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.
“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.