling us we need to reverse emissions trends and turn the world economy on a dime,”

This instead of paying attention to dummy Dotard Trump who most recently spewed reams of fucktard baloney on climate in one unhinged, inchoate statement after the release of the National Climate Assessment, e.g.

"One of the problems of many people like myself is we have very high levels of intelligence but we're not necessarily such believers You look at our air and our water and it's right now at a record clean. But when you look at China, Russia and many other places in the world...the air is incredibly dirty. And when you're talking about an atmosphere the oceans are very small and it blows over.  I mean we take thousands of tons of garbage off our beaches all the time that comes over from Asia.  It just flows right down the Pacific.  ….


Number two, if you go back and look at articles they talked about global freezing  They talked about at some point the planets could have freeze to death, then it's going to die of heat exhaustion.."  

Seriously, folks,  that is our resident's "high intelligence" on display in all its glory,  including the grammatical miscues.  Those, by the way,  pale in comparison to the sheer ignorance of what this imbecile is spouting.  When I showed it to my psychology postdoc niece (Shayle), she wondered whether an 8 -year old wrote it. (A very dumb eight year old.) I had to tell her, no, it came from the Twitter account of our so-called president. 


All Dotard's gut-spewing  ignorance aside, the National Climate Assessment - despite its economic lowballing -  represents a scientifically informed forecast of widespread environmental and economic devastation, and makes no bones about the source, i.e.:

"The evidence of human-caused climate change is overwhelming and continues to strengthen.  The impacts are intensifying across the country and the climate-related threats to America's physical, social and economic well-being are rising."

One doesn't know how much more clearly the risks can be stated, and yet too many appear to have adopted the pose of the classic frog left in water that's increased in temperature 1 degree at a time - so it slowly boils.

 Of course, the question many are asking is:  why would this backward administration laden with science troglodytes and knuckle draggers  agree to the Climate Assessment's unaltered release?   (Although on  Black Friday, when supposedly no one was paying attention. But alas for them, because it was a slow news day the headlines were captured big time.)

 The answer for the cynically-timed release,  reports the NY Times was because:

"White House officials made a calculation that Mr. Trump’s core base of supporters most likely would not care that its findings are so at odds with the president’s statements and policies." 

The resident could tell them the sky is green, and they'd argue in defense  of his atmospheric wisdom.  (Or he could just tell these idiots that the "planet will die of heat exhaustion.")

Dotard's climate science retardation is buoyed by the likes of the clown Steven Milloy, who oversees the junk website junkscience.com and was a member of Mr. Trump's E.P.A. transition team.  (Well, morons pick morons to do their dirty work for them, including spewing crap to other morons.)  This twit actually declared:

 "We don’t care. In our view, this is made-up hysteria anyway — part of the deep-state conspiracy to undermine Trump's spectacular agenda. We had to decide whether to stop the deep state from doing this in the first place, or trying to alter the document, and then creating a whole new narrative — it’s better to just have it come out and get it over with," 

Gee whiz, that's magnanimous of you, asshole!  Would you have preferred to have waited for release until the entire country is in the midst of a contiguous wildfire, like California suffered?  But this is the sort of dreck we have to deal with - and sadly-   one still sees it surfacing in the high IQ societies like Mensa and Intertel, e.g.


Brane Space: Skewering The Spurious Global Warming Narrative Of ...





Why do so many 'brainiacs' subscribe to this balderdash?  My guess is the Dunning-Kruger effect is operative.  For reference and clarification, the Dunning-Kruger effect is defined by Wikipedia  as “a cognitive bias whereby unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate.” Wikipedia adds that “This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.” 

Or, as psychologist David Dunning (the discoverer) once explained to Errol Morris, writing in an essay series, “The Anosognosic’s Dilemma: Something’s Wrong but You’ll Never Know What It Is,” for the New York Times:

 “If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent … [T]he skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.”  

Thus, bright though these Mensans and Ilians may well be, they lack the critical backgrounds in physics and basic climate science to claim any authority in validating their opinions.  All we can do is make our cases against their twaddle and hope at some point their actual intellect kicks in and can differentiate between fact and fiction. 

According to Bush I's  E.P.A. administrator, William Reilly, what we're seeing with Milloy and Dotard (and even the high IQ deniers)  is a new frontier of disavowal of science, of disdain for facts.   According to Reilly:

"But many Americans — just how many is unknown — are becoming accustomed to it, which is the objective of every authoritarian state. It keeps pumping out the ignorance and lies until public muddlement morphs into the status quo; it persists in disdaining facts until facts become mere play things "

What we have to hope is that the percipient and truly intelligent citizens - who can decipher scientific facts from fabulist nonsense - remain in the majority. If not, we are all for the high jump - which would probably make the likes of Holman Jenkins and Steve Milloy ecstatic.

See also:



Monday, April 2, 2018

Simpler Climate Models - A Boon To Climate Researchers - And Also a Way To Screen For Cranks and Nitwits


Clockwise from top left, a satellite view of Earth, a complex Earth system model depiction, a simpler aquaplanet configuration, and the simplest dynamical core. This hierarchy of models is now being supported by the Community Earth System Model project. Satellite image: NASA; design by B. Medeiros.


An ongoing problem with climate science modeling concerns: 1) the high level of complexity of most models, and 2) the intrusion of quacks and climate know- nothings. The latter set includes Steven Milloy with his "Junk science" site when he is the one peddling it (see e.g. 'The EPA Cleans Up Its Science', WSJ op-ed, March 27). I argue the two are connected because with the complexity of too many climate models, the opportunistic interjection of quacks and nitwits is almost assured. (Milloy himself is an attorney - not a climate researcher or even physical scientist).
Let's note here that thirty years ago,  the development of so-called Earth system models (ESMs) was still decades away. One of the earliest climate researchers to conceive of these advanced system models was Prof. Gunter Weller of the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks, e.g.

By late 1986  Weller had shown the abnormal heating of the Arctic to be some 5 - 7F greater than the continental U.S.  The ice cores available at Dr. Weller's  Atmospheric Physics lab were extracted from Arctic ice at depths corresponding with geological time frames dating back over 80,000 years. His results showed that the greatest ambient temperatures corresponded to the highest CO2 concentrations recorded in the ice cores.  What he envisaged was an advanced Earth model to integrate these results but the computers of the time were not up to the task.

Today, the .vast majority of computing  resources for climate modeling are dedicated to potential use in ESMs.  These are constructed to numerically simulate Earth’s climate with the greatest possible faithfulness, so are designed to include the most comprehensive range of physical, chemical, and biological processes that can be handled on today’s powerful computing systems. The problem is not all academic sites have such systems.. 
For reference, Isaac Held alerted the climate science community to a widening divide between simulating and understanding the climate system more than a decade ago. He noted that a gap had developed between idealized models, which can sometimes be thoroughly understood, and the complex, high-end models (such as ESMs) that comprehensively simulate the climate system but cannot be completely understood because of their complexity.
This gap is particularly problematic for many researchers and students, who often have to work with limited computational resources. Furthermore, simple climate models are key to educational activities in university classrooms and as part of graduate research: They provide an entry point that enables students to master modeling techniques and concepts before moving on to more complex methods.

The complexity of these ESMs arises from the need to generate the most accurate projections of climate change in the coming decades. These projections play a crucial role in the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; they also inform climate-related decision-making in a wide variety of sectors. It's important to recognize here that while ESMs may be good for simulating the climate system they may not be as valuable for understanding it.  This was Isaac Held's contention, and it was also Gunter Weller's major concern as early as 1986 when he himself was limited to numerical models based on FORTRAN code.
This computing resource bifurcation has motivated climate researchers to add a new set of tools within the Community Earth System Model (CESM) project: a hierarchy of simpler models to foster better understanding.  An added benefit of such simpler models would be to more easily expose climate cranks like Milloy, as well as more familiar climate denier culprits such as Willie Soon- whose arguments ought to be more easily exposed for review and critique in the simpler context.
For example,  Milloy's WSJ op-ed was subsequently skewered in a follow- up WSJ letter by Brian Combs ('Getting the Science Right For EPA Regulators', WSJ,  Mar. 31- April 1, p. A14.)  Combs first noted Milloy's being only an attorney (like EPA arsonist Scott Pruitt) and also the spurious ploy of trying to tie mortality from (small) particulate pollution  to death certificates. Milloy stated in his WSJ  op-ed that "I found in 2012 I could get California death certificate data in electronic form" and it was :scrubbed of all personal identifying and private medical information".  He then claimed (ibid.): "Some of my colleagues used this data to prepare a 2017 study which found PM2.5 (dust and soot smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter) was not associated with death.."

But as Combs pointed out, the nature of the data for PM2.5 as well as on the death certificates was simply "too minimal  to draw any significant conclusion." So Milloy's efforts make about as much sense as trying to tie close Martian oppositions to increased UFO sightings on Earth.  Combs also noted the failure of Milloy to provide any reference for his study on his JunkScience.com website.  Hence, "readers can't evaluate its conclusions or  whether it was published in a peer-reviewed journal".  But clearly, if the data sets were too "minimal" to reach a satisfactory statistical conclusion, there's no way they'd be published in any serious climate journal.

Milloy boasts that the "best thing is if you d0n't believe the result you can get the same data for yourself and run your own analysis".   But why would anyone do that? Why extract the same low signal (high noise),  minimal data to replicate a meaningless result? Has Milloy ever heard of  the old computer saw:  "garbage in, garbage out"?  My lack of belief is tied to his inability to get a paper based on these results published in a proper climate  journal. It isn't contingent on replicating his same junk analysis and getting the same junk result.
But as I've stated time and time again, this is the hallmark of the classic climate crank: making bold or bald assertions with no citations or references from peer-reviewed papers in real climate science journals. This as opposed say to biased fluff appearing on the website of the conservative George C. Marshall Institute. Say from the likes of climate babblers  Will Happer, or Sallie Baliunas.  Happer himself is a "physicist "at Princeton  - which kind of destroyed my image of that venerable institution and its allegiance to academic quality. I mean what does it say about a place that happily entertains climate hacks?
Anyway, in the U.S. the CESM project is now the natural choice for building a solid hierarchy of climate models. The models,  made available under the CESM project,  are developed, maintained, and documented specifically to serve the entire community of climate scientists. That means that even climate frauds like Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas and Steve Milloy can take advantage of the resources - as can climate hack Will Happer at Princeton.
Quality assurance is also applicable to the CESM project. It has a wide user base given all released model versions are thoroughly tested and routinely ported to the latest machines available. This is an arduous task not easily accomplished by individual investigators in a typical university setting. Crucially, the CESM can be freely downloaded and used by anyone. Again, that includes climate contrarians like Will Happer, Steve Milloy, Steve Koonin and others.
In the meantime, the AGU personnel promoting wider participation (e.g. , A. C. Clement, B. Medeiros, J. J. Benedict, and I. R. Simpson)are requesting contributions to  work already underway for so-called single-column configurations, i.e.  of both  atmosphere and ocean models.   For those interested in cooperating in "filling up levels of the models' hierarchy" they recommend the following guiding principles for moving forward:

1) There should be a clearly demonstrated need for a simplified model.

2)The community members spearheading each effort need to pair up with one or more partners at the National Center for Atmospheric Research to collaborate in the model development.

3) Project leaders must assess the resources needed to develop the new simpler model and identify some avenue for funding the development. 

4) Developers of simpler models should submit scientific papers to the peer-reviewed literature, explaining the rationale for the usefulness of the new models and describing what novel understanding of the climate system is to be gained from using these simpler models.

Got that, Messrs. Milloy, Happer, Koonin et al?

The above cited Eos authors add:
"Ideally, these activities would be coordinated across the community to avoid duplication of efforts."
It would be terrific to see the likes of Milloy, Happer, Koonin et al cooperate in such a  CESM venture but I don't anticipate it any time soon. They are all too enthralled by the fake power embodied in their contrarian stance and the extra column space garnered in op-ed sections - like the WSJ's.

Which merely shows me that none of these pretenders is interested in doing serious climate science.


Update:  4/ 9:

In a letter ('Obama EPA Correct About Deadly PM2.5  Pollutants') published in the WSJ today, in response to Milloy's op-ed, Prof. William Barker (Univ. Of Rochester) responds:

"As a public health  scientist seeking a broader perspective, I consulted a January 2016 Journal of Thoracic Diseases review of over 50 peer-reviewed epidemiological and experimental studies - virtually all of which find significant evidence of increased mortality and of pathological lung damage associated with exposure to PM 2.5 particles."