January 2012 Open Thread

Comments

  1. #1 Bernard J.
    January 17, 2012

    [Lotharsson](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6212890).

    I think that my allusion may have been a little obscure…

    When dodos were in supply and Dutch sailors were eyeing them off as a food source, there was no feedback to control the sailors’ demand. They simply scoffed them (along with red rails and other species), permitted to be introduced to Mauritius the species that they carted around with them on their ships, and bugger the notion of sustainability.

    Ivory becomes more valuable the more that humans reduce elephant numbers. Same with rhinos and their horns. Again, there is a disconnect with “supply and demand” as a sustaining mechanism.

    As you say:

    >”Supply and demand” are two forces that may act upon or within a system, but they do not constitute a system.

    The world is replete with examples that demonstrate that “supply and demand” in and of themselves do not constitute a functioning and balanced system. Anyone who tosses that meme around to justify an exploitative enterprise is trying to sell a bridge, or is having a fiddle with themselves, or both.

    Which rather describes Porkyplyer, actually…

  2. #2 TrueSceptic
    January 17, 2012

    Hmmm. When I saw comment 327 I did wonder … could it be … and sure enough …

    I made this bet with GO at Deltoid in Sep 2009.

    If a global mean temperature anomaly yearly average of 0.526 °C is not exceeded before 1 Jan 2020 according to HADCRUT, I shall pay $100 (USD) into a charity of your choosing and I shall declare that mainstream climate science as it stood in 2009 was mistaken in grossly exaggerating the role of CO2.
    If a global mean temperature anomaly yearly average of 0.526 °C is exceeded before 1 Jan 2020 according to HADCRUT, you will pay $100 (USD) into a charity of my choosing and you will declare that mainstream climate science as it stood in 2009 was broadly correct in assessing the role of CO2.

    with a 2nd bet taking us to 2030.

    I’m a bit concerned that HADCRUT3 might soon be replaced by HADCRUT4, but we agreed on “HADCRUT”, didn’t we? All the same, I won’t take the easy option: will there be a means of estimating what HADCRUT3 would have been once HADCRUT4 takes over?

  3. #3 pokerplyer
    January 17, 2012

    There is not a problem with increased CO2 in the water, leading to acidification There are 4 primary factors:

    • First, laboratory work shows there is no basis to predict the demise of ocean shelled plants and animals. The animals above them in the food chain will still find food. The science actually indicates plants, crustaceans, and shelled algae plankton will be more successful. Since they are at or near the bottom of the food chain, this is good news.

    • Second, the Earth has been this route before. The oceans have been far warmer and far colder and more acidic (2-20X) than is projected. The memory of these events is built into the genes of all species. Virtually all ecological niches have been filled at all times. If someone could demonstrate that there were no corals, clams, oysters, or shelled of CO2, we would be concerned. The opposite is true.

    • Third, observational data in studies properly controlled for other variables (e.g., upwelling, rainfall, pollution, temperature, disease) show no harm. IPCC concluded (prior to the Iglesias-Rodriguez paper (positive impact)) that there is no observational evidence of oceanic changes due to acidification. There is also nothing conclusive in the recent research to indicate any reason for concern.

    • Lastly, natural changes are greater and faster than those projected. Major warming, cooling, and pH changes in the oceans are a fact of life. Whether over a few years as in an El Niño, over decades as in the Pacific Oscillation, or over a few hours as a burst of upwelling appears or a storm brings acidic rainwater to an estuary. Despite severe and rapid changes that far exceed those in the scenarios, the biology adapts rapidly. The 0.1 change in ocean alkalinity since 1750 and the one degree F. rise since 1860 are but noise in this rapidly changing system. In the face of all these natural changes, whether over days or millennia, some species flourish while others diminish.

    • Conclusion. The crustaceans responding favorably in research by Ries et al. (crabs, lobsters, and shrimp) are probably similar to those at the base of the ocean food chain such as krill and copepods. Since they eat algae, which also responds favorably to CO2 increases (and warmer temperatures), it is likely there will be increased food in the sea. With no laboratory or observational evidence of biological disruption, we see no economic disruption of commercial and recreational fisheries, nor harm to marine mammals, sea turtles or any other protected species. Open-minded research is needed to sort it out.

    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/TestimonyIndexOceanAcidificationJohnEverettUS_Senate.html

    It is unfortunate when your fear turn out to be unfounded

  4. #4 pokerplyer
    January 17, 2012

    Is anyone here claiming that humanity has suffered a “net harm” by the emission of CO2 to date? Lotharsson- people around the world have clearly benefitted because humanity emitted CO2. It is only in your and a few others views that the US owes a debt to some other country because of it CO2 emissions.

    Please- try to make a case for even one significant country where you think the US owes a debt. In virtually every instance, countries have not educated their population and built the proper infrastructure to protect their citizens and develop their societies. That was not due to the US, but due to their failure to prepare. Had they built infrastructure, far fewer people there would be getting harmed by severe weather events. This will continue to be true in the future. Even if you are correct, and cAGW occurs, these societies will be damaged because they didn’t build infrastructure in the past, and they are unlikely to do so in the near future. Sorry, not my or the US problem to fix.

    As for Australia- it is the laws passed to control emissions there are a joke. It may be a good way to raise revenue for the government, but it is doing nothing to impact the world’s climate.

  5. #5 Wow
    January 17, 2012

    > Is anyone here claiming that humanity has suffered a “net harm” by the emission of CO2 to date?

    Why are you asking? Can’t you read?

    > people around the world have clearly benefitted because humanity emitted CO2.

    So clearly you can’t find such an accounting…

    Really. HOW have people benefitted by human emission of CO2???

    > try to make a case for even one significant country where you think the US owes a debt

    India: Bhopal.
    The Entire Middle East: WW1 and post WW2 activities

    > That was not due to the US, but due to their failure to prepare

    So the Maldives ought to have bought some rocks and built up their islands so that they can withstand sea level rises???

  6. #6 pokerplyer
    January 17, 2012

    Wow–How have people benefitted from the emission of CO2 to date? Do you really need a few of these things pointed out to you?
    Food production, distribution and preservation would not have been possible to support the world’s population without CO2 having been emitted. All the benefits of electricity that society benefitted form would not have been possible without emissions. The list of net benefits is long and obvious.

    WOW—I notice you have not made a case for any major country to be owed a debt by the US due to AGW. Do you believe that sea level would stay where it is, near its historic low levels over the last 500 M years if it was not for the human impact? That is sure a leap of faith unsupported by history and science.

  7. #7 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    January 17, 2012

    To summarize pokerplyer’s ‘arguments':

    1. Climate models are wrong and global warming is a scam!
    2. Because I say I am an “aerospace engineer”!
    3. I mean, I’m a “mechanical engineering undergrad” with a “master in economics and finance”!
    4. And, even if climate models are right, global warming may not be catastrophic!
    5. And even if global warming may be catastrophic, climate legislation will not help!
    6. And even if climate legislation will help, I refuse to support it, because it’s the poor nations’ fault that they can’t handle climate change!
    7. I demand that you accept this bet on future weather conditions set by me!
    8. However, I refuse to accept any bets on future weather conditions set by you!
    9. Did I say I’m an “aerospace engineer”?

    — frank

  8. #8 Wow
    January 17, 2012

    > Food production

    Food isn’t grown from CO2 production.

    > distribution

    Nope, that was transport. And the famines we have are not because we can’t grow the food but because we can’t distribute it.

    > and preservation

    Nope, not CO2 either. You don’t use dry ice to preserve food.

    > All the benefits of electricity

    Electricity isn’t CO2.

    I notice you seem to believe that CO2 is some sort of miracle pixie dust, the sole cause of all goodness. I’m afraid we don’t USE CO2 production for these things. CO2 is a waste product of transport and 19th-century technology for energy production. But they’re not the cause of them.

  9. #9 Wow
    January 17, 2012

    > Because I say I am an “aerospace engineer”!

    Wasn’t there a banned denialidiot Tim something or other who proclaimed that he knew all about models because he was an aerospace engineer? And he was equally idiotic about things too.

    Is he back with a num-de-plum?

  10. #10 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    January 17, 2012

    Wow,

    But… but… but… pokerplyer is an AEROSPACE ENJINIR!!!!!!!111111

    Since an aerospace engineer is a kind of scientist, and clearly all scientists are infallible gods, except when they aren’t, therefore, well, therefore.

    — frank

  11. #11 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    January 17, 2012

    Wow,

    > Is he back with a num-de-plum?

    Well, if so, then Tim just needs to ban the loser again.

    — frank

  12. #12 pokerplyer
    January 17, 2012

    Interesting how some of the foolish posters here respond.

    Frank wrote
    1. Climate models are wrong and global warming is a scam!
    My response- No, I wrote that general circulation models were not designed for government policy making and have insufficient accuracy to be suitable for being used for that purpose. I never wrote global warming is a scam. Why do you lie?
    2. And, even if climate models are right, global warming may not be catastrophic!
    My response- That is a correct statement. A warmer world will benefit humanity in many ways. There is no reliable evidence that it is actually harmful to humanity overall, or for the US specifically overall.
    3. And even if global warming may be catastrophic, climate legislation will not help!
    My response- Actually just another lie since I never wrote that. Do people at this site frequently lie about the comments of others?
    4. And even if climate legislation will help, I refuse to support it, because it’s the poor nations’ fault that they can’t handle climate change!
    My response- Actually just another lie since I never wrote that. Do people at this site frequently lie about the comments of others or is it just Frank?

  13. #13 pokerplyer
    January 17, 2012

    So WOW, are you so stupid as to not to be able to understand that without the emissions of CO2 that the things I wrote previously would not have been possible?

    You can’t really be that dense can you?

  14. #14 Wow
    January 17, 2012

    So transport will not work unless it emits CO2???? You can’t preserve food unless it’s with CO2!?! You can’t grow food unless without producing extra CO2!!!

    Wow, are YOU dumb!

  15. #15 pokerplyer
    January 17, 2012

    wow, would you care to explain how in “wow’s world” farmers would have powered their tractors, fertilized their crops, distributed their products, etc. if CO2 had not been emitted over the last 50 years?

  16. #16 Wow
    January 17, 2012

    “if CO2 had not been emitted over the last 50 years?”

    Sorry, do you believe that tractors run on CO2?

  17. #17 Wow
    January 17, 2012

    > No, I wrote that general circulation models were not designed for government policy making

    This is true. Then again, there’s almost nothing that’s designed for government policy making. They can all be used for it, however, since we have humans making the decisions and they are adaptable at using information to reach conclusions, even if that information was produced for another reason.

    > and have insufficient accuracy to be suitable for being used for that purpose.

    Care to prove that? Because your blank assertion appears 100% wrong.

  18. #18 pokerplyer
    January 17, 2012

    I believe that you are either too stupid to have a reasonable exchange with, or are just acting that way.

  19. #19 Wow
    January 17, 2012

    Hmmm. So you’re not able to admit that you think tractors run on CO2, but you want to pretend they do.

  20. #20 pokerplyer
    January 17, 2012

    After your prior nonsense comments, you want me to give you links to articles about GCMs? Try looking up the outputs of the fourth version of the Community Climate System Model (CCSM4). If you get to the point of exchanging something meaningful, I would try to educate you on GCM’s

  21. #21 Wow
    January 17, 2012

    > After your prior nonsense comments, you want me to give you links to articles about GCMs?

    No. I already know about GCMs.

    I’m wanting some evidence that GCMs “have insufficient accuracy to be suitable for being used for that purpose”.

  22. #22 pokerplyer
    January 17, 2012

    wow-why don’t you start with explaining how humans would have generated power over the last 100 years if CO2 had not been released before you try more complex concepts.

  23. #23 ianam
    January 17, 2012

    pokerplyer is such a caricature of a dimwitted sociopathic libertarian that you almost have to wonder if he’s real. In any case, you’re wasting your time engaging him, especially on his intellectually bankrupt argument that there has been a “net benefit” over the initial period of processes that have their greatest costs past the initial period (like, say, spending all your capital, or living off of dodo fillets).

  24. #24 pokerplyer
    January 17, 2012

    ianam- Are you of the opinion that humans releasing CO2 has been a net harm to our society up to this point in history? I am tryinng to understand your rant. It becomes difficult when you use descriptions such as dimwitted sociopathic libertarian.

    I may be dimwitted, probably not sociopathic, but do generally perfer people to have power vs. government. Is that bad in your view, or do you believe a larger government is necessarily better?

  25. #25 ianam
    January 17, 2012

    I am tryinng to understand your rant.

    By calling him dimwitted I was being generous, it seems. Nothing more to be said about him.

  26. #26 pokerplyer
    January 17, 2012

    It is unfortunate that some people like ianam are incapable of having a meaningful exchange of views.

    Dimwitted, would be to ignore the benefits that have resulted from the emission of CO2 up to this point in human history.

  27. #27 Richard Simons
    January 17, 2012

    pokerplyer: I think part of the point ianam was making is that you are like the man who, as he fell past the 34th floor of the Empire State Building, was heard to call out ‘So far, so good.’

  28. #29 ianam
    January 17, 2012

    I’m telling you, Richard, you’re wasting your time trying to explain anything to the sort of imbecile who would talk about the “net” benefit “to this point” of saving the money that might have been spent on fumigating a termite ridden building.

  29. #30 pokerplyer
    January 17, 2012

    Please reread the comments from Richard Simons, dhogaza, ianam, Frank, and wow, and point out anything written that makes any sense about their concern over the release of CO2.

    Nothing that they have written addressed any relevant issue or point.

    I have correctly pointed out that sea level is not rising at an alarming rate and it is rising much slower than was predicted by those who claimed AGW would be a problem. There is no evidence that the rate is accelerating. Yes, it is possible that it could accelerate in the future, but there is no reliable data to point to that as probable.

    I have also pointed out that CO2 released to date has had a beneficial impact on society. I did this to demonstrate that nations such as India are not owed anything from other countries because other countries have emitted CO2 historically. Not a single coherent comment refuted this simple point. Nobody provided a rationale argument as to why any significant nation would be owed something by the US due to AGW.

    I have also pointed out that the key to preparation for the future climate is the prudent planning for, and construction of; proper infrastructure. It is the responsibility of individual nations to do this to protect their citizens. It is not the duty of US citizens to pay higher taxes to help build infrastructure in Pakistan. People are generally harmed by bad weather when infrastructure is not constructed of maintained. If India (as an example) does not build proper infrastructure, its citizens will be harmed by weather regardless of whether AGW is real or not. Once again no coherent response.

  30. #31 chek
    January 17, 2012

    Good ol’ KK – he won’t be missed. Mainly due to the fact he was never known outside of some elements of the blogosphere for which there aren’t enough zeros after the decimal point to accurately guage public impact.

    Though you do have to admire the barefaced bravado of his underlying assumption that the ‘public debate’ on climate science just ‘happened’, rather than being fed, nurtured and distorted by hundreds of thousands of industrial think-tank man-hours poured into mis- and dis-information.

    Good riddance, indeed.

  31. #32 SteveC
    January 17, 2012

    no coherent response

    So where’s your “coherent response” to bill, Lotharsson, marco, Richard Simmons, Bernard J and others who blow your “oceanic pH levels dropping by 0.3 units is trivial” argument out of the water? Time to stump up with your “evidence” or admit you are talking out of your ar$e.

  32. #33 pokerplyer
    January 17, 2012

    steveC

    I am very willing to have an exchange on the topic of “ocean acidification”, I think only bernard posted a reasonable response. I did not respond, because I only noticed his comment later as is was missed due to reading all the other stupid comments that didn’t address any factual points. Tomorrow, if someone is here who wishes a meaningful exchange on the issue we can do that.

    BTW- I am not writing that humans are not damaging the oceans. I just do not think the greatest harm is atmospheric CO2.

  33. #34 bill
    January 17, 2012

    Pontifical nonsense from the latest Dunning-Kruger poster boy who cannot distinguish weather from climate, and holds blinkered selfishness to be the supreme human virtue.

    It is you who has not demonstrated that he has even managed to comprehend the most basic of arguments, you who cannot distinguish between a trend and noisy fluctuations, you who has over-inflated your credentials – such as they are – like some ridiculous bedraggled little peacock and then backed down the moment you realised someone might be in a position to call you on them, you who believes that your dreary hubris somehow trumps the facts painstakingly assembled by those who actually possess qualifications and expertise in these fields, and you who, in the face of all evidence to the contrary assembled by those who actually know what they’re talking about, simply re-asserts his original position regardless.

    In short, you are the apotheosis of everything that is wrong with the entire Denier camp.

    Oh, and your conception of foreign policy is a species of nationalist sociopathy, but, sadly, that’s now so common in the US that it’s barely noteworthy.

    You, sir, are a joke.

  34. #35 Chris O'Neill
    January 17, 2012

    porkieplyer:

    Do you believe that sea level would stay where it is, near its historic low levels over the last 500 M years

    Near “historic low” meaning a mere 400 feet above the actual low.

  35. #36 Richard Simons
    January 17, 2012

    I am very willing to have an exchange on the topic of “ocean acidification”, I think only bernard posted a reasonable response.

    I gave you a link to information about it. I take it you did not read the material there.

    I have also pointed out that CO2 released to date has had a beneficial impact on society. I did this to demonstrate that nations such as India are not owed anything from other countries because other countries have emitted CO2 historically.

    You still refuse to acknowledge that, of major countries, Australia, the US and Canada are by far the largest producers on a per capita basis. Why should Indians, who each produce 1/10 of what you produce, have to pay for the damage you cause?
    Are you still of the rather bizarre opinion that all the problems of increased CO2 and higher temperatures can be fixed by engineering massive structures? Do you really believe that events such as severe heatwaves in the Moscow area and the southern US can be ameliorated by air conditioning? In your society, does no-one ever go outside or try to grow crops?

  36. #37 Lotharsson
    January 17, 2012

    > I wrote that general circulation models … have insufficient accuracy to be suitable for [government policy making].

    And then people explained that you were wrong for various reasons, and yet you reassert your claim as if you think it is still correct. You don’t seem to be at all interested in conforming your opinions to the evidence.

    > There is no reliable evidence that [a warmer world] is actually harmful to humanity overall, or for the US specifically overall.

    Similarly, this line of argument was also refuted, and yet you reassert it. Why, it’s almost like you have a preconception that you wish to defend regardless of the evidence!

    > Are you of the opinion that humans releasing CO2 has been a net harm to our society up to this point in history?

    Are you of the opinion that **that’s the right question**?

    Seriously!?

    Would you assert that a loss of power to a jet plane at 10,000ft over the middle of the ocean is no problem because the altitude loss thus far has only been 5000ft? (Or see Richard Simons’ trenchant [comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6213277).)

    Are you *actually* utterly clueless, or would you rather look stupid and tell yourself no-one will notice, than change your opinions to be consistent with the evidence?

    > I am very willing to have an exchange on the topic of “ocean acidification”, …

    Evidence to date indicates otherwise. You’ve been willing to *make assertions* but not address refutations of the same.

    > I am not writing that humans are not damaging the oceans. I just do not think the greatest harm is atmospheric CO2.

    And that’s supposed to justify your position?

    I wouldn’t think the greatest harm to my car is from driving over a bunch of inverted nails if someone puts sugar in the fuel tank and punctures the radiator at the same time.

    But I’m sure as hell not going to drive over the inverted nails.

    > I have correctly pointed out that sea level is not rising at an alarming rate…

    And it has been pointed out to you that the *alarm* is about where it’s heading, based on reasonable physical models (and significant uncertainty on the *upside*), so your claim *fails to address the basis for concern*.

    It’s like saying you’re not concerned that your car has lost its brakes because it’s only doing 30km/h…when you’ve just started down a very long and steep hill.

    > … and it is rising much slower than was predicted by those who claimed AGW would be a problem.

    I don’t recall seeing you demonstrating that, but last time I looked (a) sea levels were rising at something like rates around the top end of the previously predicted range, and (b) ice sheet melt dynamics were pointing to *much* faster melt rates under circumstances that are likely to occur more frequently in the future.

    > I have also pointed out that the key to preparation for the future climate is the prudent planning for, and construction of; proper infrastructure. It is the responsibility of individual nations to do this to protect their citizens.

    Yes, you “pointed this out” but specifically failed to point out the link between emissions and the *changes in future climate* that drive incremental costs in that “prudent planning”. In fact, you did your level best to imply that such a link does not exist in this context.

    And you completely and utterly ignored the massive costs or complete inability to “prudently plan for” some of the potential outcomes for which “proper infrastructure” is difficult to even imagine, let alone figure out how to pay for.

    Your opinion that “she’ll be right, mate” is based on asserting that a significant body of evidence simply does not exist, or is “too uncertain to count” – the latter being an incoherent illogical claim, no matter how often you assert otherwise.

    > Nothing that they have written addressed any relevant issue or point.

    Good grief! That takes the cake!

    Dunning & Kruger are calling and they’re asking for you.

  37. #38 MikeH
    January 17, 2012

    pokerply at 368

    I have also pointed out that CO2 released to date has had a beneficial impact on society. I did this to demonstrate that nations such as India are not owed anything from other countries because other countries have emitted CO2 historically.

    This is not how anyone with a scrap of ethics would see the issue.

    Thalidomide … was found to act as an effective tranquilizer and painkiller, and was proclaimed a “wonder drug” for insomnia, coughs, colds and headaches. It was also found to be an effective antiemetic that has an inhibitory effect on morning sickness, so thousands of pregnant women took the drug to relieve their symptoms.

    In the late 1950s and early 1960s, more than 10,000 children in 46 countries were born with deformities, such as phocomelia, as a consequence of thalidomide use.

    So pp – should those children be compensated? After all their mothers benefited from the treatment of their morning sickness.

    We could also discuss asbestos, tobacco etc.

    We could also discuss how many of the poorer nations were free to develop their infrastructure during the period of the industrial revolution. Almost all of them were colonies of the West up until very recently. They were exploited for cheap labor and resources .

    India is a case in point. Under British rule its standard of living actually fell. India was displaced as the premier supplier of cotton goods by acts of the British Parliament which banned the import of Indian cotton goods.

    Not much has changed – a fair chunk of CO2 emissions in the third world is for manufacture of goods for Western consumers.

    I do not expect pp to know much more about history than he knows about anything else – which is not much.

    In any event the argument is a side issue at best. pp only raises it because he believes that it will appeal to bigots in the denialati.

    In a few years when the scale of the AGW problem smacks the population in the West between the eyes, the wealthy nations will be falling over themselves to fund the end of fossil fuel burning, deforestation etc. in the less developed world.

  38. #39 MikeH
    January 17, 2012

    The other fallacy in pp’s argument is the implication that infrastructure is only an issue for the third world.

    With an almost biblical onslaught of twisters, floods, snow, drought, heat and wildfire, the U.S. in 2011 has seen more weather catastrophes that caused at least $1 billion in damage than it did in all of the 1980s, even after the dollar figures from back then are adjusted for inflation

    Even [Fox News](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/07/billion-dollar-weather-disasters-smash-us-record) was unable to ignore it.

  39. #40 Mike G
    January 17, 2012

    PP,
    You obviously either didn’t look up “light enhanced calcification” as I suggested or you didn’t understand what you found. You continue to suggest that the diurnal cycle of pH changes is physiologically insignificant for calcifiers when it’s well demonstrated that it does have significant effects. As Richard Simons pointed out, corals “adapt” to these changes by growing a lot less at night when pH drops.

    So what makes me so sure the projected acidification is a problem?… several lines of evidence.
    1. Geologic history- The oceans have acidified before in times of high CO2. These generally were not good times for reef builders. Modern corals essentially disappeared for about 15 million years and nearly went extinct at one point.

    2. Growth experiments- They show pretty consistently that the impacts of reducing pH are strongly negative for a broad range of calcifiers including corals. The organisms that aren’t negatively affected tend to be those that calcify internally or are fertilized by bicarbonate. Shifting the species contribution in a community either by fertilizing one group or inhibiting the growth of another tends to have a destabilizing effect- both cases are usually bad.

    3. Field measurements- Growth rates of massive corals in Australia, Bermuda, and Belize have all been documented to be declining in recent decades. There are lots of possible factors that could be influencing this change, but it is consistent with what’s expected due to acidification.

    4. Chemistry and Biochemistry- The current understanding of the biochemical mechanism of calcification in corals tells us that reducing the pH should make calcification less favorable.

    5. 10 years of personal frustration trying to grow corals in an aquarium with a pH of 7.8- The CO2 concentration inside a modern house is enough to drive the pH of an aquarium down into the upper 7 range. For 10 years I’ve been unable to get a pH above 7.8 in mine. As long as I maintain high carbonate alkalinity, that’s not a problem. However, as soon as I let the alkalinity drop, growth of my corals stops. Unfortunately the oceans don’t have someone to maintain alkalinity for them like I do in my tanks.

  40. #41 Lotharsson
    January 17, 2012

    Some more aquatic ecosystem impacts for pokerplyer to ponder:

    ["CO2 sends fishes' nerves haywire"](http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-dioxide-sends-fishes-nerves-haywire-20120116-1q2uj.html)

    > “We’ve now established it isn’t simply the acidification of the oceans that is causing disruption, as is the case with shellfish and plankton with chalky skeletons, but the actual dissolved carbon dioxide itself is damaging the fishes’ central nervous systems,”…

  41. #42 Marco
    January 18, 2012

    Pokerplyer, if you live in a place with a lot of rain, I sincerely wish you will get a neighbour who installs a very efficient drainage system in, on and around his house, with all the drained water going directly onto your property. Surely he can’t be blamed, by your own argumentation, for causing you extra expenses to get rid of that extra water. You should just have installed better infrastructure to start out with. Right?

  42. #43 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2012

    > … [sea level] is rising much slower than was predicted …

    Really? It seems to be rising [at the top end of the IPCC TAR predictions](http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm) from ten years ago; the rate is accelerating, and subsequent research points out good reasons to worry about potentially large uncertainty on the upside as time goes on.

  43. #44 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2012

    John McLean has apparently turned up in comments at [The Reckoning](http://hot-topic.co.nz/mcleans-folly-2-the-reckoning) thread to complain how “churlish” he finds the article and indicate that “Shortly I’ll be posting an extended comment about what happened in 2011″. Should be fascinating ;-)

  44. #45 Wow
    January 18, 2012

    > why don’t you start with explaining how humans would have generated power over the last 100 years if CO2 had not been released

    Why don’t you explain how the waste product of a process is a benefit to people using the process?

  45. #46 Bernard J.
    January 18, 2012

    [Lotharsson](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6213648).

    Perhaps you could ask [McLean](http://hot-topic.co.nz/mcleans-folly-2-the-reckoning/#comment-28526) what satellite data has to do with the global temperature in 1956…

    >At least it did prompt me to investigate whether the UAH MSU data for December was now available.

  46. #47 MikeH
    January 18, 2012

    why don’t you start with explaining how humans would have generated power over the last 100 years if CO2 had not been released

    Irrelevant. A distraction so that you can avoid questions of science asked above.

    We no longer build houses of asbestos and paint them with lead paint because we now know it is dangerous.

    We now know that burning fossil fuels is dangerous to humanity’s health.

    The evidence is clear to anyone who cares to look.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    As Einstein said “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result”

  47. #48 Wow
    January 18, 2012

    > Irrelevant. A distraction so that you can avoid questions of science asked above.

    It’s also irrelevant to the idea that people have benefitted from the release of CO2.

  48. #49 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2012

    > Perhaps you could ask McLean what satellite data has to do with the global temperature in 1956…

    ’twas wondering myself…

  49. #50 pokerplyer
    January 18, 2012

    Bill-writes a comment with zero substance

    Chris O’neil writes- “Near “historic low” meaning a mere 400 feet above the actual low.” Chris- to be fair you might have been writing about some specific place where that occurred, but you would be completely wrong if writing about sea levels overall. Sea level does fluctuate more on a local basis that it does globally.
    Since links get delayed here I won’t post one, but look up the Exxon –Vail sea level curve. It will demonstrate that sea level globally was NOT 400 feet higher than today and that it is near the historic lows. The main and undisputable point I am making is that regardless of human actions the trend is for sea levels to rise. Yes it is possible that human caused warming will increase the rate of rise, but there is no reliable evidence that it is happening. The best data is the satilette records and they show a very modest 1 foot per century. The alarmist models that predicted a higher rate of rise have been demonstrated to be wrong

    Richard Simons wrote- “You still refuse to acknowledge that, of major countries, Australia, the US and Canada are by far the largest producers on a per capita basis. Why should Indians, who each produce 1/10 of what you produce, have to pay for the damage you cause?”

    My response- Your argument is based on the idea that India is damaged due to more CO2 and we have nothing to tell us that is true at all much less what the so called damage might be. Also, per capita emissions standards are only one measure. Should India get some special aid due to having an unsupportable population growth? I don’t think they should.

    Richard the damage to both people and property due to the annual bad weather in India is overwhelmingly caused by the fact that they have never built the infrastructure necessary to prepare for and protect their citizens and property from bad weather. Have you ever been to India? I was there recently and the new airport got flooded when it rained. This was completely due to poor planning. If India built proper storm drainage systems and flood retention facilities there would not be the damage they currently see from their annual storms. The fact that they fail in this is not a problem for outside nations to pay to address. It really doesn’t get fixed today largely due to the massive corruption in the culture. In summary, IF the climate changes in India due to AGW and becomes either somewhat drier or wetter the local population will continue to be harmed unless their government builds the proper infrastructure to prepare. The cost of infrastructure that prepares for AGW is very little different from infrastructure that doesn’t prepare. Not building it or doing it badly leads to humans suffering harms.

    Richard, proper planning absolutely does lessen the harms that come about due to bad weather and it generally is not massive structures. In Texas, (where I happen to have a home) it was a dry summer. The issue would have been much less severe if Texans had done a better job of making the water retention areas deeper to store more water. Every summer in Texas, people complain that the local manmade lakes get warm and algae grow due to the shallow depth. It was not considered a “problem” because the area averages 31 inches a year of rain. In a year when TX gets 2o inches it becomes an issue.
    Moscow had a hot summer. It was not caused by AGW. Yes, the harms of a hot summer would have been much less if they had prepared for that potential.

  50. #51 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    January 18, 2012

    pokerplyer:

    > In summary, IF the climate changes in India due to AGW and becomes either somewhat drier or wetter the local population will continue to be harmed unless their government builds the proper infrastructure to prepare.

    But I thought you said,

    > > [pokerplyer's 'argues' that] even if climate legislation will help [to mitigate climate change], I refuse to support it, because it’s the poor nations’ fault that they can’t handle climate change!

    > My response- Actually just another lie since I never wrote that.

    So why are you arguing precisely that? The liar is you, and your pants are on fire.

    And porky “I am an aerospace engineer” plyer, what can you actually tell us about aerospace engineering other than the fact that you’re an aerospace engineer?

    You do know that you’re telling porkies, don’t you?

    — frank

  51. #52 Chris O'Neill
    January 18, 2012

    porkieplyer:

    Chris O’neil writes- “Near “historic low” meaning a mere 400 feet above the actual low.” Chris- to be fair you might have been writing about some specific place where that occurred, but you would be completely wrong if writing about sea levels overall.

    You are totally, utterly wrong.

  52. #53 Richard Simons
    January 18, 2012

    Moscow had a hot summer. It was not caused by AGW.

    Why are you so sure of this? If you check out what climatologists think, you will find that they generally believe AGW to be a contributory factor.

    Yes, the harms of a hot summer would have been much less if they had prepared for that potential.

    How? How do you prepare for it being so hot that your crops do not pollinate, in an area where it is not usually suitable for more heat-tolerant crops? How do you adapt if it is even too hot for the heat-tolerant crops (as has happened in SE Asia). In Texas, how do you fill the reservoirs (even very deep ones) if there is not enough rain or if the rivers are used by other people before they get to you (eg Colorado River and Mexico).

  53. #54 Rattus Norvegicus
    January 18, 2012

    Pokerplyer, you are so wrong about sea level it isn’t even funny.
    This chart from NASA shows the history of sea level since the LGM. Notice the legend on the left? 120 meters is 393 feet, dude.

  54. #55 pokerplyer
    January 18, 2012

    Frank
    You really are foolish in what you write. Try to stop being untruthful. Am I obligated or motivated to take some type of quiz from you? Btw I have used stochastic and turbulence modeling techniques, but I am unfamiliar with chaos modeling.

    Regarding climate mitigation actions vs. adaptation actions, it all depends upon the merits of the specific action being considered. Most suggested mitigation actions fail this test of reasonableness. Does it make sense to implement an expensive action that will have a minimal impact? Maybe it does in Frank’s world, but it does not in mine.
    Let’s review an example Frank
    A recent NASA-GISS paper in Env. Sci. Tech., co-authored by James E. Hansen calls for the shutting down of all coal-fired power plants in the USA by 2030, in order to avoid the global warming caused by the emitted CO2.

    What effect would this specific actionable step actually have on global warming?
    The paper tells us that 1,994 billion kWh/year were generated from coal in 2009 and that the average CO2 emission is 1,000 tons CO2 per GWh generated.
    So by 2030 Hansen’s plan would reduce CO2 emissions by roughly 2 GtCO2 per year.
    Roughly half of this “stays” in the atmosphere (with the rest disappearing into the ocean, the biosphere or outer space) so the annual reduction after 2030 will be around 1 GtCO2/year and over the period from today to year 2100 the cumulative reduction would be 80.5 GtCO2.
    The mass of the atmosphere is 5,140,000 Gt.
    So the net reduction in atmospheric CO2 would be around 16 ppm(mass) or 10 ppmv.
    If we assume (as IPCC does) that by year 2100 the atmospheric CO2 level (without Hansen’s plan) will be around 600 ppmv (“scenario B1”), this means that with Hansen’s plan it will be 590 ppmv.
    Today we have 390 ppmv.
    Using IPCC’s 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C we have:
    Case 1 – no Hansen plan
    600 ppmv CO2
    ln(600/390) = 0.431
    ln(2) = 0.693
    dT (warming from today to 2100) = 3.2 * 0.431 / 0.693 = 1.99
    Case 2 – Hansen plan implemented
    590 ppmv CO2
    ln(590/390) = 0.414
    ln(2) = 0.693
    dT (warming from today to 2100) = 3.2 * 0.414 / 0.693 = 1.91C
    So Hansen’s plan will result in a total reduction of global temperature by year 2100 of 0.08C.
    But what will this non-measurable reduction of global temperature cost?
    The total, all-in capital cost investment to replace 1,994 billion kWh/year capacity with the least expensive alternate (current nuclear fission technology) is between $4,000 and $8,000 per installed kW (say $6,000 on average). [Note: If we replace it with wind or solar, it will cost several times this amount per generated kWh, due in part to the low on-line factor.]
    1,994 billion kWh/year at a 90% on-line factor represents an installed capacity of:
    1994 / 8760 * .9 = 0.251 billion kWh
    This equals an investment cost of 0.251 * 6,000 = $1.5 trillion
    Globally some 6,700 billion kWh/year are generated from coal (around 3.4 times as much as in the USA).
    So shutting down all the world’s coal-fired plants by 2030 would cost $5 trillion and result in 0.27C reduced warming by year 2100.
    I think it is pretty obvious why Hansen and his co-authors do not run us through this cost/benefit analysis.

  55. #56 pokerplyer
    January 18, 2012

    Rattus

    You raise a valid point. I am looking at the long term data from the Exxon sea level curve had not looked at what was posted by Nasa. I have to admit that I am skeptical of information posted at the Nasa site since Hansen is behind what they post and my prior comment shows how alarmist and propaganda spreading he is. I will look into the source data for the Nasa curve. Look up the curve I referenced.

  56. #57 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    January 18, 2012

    porkie plyer:

    > You really are foolish in what you write. Try to stop being untruthful.

    Projection much?

    > Btw I have used stochastic and turbulence modeling techniques, but I am unfamiliar with chaos modeling.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! You’re hilarious. Even as you claim to be an “aerospace engineer”, our ‘understanding’ of aerospace engineering is obviously limited to repeating fancy words which you have heard on this thread.

    Because if you had actually understood what “turbulence”, “stochasticity”, and “chaos” are, you wouldn’t have written pig-headed comments such as this:

    > Ask Mann why he can trust the output of GCMs that produce significantly different results when they are runs multiple times using the same data.

    How about telling us something about aerospace engineering that you actually know? Oh wait, is that too hard for you, porkie teller?

      * * *

    > I think it is pretty obvious why Hansen and his co-authors do not run us through this cost/benefit analysis.

    But didn’t you say you’re not making this particular argument?

    > > [pokerplyer 'argues',] And even if global warming may be catastrophic, climate legislation will not help!

    > My response- Actually just another lie since I never wrote that. Do people at this site frequently lie about the comments of others?

    Again, the liar is you. Why can’t you even own up to your own arguments? Is it because you know full well that you’re telling lies?

    — frank

  57. #58 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    January 18, 2012

    s/our understanding of aerospace/your understanding of aerospace/

  58. #59 Composer99
    January 18, 2012

    I’ll give pokerplyer this: it’s not like the US, by taking an aggressive lead in reducing emissions, could use its clout (and renewed standing on this issue) to push other countries to do the same or anything…

    Oh, wait…

  59. #60 pokerplyer
    January 18, 2012

    Frank- Since you have demonstrated that you lie and can’t have a reasonable exchange there seems to be no point in trying. Grow up and try to address real issues and facts. How many times do you believe each GCM was run to account for the variability you describe? Do 1 to 5 runs account for such variability? Does taking the results form only the 5th run make sense? Does averaging the results of completely different models make sense?

    Do you think all mitigation actions make sense?

  60. #61 pokerplyer
    January 18, 2012

    composer99- the path that you suggest that the US takes seems similar to the one Australia has taken. Pass taxes that will do nothing to impact the climate, but does raise revenue for the government. Seems like a bad plan to me. How is it working for Australia?

    If there was a real desire for worldwide action kyoto would have had real limits established for all nations and an agreed upon process for verification. Lack of such a treaty leads to a strong motivation for inaccurate reporting of emissions and results in nations that cheat gaining benefits to their economy.

  61. #62 bill
    January 18, 2012

    Bill-writes a comment with zero substance

    bill wrote a comment with plenty of substance, that you ignored completely. I also actually read the information at the link you’d posted, which must stand as proxy for what you think. There’s no evidence that you have had the courtesy to do the reverse.

    Mike G also wrote a comment with plenty of substance; you argued the toss – absurdly – about sea level, and ignored the whole pH/ocean-chemistry thing; then announced that virtually no-one had raised substantive issues. And yet you’re still right, apparently!

    Oh, and James Hansen is probably causing NASA to lie about sea levels! Did he get them to fake the moon landing, too?

    It’s very, very hard to believe you’re acting in good faith in all this.

    And I think we’re all entitled to know – what kind of bean-counter/administrative position did you really have as an ‘aerospace engineer’? Telling the truth is good for you, you know.

    Finally, you really, really don’t understand the point Marco was making. Climate/weather trend/noise – what’s up with that? That’s the reason you wanted to make that ridiculous bet that introduced us to you in the first place.

  62. #63 MikeH
    January 18, 2012

    I mentioned above that pokerplyer is a science free dullard who simply echoes what he reads on denier web sites.

    His post at 423 is largely a word for word cut and paste from commenter Rob Starkey’s post on this article by Willis Eschenbach at WUWT. This same comment has been also posted at Curry’s blog.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/13/how-much-would-you-buy/

    The claim is that if the USA closed down its coal fired power stations by 2030 it would have marginal effect on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere – from 600ppm to 590ppm. I have not checked the calculations – but then no one at the denier blogs could be bothered either – for the obvious reason that if the US closes its coal fired powered stations by 2030 you can be absolutely certain that the rest of the world will too.

    Pokerplyr cannot argue the science. So he combs denial web sites looking for “gotchas” which he thinks makes him look clever.

    In reality he is a clueless cut and paster. How embarrassing.

  63. #64 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    January 18, 2012

    pokerplyer writes, in the very first sentence of his reply,

    > Frank- Since you have demonstrated that you lie

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! pokerplyer tries to divert attention away from his own porkies by claiming — with zero evidence whatsoever — that I somehow lie.

    pokerplyer, the liar is you, and I think you know that full well. Go spread your “I am an aerospace engineer” lies somewhere else where people are more gullible.

      * * *

    And I must also point out this:

    > No, I wrote that general circulation models were not designed for government policy making

    So let’s see. Pokerplyer is faced with the incontrovertible conclusion from climate models that we need to stop carbon emissions Real Soon Now.

    What can he do to ignore this conclusion?

    Why of course — claim that the climate models don’t fulfill some vague bullshit ‘standard’ that pokerplyer himself made up just a minute ago! Claim that climate models are inadequate “for government policy making”, which can mean whatever pokerplyer wants it to mean.

    Yet another hallmark of one who’s well aware that he’s a lying liar.

    — frank

  64. #65 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2012

    > Sea level does fluctuate more on a local basis that it does globally.

    And this is relevant to your position…how? (How much local variation do you think there is? And it will save Florida…how, precisely? Do you even realise that local variation can *increase* local sea level rises compared to global averages?)

    > …look up the Exxon –Vail sea level curve…

    That would be a non-peer-reviewed reconstruction over the last 500 MILLION years, right?

    So, you’re:

    > …skeptical of information posted at the Nasa site since Hansen is behind what they post…

    (hey, ad hominem fallacy!)

    …but **not skeptical** of non-peer reviewed claims? That might explain a fair swathe of your misconceptions, eh?

    And you’re an idiot if you think a reconstruction over 500 MILLION years of history is relevant or has the temporal resolution required to inform decisions about human civilisation related to sea levels, given that civilisation only arose over the last several thousand years.

    > The alarmist models that predicted a higher rate of rise have been demonstrated to be wrong

    Evidence fail – never mind that I posted counter-evidence earlier.

    Apparently reiterating unsupported claims and pretending that evidence to the contrary simply does not exist is the best argument you have.

    That should give you a hint to re-examine your argument because it may not be as justified as you like to think. But since you’re not basing your argument on assessing the totality of evidence, I bet it won’t…

  65. #66 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2012

    > Your argument is based on the idea that India is damaged due to more CO2 and we have nothing to tell us that is true…

    Of course, it’s easy to tell yourself (and others) that “we have nothing” when you flat-out *deny* that we have something.

    You don’t even show any knowledge of a bunch of large negative impacts of climate change when you talk about damage being down to poorly planned infrastructure, and you imply that those other negative impacts simply do not exist. Every time you re-assert this argument, especially after others have given you some pointers to investigate, you reveal your determined ignorance.

    For example, this is spectacularly wrong:

    > The cost of infrastructure that prepares for AGW is very little different from infrastructure that doesn’t prepare.

    As others have pointed out, how do you prepare infrastructure to handle crops that **won’t pollinate**, or to store water that **simply doesn’t precipitate** in the first place?

    > Regarding climate mitigation actions vs. adaptation actions, it all depends upon the merits of the specific action being considered.

    No, it does not *all* depend on that. You are as ignorant of risk mitigation as you are of whole swathes of climate science. For one thing, you have to assess the whole picture – especially when impacts are non-linear and actions have a cumulative effect; for another you can’t assess the merits if you deny the impacts in the first place, and for a third you have to account for uncertainty ranges in your assessment – and uncertainty is most definitely *not* friendly to your argument, even though you imply it is.

    > Does it make sense to implement an expensive action that will have a minimal impact?

    Well, even if you consider that a suitable decision making framework (and your framework implies complete information and zero uncertainty – which you’re not going to get for just about *anything* in the real world), you have to accurately assess the impact in order to determine that it’s “minimal”.

    You have demonstrated repeatedly that you are *badly* underestimating the impacts. Your (presumably cut & pasted) assessment of the US shifting away from coal-fired electricity generation is a classic example of this. It does not – for example – even **try** to assess the cost of the impacts avoided; merely tries to paint the avoided impacts as “minimal” by calculating temperature reductions. As the holder of a Finance Masters degree, have you *ever* wondered why the people supplying your “logic” left out this crucial bit? Ever wondered why you position it as a cost-benefit analysis when the **benefit** is not measured? (And that’s before we point out the non-linearity of negative impacts and note that the benefit is therefore non-linear too.)

    No?

    Then perhaps you should consider that despite your Masters degree you don’t have – or refuse to apply – the skills to determine when you are being led up the garden path in this particular field.

  66. #67 jerryg
    January 18, 2012

    Hope this isn’t too far off-topic, How does one go about checking the impact factor of a journal?

    I got an email from a relative about there being no good evidence for flu vaccines (and pushing vitamin D). It mentions peer-reviewed studies in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. What little research I’ve been able to do leaves me with the feeling that this is the medical version of using E&E for climate research.

  67. #68 pokerplyer
    January 18, 2012

    Frank-since YOU have been proven that YOU lied regarding statements I have written YOU are a demonstrated liar. That is a simple fact that even you should be able to understand. The fact that I am a degreed engineer who has worked in the aerospace industry for over 25 years is also a fact, whether you like it or not.

    You have either wrongly analyzed the outputs of GCMs or have read someone else’s analysis to makes the foolish conclusion that you wrote: “the incontrovertible conclusion from climate models that we need to stop carbon emissions Real Soon Now”

    Frank draws conclusions from models that can’t reliably determine what nations world will get more or less rainfall much less what the difference might be. A model that was appropriate for government policy making would be able to reliably predict whether a nation would benefit or potentially be harmed by the predicted climate change.

    Frank advocates the use of a modeling where the outputs of multiple models (all of unknown accuracy, but they can‘t all be right, and possibly none are close to right) are averaged and government policy decisions are supposed to be based on this.

  68. #69 sam
    January 18, 2012

    TrueSceptic (#371)

    I’m a bit concerned that HADCRUT3 might soon be replaced by HADCRUT4, but we agreed on “HADCRUT”, didn’t we? All the same, I won’t take the easy option: will there be a means of estimating what HADCRUT3 would have been once HADCRUT4 takes over?

    How about using the following equation:

    Equivalent HADCRUT3 annual GMT = (1880 to 2010 Linear Trend for HADCRUT3/1880 to 2010 Linear Trend for HADCRUT4) * HADCRUT4 annual GMT

    Where 1880 to 2010 Linear Trend for HADCRUT3 = 0.06 deg C per decade.

  69. #70 Rattus Norvegicus
    January 18, 2012

    I looked it up and while I couldn’t find the IF directly (wiki is offline today) the number of cites per article is abysmally low, will under 1.

  70. #71 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2012

    > You have either wrongly analyzed the outputs of GCMs or have read someone else’s analysis to makes the foolish conclusion that you wrote: “the incontrovertible conclusion from climate models that we need to stop carbon emissions Real Soon Now”

    Unsupported assertion (again).

    And as I’ve already pointed out more than once, the conclusion that one must draw from applying risk mitigation principles in the presence of uncertainty is the **very opposite** of the one you draw. And if we take your unsupported assertion at face value and throw out the models entirely, that increases the uncertainty and makes the conclusion that we must massively slow emissions now **even stronger**.

  71. #72 pokerplyer
    January 18, 2012

    Lotharsson

    You wrote-“For example, this is spectacularly wrong: The cost of infrastructure that prepares for AGW is very little different from infrastructure that doesn’t prepare.”

    My response- Please point out examples of infrastructure that you believe becomes significantly more expensive to construct in order to prepare for climate change that could occur over a 25 to 30 years.

    You wrote about crops that will not pollinate due to a temperature rise, but that is just silly. The temperature change would be gradual and farmers would adjust what they are growing, as they always have; as conditions change. Some areas would become more productive for certain crops while others become less productive. On balance a warmer climate results in greater plant growth.

    Regarding evaluating mitigation actions individually based on the merit of the proposed action, you write about the cost of the harms avoided. I agree with your process. In the specific example I showed about Hansen’s shutting down all US coal fired power plants, the proposed action would have cost a huge sum and would have had virtually no impact on the climate, so no harm was avoided. I agree, let’s evaluate a potential harms that can be avoided and implement only those mitigation actions that seem to make sense.

  72. #73 pokerplyer
    January 18, 2012

    Lotharsson

    The entire case of AGW is built on the outputs of the models. Without the models there is no reason to do anything about CO2 emissions.

  73. #74 Richard Simons
    January 18, 2012

    Lotharsson:

    Your (presumably cut & pasted) assessment

    At least a sizable chunk was lifted from the comments of Diplomacy’s Meltdown: Developing Countries Are Not Holding Back Climate Agreements.
    Pokerplyer: In academic circles, copying other people’s work without attribution, and especially presenting it as though it was your own, is considered to be theft. People have lost their jobs over it. Do not do it again, but either use your own words or clearly show its source.

  74. #75 pokerplyer
    January 18, 2012

    Richard-What are you referencing of mine?

  75. #76 chek
    January 18, 2012

    The entire case of AGW is built on the outputs of the models … corroborated by multiple lines of evidence happening in the real world.

    Corrected/clarified that point for you porkyplayer.

  76. #77 Richard Simons
    January 18, 2012

    You wrote about crops that will not pollinate due to a temperature rise, but that is just silly. The temperature change would be gradual and farmers would adjust what they are growing, as they always have; as conditions change.

    Rice yields in SE Asia have already suffered because of too high temperatures at pollination. There are no crops that come close for yield and usefulness and also tolerate higher temperatures.

    The entire case of AGW is built on the outputs of the models.

    There is a free on-line course in understanding global warming. You urgently need to take it to avoid making further ignorant statements.

  77. #78 Richard Simons
    January 18, 2012

    Richard-What are you referencing of mine?

    Last paragraph of #423. Compare to comment #14 by Sisko.

  78. #79 pokerplyer
    January 18, 2012

    Same me. I have a computer that I use when traveling that has that sign on in memory. I promise not to complain to myself. LOL

  79. #80 pokerplyer
    January 18, 2012

    Richard

    I seriously doubt the claim that

    “Rice yields in SE Asia have already suffered because of too high temperatures at pollination.”

    I tried to look it up but the only reference I could find was Wikipedia and could not read it. I doubt that the real issue was the temperature change to date caused by AGW. It is possible that a hot year reduced yields. Farmers are very practiced in adapting by adjusting when and what they plant.

    Richard- The entire case foundation of AGW IS built on the outputs of the models. It is the models that have described the “feared” potential future conditions.

  80. #81 Trent1492
    January 18, 2012

    @Mike H,

    His post at 423 is largely a word for word cut and paste from commenter Rob Starkey’s post on this article by Willis Eschenbach at WUWT. This same comment has been also posted at Curry’s blog.

    HA! I thought that looked familiar. On Scientific American I called out Poker Player on this last year, comment #50. Also, there was another “person” who once to went by the name of Sisko on Scientific American who would copy and paste the same exact thing. So I have to wonder if Rob Starkey is Sisko, who also is Poker Player and who may also be a character named Postman. Postman once made tried to make that idiot bet with me too.

  81. #82 Chris O'Neill
    January 18, 2012

    porkieplyer probably wants information about sea level from a science denial website before he thinks it’s not a scam. OK, here it is:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/01/sea-level-rise-jumpy-after-last-ice-age/

  82. #83 Chris O'Neill
    January 18, 2012

    sam:

    How about using the following equation:

    Equivalent HADCRUT3 annual GMT =

    This is an outbreak of Girma, an incurable disease.

  83. #84 Richard Simons
    January 18, 2012

    I seriously doubt the claim that

    “Rice yields in SE Asia have already suffered because of too high temperatures at pollination.”

    A quick search on Google Scholar found this

    Here we report that annual mean maximum and minimum temperatures have increased by 0.35°C and 1.13°C, respectively, for the period 1979–2003 and a close linkage between rice grain yield and mean minimum temperature during the dry cropping season (January to April). Grain yield declined by 10% for each 1°C increase in growing-season minimum temperature in the dry season, whereas the effect of maximum temperature on crop yield was insignificant. This report provides a direct evidence of decreased rice yields from increased nighttime temperature associated with global warming.

    and I saw other likely papers that I did not bother to check.

    entire case foundation of AGW IS built on the outputs of the models.

    Is ‘models’ a dirty word, then? Data on temperatures from ground-based weather stations, satellite data showing changes in temperature and a disparity between incoming and outgoing radiation, data on ice sheets, glaciers, the polewards spread of over 250 organisms, dates of river and lake freeze-up and thawing, flowering dates, sea level change and borehole data all indicate that Earth is warming. There are also several different lines of evidence that clearly show that the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from human activity, and the link between CO2 and the greenhouse effect has been established for over 100 years. To summarily dismiss all of this shows massive ignorance. Sign up for the course.

  84. #85 pokerplyer
    January 18, 2012

    Trent–Yes at Judith’s site I post using my name. Feel free to comment on what I wrote. No I am not Willis. No I did not copy something of his. I would guess I 1st posted the cost benefit analysis sometime in 2010. Who knows, maybe he read it.

    So what is your point? You have posted dumb, inaccurate things at SA and I have pointed that out. I generally perfer Judith Curry’s site since the people there discuss the topic more fully and you can learn if you are willing.

  85. #86 MikeH
    January 18, 2012

    entire case foundation of AGW IS built on the outputs of the models

    From NASA – [Climate change: How do we know](http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/) and not a model to be seen.

  86. #87 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2012

    > Please point out examples of infrastructure that you believe becomes significantly more expensive to construct in order to prepare for climate change that could occur over a 25 to 30 years.

    So, you appear to be making an argument from personal ignorance.

    I already gave you some pointers – some of which it is difficult to *imagine* infrastructure for. AYou seem ignorant of the range of services that humans rely on the ecosystem to provide (ask Jeff Harvey, for example – or Google him on Deltoid as he’s explained this many times in the past). And if not merely ignorant of those services, then you assume they will not be significantly impacted and/or will be easy and cheap to replace.

    And it’s not just “25 to 30 years” we need to worry about. Artificially limiting it to that period is an attempt to bias the equation.

    And on the topic of the kinds of infrastructure you *can* imagine, feel free to figure out what it would cost to provide additional supplemental fresh water supplies to (say) Texas – you think large scale desalination and long pipelines are going to be cheap – and provide multi-meter high sea walls to (say) Florida and the entire coastline of Bangladesh?

    > You wrote about crops that will not pollinate due to a temperature rise, but that is just silly.

    It is only silly when you are pig ignorant about the science, which you apparently are.

    There are crops – including some widely use in the subcontinent – which fail to pollinate if the night time temperature doesn’t drop sufficiently low during the critical period (which is only a few days long). These types of failures will – which you could ascertain for yourself, if you would bother to apply basic engineering analysis skills – occur more frequently if the climate warms because weather is (to a first order approximation, which engineers can certainly understand) stochastic noise on top of a climate signal. Instead of asserting that this is “silly”, go do some research and see if you can find out whether this has already happened or not.

    And if you get that far, instead of arguing from personal ignorance, sketch out how the “gradual shift in crops” you hypothesise will work out. Your working should show and what impact the loss of knowledge about how to get the best yields out of known crops under known local conditions will have when you change both of those variables – plus the cost of developing and/or buying new crops, plus the opportunity cost if no suitable direct replacement is available. Since you’re so sure these concerns are “silly”, I take it you **have costed these impacts** and are prepared to share the figures? Right?

    Then there are potential collapses of various links in the ecosystem due to climate change, and we cannot rule out that these do not massively reduce pollinating species for various important crops.

    And we haven’t even got to cost of dealing with the pests that do *really* well in warmer climates. Pine beetles in the North American continent, perhaps? You **have** costed their rising impact due to climate change, and projected it forward due to further climate change, right?

    Or to climatic zones shifting polewards … which you cannot guarantee will end up in places suitable for agriculture as the original geographical location. If a significant part of the wheat belt moves to locations that aren’t suitable for wheat production, what do you want to do about it? You have costed mitigation strategies for this too, right?

    I mean…you assert the cost of mitigation isn’t worth it, so you **MUST** have totted up ALL of the impacts including many I haven’t listed here, right? Right?

    > On balance a warmer climate results in greater plant growth.

    (A) Not necessarily, for the crops we care about when both the planet warms AND CO2 increases.

    (B) Many crops we care about change their composition, reducing average nutritional value and increasing their proportion of compounds that humans find difficult to digest. They may also require a lot more water, which isn’t necessarily going to be in overabundance in many regions of the world.

    (C) It can also promote weed growth, and the costs of dealing with them.

    Anyone telling you more CO2 and warmth brings unmitigated agricultural good is uninformed or misleading and is *avoiding the kind of cost-benefit analysis you are avoiding*.

    > In the specific example I showed about Hansen’s shutting down all US coal fired power plants, the proposed action would have cost a huge sum and would have had virtually no impact on the climate, so no harm was avoided.

    EPIC FAIL!

    A quarter of a degree is far from “virtually no impact on climate”. And that goes double if it’s the **marginal** quarter of a degree (I’m sure you understand the concept of “marginal” tax or “marginal” earnings from your Masters degree), in part due to the non-linearity of the negative impacts.

    And I note and reiterate that you **refuse** to do a cost-benefit analysis by refusing to **cost** the impacts. Shouldn’t you be embarrassed to claim a Masters in Finance/Economics with this kind of faulty economic “reasoning”? What part of “you have to cost the benefit to do cost-benefit analysis” do you not understand? Did you even notice that you have refused to cost the impact of a marginal quarter of a degree rise, but are *still* asserting that the cost of mitigation isn’t worth it?

    Or how about we use that “logic” in an aerospace analogy?

    Ground control: “How much fuel do you need to cross the ocean?”
    Pilot: “What are the wind forecasts for the flight path?”
    Ground control: “We don’t have a good forecast today due to data collection failure, but most likely between 95 and 205% of the typical headwinds, and we cannot rule out 280%.”
    Pilot: “That’s too uncertain for decision making and putting in even an extra 20% fuel will cost too much. Screw it, just give me the amount we use for typical headwinds.”

    > I agree with your process.

    Bullshit. You are so completely unwilling to analyse your own argument that you don’t realise that the rest of that paragraph **completely goes against “my process”**.

    The pilot’s “logic” is essentially what you are arguing for here. “Screw it – don’t worry about either the cost of impacts or any sort of risk analysis, just assert that the cost of mitigation is too high.” Any engineering degree holder can understand how deeply stupid that is.

    > The entire case foundation of AGW IS built on the outputs of the models.

    Pig ignorant bullshit!

    It’s amazing how much you rely on it – and how little intellectual integrity you show, and how little you care about your lack of it.

  87. #88 Trent1492
    January 18, 2012

    I just want to say that Scientific American has for the past couple of years been putting out at least one daily story on climate change and sometimes it will publish three or four on the same day. The reporting does not for the vast majority of the stories indulge in the false balance narrative. This has been increasingly enraging the deniers.

    Most of those stories do not make the front page or stay for only a day or so. By my reckoning Scientific American still has some prestige among layman. The deniers definitely know this and always appear with a stupidity or two in the comments section. If anyone is interested in the stories and countering the morons I suggest getting the RSS for the site.

    Thanks

  88. #89 Composer99
    January 18, 2012

    Pokerplyer writes this:

    The fact that I am a degreed engineer who has worked in the aerospace industry for over 25 years is also a fact,

    but he could have fooled me.

    He then goes on to continue to assert of frank:

    You have either wrongly analyzed the outputs of GCMs or have read someone else’s analysis to makes the foolish conclusion that you wrote – without ever having demonstrated any expertise at using or interpreting GCMs apart from his abysmal and unsupported claims on this thread.

    And then we have what can only be called in this day and age an outright lie, as demonstrated with astonishing ease by several other commenters, including [Richard Simons here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link#comment-6214210):

    The entire case of AGW is built on the outputs of the models

  89. #90 Chris O'Neill
    January 18, 2012

    porkieplyer:

    …look up the Exxon –Vail sea level curve…

    Lotharson:

    That would be a non-peer-reviewed reconstruction over the last 500 MILLION years, right?

    There are actually Exxon-Vail curves that show much lower sea levels in the past as well as the “first order” curve that doesn’t.

    Of course, porkieplyer is in denial of reality, and cannot see the evidence that confronts his denial.

  90. #91 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2012

    Some considerations on [cost-benefit analysis of emissions reductions and mitigation strategies](http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm).

    Speaking of certain studies that certain parties like to tout:

    > The analyses evaluate the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but do not measure the resulting payoff – the benefits of averting dangerous climate change. Nor do they consider the ancillary benefits, such as the improved local air quality and reduced ocean acidification.

    Sound familiar? (They also tend to assume that climate won’t impact economy, which is foolish.)

    Then keep reading until you get to the “Cost-Benefit Analysis” section which looks at a study that *actually* attempts to assess the benefit side of the equation. Yes, there’s a fair bit of uncertainty on the benefit side – but given the cumulative benefits over time it’s very difficult to argue that the uncertainty is large enough so that it’s plausible that the benefits won’t heavily outweigh the costs in the long run.

    Then continue on in that section to see other studies that attempt to actually assess both costs and benefits. Guess what they show?

    If you don’t have a cost-benefit study of your own that assesses *both* cost and benefit, you can’t claim that the benefit isn’t worth the cost. And if you do one that shows that, you need to argue why it’s more representative of reality than the ones that have already been done.

    Especially given that the article cites claims that certain US States that have imposed carbon costs have *already* reaped more benefits than the costs imposed.

  91. #92 ianam
    January 19, 2012

    you can learn if you are willing

    Snort.

  92. #93 Neil Harris
    January 19, 2012

    The awful ethical position that pp takes about the risks of global warming are taken up in the following worthwhile read:

    Ethical Analysis of the Climate Change Disinformation Campaign: Introduction to A Series.
    By DONALD A BROWN http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/

    To quote:

    Climate change must be understood to be at its core an ethical problem because : (a) it is a problem caused by some people in one part of the world who are threatening poor people who are often far away in time and space, (b) the harms to these victims are potentially catastrophic, and (c) the victims can’t protect themselves by petitioning their governments who have no jurisdiction over those causing the problem. The victims must hope that those causing the problem will see that their ethical duties to the vulnerable require them to lower their greenhouse gas emissions.

    Because climate change is an ethical problem, those causing the problem may not use self-interest alone as justification for policy responses; they must fulfill responsibilities, obligations and duties to others. Because climate change is a moral problem, those who are putting others at risk through no fault of their own have a special duty to be precautious about scientific uncertainty. If anything, the need for care in considering harms from powerful technology recognized by Jonas is even more salient in the case of a problem like climate change because it is a problem that is caused by some that are putting others at great risk.that have not consented to be threatened.

  93. #94 Wow
    January 19, 2012

    > satellite data

    Which require models (a dirty word, apparently) to transform into temperature.

    Mind you, you need a model (thermal expansion of solids and liquids) to turn a mercury/alcohol thermometer reading into temperature.

  94. #95 FrankD
    January 19, 2012

    >Please point out examples of infrastructure that you believe becomes significantly more expensive to construct in order to prepare for climate change …

    Perhaps if pokerplyer had studied civil engineering he wouldn’t have to ask such a facile question. Let’s just consider three aspects of floods. Below I refer to 1-in-x years events, which is the familiar terminology, but just to be clear a 1-in-100 year event is actually an event with an annual probability of 1%, a 1-in-20 year event is one with an annual probability of 5% etc.

    Good infrastructure – the kind that gets built in relatively corruption-free, rich, first world countries – is not built to deal with every possible contingency as it would be prohibitively expensive to do so. Rather, drainage systems are constructed to deal with reasonable contingencies, typically 1-in-50 year events, but sometimes 1-in-100 (or more).

    Climate change is making such events more common – we have observations that show that, not just models. Assuming the observed increase in frequency continues, even if only for pokerplyers tendentious timeframe, there are going to be areas where what was a 1-in-100 year rainfall event a century ago becomes a 1-in-20 year event.

    So, three aspects I said:
    1. Rainfall intensity for a 1-in-100 year event is roughly 30% to 50% that of a 1-in-20 year event for any given time / location (of course it varies, but its a reasonable guide). That means every new stormwater drain that is laid has to have 30-50% greater cross sectional area to deal (actually its more than that because the pipe itself acts as a buffer at peak intensity). Outflow drainage / holding will need greater capacity. Flood mitigation dams etc will need greater capacity.
    Result: ALL new infrastructure will be more expensive.

    2. We already have a massive amount of infrastructure built to tolerances that are no longer realistic. That means we either wear the cost of upgrading every foot of drainpipe in the world, or we wear the cost of upgrading the infrastructure that is now vulnerable, or we wear the cost of having infrastructure made unavailable, damaged or destroyed by more frequent floods. On top of the examples in 1, flood diversion schemes will need greater capacity – typically, that means more deliberate flooding of farmland, with attendant costs.
    Result: MOST existing infrastructure will require expensive upgrade or event-by-event repair. Economic losses per year from flooding events will increase, even with all other factors held constant

    3. Finally, as I mentioned above, 1-in-100 year events are considered for flood planning necessarily, but 1-in-20 year events are. That means that there is a lot of infrastructure (even in countries where “massive corruption” isn’t “the culture”) has no meaningful protection from events that are moving from 1-in-100 year events to 1-in-20 year frequency.
    Result: On top of upgrades referred to in 2, a lot of infrasastucture will require protection from events that have not previously been catered for because they were not in the design life of the item.

    That’s a few aspects of floods, and not all by any means. What about drought? Heat events? Secondary effects (eg reduced or failed harvests)?

    Pokerplyer seems to have a very limited imagination, if his manifold arguments from personal incredulity are anything to go by. :-(

  95. #96 jrkrideau
    January 19, 2012

    @ 436 jerryg
    Blazingly off-topic. :)

    For an answer to your question and for more information on vaccines and vaccine deniers etc. have a look at http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

    People there routinely check impact figures and I am sure would be happy to help you.

    P.S. Your relation is probably being conned.

  96. #97 Hasis
    January 19, 2012

    And just to add to Frank’s exposition, consider that the Cumbria (UK) flooding in November 2009 has been assessed as having been caused by a 1:1,800yr rainfall event (i.e. a 0.0556% chance per year). Whilst such an extreme will always need to be understood in terms of natural variability and residual risk, if the probability of extremes such as these is shifting against us … I’ll leave that as a thought experiment.

  97. #98 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    January 19, 2012

    Thanks Composer99.

    > Pokerplyer writes this:

    > > The fact that I am a degreed engineer who has worked in the aerospace industry for over 25 years is also a fact,

    > but he could have fooled me.

    Hahah. :) Indeed, if “pokerplyer” didn’t explicitly state “I am an aerospace engineer”, then given the ‘wisdom’ he’s shown to us, we could’ve easily mistaken him for a generic blathering idiot… :-B

    — frank

  98. #99 Lotharsson
    January 19, 2012

    [GISS LOTI](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt) data for calendar year 2011 is now complete.

    How did John McLean’s prediction of “coldest year since 1956″ fare if we take Jan-Dec averages rather than Dec-Nov? The Jan-Dec anomaly was +0.52 degrees C, compared to -0.19 degrees C in 1956 – and despite 2011 being a La Nina year, the ONLY year prior to 2001 that exceeded it was the huge El Nino year of 1998.

    What if we use [GISS dTs](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt) instead?

    Well, the 2011 Jan-Dec average was +0.72 degrees C – only exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2007 and 2010, and a looooong way off -0.22 degrees C in 1956. And the 2011 Dec-Nov average was +0.71 degrees C compared to -0.22 degrees C in 1956, and only exceeded by those same years plus 2002.)

    Hmmmm…John McLean’s forthcoming post on 2011 temperatures should prove fascinating!

    Meanwhile, maybe someone with a SkS account can add a comment to [their page](http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=1&t=61&&n=665) on the prediction?

    One also wonders if all of those ‘skeptics’ who [touted](http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/its-not-warming-you-nitwit-its-cooling/) the [prediction](http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349) will do follow-up posts?

    Nah, there’s little point wondering. Especially when the same blog that hosted McLean’s prediction posted yesterday an article proclaiming ["Global temps in a crash..."](http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8994):

    > When the PDO turned cold, most of the meteorological and climate community understood that the pattern was turning very similar the last time of the PDO reversal, the 1950s, and it was a matter of time before the global temperatures, which have leveled off, would start falling in the same herby jerky fashion they had risen when the PDO turned warm at the end of the 1970s. I am not going to rehash the sordid details of how the AGW crowd simply ignores the major drivers of a cyclical nature. We all know that. Nor am I going to question them as to why they believe a trace gas like CO2 (needed for life on the planet) with a specific gravity of 1.5 as compared to the atmospheres 1.0, was going to mix with air in a way to affect the earth’s temperatures.

  99. #100 Scribe
    January 19, 2012

    Kevin Anderson: The Brutal Logic of Climate Change mp3, 13MB, Radio Ecoshock.

    “The future is impossible” says Dr. Kevin Anderson, former Director of UK’s top climate research institute, the Tyndall Centre. Speech in London lays out our awful tilt toward an unlivable climate. Followed by discussion with Washington’s Dr. William Calvin.