January 2012 Open Thread

Comments

  1. #1 clippo uk
    January 13, 2012

    re:pokerplyer @255

    If the IPCC or other alarmist individuals writing papers…

    aaah, ‘IPCC’ & ‘alarmist’ in the same sentence shows your pre-judgement. Furthermore, obviously you have DK syndrome

    and re: enhancing ones qualifications, didn’t a certain David Evans (electrican /electrical engineer) claim to be a Rocket Scientist after a short spell at NASA?

  2. #2 pokerplyer
    January 13, 2012

    Jeff
    You misunderstand my perspective. I am not claiming that additional atmospheric CO2 will not warm the planet, or that the significant increase in the human population is not impacting the habitats of other creatures. I do claim that we do not really understand what the rate of warming will be from additional CO2 and that there is no reliable evidence that a warmer world is worse for the world human population overall, or for the US in particular over the long term.

    You wrote- “The problem is not human adaptation to a rapidly changing climate, but the ability of complex adaptive natural systems to adapt.” I suggest that your position is clearly different than the one of the IPCC, and that yours would be stronger to argue for population control or reduction than it is for CO2 control.

    You wrote- “Warming threatens to disrupt the flow of a wide range of supporting ecological services that sustain humanity but which have few or no technological substitutes.” What specific supporting ecological services do you believe are threatened by potential warming? Again, what you have written seems less about warming than it is about the human population disturbing the environment overall and the natural evolution of that human population to desire to have the highest lifestyle that it can obtain in spite of the impact on the environment.

    By no means do I believe that humans are exempt from the laws of nature. I am simply a realist who understands that the planet is governed by 200 independent nation states with frequently conflicting goals. I do not see any reason why taxpayers in the US should be obligated to work harder or to pay more taxes because people in India of Pakistan (as examples) have not built proper infrastructure and have had unsupportable population growth.

  3. #3 cms
    January 13, 2012

    Why do skeptics keep buying into the straw man arguments about whether it is warming or not. I know of no serious student of climate science who does not admit that the planet has been warming since the Little Ice Age. Given that the argument that Constantanople had the warmest April ever is trivial. Of course if the planet is warming than lots of places will set records. They mean nothing. The question is is that warming do to “Natural Variation” – meaning we are not sure exactly why it is warming. Or is it do to Anthropological increases in atmospheric Co2 which is of course the question under consideration. Generally it is considered that CO2 was not a major factor before 1950 and that 30 years is needed to have a reliable trend. Examine this graph for the 30 year periods 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000 http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000 or to make it simpler just the trend lines. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend Now you will note there is an increase of temperature. Given that it is accepted that that has been happening because of the LIA rebound the question is are the trend lines different. If they are you have an argument for AGW if not you will have to make an argument that somehow the natural warming in the second half of the 20th century is somehow different. A much more difficult argument than its warmer today in this place than it was last year.

  4. #4 chek
    January 13, 2012

    Given that it is accepted that that has been happening because of the LIA rebound

    [Citation needed]

  5. #5 cms
    January 13, 2012

    For the Little Ice Age you might look to [Article in Science](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/274/5292/1503.abstract) Though this is behind a paywall. You could look at “Mechanisms of global climate change at millennial time scales
    By Peter U. Clark, Robert S. Webb, Lloyd D. Keigwin”

  6. #6 bill
    January 13, 2012

    Looks like we’ve found ourselves another Dunning Kruger posterboy! Yet another surly buffoon with multiple degrees in Advanced Geniusness who cannot distinguish between weather and climate.

  7. #7 John Mashey
    January 13, 2012

    For any who want to learn about climate models, see the 2 FAQs at RC: #1 and #2

    I’ve addressed this question of why technical people can be very confused about models, in some detail. See 3) about mechanical engineers. By coincidence, some of that discussion had started here at Deltoid.

    Some technical people use computers for some kinds of modeling and therefore think they automagically know about other kinds of modeling. Generally, they don’t, as their modeling experience is usually far too narrow (by my standards, which I admit are atypical).

    Some people with M.E. backgrounds, for example like John Abraham understand climate modeling, as do some of the fine aerospace researchers at NASA Ames.

    But is there any reason to suspect that typical corporate aerospace engineers understand the differences between their modeling and thsoe of climate modelers?

    NO, and I don’t have a survey, but I certainly have anecdotal experience that the answer is generally NO. Background in CFD or other finite-element models is useful, but people have to spend time understanding the differences, and there is no reason for most to do so.
    The problem comes when someone aggressively over-generalizes.

    I used to be Chief Scientist @ Silicon Graphics in the 1990s. When I wasn’t doing design work on {software, microprocessors and supercomputers, I spent 50-60% of my time talking to customers and partners, including many who did M.E. tasks like Computational Fluid Dynamics or structural mechanics, as well as people who did climate models (NCAR, GFDL, NASA), petroleum geophysicists, molecular modelers, high-energy physicists, operations research folks, etc, etc.
    I spent lots of time with 3rd-pary software developers, so for instance, spent a day with the developers at MSC and then did a keynote talk at a conference of theirs. The first part was to geared to discussing algorithms and any impediments they were finding so I could bring them back to our software people and for longer-term issues, think about memory system designs.

    I used to visit Boeing to give half-day technology briefings to senior staff. I used to talk regularly with other aerospace companies as well, and of course, many of the car companies, who sometimes used related software, although they probably did a lot more simulated crash testing, those being more common for cars. Of course, they use CFD codes, too.

    NASA AMES was often our lead customer for our biggest machines, always wanting something that wasn’t on our price list. Their senior guys would come over to visit often, since we were a few miles away.

    Them: Why can’t we buy a Terabyte or memory, only .5TB? Our big CFD codes need it.
    [They liked to run one big CFD code using an entire machine.] This was back when a TB was big.

    (Me) A: Don’t worry, the hardware is designed for it, when the prices on the next 4X DRAM become sensible, about 6-9 months. But do you have the budget?

    (Them): Sure.
    (Me, asking a question whose answer I knew):
    Will a Terabyte be enough?

    (Them): (Outrage) No, no, our grid elements are still way too big for us to simulate whole vehicles … etc, etc … a tale I’d heard before, having worked with guys like Paul Woodward when he was doing stellar modeling that needed big memories.

    (Me, asking another question whose answer I knew):
    Well, how much *would* be enough?

    (Them): There’s never enough.
    (Got to love that kind of customer. They always wanted something 4X bigger, and the only way to get that was for us to assemble the first such configuration at their site, and then finish the debugging.)

    But some parts of NASA do climate modeling and some of their people perfectly well understand the differences between that and aerospace M.E.

    GCM’s aren’t built to predict rainfall in any particular place a few years off. Expecting that is even sillier than:

    - expecting a NASTRAN or LS-DYNA or ANSYS run to predict whether or not a specific plane will be in for repairs some specific day a few years off or

    - expecting PAM-CRASH to tell you whether or not a specific car would be in a crash some specific week.

  8. #8 chek
    January 13, 2012

    automagically

    Killer, John.
    That should pass into the lexicon.

  9. #9 cms
    January 13, 2012

    Glad you got my point Bill/

  10. #10 Bernard J.
    January 13, 2012

    Pokerplyer.

    I don’t do silly strawman excursions such as your GCM nonsense is, and I’ve come to realise that most denialists are scared of the wager to which I refer above (I’m sure that you can find the details), probably because there are to many options, so I’ll cut to the chase.

    I’ll bet you $100k against your $100K that the summer Arctic PIOMAS sea ice volume will, by 2020, drop below the current summer record.

    In the interest of informed decision-making I refer you to:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-low-means-what.html

  11. #11 Richard Simons
    January 13, 2012

    I do claim that we do not really understand what the rate of warming will be from additional CO2 and that there is no reliable evidence that a warmer world is worse for the world human population overall,

    How accurately do you need to know the future rate of warming and what level of confidence that a warmer world will be worse do you need before you accept that action needs to be taken?

    I do not see any reason why taxpayers in the US should be obligated to work harder or to pay more taxes because people in India of Pakistan (as examples) have not built proper infrastructure

    Perhaps because the US is a major contributor to global warming? Why should they be required to pay for damage you have caused?

    I am curious as to how you think improved infrastructure can prevent or circumvent drought in Texas or acidification of the oceans. It seems to me that you are a prime example of the adage that ‘to a hammer, everything looks like a nail’. Also, as others have pointed out, you need to learn the difference between weather and climate.

  12. #12 TrueSceptic
    January 13, 2012

    279 Chek,

    Computer geeks (and others?) have been using that for years. ;)

  13. #13 Lotharsson
    January 13, 2012

    > I am simply a realist…

    Interesting claim. Let’s see.

    > …I do claim that we do not really understand what the rate of warming will be from additional CO2…

    Nor do you apparently understand scientific uncertainty bounds, nor why predicted warming of *climate* is much better bounded than weather predictions, nor the science of decision making under regimes of incomplete information – in particular, risk mitigation.

    The latter is interesting for someone who claims postgrad economics and finance qualifications, which is normally considered quite heavy on working with incomplete information. (You might want to apply for a refund on your tuition fees.)

    So I take it you don’t buy house insurance until the forest fire is licking at your eaves because prior to that data coming in there’s “no reliable information” that this particular fire will harm your property?

    No? You **do** have insurance? Hmmmm, interesting.

    But you want the ecosystem and human population – especially everyone other than the US – to take the risk with CO2 rather than “buying insurance”, right? And you are confident you have good reasons for that, right?

    So you must have a risk-option-cost model that you used to come to this decision, right? What are the bounds on the impacts imposed by CO2-based warming, and the bounds on the costs of dealing with the impacts for the various options on the table in your model, and how were they derived? Oh, wait, you say you *don’t really know* how much it will warm so therefore you *can’t even have bounded* the impacts, and:

    > … and that there is no reliable evidence that a warmer world is worse for the world human population overall…

    …so you are arguing you don’t have enough information to bound the *effects* of the impacts either.

    If we can’t reliably bound how fast it will warm nor reliably bound the impacts we care about let alone their costs, then risk mitigation says the **only** safe course of action is to completely avoid driving the system into those unknown states with potentially unbounded impacts. In other words, we have to keep CO2 at geologically recent levels – which we’ve already exceeded, so we’d better swing into action to get the levels down *pronto*. That’s where your implied facts inexorably lead.

    You, however, appear to have drawn the opposite conclusion. That suggests you are either deeply incompetent at risk mitigation, or you aren’t even attempting to argue a position based on a realistic assessment of the known information.

    Hey, look – turns out you’re not a realist after all!

  14. #14 MikeH
    January 13, 2012

    Pokerplyer @ 250

    I do not claim to be an expert on the development of GCM’s…

    As a engineer, I am telling you that the current GCMs are HIGHLY unreliable …

    What is it with climate change deniers that they wear ignorance as a badge of honor?

    Like the man with a hammer who sees every problem as a nail, our intrepid idiot (I am engineer – listen to me) who claims a passing knowledge of models in the aerospace industry believes that GCM models of a chaotic and non linear system must be the same even though he admits he has little knowledge of them.

    His wager is simply additional illustration of his ignorance.

    I am will to wager $100K usd that your GCM of choice will not be able to reasonably accurately predict the annual rainfall amounts 36 months from now at 30 different locations around the world.

    If he bothered to actually educate himself before making his blowhard comments, he could have read the following FAQ on climate models at Real Climate.

    Q. “[Can GCMs predict the temperature and precipitation for my home?](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/)”

    A. “No. There are often large variation in the temperature and precipitation statistics over short distances because the local climatic characteristics are affected by the local geography. The GCMs are designed to describe the most important large-scale features of the climate, such as the energy flow, the circulation, and the temperature in a grid-box volume (through physical laws of thermodynamics, the dynamics, and the ideal gas laws). A typical grid-box may have a horizontal area of ~100×100 km2…”

    Or he could have read “[Why global climate models do not give a realistic description of the local climate](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/climate-models-local-climate/)”

    So tell us please Pokerplyer – who is claiming that GCMs can predict the annual rainfall at a specific location 36 months from now? Or did you just make it up?

  15. #15 pokerplyr
    January 13, 2012

    Let me start with a compliment to this site as it has not done as Real Climate or Skeptical Science does and deleted posts that disagreed with the moderators position. I also want to thank those who disagree with my conclusions and actually respond with coherent rationale as to why they disagree. I will review responses to my points worth review.

    Comment #261 by Chris I wrote- If the IPCC or other alarmist individuals writing papers are using GCMs to claim that a particular region of the world will be harmed by a warmer climate because that region will receive 10% less rainfall it means that the IPCC or the writer of the paper is using the GCM to forecast future weather.

    Chris’s reply- No it doesn’t.

    My question- what data was the IPCC or the writer of a paper using to determine that rainfall would change fit it was not from a GCM?

  16. #16 pokerplyr
    January 13, 2012

    Comment #269- My comment- Independent countries can adapt to the future climate if they build what is needed, but if they fail to do so, it is not a problem for the US tax payer to be a part of fixing

    Ian’s response- Why should they have to pay to improve their infrastructure when it is others, mostly Western countries, who have caused the problems they will be facing?

    My response- They should have to pay for the infrastructure in their own country and not the US taxpayer. It seems as though you are unknowledgeable of actual world conditions. Much of the world does not build virtually any infrastructure and as a result when it rains heavily people are harmed. Travel in SW Asia and you will learn that infrastructure is not built largely due to vast corruption. It has nothing to do with anything the US or the EU has done or not done. If (hypnotically) that everything you believed was true regarding AGW, the difference in degree of harm to people from severe weather would be minimal as compared to the difference between a country that has prepared by building proper infrastructure and those like those in SW Asia that have not.

    The US has not been responsible for the fact that many countries have not built proper infrastructure to protect their citizens from bad weather. The vast majority of people harmed by severe weather events would not have been harmed if proper infrastructure had been constructed.

  17. #17 pokerplyer
    January 13, 2012

    Comment #278 by John Mashey

    John wrote a long comment about his experiences with aerospace engineers- (we may have met I was with Boeing for 20 years), but his key comment was:

    “GCM’s aren’t built to predict rainfall in any particular place a few years off.”

    John- I agree. It would has been much more useful if the models would have been built to actually accurately predict conditions important to government policy making. Since the GCMs cannot accurately forecast future rainfall, what tool was used to determine that parts of the world would be harmed by less rainfall as a result of higher temperatures?

  18. #18 pokerplyer
    January 13, 2012

    Comment #281 by Bernard- “I’ll bet you $100k against your $100K that the summer Arctic PIOMAS sea ice volume will, by 2020, drop below the current summer record.”

    My response-I think you would win that bet, but do not think it is evidence of any overall harm.

  19. #19 pokerplyer
    January 13, 2012

    Comment #282 by Richard – “How accurately do you need to know the future rate of warming and what level of confidence that a warmer world will be worse do you need before you accept that action needs to be taken?”

    My response-I would agree that actions are warranted as long as they are cost efficient based upon a cost benefit analysis. Taking actions that are expensive but do little to nothing to address the issue are pointless. It all depends upon the specifics.

    Richards further question- “I am curious as to how you think improved infrastructure can prevent or circumvent drought in Texas or acidification of the oceans.”

    My response- The drought in Texas is a weather event and not the result of AGW. The result of the drought would have been better adapted to by better, deeper reservoir construction which would have provided for more water having been saved to prepare for droughts. I actually have property in Texas btw.

    I do not believe ocean acidification is a real concern that is related to AGW. Much of what has been written on the topic is nonsense.

  20. #20 MikeH
    January 13, 2012

    My, my. Pokerply piles ignorance onto ignorance.

    Travel in SW Asia and you will learn that infrastructure is not built largely due to vast corruption

    SW Asia is the Middle East, you geographically challenged clown. Much of the infrastructure in the ME is more modern and advanced than the aging infrastructure in the USA.

    In one of the poorer nations, the slums of cities like Cairo are in part a result of years of US military support for dictators like Mubarak. The citizens of Egypt may be poor but they are smarter than you – they identified the problem and are dealing with it.

    Egypt’s carbon footprint is around 233 Mt of CO2e per year, the USA’s is 7000 Mt of CO2e. Historically the contribution of the developed world to CO2e in the atmosphere dwarfs that of the poor nations.

    Your argument is “I can tip all my garbage into my neighbour’s back yard and if he cannot afford to clean it up too bad.” You are grotesque.

  21. #21 Chris O'Neill
    January 13, 2012
    If the IPCC or other alarmist individuals writing papers are using GCMs to claim that a particular region of the world will be harmed by a warmer climate because that region will receive 10% less rainfall it means that the IPCC or the writer of the paper is using the GCM to forecast future weather.

    No it doesn’t.

    My question- what data was the IPCC or the writer of a paper using to determine that rainfall would change fit it was not from a GCM?

    Looks like pokeplyer still doesn’t get the point. I’ll give you a clue. For a given climate, the annual rainfall usually varies by much more than 5% from year to year.

  22. #22 Richard Simons
    January 13, 2012

    My response [to “How accurately do you need to know the future rate of warming and what level of confidence that a warmer world will be worse do you need before you accept that action needs to be taken?”] -I would agree that actions are warranted as long as they are cost efficient based upon a cost benefit analysis. Taking actions that are expensive but do little to nothing to address the issue are pointless. It all depends upon the specifics.

    You are waffling.

    The drought in Texas is a weather event and not the result of AGW. The result of the drought would have been better adapted to by better, deeper reservoir construction which would have provided for more water having been saved to prepare for droughts.

    But it is the type of weather event that is expected to become much more common with global warming. How can you save more water if the rainfall is decreasing (think Colorado)?

    I do not believe ocean acidification is a real concern that is related to AGW. Much of what has been written on the topic is nonsense.

    Oh, really? What do you think is the cause of ocean acidification? Care to give an example of this nonsense from the scientific press?

  23. #23 bill
    January 13, 2012

    Let me start with a compliment to this site as it has not done does and deleted posts that disagreed with the moderators position.

    Let me guess; in reality you serially disregarded their comments policy and insisted on making your non-complying or off-topic assertions on any post you chose?

    I do not believe ocean acidification is a real concern that is related to AGW. Much of what has been written on the topic is nonsense.

    Oh, mighty Genius, and it seems you know more than ocean chemists now, too!

    You, sir, are the apotheosis of a fool.

  24. #24 pokerplyer
    January 13, 2012

    chris o’neill- perhaps you didn’t get or wish to respond to the point that the IPCC has referenced potential harms that are based on the premise of changes in rainfall can be predicted by GCM’s. I state that is an incorrect assumption.

    Mike H- Since i grew up in Saudi Arabia as a teenager I am very familar with the area and infrastructure is not a priority in the region. I am in the region and was referencing India and Pakistan as SW Asia

  25. #25 MikeH
    January 13, 2012

    Pokerply @ 288 says in response to John Mashey’s comment
    “GCM’s aren’t built to predict rainfall in any particular place a few years off”

    Since the GCMs cannot accurately forecast future rainfall, what tool was used to determine that parts of the world would be harmed by less rainfall as a result of higher temperatures?

    It appears we are dealing with a simpleton who cannot comprehend the difference between a weather forecast for a particular location and time and long term climate trends.

    Is he pretending to be thick or is he really thick? – hard to tell.

    Tell me this Captain Clueless. Are the existence of climate zones in the US (which every school kid learns in geography) a record of past climate and a prediction about future climate?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climatemapusa2.PNG

    Using your logic, those zones were mapped by examining the rainfall at particular locations 36 years in the past.

  26. #26 pokerplyer
    January 13, 2012

    Bill

    Your comment that “Ocean chemists” believe that human relaesed CO2 is the primary cause of the ph level of the oceans changing, and that this is a harm is so far fetched as to be laughable from what I have read. I absolutely agree that humans are damaging the oceans. Do you seriously think that human release of CO2 is at or near the top of the list?

  27. #27 pokerplyer
    January 13, 2012

    Mike H

    In response to comment 296

    Try to keep up- What information did the IPCC use other than GCMs to predict that additional human released CO2 would change rainfall amounts and harm specific regions? LOL they claimed that they could predict that the future rainfall would be changed by certain amounts based upon GCMs and not looking at history

  28. #28 MikeH
    January 14, 2012

    Pokerplyr @ 286

    Yes – I have noticed that Real Climate does not suffer fools so I can understand why you are not welcome there.

    Here most commenters prefer the Aussie tradition of “[doing you slowly](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Paul_Keating)”.

  29. #29 Chris O'Neill
    January 14, 2012

    pokerplyer:

    perhaps you didn’t get or wish to respond to the point that the IPCC has referenced potential harms that are based on the premise of changes in rainfall can be predicted by GCM’s.

    Obviously you don’t get or wish to respond to the point that even if you know the climate (which is all a GCM can give you), it is impossible to know the future rainfall in any particular year to an accuracy of 5%. Climate is the average over some number of years such as 30, not the rainfall in any one year.

  30. #30 MikeH
    January 14, 2012

    Pokerplyr @ 295

    I am in the region and was referencing India and Pakistan as SW Asia

    As I said geographically challenged. This is [South West Asia](http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Asia)

  31. #31 MikeH
    January 14, 2012

    Pkerplyr @ 298

    You are now getting desperate throwing assertions about like confetti. How about the occasional reference to support your bluster. I can see why you got turfed off Real Climate – they expect hand waving to be supported by actual evidence.

    @ 297

    Your comment that “Ocean chemists” believe that human relaesed CO2 is the primary cause of the ph level of the oceans changing, and that this is a harm is so far fetched as to be laughable from what I have read

    Here is a tip – tear yourself away from the climate denier web site that currently has you in its grip and read some real science.

    How about the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the world’s leading oceanic research organisation on [Ocean Acidification]
    (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification).

    Your bullshit may get you some plaudits at WUWT or the other moron infested blogs that you hang around in but people here for some weird reason are interested in science.

  32. #32 MikeH
    January 14, 2012

    Fixed link

    [Ocean Acidification](http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification).

  33. #33 Chris O'Neill
    January 14, 2012

    Ocean Acidification.

    Interesting to note how deranged people like Ned Nikolov and Roy Spencer must be to think that the oceans are outgassing when NOAA’s data shows oceanic dissolved CO2 is increasing.

  34. #34 clippo uk
    January 14, 2012

    re: Pokerplyer @ 297

    I absolutely agree that humans are damaging the oceans.

    So, in your vast multi-discipline scientific experience, what do YOU think is the primary cause?

  35. #35 Lotharsson
    January 14, 2012

    > Try to keep up…

    I’m guessing you *wanted* to look extra foolish when you chose to use that gambit with people who are way ahead of you.

    No, wait, I’m wrong. Dunning & Kruger are on the other line and they would really like some of your time.

  36. #36 Bernard J.
    January 14, 2012

    >Comment #281 by Bernard- “I’ll bet you $100k against your $100K that the summer Arctic PIOMAS sea ice volume will, by 2020, drop below the current summer record.”

    >My response-I think you would win that bet, but do not think it is evidence of any overall harm.

    So you admit that the planet is warming, but you think that it doesn’t matter…

    Erm, excuse me if I appear to be sceptical, but exactly how much does the planet have to warm, in the opinion of an “aerospace engineer” who doesn’t seem to play much poker, before there is “overall harm”? And what exactly constitutes “overall harm”?

    >I do not believe ocean acidification is a real concern that is related to AGW. Much of what has been written on the topic is nonsense.

    +

    >Your comment that “Ocean chemists” believe that human relaesed [sic] CO2 is the primary cause of the ph [sic] level of the oceans changing, and that this is a harm is so far fetched [sic] as to be laughable from what I have read.

    Why exactly is ocean acidification not “a real concern that is related to AGW”?

    Exactly how much of what has been written on the topic is “nonsense”? What is it exactly that is “nonsense”?

    What exactly have you “read” that permits you to discount the opinions of chemists and physiologists? I’m a biologist with a decade and a half experience in biomedical sciences before jumping horses to ecology (including, recently, marine ecology), and I have decades experience in maintaining (both professionally and as a hobbyist) freshwater and marine aquaria. And I have no doubt that the scientific consensus on the dangers of ocean acidification are as serious as they are described.

    I’m very curious to hear why an “aerospace engineer” has so much insight into scientific disciplines completely detached from his own trade that he can discount the understanding of physicists, climatologists, chemists, and biologists.

    It seems to me that your problem is that you are “plying” that poker a little too hard. Your proctologist would probably advise you to ease off a little from your pernicious habit.

    It’s a shame that you turned out to be just another Denialatus windbag. I was hoping that you might actually believe your own guff sufficiently that you would put that $100k on the table: it would have been by far the biggest single contribution to my house construction that I am likely to see.

  37. #37 bill
    January 14, 2012

    Plythepoker,

    Oh, for God’s sake… Start here. Or see Professor Keith Hunter talking about it here. WARNING: some danger of learning something.

    Quite why “Ocean chemists” merits quotation marks is beyond me…

  38. #38 pokerplyer
    January 14, 2012

    It is interesting to interact with so many true alarmist concerned about the potential harms of CO2. Here is another summary of some of the points raised:
    1. Ocean acidification-Rather than me writing I’ll provide a link that also references other studies- http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/4704-matt-ridley-taking-fears-of-acid-oceans-with-a-grain-of-salt.html

    2. This question was posted- “but exactly how much does the planet have to warm, before there is “overall harm”? And what exactly constitutes “overall harm”?

    My response-It is the sum of the known harms. In relation to AGW the issue is whether the actions being proposed will be efficient when evaluated based on a cost benefit analysis to address the reported “harms”. Many suggested actions “harm” people to a greater degree than the benefit justifies.

    3. What is SW Asia?–
    http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=yfp-t-701-s&va=southwest+asia+map

  39. #39 Chris O'Neill
    January 14, 2012

    Looks like pokerplyer has given up trying to understand the difference between weather and climate (if he ever did try).

  40. #40 Marco
    January 14, 2012

    Chris #304: I would like to stress again that Nikolov actually is involved in analysis of parts of the carbon cycle in his job. This makes it even more mindboggling to see him make such a mistake.

    And it should be a real concern to his employer…

  41. #41 bill
    January 14, 2012

    Gee, I reference bona-fide ocean chemists, and you reference …?

    (And didn’t he do a great job when he was the head of a bank?)

    And oh, Mighty One, did you actually read that piece? I did, and then thought – funny, no actual citations. I found the Scripps article, though.

    I suggest everyone reads it, then compares what it says to Ridley’s interpretation. Cherrypicking, much? And then some unidentifiable cherrypick gives us ‘marine and freshwater assemblages have always experienced variable pH conditions’. Gee, ‘climate has always changed’ Mk II! Oh, and freshwater lakes pH – well, that’s cleared up the ocean acidification issue, then. Plus also ‘freshwater mussels thrive in [acidic] Scottish rivers’. Whoop-de-doo!

    And then we get that tiresome idiocy about the ocean not really being acid because the pH is still above 7.0.

    And can you pair

    If the average pH of the ocean drops to 7.8 from 8.1 by 2100 as predicted, it will still be well above seven, the neutral point where alkalinity becomes acidity.

    with

    studies have shown that at least some kinds of calcifiers [my emphasis] still thrive—at least as far down as pH 7.8.

    …and tell me what happens to even these surviving calcifers beyond that point? And what we might expect generally if pH fluctuates around an average if that average is rapidly trending downward?

    I’ll leave you to find any remaining references to actual science, since Ridley’s piece is intriguingly coy on these studies – it’s almost like he wouldn’t want us to look them up!

    This substance-free link-spamming is doubtlessly why you got chucked out of the other sites you claim to have been victimised by.

  42. #42 Lotharsson
    January 14, 2012

    > Many suggested actions “harm” people to a greater degree than the benefit justifies.

    A post-grad finance/economics grad should know that one can’t evaluate that equation until you’ve got a handle on the potential “harm”, which a person of ordinary intelligence here understands to be the risk due to climate change. Risk by definition involves a range of possible outcomes and some form of probability distribution. You’ve previously indicated you cannot quantify this risk to any reasonable level of certainty, although you can’t admit it to yourself so you assert that it is low.

    Which means you’re pulling the claim to have evaluated this cost-benefit equation out of your arse.

  43. #43 Richard Simons
    January 14, 2012

    Pokerplyer: I was going to suggest some scientific papers you could look at to see that ocean acidification is a concern, but in view of the link you gave it’s obvious that they would be beyond you. Take a look at this outline at SkepticalScience.

    BTW: You have still not answered these questions: exactly how much does the planet have to warm, in the opinion of an “aerospace engineer” who doesn’t seem to play much poker, before there is “overall harm”? And what exactly constitutes “overall harm”?

  44. #44 Olaus Petri
    January 14, 2012

    I believe a post-grad finance/economics grad should know that one can’t predict climate change until s/he got a handle on the mechanism behind climate change, which all person of ordinary intelligence understands.

  45. #45 Lionel A
    January 14, 2012

    PokerPlayer quoting something found at the GWPF is like picking your reality checks from J K Rowling – both based on fiction.

    Here is some perspective to help dispel your illusions.

    Here is some more, revealing the other jokers in this pack with even more here . The fact that the now much self-debased Plimer is in the mix should tell you plenty.

  46. #46 caerbannog
    January 14, 2012


    Erm, excuse me if I appear to be sceptical, but exactly how much does the planet have to warm, in the opinion of an “aerospace engineer”

    Actually, pokerplyer isn’t really an “engineer” — for his Master’s degree, he took the path of least resistance and chose finance/business instead of hard science/engineering.

    He’s a PhB (Pointy-haired Boss) beancounting-type, not a hard-core technical person. And it shows in his posts.

  47. #47 caerbannog
    January 14, 2012


    Interesting to note how deranged people like Ned Nikolov and Roy Spencer must be to think that the oceans are outgassing…

    What’s really pathetic about that is the fact that demonstrating that natural processes must be net CO2 *absorbers* is a straightforward high-school math bookkeeping exercise.

    Really — converting MTons of CO2 emissions to PPM changes in the atmosphere is something that a high-school student should be able to do! It seems that hard-core denier-think negates not only college degrees, but high-school diplomas as well!

  48. #48 pokerplyer
    January 14, 2012

    What is interesting is the tendency of the posters here to be so sure of their position as throw out insults vs. actually discussing the relevant issues in play.

    I started out posting what I acknowledge is a silly bet that nobody familiar with what a GCM can do would have accepted. The purpose of that wager was to get people who fear cAGW to actually learn about the capabilities and limitations of general circulation models. These models were not designed to provide data for government policy making and are unsuitable for that purpose. Mann has pushed the approach but it is wrong due to the unreliability of those models. If you believe GCMs outputs are consistent and reliable you are mistaken.

    One the questions several times is how much the planet has to warm to be considered dangerous climate change I offer the following rationale for discussion.
    http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/05/what-constitutes-dangerous-climate-change/

    Btw–please notice I have not really slammed those who have posted really stupid comments that are factually wrong. Read the one who told me to learn geography for considering Pakistan and India to be part of SW Asia? I guess you all think I was wrong about that also.

  49. #49 Bernard J.
    January 14, 2012

    >Actually, pokerplyer isn’t really an “engineer” — for his Master’s degree, he took the path of least resistance and chose finance/business instead of hard science/engineering.

    Ahhh, so he’s a porky-pie-er, not a poker player. That’s why he folded as soon as his 100K bet was confronted.

    It’s interesting to note (especially for any of the Scientific American lurkers who might have wandered over to see how their Denialatus bruvver is decimating the scientific consensus) that Porkypie-er doesn’t ever actually engage in testable scientific discussion, backed with testable references. A bit like the Scandinavian Trollege of Advanced Obfuscation and Confabulation…

    Yes, too many Denialati emperors, and not a stich between them.

  50. #50 MikeH
    January 14, 2012

    pukerplyer @ 309

    Our intrepid explorer is still searching for SW Asia. Here is a tip dullard – try an atlas instead of a random collection of images.

    http://www.physicalmapofasia.com/regions-of-asia/southwest-asia

    Showing the same ineptitude for science as he does for geography, he provides a link to the laughable climate denier outfit, the GWPF ([described](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/chris-huhne-lawson-think-tank) as ‘misinformed’, ‘wrong’ and ‘perverse’ by the energy secretary in the UK Conservative government). That in turn links to some reheated tripe in Murdoch’s WSJ. The Murdoch press – the go to place for phone hacking, far-right opinion and Ocean Science. What’s next pokerplyer – a link to Fox News.

  51. #51 MikeH
    January 14, 2012

    Here are some excerpts from [research](http://sio.ucsd.edu/Ocean_Acidification/ocean_acid_brochure_2011_final.pdf) at Scripps that did not make it into the WSJ article. Too inconvenient?

    WITH SHOCKING SPEED, THE INCREASING ACIDIFICATION OF THE WORLD’S OCEANS HAS BEEN TRANSFORMED FROM AN ABSTRACT
    PROBLEM WITH AN INDEFINITE TIME SCALE TO A CONSEQUENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE THAT HAS TANGIBLE EFFECTS OBSERVABLE NOW. SCRIPPS
    INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY AT UC SAN DIEGO IS PART OF A GLOBAL EFFORT TO BRING PUBLIC ATTENTION TO A SUBTLE BUT PROFOUND CRISIS
    THAT NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AND ADDRESSED NOW

    Researchers are trying to understand the difference in reactions to acidification among marine species. For example, why are some species sensitive to high CO2 concentrations while others are not?

    Recent research has since found falling pH levels in a variety of ocean regions, with particularly vulnerable systems being detected in polar waters and off the west coast of North America. The decrease is enough to put many key marine organisms
    at risk. The pace of acidification will likely not give many organisms sufficient time to adapt. Some estimates suggest, for example, that the growth rate of coral might be outpaced by its depletion rate by mid-century. One recent estimate indicates
    that some vulnerable polar ecosystems could experience initial stages of corrosive surface waters within 20 or 30 years.

    Some of the species most vulnerable to ocean acidification are vital to ocean food webs.Pteropods are small marine snails that are a large part of the diet of salmon and other commercially important fish species. Some pteropod species have shells so thin that they are transparent.

    Researchers exposed a pteropod shell to carbonate ion-depleted seawater with acid levels set to the pH of Southern
    Ocean water expected in 2100. The shell dissolved after 45 days.

    The West Coast shellfish industry has reported losses in yield and stunted development of the larvae of farmed and wild-caught oysters, clams, and other species. Scripps’ Andrew Dickson chairs the California Current Acidification Network (C-CAN), a new collaboration between industry and scientists to explore what is causing shellfish losses, what role ocean acidification might be playing in this problem …

  52. #52 Trent1492
    January 14, 2012

    Hello Everyone,

    Poker Player is now claiming that he has been banned from this site. I know he is lying because I am cognizant of the how this site handles trolls. And Poker Player has been here nowhere here as long as David Duff and his fellow idiots.

    His claim of banning is found here on comment #69. By the way, the article I linked too is an interesting interview with Michael Mann on computer models.

    I want to thank everyone who took part in the destruction of Poker Player. A link back to this thread is going to serve as a nice big cudgel. His collapse in the face of Bernard J. is just something that is going to come in very handy.

    And yes, he is geographically ignorant. I served in the Persian Gulf back in 1991 and one of the the medals I received was the Southwest Asia Service Medal .

  53. #53 John Mashey
    January 14, 2012

    re: #322 Trent1492
    And you might refer to #278, as the expertise claimed as an “aerospace engineer” seemed to evaporate, perhaps because the people I usually briefed were likely were rather higher in the management chain at Boeing.

    All of this likes moving goalposts.

  54. #54 Lotharsson
    January 14, 2012

    Pokerplyer may have written a comment that got caught in the moderation filter awaiting action by a human, and concluded that his comments are being *SUPPRESSED, I TELL YOU!!!!*

    He wouldn’t be the first. Some of them also aren’t aware that when cleared by the moderator their comments appear in submission order.

    You might want to ask him at SciAm **how** he knows he has been banned. Bet that proves somewhat interesting ;-)

  55. #55 Trent1492
    January 14, 2012

    Darn it. This is the link to the Southwest Asia Service Medal. My apologies.

  56. #56 sam
    January 14, 2012

    Yes. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    However, the observed global temperature does not show accelerated warming with increase in CO2 emission.

    Global Mean Temperature (GMT) data => http://bit.ly/pxXK4j

    The most important observation in the above data is that the upper GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT peaks, the lower GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT valleys, and these lines are parallel. Also, the line that bisects the vertical space between the two GMT boundary lines is nearly identical to the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade for the whole data. This result indicates that, for the last 130 years, the GMT behaved like a stable pendulum with the two GMT boundary lines that are 0.5 deg C apart as the end points of the pendulum’s swings, and the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade as the pendulum’s neutral position.

    In the above data, the GMT touched its upper boundary line only 3-times, about every 60-years, but has never crossed it for long in the last 130 years.

    In the GMT data, a shift in climate to an accelerated global warming would have been indicated if the upper GMT boundary line had been a curve with an increasing positive slope with increasing years, or the upper and lower GMT boundary lines had been diverging with increasing years.

    Fortunately, the upper GMT boundary line is a straight line having, interestingly, the same global warming rate of 0.06 deg C per decade as the global warming trend line for the whole data. Also, the upper and lower GMT boundary lines are parallel, showing no change in the magnitude of the GMT swing with increasing years. As a result, the vertical cooling or warming swing of 0.5 deg C between the two GMT boundary lines is cyclic and is therefore natural.

    However, there is evidence of a persistent but natural global warming of 0.06 deg C per decade. Not 0.2 deg C per decade as claimed by the IPCC.

  57. #57 bill
    January 14, 2012

    That comment system at SciAm is quite the experience! I left a little note for Plythepoker; we shall see what results…

  58. #58 bill
    January 15, 2012

    Hmm, one of AWOL PorkiePyer’s comrades-in-arms has joined us; ‘sam’ is ‘selti’ at SciAm, and this is a just a copy of his post #72 over yonder. I cheerfully leave this masterpiece of almost Girmaesque WFT selective detrending to those with more patience than me, such as Trent 1492, who has already pointed out the obvious over there.

  59. #59 Bernard J.
    January 15, 2012

    [Sam](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6211936).

    Thank you for the biggest laugh that I’ve had all week.

    You are obviously statistically illiterate, but I simply have to repeat some of your gems just to reinforce how silly your ‘analysis’ is:

    >The most important observation in the above data is that the upper GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT peaks, the lower GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT valleys, and these lines are parallel. Also, the line that bisects the vertical space between the two GMT boundary lines is nearly identical to the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade for the whole data. This result indicates that, for the last 130 years, the GMT behaved like a stable pendulum with the two GMT boundary lines that are 0.5 deg C apart as the end points of the pendulum’s swings, and the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade as the pendulum’s neutral position.

    >In the above data, the GMT touched its upper boundary line only 3-times, about every 60-years, but has never crossed it for long in the last 130 years.

    A first-year university student in science would be failed if s/he handed in that sort of tripe even in the first week of first term. You show no indication of understanding:

    1. how to best describe a trajectory
    2. how to test for statistical significance
    3. a priori statistical test selection
    4. anything else remotely connected with statistics
    5. much at all

    Seriously…

    >In the above data, the GMT touched its upper boundary line only 3-times, about every 60-years, but has never crossed it for long in the last 130 years.

    You are so clueless that I’d have to write an introductory textbook here just to explain why. For those ignorant lurking colleagues of yours who might be lurking here, and who don’t understand the source of my derision, ponder this analogy…

    …a philosophy professor asks his freshmen at the end of first term to describe what defines inner beauty. Someone in the front row put his hand up and earnestly says “big tits”.

    Except sam’s effort is worse.

    Apologies to the poster who recently linked to [this gem](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8VD4JXUozM&feature=related), but I can’t remember who you are. It neatly exacpsulates my exasperation with sam though.

  60. #60 MikeH
    January 15, 2012

    Sam @ 327
    You are an imbecile.

  61. #61 GWB's nemesis
    January 15, 2012

    Sam is a Poe, surely? It is just not possible to be that statistically-illiterate and still be able to turn on a computer.

    Has anyone noticed how the quality of visiting denialists is deteriorating around here? I am starting to yearn for the days of Tim Curtin and Ben. They were at least semi-coherent.

  62. #62 Bernard J.
    January 15, 2012

    [GWB's nemesis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6211990).

    Samn is from the Scientific American blog deniosphere.

    The Stupid is so dense there that poe-ing would be a largely fruitless exercise: I suspect that this one is real.

    It would be a frabjous day indeed if sam was in fact a poe. That would inch SciAm back just that little bit more from the brink. Speaking of which: Trent, you’re doing excellent work there countering the flood of scientific illiteracy – keep it up.

  63. #63 MikeH
    January 15, 2012

    coneill at sci am summed up sam the “fun with graphs” moron with the comment

    …you’ve tortured the data until it confessed to what you wanted it to say.

    If cruelty to data was a criminal offense, most of the denialati would be in jail.

  64. #64 Lotharsson
    January 15, 2012

    Pokerplyer’s [#319](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6211765) has shown up. I’m guessing it was held up in moderation and that was why he claimed to have been banned here.

    Mind you, it sounds like a bit of hasty arse-covering revisionism which rarely works around here (acknowledgement that his original bet was silly, but no unsilly new bet offered), and re-assertion of various unjustified claims. The latter include “models are unsuitable for government policy making”, which presumably still relies on his initial fallacy that models must predict long range local *weather* to be suitable for that purpose since he hasn’t withdrawn that implication. (That was a bit like claiming that a model of future average traffic demands is useless for deciding when to build more freeway capacity because it can’t tell you how many cars will be on a particular 5km stretch of freeway 17 years, 2 months and 13 days from now between 3:22pm and 3:34pm.)

    And still no glimmer of acknowledgement that if models *aren’t* sufficiently reliable for government policy making, then we have to make policy **under even more uncertainty**, which means we have to slam the brakes hard on GHG emissions right now.

    Oh, and he links to Curry re: “what constitutes dangerous climate change”.

  65. #65 Lotharsson
    January 15, 2012

    > …you’ve tortured the data until it confessed to what you wanted it to say.

    One critique at SciAm was: why did you force those axis scales?

    So have a look at the massive difference in presentation if you [merely move the offset for series 5 and 7 to somewhere near the other five curves](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/offset:14/plot/gistemp/compress:12/offset:13.885/detrend:-0.02/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:-0.42/detrend:-0.23/offset:14/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:14.1/detrend:-0.23/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:13.5/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2010/trend/offset:14/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:13.5) instead of using them to massively expand the y-axis range.

    How to lie with graphs, indeed.

  66. #66 Mike G
    January 15, 2012

    Wow, as a marine biologist who used to specialize in chemical ecology on coral reefs (in SW Asia) and who now works on coastal development in South Florida, it almost seems like Pokerplayer is a gift from the heavens offered up to me.

    First, for your claim that it’s relatively cheap and easy to adapt to warming… Consider where I live in South Florida. There are 5.5 million people living within 20 miles of the coast on land that mostly falls within 3m of sealevel and is interwoven by hundreds of miles of bays, canals, and inlets. All of the fresh water comes from aquifers which are susceptible to (and already suffering from) saltwater intrusion. As sea levels continue to rise, how do we protect our water source from saltwater intrusion or find another source that is as cheap as using the naturally occurring aquifers? Also, how do you protect the billions of dollars in property that are already essentially at sea level? Parts of Miami Beach and Ft. Lauderdale already flood with seawater during extreme high tides. Are you going to relocate 5.5 million people and have them abandon their property- some of the most valuable in the country? Or maybe you would build several hundred miles of seawalls, gates, and massive pumps (and where are you going to build these structures in a coastal area that’s already almost 100% developed?)? Lets not forget how that solution worked for New Orleans either. Is this something we really want to try in a more hurricane-prone city? How much do you figure that would all cost just to protect 1 coastal metropolitan area? How about for all the major coastal cities in the US? How does that cost compare to improving energy efficiency and reducing reliance on fossil fuels?

    Now, as for the GWPF link in 309- “bafflingly stupid” is about the best summary of it. A couple of hints to anyone who has any desire to understand ocean acidification-

    1. Learn the difference between the terms “alkalinity” and pH as used in marine chemistry. In marine chemistry, alkalinity refers to the concentration of certain buffering ions- usually carbonate and bicarbonate(but not including H+), not to pH. While any solution with a pH above 7 could be described as alkaline, in the case of seawater, saying you’ve reduced the alkalinity is NOT equivalent to saying you’ve reduced the pH. Acidification is the term used because it describes the process of adding acid and it avoids the ambiguity of using alkalinity/alkaline in regards to seawater chemistry.

    2. Look up “light-enhanced calcification.” The diurnal variation in pH is not physiologically insignificant, as the GWPF author would like you to believe. Most corals and calcifying algae show reduced growth at night. The reason? Photosynthesis consumes CO2 from the water in the calcifying tissue layers during the day, which makes the local chemistry more favorable for CaCO3 deposition. At night, respiration produces CO2 which makes conditions unfavorable for calcification. Despite what the author implies, what we know about diurnal variations in CO2, pH, and alkalinity and the impacts they have on calcifiers is in no way comforting in the face of a long-term decrease in pH due to addition of CO2. In fact, it’s a large reason why we’re worried.

    3. In looking for studies which examine the impacts of reduced pH on calcifiers it’s important to distinguish between those studies which manipulate carbonate alkalinity vs. those that don’t. As you add CO2 to seawater it shifts the carbonate/bicarbonate equilibrium towards bicarbonate. However, in order to isolate pH as a variable, lots of studies have artificially maintained constant carbonate concentrations (which isn’t what happens in nature). Under these conditions, calcification often remains fairly close to normal even at reduced pH. However, if you reduce the pH without maintaining high carbonate concentrations (which is what happens in the oceans) calcification is reduced.

  67. #67 Bernard J.
    January 15, 2012

    Mike G.

    You might be interested in the [Tim Curtin thread now a live show](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s.php) thread…

  68. #68 Lotharsson
    January 15, 2012

    Over at that SciAm thread, “selti” a.k.a. drive-by “sam” continues his nonsense.

    He implies that the concern about warming is merely due to a “continued warming projection” – but subsequently doesn’t seem to realise he contradicts himself by arguing that “…GLOBAL WARMING has STOPPED…” (no prizes for guessing he’s cherry-picked a 1998 start for his trend).

    He also goes for “AGW is a fictitious theory not supported by the data”, and asserts from his tortured graph (having not understood the earlier critiques) that “…true climate sensitivity is only 3×0.06/0.2 = 0.9 deg C”.

  69. #69 Lotharsson
    January 16, 2012

    Bernard, “selti” at SciAm would appear to have the right set of beliefs to consider a wager with you, although I don’t know if he’s prepared to put his money where his mouth is. He argues (re: the AMO):

    > This thermohaline circulation has a warming and cooling phase of about 30 years. From about 1970s to 2000s, the thermohaline circulation was during its warming phase and that is the reason for the observed global warming. From about 2000s to 2030s, the thermohaline circulation will be in its cooling phase. As a result, in the 2000s, the GMT (as already observed) plateaus, and global cooling should follow until the 2030s.

    > …

    > …AGW will die its deserved death in the coming five years with the expected global cooling.

    Although he does also go on to state (illogically, but that’s how his other beliefs have been derived):

    > On the other hand, if the 1998 record is exceeded in the next five years, I will join the AGW believer camp.

  70. #70 zoot
    January 16, 2012

    Does “selti” know that according to NASA temperature records, the hottest year on record globally is 2005?

    Not that I expect it’s likely to change his/her mind.

  71. #71 Lotharsson
    January 16, 2012

    FYI, “selti” at SciAm says he is Girma, which should mean something to most long-time Deltoid denizens.

    He says he is prepared to bet, but it’s (a) over weather time-scales, and (b) not related to AGW trends which are not detected via records:

    > I bet the 1998 record for hadcrut3gl.txt will not be exceeded in the next three years (2012, 2013 & 2014). This is a simple extension of the Annan & Whitehouse bet.

  72. #72 Composer99
    January 16, 2012

    All I have re: degrees is a bachelor’s in music, and I know I don’t know very much about climatology.

    Nevertheless from reading pokerplyer’s nonsense I get the impression that I know a bit more than he does.

  73. #73 Marco
    January 16, 2012

    Lotharsson, as James Annan just noted, in HADCRUT4 2005 and 2010 already exceed 1998…

    http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2012/01/not-so-fast.html

    HADCRUT3gl will likely be discontinued, now that there is a new updated version coming, so his bet is likely a dud.

  74. #74 Wow
    January 16, 2012

    Engineer with 25 years of experience: “Michael Mann’s method generates hockey sticks from random noise.”

    Me: How?

    Engineer: you have to generate random noise, yeah, and then you get a hockey stick. I’ve done it!

    Me: OK, I just get a wavey line that doesn’t curve up at the end. How did you do it?

    Engineer: You must be incompetent then, since I did it easily!

    Me: OK, so how did you do it?

    Engineer: You can get it from someone else on the internet, can’t you use google?

    Me: But you said YOU did it. Just pass over the program you had that generated the random data and I’ll use that.

    Engineer: I don’t have time to do that, it’s easy to get from the internet.

    Me: You said YOU did it. Did you lie? After all, it should be fairly easy to show me YOU did it, by showing what you did. Go on.

    Engineer runs away.

    You see, the engineer hasn’t actually done it. They just read someone used “Pink noise” and got a hockey stick.

    What they seem to fail to realise is that

    a) pink noise isn’t totally random: it has a bias on it. A trend if you like.

    b) you have to SELECT a curve that looks hockey-stick-like. Well, it’s rather easy to get any curve you want from random numbers if you just select the run and period. But that’s the selection process making a hockey stick, not random noise.

  75. #75 Chris O'Neill
    January 16, 2012

    Marco:

    as James Annan just noted, in HADCRUT4 2005 and 2010 already exceed 1998…

    http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2012/01/not-so-fast.html

    HADCRUT3gl will likely be discontinued,

    The fact denialists will cry blue murder over this.

  76. #76 pokerplyer
    January 16, 2012

    Let’s see if this post goes through on a timely basis.

    Mike G asks: “As sea levels continue to rise, how do we protect our water source from saltwater intrusion or find another source that is as cheap as using the naturally occurring aquifers?”

    My response- Do you believe that sea levels are rising solely due to AGW? The rate of sea level rise over the last 20 years is roughly 1 foot per century. This rate is not a problem. Over a long term basis, since sea levels are near their all time low levels they are likely to rise. Local communities need to prepare since nothing related to CO2 emissions will lessen the long term trend.

    Mike G asks: “Also, how do you protect the billions of dollars in property that are already essentially at sea level? Parts of Miami Beach and Ft. Lauderdale already flood with seawater during extreme high tides.”

    My response- It is not my responsibility to protect property built in areas likely to be damaged by being built in areas highly susceptible to damage by natural disasters. They should probably build sea walls to protect the property built in an unsafe area or have very expensive insurance since the property is likely to be damaged by a storm.

    Mike G asks: “Are you going to relocate 5.5 million people and have them abandon their property- some of the most valuable in the country?”

    My response- No that is their problem to deal with. If the property is in an area likely to be damaged by storms it will have high insurance costs and the property values will fall as a result. People make choices where to live and deal with the consequences. Supply and demand is a system that works.

    Mike G asks: “How much do you figure that would all cost just to protect 1 coastal metropolitan area? How about for all the major coastal cities in the US? How does that cost compare to improving energy efficiency and reducing reliance on fossil fuels?”

    My response- Mike, all the areas you mention need to be protected from bad weather regardless of whether humans emitted CO2 or not. The issue is that sometimes people are shortsighted and do not build the infrastructure to protect their investments or build on property that looks pretty when all is well, but is highly susceptible to damage from storms. Should others have to pay for those people’s poor choices?

    If this post goes through I will get back to discuss OA

  77. #77 pokerplyer
    January 16, 2012

    All our human emissions are projected by models to change world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over next 90 years, & that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish & some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day’

    What makes Mike so sure that the .3 ph rise over 90 years would be a problem?

  78. #78 Marco
    January 16, 2012

    Pokerplyer, the difference in average annual temperature between Marseille (France) and Amsterdam (The Netherlands) is less than 5 degrees. Much less than the temperature swings these two places can experience on a daily basis (monthly high and low easily differ by 10 degrees or more during several months). The Netherlands is likely to see a 3-4 degree increase in temperature over the next 90 years on a business as usual scenario.

    Compare the flora and fauna between these two places and then reconsider your comment in #348.

  79. #79 pokerplyer
    January 16, 2012

    Marco

    I do not think the comparison to temperatures and ocean ph levels is a good one in your example. The argument has been that the average ph change of .3 ph units over 90 years will be harmful. It turns out that the ph level varies by a much higher amount than that on a regular basis. Therefore, it would not appear that the average amount of change over the long term would be harmful.

  80. #80 bill
    January 16, 2012

    Pokerplyer clearly cannot understand the argument that Marco has put to him! It’s as simple as that.

  81. #81 Lotharsson
    January 16, 2012

    > Should others have to pay for those people’s poor choices?

    Apparently not.

    But when asked:

    Should others have to pay for those GHG emitters’ poor choices?

    Apparently so.

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm…

  82. #82 SteveC
    January 16, 2012

    It turns out that the ph level varies by a much higher amount than that on a regular basis. Therefore, it would not appear that the average amount of change over the long term would be harmful.

    By golly I think he’s cracked it. Based on pokerplyer’s expose of the flaws in the science on the impacts of ocean acidification, it follows that since where I live the temperature fluctuates by more than 10deg C every day, and that since I and everyone else survives it easily, the 4degC rise in global mean temperatures predicted by all those climate “scientists” is nothing to worry about. And even if pokerplyer is wrong, well it’s some some plankton and shit that’ll die, and maybe some parts of the GBR won’t be worth the trip, but the tourism industry will adapt, so who cares. And who the hell are The Puget Sound anyway?

    Simple is as simple does.

  83. #83 Lotharsson
    January 16, 2012

    > The argument has been that the average ph change of .3 ph units over 90 years will be harmful. It turns out that the ph level varies by a much higher amount than that on a regular basis.

    You really haven’t thought this through, have you?

    My speed when driving varies by 110 km/h. How can an average change of a mere 30 km/h be harmful? After all, the stopping distance and kinetic energy are … er, proportional to the square of my speed, so … er … my
    chances of avoiding – let alone surviving – an accident at 110 km/h … er … compared to 140 km/h … er … er …

    Or try this. The interest rates bond holders demand from (say) various European governments vary by a few percent on a quasi-regular basis, so what’s an extra percent or so between friends? That must mean that once it hits about 7 percent … er … crap.

    Or this. You have a margin account at a stockbroker, and you trade short. Your outstanding borrowings from the broker regularly range from 50 to 96% of your margin limit, so a small increase of 6% due to a market crash can’t possibly … oh, crap, margin call …

    Your argument that some marine life “…adapt[s] naturally to changes far larger than that every year…” is deeply misguided; the annual cycle is *not* **adapting** to changes in the **average**; they’re adapted **to** a given **range**. When you move the entire range, *then* they have to adapt – and a bunch of them won’t do well when they try (especially when combined with changing ocean temperatures). And if some key species don’t do well, they can cause entire sections of the ecosystem that depend on them to collapse.

    And it’s worse in non-linear systems – which you *should* be very familiar with from *both* your engineering and finance perspectives. You don’t seem to understand that ecosystems (and pH scales) are both highly non-linear.

    On a meta level, perhaps it would be prudent to reassess your personal belief that your personal analyses based on very limited expertise in these fields and running contra to expert analysis is correct – especially if you’re intending to bet on it?

  84. #84 Lotharsson
    January 16, 2012

    Oh, and the latest response to Trent by pokerplyer at SciAm is classic. Posted in full apart from the address to Trent, so that it may be correctly savoured:

    > You try to claim that sea level is rising at an alarming rate and ignore the 20 year trend of good measurements and reference data drawn based on salt-marsh sedimentary sequences from the US Atlantic coast. You must realize how inaccurate that information is don’t you?

    (What, the US Atlantic is “the globe” now? My denialist bingo card is starting to fill up.)

    > Now I don’t have any idea what youthink I am lying about, since I take being truthful as extermely important. I am guessing it was my comment about being “banned” from that other site, when I was really only temporarily prevented from posting comments there. It is really interesting about the tone of the comments there. A very high degree of ranting and very little substance. I rather assumed that you run the site.

    Methinks pokerplyer has a little problem with *recognising substance*.

  85. #85 MikeH
    January 16, 2012

    pokerplyer @ 348

    What makes Mike so sure that the .3 ph rise over 90 years would be a problem?

    I would not assume that pp knows that [pH is a log scale](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mackie_OA_not_OK_post_4.html). He shows no knowledge of any other science. His talking points are just echoes of denier blogs.

    A difference of 0.11 pH units corresponds to a 29% increase in the concentration of H3O+. A difference of 0.4 pH units corresponds to a 150% increase in H3O+.

    Lotharsson @ 352
    You nailed it.

  86. #86 Lotharsson
    January 16, 2012

    > I cheerfully leave this masterpiece of almost Girmaesque WFT selective detrending…

    Hah – [you called it](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6212433)!

  87. #87 Richard Simons
    January 16, 2012

    All our human emissions are projected by models to change world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over next 90 years, & that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish & some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day’

    They often ‘adapt’ by not growing. How’s that going to work on a permanent basis?

  88. #88 Bernard J.
    January 16, 2012

    Porkyplyer needs to buy a clue.

    >Let’s see if this post goes through on a timely basis.

    Right where you post there’s this:

    >Post a Comment

    >(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)

    Deltoid posts are held for moderation when excessive links and/or keywors are used. I have posts held often: I don’t assume that I’m temporarily or permanently banned.

    >Do you believe that sea levels are rising solely due to AGW?

    Of course not. But unlike you, we have read the literature and have some understanding of attribution of causes of sea level rise. We accept that global warming is mostlly responsible for sea level rise.

    What is your understanding of attribution of causes of SLR?

    >The rate of sea level rise over the last 20 years is roughly 1 foot per century. This rate is not a problem.

    No, it’s simply a problem over longer time-scales.

    And you completely avoid the fact that the rate of sea level rise will increase greatly in the future. Or are all ‘aerospace engineer[ing]‘ processes in your world linear?

    >Over a long term basis, since [sic] sea levels are near their all time low levels they are likely to rise.

    What, like London and Sydney are near their “all time” [sic] proximities and are likely to drift closer?

    Seriously, [what constitutes "low" in "aerospace" engineering terms](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Sea_level_temp_140ky.gif)?!

    >Local communities need to prepare since [sic] nothing related to CO2 emissions will lessen the long term trend.

    Except that if we stopped emitting today we’d save metres of sea level rise for future generations.

    Unless of course you subscribe to the notion that humans have already tipped the mean global temperature toward a future maximum possible value.

    >My response- It is not my responsibility to protect property built in areas likely to be damaged by being built in areas highly susceptible to damage by natural disasters.

    No, but it is your responsibility to ensure that you don’t alter and/or increase in extent the “areas [that will become] highly susceptible to damage by natural disasters”

    You are not responsible for the neighbour’s tree that grows over your neighbour’s house. You are responsible for ensuring that your tree does not grow over his house.

    >They should probably build sea walls to protect the property built in an unsafe area or have very expensive insurance since the property is likely to be damaged by a storm.

    And who’s going to pay for the increase in requirements for sea walls and insurance? The victims of the storms or (where the two do not coincide) the people whose emissions caused the increase in storms?

    >Mike G asks: “Are you going to relocate 5.5 million people and have them abandon their property- some of the most valuable in the country?”

    >My response- No that is their problem to deal with.

    Why, if it’s not their fault?

    >If the property is in an area likely to be damaged by storms it will have high insurance costs and the property values will fall as a result. People make choices where to live and deal with the consequences.

    But what if the property is not presently in an area likely to be damaged by storms?

    >Supply and demand is a system that works.

    Then sell me a fillet of dodo, please.

    >My response- Mike, all the areas you mention need to be protected from bad weather regardless of whether humans emitted CO2 or not. The issue is that sometimes people are shortsighted and do not build the infrastructure to protect their investments or build on property that looks pretty when all is well, but is highly susceptible to damage from storms. Should others have to pay for those people’s poor choices?

    You’re confabulating weather with climate again.

    It would seem that the standard for entry into “aeropsace enginneering” is not an onerous one to fulfill.

    >If this post goes through I will get back to discuss OA

    You’d better do a lot of homework first. I highly recommend the Skeptical Science series.

    >The argument has been that the average ph change of .3 [sic] ph [sic] units [sic] over 90 years will be harmful. It turns out that the ph [sic] level varies by a much higher amount than that on a regular basis.

    Not in all parts of the ocean.

    And a 0.3 unit change in pH represents a doubling/halving of acidity. For many marine organisms that is a seriously huge ecophysiological challenge. And yet you say that “the ph [sic] level varies by a much higher amount than that on a regular basis”?

    This would be extraordinary news to marine ecologists: please, please reference this claim. Consider that a:

    1. 0.4 unit decrease in pH represents a 250% increase in acidity
    2. 0.5 unit decrease in pH represents a 320% increase in acidity
    3. 0.6 unit decrease in pH represents a 400% increase in acidity

    As an “aerospace engineer” you make a lousy marine ecophysiological chemist. Reread Lotharsson’s explanations of press versus pulse exposure is you don’t yet have a clue.

  89. #89 Chris O'Neill
    January 16, 2012

    pokerplyer:

    Over a long term basis, since sea levels are near their all time low levels they are likely to rise.

    Where do you get this unmitigated garbage from? (refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial\_Sea\_Level.png) It’s becoming clear that you don’t care if you spout garbage.

  90. #90 bill
    January 16, 2012

    The magic sea-pixies told him! That link included a redundant bracket – this would work better.

  91. #91 Bernard J.
    January 16, 2012

    Dang.

    >What, like London and Sydney are near their “all time” [sic] proximities and are likely to drift closer further away [from each other]?

  92. #92 Bernard J.
    January 16, 2012

    [Chris](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6212821).

    Porkyplyer’s outright untruth is all the more egregious for the fact that it’s not just since the last glacial maximum that the current sea level is notable. If one considers [the link](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Sea_level_temp_140ky.gif) in [my earlier post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6212819) it’s clear to sea that sea level is presently almost as high as it has ever been over most of the last one million years, and that a business-as-usual carbon dioxide emissions scenario will soon push sea level to the highest that it’s been in at least that period.

    That’s a definition of “low” that I’ve not encountered before. Perhaps I’m just not smart enough to be an “aerospace engineeer”…

  93. #93 Bernard J.
    January 16, 2012

    Humour aside, Porkyplyer is probably trying to use sea levels over geological time spanning the age of the Earth with which to make his claim.

    This ludicrous cherry-picking raises two important points:

    1. in considering the causes of higher sea level since the planet formed, one is forced to account for physcial processes that strongly support the science that says that humans are currently warming the planet
    2. the context of the sea levels on the scale on hundreds of millions of years is irrelevant to humans, because the processes that operate on the larger cale are not causing sea level change now, and because human extancy is likely to cease before any of those geological processes kick in again.

      All that humans can do in a practical sense is to consider (and act on) the causes of global warming/sea level rise that they do have influence over, and to that end there is only one significant candidate cause – CO2 emissions.

  94. #94 MikeH
    January 16, 2012

    I have already noted that pukerplyer is geographically challenged. Let us see if he can find Britain on this [map](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png)

    Perhaps sea level rise, [the movie](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3Jwnp-Z3yE) will help.

  95. #95 Bernard J.
    January 16, 2012

    So…

    …’sam’ is ‘selti’ is Girma Orssengo.

    This explains why the guy’s statistical understanding is non-existent. His degree really is a shameful blight on the reputation of UNSW.

    Wormtongue says at #85 on [the SciAm](http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=michael-mann-defends-climate-comput-12-01-10&posted=1#comments) thread that:

    >AGW will die its deserved death in the coming five years with the expected global cooling.

    and that:

    >On the other hand, if the 1998 record is exceeded in the next five years, I will join the AGW believer camp.

    I have a better suggestion. Whenever in the future the 1998 record is exceeded as defined by the GISS dataset, promise us that you will explicitly acknowledge that your PhD is undeserved and hand it back to UNSW.

    You don’t deserve to just “join the AGW believer camp”, because your extensive pseudoscientific anti-physics, statistically-bogus propaganda campaign is being used to garner public support to delay urgent action to reduce carbon emissions. Your Randian cornucopia delusion is bringing great harm to the planet, and your starry-eyed egocentric self-indulgence is endangering the security of future generations and of the planet’s biodiversity.

    I truly believe that you don’t deserve the degree that you wangled from UNSW, and that you in fact owe the whole planet more than just the return of your degree to the university.

    For anyone not familiar with Girma Orssengo’s Randian, delusional world, enter his name into the search field at the top of the page and be prepared to weep at the extent of his idiocy.

  96. #96 Lotharsson
    January 17, 2012

    > Supply and demand is a system that works.

    Category error. (And after you remedy that, you’ll still need to define “works”.)

    “Supply and demand” are two *forces* that may act upon or within a system, but they do not *constitute* a system – for that you need at least *something* that responds to those forces in some way that contributes to the system “working”.

    It’s like saying that “gravity and air pressure is a system that works (to fly)”. Nope. But add an aerofoil with some control surfaces and perhaps a controlled propulsion system and a few other bits and pieces and you might have one that “works (to fly)” in a reasonably controlled fashion under a certain range of conditions.

    But you still won’t get dodo fillet, and that system still won’t fly to the moon. Understanding the limits of effectiveness of any system (and the tradeoffs that apply even within that range of effectiveness) is a *key* engineering skill, and you should consider applying it to the matters at hand.

  97. #97 Marco
    January 17, 2012

    Nice to see pokerplyer not getting my analogy at all…

    Also nice to see others calling him on it, but I don’t expect him to understand.

    I also guess pokerplyer throws all his trash on the neighbours lawn and then blames the neighbours. Shouldn’t have lived right next to him…

  98. #98 ianam
    January 17, 2012

    What is interesting is the tendency of the posters here to be so sure of their position as throw out insults vs. actually discussing the relevant issues in play.

    Another shit-stain-on-humanity denialist, telling blatant lies and demonstrating rank hypocrisy. As with that other shit stain, Alex Harvey, the efforts of folks here to engage his arguments will be conveniently dismissed, and he will wield my telling the truth about what sort of person he is as a convenient tool of evasion.

    Supply and demand is a system that works.

    Most libertarians understand virtually nothing about economics, but this cretin seems to be below even those low standards.

  99. #99 sam
    January 17, 2012

    AGW advocates, look at the following graph for a minute and I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, consider it possible that you may be wrong.

    http://bit.ly/xakrmJ

    AGW advocates, what changed in the 161 years of annual global mean temperature data?

    Is not the only change the uniform global warming of ONLY 0.06 deg C per decade?

  100. #100 Lotharsson
    January 17, 2012

    > Nice to see pokerplyer not getting my analogy at all…

    It was pretty straightforward, with a very strong correspondence to the problem of ocean acidification. I’m sure most high school students would get it.

    > I also guess pokerplyer throws all his trash on the neighbours lawn and then blames the neighbours. Shouldn’t have lived right next to him…

    Worse still: he throws his trash on the lawns of people all over the city over including those who aren’t even aware of his existence…and then blames them for not building high enough walls to keep his trash out.