« ‘Put down your arms, resistance is futile!’ | Main | RR Glossary & Semantics - V9nov15 »

09 November 2015

Comments

Russ Steele

Originally posted in the Sandbox and edited: Steven Frisch writes on Jeff Pelline's blog:

This ad is filled with so much disinformation and so many outright lies it is laughable.

He makes this claim without providing any evidence. I read the ad and nothing jumped out at me as an outright distortion of the truth. I would like to know what Steven Frisch thinks are "outright lies" so we can examine and discuss.

Gregory

No kudos to Frank Pinney; I'm afraid he misunderstands much of the argument, and he certainly misunderstands how inappropriate terms such as "proof" are when it comes to the physical sciences, let alone complex questions as predicting next weeks weather, let alone the climate in 2100.

I'm afraid Pinney thinks CO2 doesn't make the world warmer. It does, and in my estimation all reputable scientists agree. The essential discussions including folks like Christy, Spencer, Lindzen and Curry, not to mention the Schmidts, the Manns and the Hansens is over how much... a bit, or a bunch.

I think it's a bit that is small compared to natural variations, but nothing of this paid advertisement is going to sway anyone.

There's something in nearly every paragraph that makes me wince. A step backwards and a waste of money.

Walt

The local poo flingers are going to go ape sh** over this.
Their religion just got spanked. Some will demand the writer get sued.

Great job Mr.Pinney.

Gregory

Walt, you're just flinging different poo because those other flingers are in a different political tribe.

Gregory

Here's the op-ed Pinney was trying to write, but didn't:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/emissions-690952-gore-control.html

George Rebane

Gregory 223pm - Wince away Mr Goodknight. That full page essay is one man's frustrated yet determined effort to fight back against what I and many others believe is an historically destructive global hoax in the making. Mr Pinney makes no argument denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but does doubt its heralded toxicity and net contribution to global warming, pointing out that at best CO2 has been an acausal factor affecting earth's temperature. And you, of course, may always argue that the perfect is the enemy of the good, or more technically - if you can't optimize, then forego satisficing.

Todd Juvinall

I have always fought AGW as a political issue. It is Mr. Pinney's money and he is simply telling the people (sheeple?) there is a different view. I am glad he took the time to write the ad and pay money for it. I bet it was not grant money like the Truckee troll receives and the Heidi Hall's belch about.

Gregory is a perfectionist on the science and that is all fine and good. But do the people's eyes roll into the back of their heads when they read the science? I think so. So the goal is to expose the lies as the hoax and in some future election the people(sheeple?) will have a say. Or not.

Gregory

There's a wide gap between being a science perfectionist and that screed. Yes, I understand he was venting but if the intent is to change any minds I doubt it hit the target.

Preaching to the choir is what you do when you give up on the parishoners sitting in the pews.

Gregory

"...pointing out that at best CO2 has been an acausal factor affecting earth's temperature."-GR

I'm not sure where that was in Pinney's piece, but that would also be inaccurate. CO2 really does affect the Earth's temperature, somewhere in the vicinity of 1 to 1.5 C all by its lonesome for a doubling. The debate is entirely about the climate's response to the perturbation... a bit or a bunch, with negative or negligible feedback, or strong positive feedbacks as the Schmidts/Manns/Hansens insist.

George Rebane

Gregory 345pm - The 'acausal' comment is my own summary cobbled from my own readings of the sources we mutually cite. And since CO2 neither acts "all by its lonesome" nor is the Earth's carbon cycle known, even the "vicinity of 1 to 1.5 C" is a tenuous assertion since those numbers are derived from what you and I call a toy model that in no was takes into account my carefully worded "net contribution to global warming" which must needs aggregate the unknown unknowns of carbon. To my knowledge no one has done that yet.

Russ Steele

Gregory@03:45PM

According to the IPCC, Hansen/Schmidt/Mann, the increase in temperatures is supposed to increase atmospheric water vapor, creating positive feedback. The CO2 levels continue to increase, while the water vapor levels are decreasing according to satellite data. This could indicate that increased levels of CO2 have a negative feedback, not a positive feedback as predicted.

"As carbon dioxide levels have risen during the last 150 years, the density of pores that allow plants to breathe has dwindled by 34 percent, restricting the amount of water vapor the plants release to the atmosphere, report scientists.....“The increase in carbon dioxide by about 100 parts per million has had a profound effect on the number of stomata and, to a lesser extent, the size of the stomata,” ...“Our analysis of that structural change shows there’s been a huge reduction in the release of water to the atmosphere.”...If there are fewer stomata, or the stomata are closed more of the day, gas exchange will be limited.....suggests that a doubling of today’s carbon dioxide levels — from 390 parts per million to 800 ppm — will halve the amount of water lost to the air, concluding in the second paper that “plant adaptation to rising CO2 is currently altering the hydrological cycle and climate..." [Emmy Lammertsma, Hugo de Boer, David Dilcher, Stefan Dekker, Andre Lotter, Friederike Wagner-Cremer, and Martin Wassen 2011: PNAS1 and PNAS2]

We have had a pause in the warming for over 18 years while the CO2 levels continue to rise. It seems to be this would indicate a negative feedback, unless there is an other mechanism at work, reducing temperatures.

I am interested in your views on negative feedback.

Bill Tozer

Well, surprise, surprise, surprise. Not everyone is in agreement with George R., Mr Steele, or the man simply known as Gregory.
The more I read, the more I liked, especially the last parts about the biggest threat to Forward Down The Green Road To Happy Destiny.
The link explains George and Russ's broken thinkers, but not Gregory's, being a classic liberal and not a conservative Republican, but what difference does it make at this point anyhow?

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/123240/theyre-not-scientists

Bonnie McGuire

Thank you Mr. Frank Pinney for going the extra mile to share your observations and experience. Common sense to those paying attention for many years. Even more obvious....follow the disgusting money being made by those promoting man made climate change. Racketeering. Sorry, but looking at the earth's history shows it warms and cools whenever needed. Mr. Pinney pretty well covered all of it.

Michael R. Kesti

Gregory 09Nov15 02:23 PM

...he certainly misunderstands how inappropriate terms such as "proof" are when it comes to the physical sciences...

The word "proof" occurs exactly once in Pinney's article. It is in reference to Mann's hockey stick graph in the sentence, "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof." I'll grant that "proof" may not have been the best choice of word in this case but, given that the point of the hockey stick graph is expressed by extrapolated data, Mann was not dealing more in the tricky business of prediction rather than strictly with physical science. Regardless, this one instance cannot amount to indictment of a 2,300 word article.

There's something in nearly every paragraph that makes me wince.

As Grammarian Laureate of Rebane's Ruminations I had reasons to wince, too. I wonder how many of your occasions to wince were the result of the way Pinney writes as opposed to what he had to say. In any event, I'd be interested in learning what made you wince, especially those related to what he had to say.

Russ Steele

A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit.

Governments have publicly outlined their post-2020 climate commitments in the build-up to the December’s meeting. These promises are known as “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs).

Dr. Lomborg’s research reveals:

• The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.

• Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.

• US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100.

• EU climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.053°C (0.096°F) by 2100.

• China climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.

• The rest of the world’s climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.036°C (0.064°F) by 2100.

And the economic cost for these minuscule temperature reductions is 300-600 billion per year for the EU according to Dr. Lomborg. According to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity NERA's new analysis projects that EPA's Clean Power Plan will cost consumers and businesses as much as $25 billion a year. Huge cost for little gain, $28 billion a year for 0.057°F temperature reduction by 2100.

George Rebane

RussS 737am - How did Dr Lomborg compute the $300-600B annual cost? Did he also estimate the opportunity costs of those misspent monies?

Russ Steele

George@07:50

I am not sure. The cost number came from and intervew with Dr Lomborg. The full study is on line here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full

George Rebane

re RussS 737am - They Central Planners are pulling out all stops in the prelude to this month's Paris PGW Circus. It turns out that the recent 'bacon scare' was a put piece into the world's press to keep the hysteria growing until the climate convocation convenes. Here's more -
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-agenda-behind-the-bacon-scare-1447115536

Russ Steele

Coal Killing Insight

Willis Eschenbach who writes climate essays at Watts Up With That took some interest in the Lomborg paper. He was particular interest in the impact of the Obama War On Coal, or as it is known, the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP). He writes:

Even if we can implement it, and then assuming we can follow it until 2100, the total reduction in temperature rise is estimated to be 0.013°C.

Now, that’s a bit over a hundredth of a degree Celsius. The problem is, nobody has a good handle on just how small that reduction in temperature actually is, because we have nothing to compare it to. Even fever thermometers only measure to a tenth of a degree. Casting about to rephrase this number in units that might be more understandable than hundredths of a degree, I remembered the old rule of thumb about how much the air cools off as you climb a mountain. Everyone knows that as you go up a mountain, the air gets cooler. The rate at which non-condensing air cools with increasing altitude is called the “dry adiabatic lapse rate”. The rule of thumb states that for every hundred metres higher that you climb, the temperature drops by 1°C.

Now, a human being is typically around 1.7 metres tall, plus or minus. This means that other things being equal, the air at your head is about 0.017°C cooler than the air at your feet. And recall from above that the “impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100” …

Which means that after spending billions of dollars and destroying valuable power plants and reducing our energy options and making us more dependent on Middle East oil, all we will do is make the air around our feet as cool as the air around our heads … I am overcome with gratitude for such a stupendous accomplishment.

Obama spending billions for no benefit, one has to conclude that climate change and CO2 reduction are not really about temperature change, but some larger social issue like wealth distribution and making America an economic peer to the other poor countries in the world. Is this just his audition for UN Sec General?

Allan Krosner

I would like to get a link to the "Global Warming Hoax".pdf file. I want to post it to a thread that I have been commenting on in Facebook.

Allan Krosner

George Rebane

AllanK 632pm - The Union did not publish it as a pdf file, or even a text object. Pinney's full page ad was posted as an image. You have to put this image through a special scanner app to get recover the text.

Michael R. Kesti

George Rebane 10Nov15 at 09:50 PM

I was able to convert the image posted here to text by using the context menu's "Save Image As..." to create a JPEG file of the image and submitting it to the free optical character recognition (OCR) converter at http://www.onlineocr.net/ to create an MS Word document. The conversion wasn't prefect and included a few misinterpretations (e.g., $150 becaame SISO) and many commas became periods, etc., but with a bit of hand editing it good enough to be able to search for text and such. It sure beat keying the whole thing by myself!

George Rebane

MichaelK 1029pm - Yes, that is one of the 'production pathways' I was referring to in my 950pm. Thanks for digging out a working solution.

Russ Steele

George@09:17AM

Sending you a PDF version by e-mail to post.

Russ

George Rebane

RussS 953am - Thanks Russ, but your email contained the pdf of the IMAGE (not a text file) of the article, the same as I have posted above. For getting to a text version, I outlined a solution approach in my 950pm which Mr Kesti executed and described in his 1029pm.

Bill Tozer

97% agree. What is that you say?

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html

Bill Tozer

Oh my. Not legally binding?? Somebody over the summit will not like this, albeit I will not believe a word Kerry says until I see the final draft.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/79daf872-8894-11e5-90de-f44762bf9896.html#axzz3rFJcAusa

Russ Steele

BillT@08:23PM

I posted at https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com

Russ

Bill Tozer

Figured you did, but just in case......

Gregory

From Kesti, the wee hours of 11/10:

"The word "proof" occurs exactly once in Pinney's article. It is in reference to Mann's hockey stick graph in the sentence, "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof." I'll grant that "proof" may not have been the best choice of word in this case but, given that the point of the hockey stick graph is expressed by extrapolated data, Mann was not dealing more in the tricky business of prediction rather than strictly with physical science. Regardless, this one instance cannot amount to indictment of a 2,300 word article."


It was a simple observation that he doesn't get the issue of "proof" as it isn't an issue in the physical sciences (it's a biggie in mathematics, including geometry and formal logic), and he got the usage exactly wrong... ordinary proof would certainly suffice unless you don't understand what proof is; the correct quotation of the classic commandment is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary EVIDENCE".

No, Mike, I don't wince from the minor grammatic faux pas Pinney exhibits in his screed, it was mostly the way he threw factoids about in the manner our distant cousins throw their feces in their zoo cages. No, the 98% claim didn't originate with John Cook. He doesn't seem to be aware of the radiosonde and satellite dataset issue. In fact, he doesn't show any evidence of either understanding the faulty arguments of warmists or the more reasonable arguments of the scientists he thinks he agrees with.

Yet another tribal feces fight, a sad waste of advertising space but for what "mostly say hooray for our side" is worth.

In short, he seems to be clueless and you didn't see the forest but for the tree you were urinating upon.

"As Grammarian Laureate of Rebane's Ruminations I had reasons to wince, too. I wonder how many of your occasions to wince were the result of the way Pinney writes as opposed to what he had to say."

"Grammarian Laureate" or list typo nazi?

It's sad the scientific and political shortcomings of the Pinney piece didn't give you cause to wince. I was focusing on them, not the literally trivial (see Trivium) issues of grammar.


Finally, since Fat Boy/Little Man has proclaimed I don't have the right to quote him, I end with a Dick Feynman quote he would do well to ponder:
"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."

Russ Steele

Steven Frisch does not like what I write, especially when I use the FACTS that he cannot refute. He writes on a well know lefty blog:

stevefrisch says:
November 14, 2015 at 2:56 pm
So Russ just frigging lies John.

He uses quotes and omits detail in the quotes, places things in quotation marks that are not real quotes, lies about the meaning of other peoples work, projecting his own conclusions on them, and, like Todd Juvinall, lies and never ever acknowledges it, even when he is directly called on it with sourced material.

Welcome to bats shit crazy, Trump voting, right wing fantasy land.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad