Professor Scott Mandia, aka ‘Supermandia’, for his infamous climate scientist in tights imagery must have a head injury form being in the ring with mother nature, otherwise he wouldn’t write stuff like this:
So next time we get a hurricane, tornado, flash flood, or volcanic eruption, let’s just send “Supermandia” to pummel it into submission.
I’d pay to see that.
Apparently his claim is all about one paper over modeled species extinction, he writes:
Mora et al. (2013) included 344,000 species and processed 89,712 years of data comprising 1,076,544 monthly global maps to tease out when various ecosystems would be continuously out of their normal bounds. Normal bounds were determined using data from 1860 to 2005. We must keep in mind that even during that time period (and especially during the past few decades) human-caused climate change was already changing nature. Thus, the “normal bounds” is not really normal for many ecosystems and the KO years determined by this study are likely to be too conservative (i.e. alien environments arrive sooner than projected).
…
The results for several ecosystem hotspots appears in figure 3 from the study. RCP85 and RCP45 are carbon emission scenarios. RCP4.5 is the “best-case scenario” where humanity wakes up and aggressively reduces its global carbon output. RCP8.5 is the business-as-usual scenario meaning that billions of tons of carbon will be emitted every year with little attempt to reign the pollution in. Unfortunately, we are following the worst-case RCP8.5 emission scenario and that is why many ecosystems will be forced into an alien environment much sooner than 2047. In fact, when considering ocean acidification, the surface oceans were KO’d in 2008.
Gosh, the surface oceans are knocked out already? Who knew? No wonder the heat went hiding in the deep ocean. Well no point in worrying about it anymore then if the surface oceans are KO’d.
The reality of “ocean acidification”?
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, ocean pH has dropped globally by approximately 0.1 pH units. Source: Ocean Acidification Network
Past and present variability of marine pH. Future predictions for years shown on the right-hand side of the figure are model-derived values based on IPCC mean scenarios. From Pearson and Palmer (2), adapted by Turley et al. (3) and from the Eur-Oceans Fact Sheet No. 7, “Ocean Acidification – the other half of the CO2 problem“, May 2007 (4).
Of course in model world, it’s like Lex Luthor has his evil hand on the control knob. From AR5:
Earth System Models project a worldwide increase in ocean acidification for all RCP scenarios. The 1 corresponding decrease in surface ocean pH by the end of 21st century is 0.065 (0.06 to 0.07)12 for 2 RCP2.6, 0.145 (0.14 to 0.15) for RCP4.5, 0.203 (0.20 to 0.21) for RCP6.0, and 0.31 (0.30 to 0.32) for 3 RCP8.5 (see Figures SPM.6 and SPM.7). {6.4.4}
Here are the figures cited, SPM6C and SPM7D:
For those that worry about dissolving ocean creatures, some perspective on pH is helpful.
Note the normal ranges of for rainwater and streamwater flowing into the oceans are far lower in pH than the model projections:
![184phdiagram[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/184phdiagram1.gif)
We have to stop acidic rain falling into the ocean and flowing out of streams and rivers. Sounds like a job for Supermandia! /sarc
The folly of idea that man has overwhelmed Nature and “has her on the ropes” is demonstrated every day by ordinary weather. But I suppose if you live in a comic book realm like Supermandia, anything is possible.
A week at sea with Willis might be reality instructive for Supermandia.
A week at sea in any commercial vessel – simply seeing how big the ocean is – would be great for these folk. A week with Willis would be a bonus – a true luxury – And a Privilege!
Auto
This paper from Nature Geoscience has been linked here before, but maybe Supermandia will read it if it keeps getting posted:
http://pages-142.unibe.ch/science/scor/gfx/Ridgwell%26Schmidt2010NGeo-PastOceanAcidification.pdf
If that doesn’t load, then please access the Hockeyschtick’s excellent summary:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/06/study-shows-modern-oceans-are-more.html
The study shows that modern oceans are more alkaline (pH of about 8.1 to 8.2) than in the past 250 million years. During this time, corals, phytoplankton & most oceanic biomass have evolved. While the paper shows a mean pH of about 7.7 over this period, CACA spewers & the IPeCaC predict ocean pH will drop to 7.88 under a “business as usual” scenario by 2100. So no worries, even if they’re right, which they’re very unlikely to be.
The more claptrap like this that I read, the more I just want to opt out all together in the far-flung expanses of the Canadian Arctic.
The pH predictions are wrongly oversimplified linear projections, and with wrongly prophecised consequences for marine ecosystems. They ignore natural buffering mechanisms inherent in saltwater loaded with carbonates (especially potassium and calcium carbonates). They ignore diurnal and seasonal biological variation which is much greater than even the most disastrous ( and wrong) linear projection. For example, the pH of the Elkhorn Slough estuary on Monterey Bay, California varies seasonally from 7.4 to 8.4. The pH of Florida Bay between the mouth of the Everglades and the Florida keys varies from 5.8 in winter with rain to an incredible 9.8 in late summer with elevated salinity from evaporation plus maximal Thallassia sea grass photosynthesis. Yet the conch, snow crabs, snook, and tarpon thrive all year long.
Mora et al are just as nutty as Supermandia.
“Normal bounds were determined using data from 1860 to 2005.”
So going back to when grapes grew in England would not have served his purpose. Or farms were in Greenland. Very cherry picked.
a professor ? really ?
“A week at sea with Willis might be reality instructive for Supermandia.”
It sure would – but what would Willis have to do to deserve such a rotten week?
Actually, drop Supermandia in any bushland or jungle and that’d be enough. You don’t need storms or rough seas. I’ve been reliving my years in the wilderness without a house and showing photos – you get enough snakes and bats under the bed, the occasional flood (yes, under and all around the bed – we were living in a pit dug in the ground), and you begin to come to grips with just how big nature is, how prolific it is, how fast it is and, mostly, how powerful and unrelenting it is.
Supermandia should step out of the city occasionally and let nature teach him something. It would be a serious eye-opener. Right now he doesn’t have a clue.
Type in the first sentence. FYI
what a ridiculous load….
The question should be….what made pH a scant tad higher when they started measuring
CO2 is not a strong enough acid to reduce ocean pH…..biological processes produce magnitudes more acid
I meant typo. Haha.
Latitude:
re your post at October 9, 2013 at 12:42 pm which says
Yes, of course you are right.
Now seems an appropriate moment for me to apologise for my misunderstanding your intent on a previous thread where you made the same point. I thank you for making the point now and then.
Richard
What is really disheartening is to Google “ocean acidification” and find websites like this:
http://oceanacidification.net/
or even this from the National Geographic:
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/
Look at the picture at the bottom their page “The Acid Sea” with those ominous bubbles
coming up from the sea bed.
I see these and others and just want to scream. Doesn’t anyone remember their
Chemistry 101?
NavarreAggie says:
October 9, 2013 at 12:45 pm
I meant typo. Haha.
Why not say “form” should be “from”?
This pH thingy sure be quite a mystery.
Super Guy could be right yah know… I just saw this:
Dr. Mora, an associate professor at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, leads a team that has tackled the challenging question of when the climate will shift entirely beyond what could be considered natural.
Their result: The turning point arrives in 2047 as a worldwide average if fossil fuel consumption continues unabated; as late as 2069 if carbon emissions are curbed. Broken down by city the numbers are a bit more revealing. In Montreal, for example, the new normal will arrive a year sooner. For Toronto it’s 2049 and for Vancouver not until 2056. But the real spotlight of Dr. Mora’s study is what happens in the tropics, where profound changes could be entrenched within little more than a decade.
When has the Globe and Mail ever been wrong I ask yah… or Dr. Mora for that matter…
So there you have it — exact numbers… no more guessing. I guess this climate pause and the model discrepancies must be wrong…
Cheers and may you fry too! I know I will!
And link to the Globe Story on the good Dr. Mora:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/science-team-pinpoints-time-when-climate-will-shift-to-unnatural-state/article14774332/
cheers!
This whole ocean acidification really gets me cracky. O.K. I can grudgingly accept that the
change from pH 8.1 to pH 8.0 is “technically” acidification. I like what was written here previously
that the change of a cup of water from 90C to 85C can be called “freezing”. What I do not accept
is the phase “more acidic”. How can something become more of what it is not? At least one
website tries to get it right.
I quote: “This absorbed CO2 is resulting in chemical changes in the ocean, and is estimated to have caused a decrease in oceanic pH of 0.1. This is referred to as ocean acidification as the oceans are becoming more acidic (though technically they are still alkaline).”
What the…?
Maybe we are missing an opportunity to get the alarmist to come clean. Acid Oceans? We need
to go to our government officials. What is being done to protect ourselves and our children?
Should be now ban swimming in the “acid seas” lest our children dissolve? What is being
done about ocean going shipping? What is being done to prevent ships hulls from crumbling
away from these “corrosive” up-swellings? /sarc
We humans can do something about this? Who does this guy think he is, God?
@little Mandia
“‘Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer
me.
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand. …
Surely you know! …
You have lived so many years!'”
(from Job 38)
I thought all warmists were happy now, that our heat death has been postponed by 120,000 years?
(Because the oceans swallow Global Warming; and their heat capacity is 1,200 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere.)
Question to all warmists: A hitherto unknown mechanism makes the ocean swallow the Global Warming heat. For 16 years and counting now. What do you think will make this mysterious mechanism fail in the future? My expectation would be that it will continue swallowing the heat.
Have you already modified your GCM’s to include the mysterious mechanism? If not, why not? NASA alone gets 1.2 billion USD a year in funding for the Global Warming pseudoscience.
Outsource the coding to India if elite Global Warming scientists are too expensive. Or just adjust the output. A kid with a ruler can do that.
Ocean acidification?
Has anybody blamed hydroxylic acid yet?
For ocean acidification, wouldn’t we have to see an increase in the acidity of both rainwater falling into the oceans, and runoff water?
The surface area of rain drops is proportionately high compared to the seawater-atmosphere interface (even accounting for wave action turbulence). You’d think “acid rain” would be noted before acidifcation of the top 100m of oceans.
“A week at sea with Willis”
what has Willis ever done to you to deserve such cruelty?
The Sea is Full of Rocks.
Rocks + Acid = Aklaline Salt + Gas
Supermandia’s head is also full of rocks.
Alkaline /spelling oops
“Humans pummeling Mother Nature…”
That imagery is a step up from humans as a virus on the earth. The message is still the same, humans are bad and must be stopped. Humanity is so bad that many of our fellow humans have serious guilt issues. Here’s an actual quote:
“For years and years now I have felt guilty almost every single day just because I was born a human. I hate that feeling but I can’t help it, I look at human beings and I just hate us. Humans as a species sicken me, obviously not individual people because I know there is good out there but as a whole species I can’t stand us.”
http://www.generalforum.com/philosophy-psychology/guilt-being-human-83489.html
Maybe an extreme case, but this feeling of guilt is common to one degree or another. A world religion actually has a doctrine called ‘original sin’… “a depravity, or tendency to evil, held to be innate in humankind and transmitted from Adam to the race in consequence of his sin.” Before talking to someone about climate disruption I usually recommend psychotherapy to help them reframe their self-defeating guilty thoughts.
Fossil fuels, rain forests, endangered species, the ozone hole, urbanization, pavement, ticky-tacky all in a row, war, crime, etc. They may loose the climate debate, but that hardly matters. Facts matter little when they have the media on their side. They don’t really care about the climate, only in as much as it moves forward the anti-human agenda. It takes the cool eye of reason to see what must be done and strength of charater to do it. They intend to save the world.
HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH AND CLIMATE CHANGE
“The largest single threat to the ecology and biodiversity of the planet in the decades to come will be global climate disruption due to the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. People around the world are beginning to address the problem by reducing their carbon footprint through less consumption and better technology. But unsustainable human population growth can overwhelm those efforts, leading us to conclude that we not only need smaller footprints, but fewer feet.
…Time is short, but it not too late to stop runaway global warming. Economy-wide reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to a level that brings atmospheric CO2 back from 386 parts per million to 350 or less, scaling back first-world consumption patterns, and long-term population reduction to ecologically sustainable levels will solve the global warming crisis and move us to toward a healthier, more stable, post-fossil fuel, post-growth addicted society. ”
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/overpopulation/climate/
“As long as population growth and increased consumption levels are viewed as inherently positive, states like Florida will continue to destroy their natural heritage in the quest to keep the human population Ponzi scheme from collapsing. The result will be devastating to communities seeking a sustainable balance and catastrophic for endangered species such as the Florida panther, which are being squeezed ever closer to extinction.”
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/overpopulation/urban_wildlands/index.html
Human Engineering and Climate Change
“In this paper, we consider a new kind of solution to climate change, what we call human engineering, which involves biomedical modifications of humans so that they can mitigate and/or adapt to climate change”
The paper proposes Pharmacological meat intolerance, Making humans smaller, Lowering birth-rates through cognitive enhancement, Pharmacological enhancement of altruism and empathy.
“Indeed, test subjects given the prosocial hormone oxytocin were more willing to share money with strangers (Paul J. Zak et al. 2007) and to behave in a more trustworthy way (P. J. Zak et al. 2005). Also, a noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor increased social engagement and cooperation with a reduction in self-focus during a mixed motive game (Tse and Bond 2002). Similar effects have been observed with SSRIs in humans and animal experiments (Knutson et al. 1998). Furthermore, oxytocin appears to improve the capacity to read other people’s emotional state, which is a key capacity for empathy (Domes et al. 2007; Guastella et al. 2008). Conversely, testosterone appears to decrease aspects of empathy (Hermans et al. 2006) and in particular conscious recognition of facial threats (van Honk and Schutter 2007). Neuroimaging work has also revealed that one’s willingness to comply with social norms may be correlated with particular neural substrates (Spitzer et al. 2007). This raises the likelihood that interventions affecting the sensitivity in these neural systems could also increase the willingness to cooperate with social rules or goals.”
http://www.smatthewliao.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/HEandClimateChange.htm
Our descendants will live guilt-free lifes as three foot tall very agreeable hunter-gatherers. Well, not hunters, just gatherers.
“Mora et al. (2013) included 344,000 species and processed 89,712 years of data comprising 1,076,544 monthly global maps …”. Really? Where in the billion names of god did he get 89,000 plus years of data (not computer output, but real data) and who compiled those years of data onto over a million maps?? Sorry, but my BS detector pegged just reading that. There are no records that go back over 89,000 years of anything. Zip. Zero. Zilch. There is no data base in any format or recording method with such a time span of data in it, especially at monthly intervals. None the human race knows of. What am I missing here? Or, is rhetorical hyperbole permitted in scientific papers in these “post-normal” days? Perhaps what he is saying – modern “scientific” language – is that he ran a computer program which produced that information. If so, that isn’t data. That is someone’s guess – technically, a WAG – of what happened and rather than being presented as such, first a computer program model is written containing the someone’s notions of what happened and then the model is run long enough to produce 89,000 years of monthly “data” points. Not data. Not data. Not data. Sophistry, in an attempt to hide guesses and disguise them as real world information.
Yeah the Globe activist reporter had to report this trash as evidence of CAGW…
Sure is ad hominem in here.
Edit: “a head injury form being in the ring” from
Ike;
The 89,000 years of data may be like man-hours. If a job takes 89,000 man-hours, you are not justified in calling it impossible because no one lives, much less works, that long. Hint: more than one man is involved.
If the projected changes are of the Global ocean surface Ph, and streams and rainwater have a lower Ph than seawater, isn’t it likely that what is being predicted is an increase in global rainfall?
Human Engineering and Climate Change
Forthcoming as a Target Article in Ethics, Policy and the Environment
© S. MATTHEW LIAO (NEW YORK UNIVERSITY), ANDERS SANDBERG (OXFORD),
and REBECCA ROACHE (OXFORD)
February 2, 2012
Wow. This “human engineering” initiative is every bit as evil as the racial science of the Third Reich. How come these criminals are not fired from Oxford & NYU yet?
Robert Bissett says:
October 9, 2013 at 7:00 pm
““Indeed, test subjects given the prosocial hormone oxytocin were more willing to share money with strangers (Paul J. Zak et al. 2007) and to behave in a more trustworthy way (P. J. Zak et al. 2005).””
Repeated exposure to tax receipts is reported to reduce the scretion of oxytocin in test subjects to undetectable levels.
Just looked up hubris in my handy Websters dictionary…..and there was Mandis’ picture.
“A week at sea with Willis might be reality instructive for Supermandia.”
I would be happy to contribute to the enterprise. Can just imagine the scene.
I would require Supermandia to pass a test created by Willis, or it means another week at sea of the same.
I’ll echo the commenter who suggested this guy needs to get out of his office more. Has he never heard of any catastrophic natural events, like the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, the Missoula floods, the Japanese and Indonesian tsunamis, etc. etc., just to name a few??? I would suggest that these events contributed more to local and global environmental change (I am searching my brain for a better description) than almost anything man has done anywhere. Mother Nature is far more powerful, and does not operate the earth for our pleasure. Get over it.
The optimist within me wants them to carry on and make even more ridiculous claims. However, this relies upon my theory that, after a decade or two of eco-loon nonsense, people learn to automatically tune them out.
I’m becoming depressed though, having realised that ‘the people’ will fall for the same crap time and time again. They never learn. Just as the latest eco-cause de jour is proven to be yet more absolute garbage … the ‘public’ simply fall for another pile of garbage. Oh, Parrot wing feather counts are down this month – crisis. Oh, Soldier Ants are 1.05726% more aggressive under our modelled scenario for 2100 – crisis …. on and on.
=========================================================================
So to combat imagined CAGW they want to introduce genuine CAGE?
“Brian H says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:04 am
Ike;
The 89,000 years of data may be like man-hours. If a job takes 89,000 man-hours, you are not justified in calling it impossible because no one lives, much less works, that long. Hint: more than one man is involved.”
By which you mean to say that the number is based upon the amount of time required to collect the data or perhaps to conduct the research? Really? The part of the sentence reads, “…and processed 89,712 years of data comprising 1,076,544 monthly global maps…”. It does not read, “…and we spent 89,712 years collecting or working on the data…”. It is clearly intended to assert that they had the data from that many years of temperature records. I’ll stop wasting the time of all you highly-educated folks; obviously, I’m just too ignorant or stupid to understand science-talk. Incredible response. No one who is literate in the English language could possibly understand that quote to mean any other than as an assertion that they have data for that many years of weather/climate. You have succeeded in disgusting me to the extent that I won’t return here again.