Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Eli Concern Trolls

UPDATE: Hints added

Well, ok, perhaps more in the mold of actual questions for which he has not the answer.

The Bunnies have been following with interest the harumphing over at the new place [Roger Pielke Jr.s new blog just about any post] about where the decimal point is in determining whether there is a detectable trend yet in storm damage and flooding [caused by climate change]. Eli's take on this is that the signal has not yet emerged from the noise, but there are good reasons to think that it will. Indeed this is exactly the conclusion of the WGII report, that evidence of current impacts are sketchy, but that there is great confidence that there will be very significant future impacts without mitigation and costly adaptation programs. Debating about whether there are current impacts is a diversion.

However, several thoughts occurred. First, that the cost of damage corrected for economic development not be the correct thing to look at or as AR4 WGII puts it

In all of these cases, the valuation of vulnerabilities depends considerably on the development context. For instance, vulnerabilities in more developed areas are often focused on physical assets and infrastructures and their economic value and replacement costs, along with linkages to global markets, while vulnerabilities in less developed areas are often focused on human populations and institutions, which need different metrics for valuation. On the other hand, vulnerabilities to physical and economic costs can have a greater proportional impact in developing areas.
Second that as far as Eli has read, the cost estimates do not include the increasing costs of flood/damage control which have been substantial and are growing.



Anonymous said...

You is one smart bunny, but you forgets just how very stupid peoples can be.

All the future costs tend to assume that we will get ready before things happen, or at least realise a problem once it has happened.

But that is not how it will happen. We will rebuild and rebuild again in places that will end up abandoned.

The smart bunnies think that once they prove the science beyond the slightest doubt, that the peoples will get smart and save themselves. In that the bunnies are wrong.

Rabid Doomsaying Little Mouse

Anonymous said...

As a climatologist I agree with your substantive arguments and explanations. The "Hedgehog and the hyena" post was wonderful! However, you often resort to a contrived, muddled prose style instead of writing clearly.

"the harumphing over at the new place" What new place? New blog? New house? What are you talking about?

"about where the decimal point is..." Again, what are you talking about? This paragraph totally without context. How do you expect anyone to follow what you're saying? What is it a reader should have known before reading the post and how would we have known about it?

With writing this unclear is it any wonder why scientists are losing the PR battle?


Anonymous said...

Davey needs to read about The Honest Joker.

Cymraeg llygoden

carrot eater said...


One has to read Eli regularly to get all the references.

As for the topic, I just don't want to deal with WGII.

Anonymous said...

that evidence of current impacts are sketchy, but that there is great confidence that there will be very significant future impacts without mitigation and costly adaptation programs. Debating about whether there are current impacts is a diversion.

yeah, that's the ticket

there's no evidence yet but we are really really confident there will be, and um, facts are a diversion

epic fail

Anonymous said...

Venice is definitely less underwater these days.


Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse reveals: "December 18, 2009 (LPAC)—Ben Santer, a climate researcher and lead IPCC author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, admitted last night on Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory national TV show, that he had deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change. Accusing Santer of altering opinions in the IPCC report that disagreed with the man-made thesis behind climate change, Lord Monckton told the program, "In comes Santer and re-writes it for them, after the scientists have sent in their finalized draft, and that finalized draft said at five different places, there is no discernable human effect on global temperature — I've seen a copy of this — Santer went through, crossed out all of those, and substituted a new conclusion, and this has been the official conclusion ever since."

In response to Monckton, Santer admitted: "Lord Monckton points to deletions from the chapter, and there were deletions from the chapter; to be consistent with the other chapters we dropped the summary at the end."

Commenting on The Alex Jones Show today, Lord Monckton said that this was the first time Santer had publicly admitted to deleting the information. Santer was involved in the Climategate email scandal, communicating with other IPCC-affiliated scientists who conspired to "hide the decline" in global warming." http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12823

How do you know when a Global Warming Alarmist is lying?

When his mouths open.

Ben Santer, Climate Criminal.

EliRabett said...



EliRabett said...

Mike, they are building a very expensive tidal barrier, and

epic, we would gladly use evidence from the future if we had it, but until then we use models.

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says: Ad Hominem is always poor.

Martin Vermeer said...

MarkeyMouse: not as poor as you. You used to be better, slightly. Weapons-grade conspiracy theory is fun to watch first time but wears off quickly.

san quintin said...

Hi All
Can I second what Davey says. I regularly read this blog...especially when it gets technical but sometimes I haven't a clue what Eli is talking about! Could we have some clarity once in a while?

carrot eater said...

Markey: If you like larouche, you should really check out denialdepot. It's the place for

san quintin: I had absolutely no idea what the "Mikes have the Willies" post was about, but then read the links and half an hour later, it all made perfect sense. I think when you're confused, you should feel free to post a question asking WTF is going on, and somebody will be glad to spell it out a bit.

To the general point: OK, I also think that currently, the impacts are within the noise. One thing to keep in mind is that even well into the future, individual events will not be directly attributable to climate change. Some parts of the world may experience more common and more severe droughts, but you won't say of any one drought, "this was because of climate change." Really, only sea level rise and Arctic melt are unambiguously attributable.

carrot eater said...

Oh, and Pielke or no Pielke, I do take Landsea seriously. I don't see him playing games.

I think pre-satellite era temperature records are reliable and useful, but there will remain a larger uncertainty on the pre-satellite hurricane record. But that hurricane issue is fuzzy anyway; just loaded with nuance and caveat.

san quintin said...

OK...I guess you are right. On another note...I've just been over to the Daily Telegraph Booker sites about Amazongate. The DT is a very right-wing sceptic paper. I spent the best part of 3 days there arguing with the denialists and then had to return to my day job.

I see that they are now quoting Khilyuk and Chilingar as the last word on AGW. I could repost and tell them that it's barking mad and full of holes but I said I wouldn't. Anybody here fancy a go?

Anonymous said...

Eli & Co, Surely you all must know; "tricks are for kids". You silly rabbits...

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says: Watch the video from 7 mins. Monckton directly accuses Santer of rewriting the IPCC report to show AGW when the scientists in the report had suggested no such thing.


I look forward to all this ending up in Court.

Steve Bloom said...

carrot eater, don't forget global temps, (very important) the poleward shift of the atmospheric circulation, and (although not a climate effect as such) ocean acidification.

Truth about trolling said...



carrot eater said...

hey Eli,
I've got a question about CO2, and figure you're the best person to ask.

The absorption band at ~670 1/cm seems to be the most relevant one. Looks like it's pretty wide.

Going towards longer wavelengths/lower energy, what's the next significant band?

Going in the opposite direction, I see something at 2350 1/cm or so, but I'm having trouble tacking down the other side.

carrot eater said...

I was more thinking of single events - droughts, cyclones and the like.

I take it there are already impacts on agriculture: growing seasons and the like, though I've not seen any estimates of the economic impact so far. Not that I've been looking.

EliRabett said...


WRT CO2, there is essentially nothing to longer wavelengths. The molecule has zero dipole moment, and thus no rotational spectrum. What you find in the atmosphere to lower wavelengths is mostly rotational absorptions of water vapor.

As far as the Amazon goes, Peter Cox has been writing the book for about 15 years, and his hair is on fire. (google "Peter Cox" Amazon)

Mark said...

Public Service Announcement: MarkeyMouse is a HIV/AIDS denier and a "birther". In a previous thread, when presented with a DOI of an article that reported isolating HIV, he complained that the "link" didn't work. He doesn't even know what a DOI is! He clearly has no understanding of the scientific literature, nor of basic weighing of evidence.

Anonymous said...

So this is how you all see it? I am amazed.

lucia (Comment#32118)
February 4th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Re: Michael Tobis (Feb 4 11:03),

The climate system which we tend to think of as stable is actually a fluid flow pattern, and it doesn’t take much input to change the patterns of flow of a fluid. Changing the composition of the atmosphere is like throwing large rocks in a fast-flowing stream. In the end, the stream will find its way. But we are like little riverbank creatures who rely on a particular pattern of eddies. We will not find the ever increasing boulders being tossed into the stream convenient.

Whoa Nelly! You really don’t know the cause of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Your explanation doesn’t even mention radiative physics and suggest the main issue has to do with fluid mechanics. Wow! Who’d a thunk?!

When you write your explanation, you sound like you actually do know less about the physics of the greenhouse effect that the average readers of… of… Oh. It’s just too delicious to say.

Silly rabbits

EliRabett said...

That was an all around load of pretentious crap. Care to connect to reality somewhere