Fish will have to find new habitats or perish if global warming is left unchecked

Fish will have to find new habitats or perish if global warming is left unchecked
Climate change is forcing fish out of their current habitats and into cooler waters and many more species will soon be affected if climate goals are not met. Credit: D. Laffoley/Oceans 2015

Climate change is forcing fish out of their current habitats and into cooler waters and many more species will soon be affected if climate goals are not met, say scientists.

An international team of researchers compared the future of the oceans under two scenarios. In one scenario, we limit atmospheric warming to two degrees by 2100, as outlined by the Copenhagen accord. In the other, we continue with the current approach, which researchers say would cause a five-degree increase in atmospheric temperatures. They say if warming continues unchecked, fish will migrate away from their current habitats 65 per cent faster, resulting in changes to biodiversity and ecosystem functions.

The new research, published today in Science, points to the need to limit emissions to help reduce the impact of rising atmospheric temperatures and acidifying oceans. The findings are intended to inform discussions at the upcoming 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris.

"All the species and services we get from the will be impacted and everyone, including Canadians, who benefit from these goods and services are vulnerable," said William Cheung, associate professor and co-director of the Nereus Program at UBC. "On a positive note, we still have options to substantially reduce these impacts now but the longer we wait the fewer and fewer options we have."

The Ocean 2015 Initiative examined the latest research on the impact of climate change in our oceans, and the goods and services they provide. Credit: The Ocean 2015 Initiative

This study was completed by the Oceans 2015 Initiative, an international team of researchers from Europe, Australia, the U.S., and Canada. Cheung and his colleague Rashid Sumaila, co-authors of the study, examined how climate change will impact fisheries and the many coastal communities that depend heavily on fisheries resources for food and economic security.

"From looking at the surface of the ocean, you can't tell much is changing," said Sumaila, director of UBC's Fisheries Economics Research Unit. "The oceans are closely tied to human systems and we're putting communities at high risk."

The researchers suggest taking action to protect marine ecosystems and to help communities adapt by providing education and training opportunities to diversify livelihood options. They also say it's important to make every effort now to limit emissions.

"While some regions will see increases in some fish biomass, these gains may be only temporary if continues," said Sumaila.

Background

For this study, researchers with the Ocean 2015 Initiative examined the latest research on the impact of climate change in our oceans, and the goods and services they provide, valued at hundreds of billion of dollars per year.

The study assessed the impact of climate change on marine and coastal ecosystems, ocean chemistry, tourism, and human health. Cheung and Sumaila specifically analyzed how warming will impact fisheries and the global economic gains we receive from these fisheries.

The findings are intended to inform discussions at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December. This conference hopes to achieve a legally binding agreement on climate.


Explore further

Seafood supply altered by climate change

More information: Gattuso J.P., Magnan A., Billé R., Cheung W. W. L., Howes E. L., Joos F., Allemand D., Bopp L., Cooley S., Eakin M., Hoegh Guldberg O., Kelly R. P., Pörtner H.­O., Rogers A. D., Baxter J. M., Laffoley D., Osborn D., Rankovic A., Rochette J., Sumaila U. R., Treyer S. & Turley C., 2015. Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios. Science, www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/ … 1126/science.aac4722
Journal information: Science

Citation: Fish will have to find new habitats or perish if global warming is left unchecked (2015, July 2) retrieved 26 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-07-fish-habitats-perish-global-left.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1618 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 02, 2015
We can do it, we have 85 years and every year more and more people get serious about it.
Unfortunately it's going to take a lot of big hits to pocket books in order to change, but that's the price you pay for ignoring scientists for a hundred years.
Luckily I think the free market itself will save us, but I don't like doing things that way, get ahead of the game with some investments, don't just sit around till you're in boiling water.

Jul 02, 2015
We can do it, we have 85 years and every year more and more people get serious about it.
Unfortunately it's going to take a lot of big hits to pocket books in order to change, but that's the price you pay for ignoring scientists for a hundred years.
Luckily I think the free market itself will save us, but I don't like doing things that way, get ahead of the game with some investments, don't just sit around till you're in boiling water.


I admire the enthusiasm and I wish I could be so optimistic. I'm of the opinion we have 15 more years and people are going to have to get a hell of a lot more serious. And relying on the free market is NOT going to cut it. The "free" market got us here in the first place.

Jul 03, 2015
This article is based on models, not reality:
An international team of researchers compared the future of the oceans under two climate change scenarios. In one scenario, we limit atmospheric warming to two degrees by 2100, as outlined by the Copenhagen accord. In the other, we continue with the current approach, which researchers say would cause a five-degree increase in atmospheric temperatures.


Let's see how the models have performed historically:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

So, it may not be a good idea to act on what models predict; especially when something as complex as the climate is involved.

Let's take a look at where we're at now. No warming in the last ~18 years:
https://en.wikipe...maly.svg

Terror is a great way to control the plebs.

Jul 03, 2015
Wait. I mispoke. The article is based on scenarios, not models!

Justifying meddling with ecosystems using scenarios is very poor judgement.

Jul 03, 2015
Let's see how the models have performed historically
out of context graph is a distraction and based upon an opinion not supported by evidence
see: James Risbey (2014) et al in Nature Climate Change
When the phase of natural variability is taken into account, the model 15-year warming trends in CMIP5 projections well estimate the observed trends for all 15-year periods over the past half-century
the study disagree's with you and is validated in other studies... like Hansen et al[ or Roe et al
it may not be a good idea to act on what models predict
then See also: http://pubs.giss....al_3.pdf

Although there are notable discrepancies between model and observations, the fidelity is sufficient to encourage use of the model for simulations of future climate change
also see Roe et al
http://www.scienc...abstract
to B continued

Jul 03, 2015
Let's take a look at where we're at now. No warming in the last ~18 years:
repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true
http://www.woodfo...60/trend

Wait. I mispoke.
this would imply a mistake due to typo or ignorance: you've demonstrated that you ignore evidence in this case

historically, we've discussed this exact same thing several times, all of which have found you to be repeating a known political lie and sharing opinion over empirical evidence, which makes your post intentional.

IOW - repeating lies doesn't make them any more true than hanging upside down in a dark space or cave makes you a bat

your logic is equivalent to this:
https://www.youtu...MhU_4m-g

Jul 03, 2015
I never knew groupies would be so much work! Argument for argument's sake is compelling, yet tedious.

So you believe that climate science is well enough understood to create moral and economic chaos. Congratulations. You believe that climate science is well enough understood to meddle with ecosystems. Congratulations.

Social engineering based on socialist values is a failure. Climate engineering based on socialist values will fail too, but at greater cost. Just as capitalism was needed to build the cities that socialist agendas destroyed locally, so is the target of climate engineering needed to produce the wealth required to defeat it globally.

What will the socialists do when the wealth creators and builders are totally destroyed?


Jul 03, 2015
I never knew groupies would be so much work!
@d
then stop being my groupie... i already have DeliriousNeuron and cantdrive as well as jvk and others. i can lose a few to someone else.
Social engineering based on socialist values is a failure.
i am not a socialist, nor am i political: your argument is invalid. it is based upon ignorance (actually, stupidity as i've already pointed this out to you in the past)
Climate engineering based on socialist values will fail too, but at greater cost
never once have i argued politics or socialist values: only science
your argument is invalid again and based upon stupidity. this has been addressed

What will the socialists do when the wealth creators and builders are totally destroyed?
argument from ignorance as well as strawman AND red herring

my argument with you has always been about the science, not your political assumptions

science is real: your argument is political/religious
IOW-invalid

Jul 03, 2015
"What will the socialists do when the wealth creators and builders are totally destroyed? "
-------------------------------------------

The creators ARE the Socialists!

The financial folk are the true fascist parasites, living off the wealth created by the worker, the artist, the journeyman, the factory worker. The financial folk fiddle with our wealth until it all sticks to their filthy fingers. Now, they own us.

Jul 03, 2015
never once have i argued politics or socialist values: only science

You are the unwitting agent of socialist agendas.

it is based upon ignorance (actually, stupidity as i've already pointed this out to you in the past)

Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.

argument from ignorance as well as strawman AND red herring

Congratulations on memorizing terms.

my argument with you has always been about the science

Then start with theories falsified by observation:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

not your political assumptions

When facts disagree, politics engage. One side is wreaking moral and economic disaster, the other is seeking to build societal wealth. It is easy to take sides.

science is real: your argument is political/religious

Weird.


Jul 03, 2015
"What will the socialists do when the wealth creators and builders are totally destroyed? "
-------------------------------------------

The creators ARE the Socialists!

The financial folk are the true fascist parasites, living off the wealth created by the worker, the artist, the journeyman, the factory worker. The financial folk fiddle with our wealth until it all sticks to their filthy fingers. Now, they own us.

Wow. You are sick. I wonder if, in your life, you had screwed your head on straight long enough to have a successful career or real-life worth whether or not your opinion of personal value equaling societal value would be different.


Jul 03, 2015
"Wow. You are sick. I wonder if, in your life, you had screwed your head on straight long enough to have a successful career or real-life worth whether or not your opinion of personal value equaling societal value would be different."
-------------------------------------

I had several successful "careers" in my 71 years, denglish. Where do you want to start?

I was a Maker, working from age twelve for my father the local electrical contractor. I was an electronics tech in the Air Force, with some good assignments. I worked as an Industrial Engineer with exotic equipment, made heat-shrink materials, plastics moldings, cast iron engine blocks for 10,500 HP engines, was an Electronic Test Engineer making Integrated Circuits, a Research Engineer for a while, and in Technical Services for a large utility, before going out on my own as a consultant to power companies.

I have been an active Maker all my life. What did you do? Sell insurance?


Jul 03, 2015
I have been an active Maker all my life.

You go out of your way to prove your are worthwhile. It is transparent. Stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

Jul 04, 2015
Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect
Labels of factual accuracy are not insult unless the person being so described is a narcissist and egotistical and cannot fathom factual evidence, such as the reason why opinion and non-validated claims are not equivalent to validated evidence (as found in validated studies)
this is especially cogent given your continued post of out-of-context graphs or fallacious "official looking" claims from roy like here:
Then start with theories falsified by observation:
http://www.drroys...2013.png
re-posting a lie doesn't make it any more true by repetition
it doesn't falsify anything. this is a red herring and distraction
When facts disagree, politics engage
the facts don't disagree, the politicians do. red herring and fallacious argument meant to distract from your lies and continued obfuscation of science
Weird.
proof that you do NOT understand the science so cling to the politics/religion


Jul 04, 2015
When facts disagree, politics engage. One side is wreaking moral and economic disaster, the other is seeking to build societal wealth. It is easy to take sides.
the facts are clear, it is the method of fixing the problem under debate, which is *not* about the factual science already presented, as in the studies i've linked historically that you ignore.
your case simply reinforces the studies like this one: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

you are a conspiracy theorist clinging to political and religious arguments because you cannot refute the science with factual data or scientific studies

IOW - a troll

Jul 04, 2015
I was a Maker, working from age twelve for my father the local electrical contractor. I was an electronics tech in the Air Force, with some good assignments. I worked as an Industrial Engineer with exotic equipment, made heat-shrink materials, plastics moldings, cast iron engine blocks for 10,500 HP engines, was an Electronic Test Engineer making Integrated Circuits, a Research Engineer for a while, and in Technical Services for a large utility, before going out on my own as a consultant to power companies.

I present you, the Jack(ass) of all trades.

Jul 04, 2015
"While some regions will see increases in some fish biomass, these gains may be only temporary if carbon dioxide emissions continues," said Sumaila

On the other hand, these gains may be permanent and even increase with further warming.

Another example of government funded research to further the AGW fraud to persuade voters to give our freedom to government. That is sure to reduce our prosperity, and the prosperity of fish as well.

Jul 04, 2015
"Another example of government funded research to further the AGW fraud to persuade voters to give our freedom to government. That is sure to reduce our prosperity, and the prosperity of fish as well."
---------------------------------

I wish these goobers would stay in their political sites. They come here, expose their views based on technical ignorance, and think they have done something, not realizing it is First Grade stuff. If they have a genuine technical point, it is usually wrong, based on something they read at FreeRepublic or got from Fox.

Jul 04, 2015
Labels of factual accuracy

Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.

re-posting a lie doesn't make it any more true by repetition

Not liking it doesn't make it any less true.
False theories are falsified, and thus, are not actionable to the extent of creating moral and economic chaos:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

he facts don't disagree

You're right:
https://en.wikipe...maly.svg

proof that you do NOT understand the science so cling to the politics/religion

Weird.

you are a conspiracy theorist clinging to political and religious arguments because you cannot refute the science with factual data or scientific studies

See above.

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." – Kevin Trenberth

Jul 04, 2015
I wish these goobers would stay in their political sites. They come here, expose their views based on technical ignorance, and think they have done something, not realizing it is First Grade stuff. If they have a genuine technical point, it is usually wrong, based on something they read at FreeRepublic or got from Fox.

When one grasps the amount of rationalized prejudice this person possesses, it is easy to understand their actions. The above should allow the reader insight.

Jul 04, 2015
I wish these goobers would stay in their political sites.

Are you seriously that stupid?
When this Chicken Little isn't boasting about his lamentable life, then all his comments is about ... Bush...WMD.

Jul 04, 2015
denglish, I earned my opinion in this field by earning a Master of Science in it. Your political nonsense will not stand up. While you blabber here, things are continuing to change, and we are doing something about it, even if you stand on the sidelines and bitch.

Gripe away, . . .

Jul 04, 2015
denglish, I earned my opinion in this field by earning a Master of Science in it. Your political nonsense will not stand up. While you blabber here, things are continuing to change, and we are doing something about it, even if you stand on the sidelines and bitch.

Gripe away, . . .

Still stuck on the false credibility thing. It is a loser position, and has no chance of persuasion. Neither does guilting.

Just so that the reader is clear that this is not politics, let's take a look at some numbers:
AGW theories falsified:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

Let's move on to current temperature trends:
https://en.wikipe...maly.svg

gkam, changing threads won't save you from your penchant for assuming. You assume you're right, but lack the qualities required to engage in due diligence.

Jul 04, 2015
denglish, your references are not accepted by any others but those with political dogma clouding their view.

Jul 04, 2015
denglish, your references are not accepted by any others but those with political dogma clouding their view.

Assuming again led you down the wrong path. I am not politically affiliated.

Another lesson about assumptions that I suspect holds close to your experience. Reading into people's motives without knowing the truth will lead one into the pits of ignorance. Those that take the time to learn about others have better relationships than those who create realities despite what is around them.

Jul 04, 2015
"Evolution marches on, some fish die and others are sustained, get use to it. Darwin called it survival of the fittest, not global warming alarmist propaganda!"
----------------------------

Well, gosh, with the name of FritzVonDago, I can see how serious and studied you are!

We can just take your word for it, then?


Jul 04, 2015
Not liking it ...False theories are falsified... http://www.drroys...2013.png
graphics out of context are simply distraction from lack of factual information - obvious red herring is obvious
this is called distraction and lack of credible evidence posted because the argument you have is one from ignorance and cannot be proven

at least you've admitted you are a conspiracy theorist so that now people can simply ignore and report you for trolling... because you are obviously not here for actual scientific discourse, right?

after all... you still seem to think opinion and conjecture are somehow more valid evidence than accurate validated studies which match observation

thanks for clearing that up for everyone

by the way: where is the equivalent evidence and peer reviewed journal studies that you promised was a refute to the validated studies i gave you?

you still only posted opinion and a fraudulent "study" which is NOT published in a peer reviewed journal

Jul 05, 2015
by the way: where is the equivalent evidence and peer reviewed journal studies that you promised was a refute to the validated studies i gave you?

Your anger will not protect you.
Falsified theories are false:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

To forward that meddling with ecosystems based on falsified theories is... ... awful.

What the IPCC thinks about peer review:

"People with bona fide scientific background should not review articles, as they might actually accept them for publication."

"… is it not partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only satisfactorily [agreeing with their views] peer-reviewed science appears in scientific publications?"

"will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"


Jul 05, 2015
I had some time to look at the papers you presented, and to do your MIT work for you. I found something interesting in the paper. Looks like these guys are one of the honest bunch:

"In summary, simulated climate change for the past century does not agree in detail with observations, nor would it be expected to agree, given unforced climate variability, uncertainty in climate forcings, and current model limitations."

In other words, (as rightly admitted in the spirit of intellectual honesty) the theories don't match the observations. Falsified theories are false.

Non-MIT translation: screwing with ecosystems based on still not well enough understood climate science is not good. Screwing with ecosystems based on scenarios built from these models is... ... awful.

Don't post or refer to what you don't understand.

Jul 05, 2015
denglish is not going to change the world or the conversation.

I suggest a rigorous course in Ecoscience.

Jul 05, 2015
I have been an active Maker all my life.

You go out of your way to prove your are worthwhile. It is transparent. Stop. You are embarrassing yourself.


lol that must be the quote of the day for sure... you go out of your way to prove you are dumb and stupid, you seem to like the neverending ebarrasement throughout the years, and we seem to like exposing it throughout the years it's a win win for us and a losing one for you and your clan... ;)

Jul 05, 2015
I wish these goobers would stay in their political sites.

Well said, these dumb clowns shows us their eagerness to express their very stupidity... Everytime...aaahhh. where's the hand clapping emoticon now... :D

Jul 05, 2015
never once have i argued politics or socialist values: only science
You are the unwitting agent of socialist agendas.

it is based upon ignorance (actually, stupidity as i've already pointed this out to you in the past)
Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.


quoting it again i see, .... then stop insulting yourself with every post you make... ;)

(i prefer you keep at it though, the humour is just off the scale lol..)

Jul 05, 2015
Your anger will not protect you
distraction/red herring
ignoring evidence and measured, observed, validated studies will not protect you
To forward that meddling with ecosystems based on falsified theories is... ... awful
1- strawman based upon a lie
2- you've not been able to falsify anything with *any* evidence, otherwise the linked studies would have been retracted or changed. your precious boyfriend dr roy hasn't been able to get anything "falsified" either, despite his fraudulent attempts (which convince the ignorant and scientifically illiterate)
What the IPCC thinks
1- opinion is opinion. strawman and red herring distraction
2- so you are saying that any and all papers should be published regardless of content or validity, as long as they look official, like your boyfriends papers? interesting. Proving once again that you cannot comprehend or differentiate between scientific evidence and opinion.

2Bcont'd

Jul 05, 2015
@d cont'd
I had some time to look at the papers you presented
you've had plenty of time- did you understand any of them?
I found something interesting in the paper
which paper? i've linked dozens to you in the past
"In summary, simulated climate change...
random quote taken out of context with no reference to a paper is simply called a distraction, attempted obfuscation and can be considered red herring or strawman as you are not putting a link (or reference) to your claims - nor do you actually produce the paper or other papers which may or may not support your contentions or beliefs - you might have just said that you "believe with all your heart that it is what they meant"
In other words, (as rightly admitted in the spirit of intellectual honesty) the theories don't match the observations. Falsified theories are false
claims made about a quote that is not referenced or cannot be validated are simply personal conjecture...
2Bcont'd

Jul 05, 2015
@d cont'd
claims made about a quote that you've not linked or references are just claims. by all means, link the study and then (because you are taking the time) read the other studies which actually refute those specific claims because of newer and further information (which i linked to you already)
that series of links re: models was sent to show you the evolution of the knowledge as well as demonstrate the power of science over opinion... just sayin'
Non-MIT translation:
another strawman, red herring and distraction from your failure to provide evidence
Don't post or refer to what you don't understand.
you should take your own advice... especially WRT the studies i linked to you. making a claim based upon one cherry-picked out of context line in one earlier study when i linked a series to show you the evolution of data and how we learned more over the years simply the height of conceit and proves that you do not understand the studies

Jul 05, 2015
@the uber smart and great oz...er, i mean noumenon:

so you think that all studies should be accepted regardless of the pseudoscience too?

or perhaps you think that the opinion based remark taking a cherry picked quote out of context and with no means of validating it due to the lack of reference should be considered valid just because he *said* it was from a study?

OH- thats right! i forgot!
Noumenon believes that philosophy, and thus a personal opinion which is completely subjective to the individual, is equivalent to evidence...!
sorry
i forgot nou!

I guess i should be even "more" specific when i discuss things like above?

you know, it IS hard to be specific when someone refuses to link a reference or read the studies (whoops - didn't mean to out you on that again - sorry)

thanks for showing us all how we should be, nou!

(hyperbole, satire & sarcasm intended)

Jul 05, 2015
@CaptainStumpy,... all of your posts sound exactly the same, ... like a broken record with nothing recorded on it.

They lack substance and are mostly ad-hominem complaints about the 'form of argument' rather than the 'substance of argument',... and all they end up doing is cluttering every thread with 80% Jerry-Springer none-sense and multiplying the number of crank posts without any actual effect.

In fact you post soo much of the same mono-tone vacuous none sense that you likely post more NON SCIENCE related posts than the worst crank offender here.

[This post is an example of the irony of your complaints about 'form of argument' and your lack of substance of argument; ...it was a point to demonstrate the hypocritical nature of at least 80% of your own posts]

Jul 05, 2015
"This post is an example of the irony, . . "
-------------------------------------------------

Nope. It is just verbal effluvium.

Jul 05, 2015
Noumenon believes that philosophy, and thus a personal opinion which is completely subjective to the individual, is equivalent to evidence


That is simply your own conjecture and is not supported by empirical evidence of having ever engaged me in detailed discussion in physics.

I routinely post references and quotes embedded in statements made by me wrt QM , GR, made by preeminent physicists to substantiate a given point. I have never advocated any non-mainstream theory,... not that I'm naive to think hypothesis is not a perfectly valid process in the scientific method, as an ignoramus like you evidently does.

You have been told that I know the mathematical formulation of QM & GR, so am well aware of what evidence is and what the scientific method is. Yet you continue above type of ad hominem lies and unfounded presumptions. I have had valid and interesting discussions and debates here with posters who actually know the subject,... in this comment section.

Jul 05, 2015
so you think that all studies should be accepted regardless of the pseudoscience too?

I never said anything of the kind. What evidence do you have to substantiate that charge?

In fact I had made the exact opposite point in This Thread, even providing quotes from the author,... but you still took exception to it and charged that I post about philosophy dedpite not having done so even once in that thread.

Jul 05, 2015
... like a broken record with nothing recorded on it
@Nou
transference now? as if the Dunning-Kruger wasn't enough? are you feeling threatened?
They lack substance
so pointing out that there is no evidence to make the claim is lacking substance? you are repeating yourself and making more "a broken record with nothing recorded on it" posts nou...
This post is an example of the irony
no, it is transference
That is simply your own conjecture and is not supported by empirical evidence...
no, it is supported by every battle you've had re: philo with Otto (there is no need for me to be personally involved as the arguments from Otto were sufficient to make the point - but you can't comprehend that, can you?) -thus, by observing your lack of substantive argument and reliance upon philo or subjective evidence, anyone will extrapolate that you believe "a personal opinion which is completely subjective to the individual, is equivalent to evidence"

2Bcnt'd

Jul 05, 2015
it IS hard to be specific when someone refuses to link a reference or read the studies

But yet you debate them anyway? Do you not wonder why you're not effective against JVK , despite arguing around and around in circles? You wrongly think that posters are interested in debating the internet, with you simply as librarian, or in engaging in pointless link-wars.

Jul 05, 2015
@nou cont'd
What evidence do you have to substantiate that charge?
you can follow the empirical evidence where you've chosen to downvote factual arguments (because you don't like the style or the poster) and thus, by extrapolation and the evidence provided, you must therefore support the opposite opinion, which would be the pseudoscience argued by JVK or Deng. specific comment threads here:
your support of conspiracy ideation over factual science:
http://phys.org/n...ean.html

your support of creationist religious dogma over biological facts:
http://phys.org/n...ife.html

you support arguments without evidence above proving your philo "subjective" over "empirical objective" evidence above

logically, given your voting preferences and your claims to support factual science, as you downvote evidence based argument, you must then be supporting pseudoscience

nice seeing you haven't changed nou
keep on trollin!

Jul 05, 2015
But yet you debate them anyway?
providing a link to factual data etc allows other readers to follow the science over the pseudoscience (or philosophy)

see HeloMenlo or Ira, for instance

some people come here to read and learn (like children in school)... allowing the pseudoscience (or philosophers) to be the only posters flooding the site with BS simply gives the wrong impression... until the site has actual moderation or removes the comment threads, i will continue to provide a means to differentiate between pseudoscience (or philosophy) and science

especially WRT things i am highly interested in or that i follow regularly, like climate change, AGW, biology and evolution, astrophysics, physics or medicine

just because you are in love with speculation doesn't mean it has any validity, nor does it mean it is factual or based upon evidence (see eu claims for more detail)

if you were more interested in science, you wouldn't receive as many downvotes

Jul 05, 2015
They lack substance and are mostly ad-hominem complaints about the 'form of argument' rather than the 'substance of argument

so pointing out that there is no evidence to make the claim is lacking substance?


Yes, very much so. Far less so, than my posts wrt interpretations of QM with substantiating quotes..... yet to which you routinely take exception too and even drag from thread to thread completely out of context,.... not even on substance, but only on the vacuous basis of them being "philosophy".

How do you know there is no evidence? That's a presumptive ad hominem, nothing more. If you ask how they conclude thier point, and they fail to provide any substance to which you can counter,... then there was never a substantive discussion.

Jul 05, 2015
Far less so, than my posts wrt interpretations of QM with substantiating quotes
@NouTROLL
1- you proved my points again WRT philosophy with your own post. you said
my posts wrt interpretations of QM
as well as
with substantiating quotes
just because you believe the philosophy is relevant doesn't mean it is... nor does it mean the other scientists philosophical musings or interpretations are correct. i say again:
PHILOSOPHY - : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
philosophy : relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind
: based on feelings or opinions rather than facts
2- as i stated before: making a claim something is true and posting philosophy, and then substantiating your claim with another persons OPINION or philosophy means simply that someone agree's with you
IOW - it is "eyewitness testimony". the lowest form of evidence possible

Jul 05, 2015
That is simply your own conjecture and is not supported by empirical evidence

no, it is supported by every battle you've had re: philo with Otto

I have never had a debate with Otto wrt any philosophical point made by me. Otto, like you, is incapable of actually discussing QM or epistemological considerations with specificity,... so instead, like you,... he makes the absurd argument that 'philosophy is not relevant to physics',... despite that interpretations of QM are de facto, 'philosophy of physics' and despite dozens of preeminent physicists who write on the subject.

your lack of substantive argument and reliance upon philo or subjective evidence

You have never engaged me in a discussion of physics here. There are posters here who have and who know the subject (physics) that would disagree with you. Your Opinion is not based on your understanding of a topic in which I post about,... so it is worse than a subjective opinio

Jul 05, 2015
cont'd @NouTROLL
How do you know there is no evidence?
no use of quantum mechanical theory uses philosophy in its mathematical applications in modern technology...unles you are referring to above
...That's a presumptive ad hominem, nothing more. If you ask how they conclude thier point, and they fail to provide any substance to which you can counter,... then there was never a substantive discussion
[sic] making judgements based upon an argument that started months ago in other threads is the height of conceit... if you are too lazy to find the data for yourself, why should i continue to re-link it just for you? (or to deng, who simply ignores it anyway)

it is a reminder to those who wish to find data to go look for it or ASK for it

i've linked 42 studies which d's ignored (and you, as well, as you are championing him/her/it)

until you get up to speed, you are simply arguing from a personal hate, not anything substantial or logical

Jul 05, 2015
I have never had a debate with Otto wrt any philosophical point made by me, never
self delusion now? what's next? religious arguments?
Otto, like you, is incapable of actually discussing QM or epistemological considerations with specificity
and you know my capabilities because we've actually debated QM a lot, right? no wait... that is called unsubstantiated conjecture! right! got it!
so instead, like you,... he makes the absurd argument that 'philosophy is not relevant to physics'
it is NOT relevant to the use or application of physics. only to the "philosophy" of it, which is NOT a hard science as it is (you guessed it) SUBJECTIVE to the individual's interpretations! (thanks for continuing to make my argument!)
2Bcont'd

Jul 05, 2015
@nouTROLL
despite that interpretations of QM are de facto, 'philosophy of physics' and despite dozens of preeminent physicists who write on the subject
HOLD IT!
wait a minute... there are also a lot of bloggers writing about aether and electric universe, so that means, by default, that those pseudoscience considerations are considered science? WTF?
there are far more people writing about the bible than QM and it's philosophy, so does that mean, per your claims above, that the bible is more accurate and more readily explains reality than QM? even on the microscopic or atomic scale?

THIS is why philosophy is considered subjective, right here!
just because someone wants to pontificate on a subject, doesn't mean it is scientific, evidenciary or in any way legitimate... that is philo! the only thing your quotes mean is that you have someone who thinks like you do- PERIOD.
You have never engaged me in a discussion of physics here
nor will i, for reasons stated

Jul 05, 2015
you can follow the empirical evidence where you've chosen to downvote factual arguments (because you don't like the style or the poster) and thus, by extrapolation and the evidence provided, you must therefore support the opposite opinion, which would be the pseudoscience argued by JVK or Deng.


You routinely downrate my purely factual posts, as does you hand-job goon.

If I "don't like the style or the poster" then it does not logically follow that I "support [...] the pseudoscience argued by JVK or Deng", does it.

If YOU would refrain from critiquing the 'form of argument' which my posts take, you will in turn not be critiqued likewise.

Jul 05, 2015
lastly @NouTROLL
There are posters here who have and who know the subject (physics) that would disagree with you.
and i have had many debates privately about that. i admire opinion if it is substantiated by evidence... but i do NOT admire subjective claims being touted as factual or relevant when it is easily proven to be false. like i said: you do NOT need to know philo to use or apply (or understand) QM! you DO need math, though!
Your Opinion is not based on your understanding of a topic in which I post about,... so it is worse than a subjective opinio
[sic]
this is called personal conjecture not substantiated by evidence
your topics are filled with Philo double speak (see above for details & examples) thus can be dismissed as pseudoscience in a factual discussion... just because you claim something is relevant doesn't make it true

that is the point Otto has made over and over to you for a LONG time now...and you failed to grasp

Jul 05, 2015
If I "don't like the style or the poster" then it does not logically follow that I "support [...] the pseudoscience argued by JVK or Deng", does it.
Ah, the philo distraction and double speak argument in action! LMFAO
re-read for clarity
you can follow the empirical evidence where you've chosen to downvote factual arguments (because you don't like the style or the poster) and thus, by extrapolation and the evidence provided, you must therefore support the opposite opinion, which would be the pseudoscience argued by JVK or Deng.
call the parenthesis examples, or simple re-insert the following quote into them: "for whatever reason"

you choose to downvote facts, thus you support the opposite argument which is pseudoscience! this is based upon your argument that you "vote" based upon content, mind you...
If YOU would refrain from critiquing
yeah, it SO breaks my heart when trolls like you don't like my posts
(hyperbole, satire, sarcasm)

Jul 05, 2015
just because you believe the philosophy is relevant doesn't mean it is... nor does it mean the other scientists philosophical musings or interpretations are correct


Just because you believe that philosophy is not relevant doesn't mean it isn't,.... nor does it mean the other physicists philosophical musings or interpretations are not correct.

See, I can make a childish statement just as easily as you can,... except I recognize it as being so.

Logic is a branch of philosophy relevant to science. Look up "scientific method" and count how many times "philosophy" is mentioned.

That aspect of philosophy that I sometimes post of is called epistemology. It is not a matter of opinion whether or not epistemology is relevant to physics, ...it de facto is, .... nor is it that QM is non-intuitive, which of course is an empirically epistemological result. These are facts given the nature of the subject. They don't depend on your particular brand of ignorance.


Jul 05, 2015
no use of quantum mechanical theory uses philosophy in its mathematical applications in modern technology

I have never stated otherwise. Are you lying again? You invent strawman arguments never made by me in order to feign "a point" so that your girl friend vietvet gives you a 5?

There are several QM theories, all of course must be empirically equivalent, though mathematically and conceptually they're distinct. The motivation of what sets them apart are in fact philosophical interpretations of what is or is not valid knowledge, the presumption of concepts, realism vs positivism, etc. What physics theories mean, especially wrt further development, is a very relevant and appropriate point of discussion,... and this is so irrespective of your particular brand of ignorance.

Phys.Org routinely posts articles about what theory means,... not just technological applications.

Jul 05, 2015
Just because you believe that philosophy is not relevant doesn't mean it isn't,.... nor does it mean the other physicists philosophical musings or interpretations are not correct
@NouTROLL
actually, as i stated above by example, it DOES mean it isnt relevant as it holds no evidence that can be validated or repeated, like science does. see also
PHILOSOPHY - : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
philosophy : relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind
: based on feelings or opinions rather than facts
now compare it to the scientific method, here: https://en.wikipe...c_method

BIG difference. so... philosophy is NOT relevant to the operation or implementation of QM... and you've not been able to provide (to Otto or anyone else) that it IS relevant to the operation or implementation of QM

2Bcont'd

Jul 05, 2015
despite that interpretations of QM are de facto, 'philosophy of physics' and despite dozens of preeminent physicists who write on the subject

HOLD IT!
wait a minute... there are also a lot of bloggers writing about aether and electric universe, so that means, by default, that those pseudoscience considerations are considered science? WTF?


I stated "preeminent physicists", which by logical definition means physicists who have made progress in the field.

Jul 05, 2015
Look up "scientific method" and count how many times "philosophy" is mentioned
@Nou
better yet... compare the definitions of science to philosophy as i pointed out above and make a special note of which one requires evidence and which one is completely subjective to the observer & whim
i like this part

your argument re: philo is basically this: https://en.wikipe...nce_wars

now- besides being a red herring and already answered... you are talking in circles again.
I have never stated otherwise. Are you lying again?
you argue above my claims that QM doesn't need philo, then make the argument about aspects of philo & logic... and say "count how many times "philosophy" is mentioned" (WTF?) so you are the one making the strawman argument for philo in QM and suggesting that it is required for it's use/implementation

i have some stuff to do... go ahead and finish your lies and circular double talk and i will come back later!
THANKS

Jul 05, 2015
I admire opinion if it is substantiated by evidence... but i do NOT admire subjective claims being touted as factual or relevant when it is easily proven to be false.

If my statements in which I claim are factual or relevant are so easily "proven to be false", then why haven't you done so?

you do NOT need to know philo to use or apply (or understand) QM! you DO need math, though!

I know both, so your argument is pointless.

Your irrelevant premise is that posters, at a comment section that doesn't even implement laTex, are not entitled to thier opinion, even despite that preeminent physicists concur with those opinions.

This is not science journal, its a comment section of a news site, ....even though even science journals contain opinion, interpretation, and hypotheses, all the time.

Jul 05, 2015
you can follow the empirical evidence where you've chosen to downvote factual arguments (because you don't like the style or the poster) and thus, by extrapolation and the evidence provided, you must therefore support the opposite opinion, which would be the pseudoscience argued by JVK or Deng.

call the parenthesis examples, or simple re-insert the following quote into them: "for whatever reason"


Well, that's the point - If your example were true then it does not logically follow that I must agree with the "pseudoscience argued by JVK",... i.e. your example was true. I'm behaving like you, objecting to the 'form of argument' rather than its substance,... i.e. you don't object to my posts wrt physics on substance, only on 'form of argument',... thus I'm doing likewise to make that point. Was this not obvious?

Jul 05, 2015
philosophy is NOT relevant to the operation or implementation of QM... and you've not been able to provide [evidence] (to Otto or anyone else) that it IS relevant to the operation or implementation of QM


Abject dishonesty. Your faux charge here doesn't even make rational sense, so doesn't even qualify as only being wrong. It wouldn't even make sense for me to provide such evidence:

If you're referring to conducting QM experiments by "operation or implementation", then ... why would I provide evidence that philosophy is relevant, when I have NEVER made any such convoluted claim?!

I've only made statements of what those results mean and interpretations of theory accounting for those results. I'm am entitled to do this especially if I reference preeminent physicists.

Your entire objection is not relevant to anything ever posted by me in the last 8 years.

Jul 06, 2015
ignoring evidence and measured, observed, validated studies will not protect you

Falsified theories are false.

you've not been able to falsify anything with *any* evidence

Temperature predictions vs. Reality:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

opinion is opinion

The IPCC quotes are directly from their hacked internal emails. Not opinion, official communications re: scientific fraud.

reference to a paper

Final part of section 6.1:
http://pubs.giss....al_3.pdf

claims made about a quote that is not referenced

Now referenced.

Do not refer to or post what you do not understand.

Reality stands. Instituting moral and economic chaos upon society based on failed theories is wrong. Meddling with ecosystems based ont he same is ... ... awful.

Jul 06, 2015
In summary... limitations
Final part of section 6.1:
http://pubs.giss....al_3.pdf
@d
glad you told me the paper... it is fascinating what you left out... right after "limitations." it continued, (which you somehow forgot to add)
But in a broad sense our climate model does a credible job of simulating observed global temperature change in response to short time-scale (volcanic aerosol) as well as century time-scale forcings. This model capability provides sufficient reason to examine the model for information about large-scale regional climate effects of practical importance and to extend the climate simulations to investigate potential global consequences of alternative climate forcing scenarios.
to B cont'd


Jul 06, 2015
@d cont'd
after you cherry picked your quote for your own purpose and "conspiracy beliefs", you stated
In other words, (as rightly admitted in the spirit of intellectual honesty) the theories don't match the observations. Falsified theories are false.
But intellectual honesty would have invcluded the WHOLE paragraph, found on PG 32 of the PDF! it would also have printed the initial paragraph opening, which stated
6.1 Global climate change: 1880–2003 Our climate model, driven by all of the estimated forcings, simulates observed global mean temperature change over the period 1880–2003 reasonably well. The results fit observations better if tropospheric aerosol change is smaller over Europe than it is in our standard 'all forcing' run. There are independent reasons to believe that a reduced aerosol change there is more realistic, as discussed in Sect.
5.4
to be cont'd

Jul 06, 2015
@d cont'd
now, the translation of the above is simply this:
"Our climate model simulates observed global mean temperature change over the period 1880–2003 reasonably well"

so that not only doesn't match your "In other words, (as rightly admitted in the spirit of intellectual honesty)" comment at all!

so what you are saying is that it is OK to be intellectually dishonest, lie, cherry-pick and quote mine for selective pieces as long as it supports your false belief, regardless of what the rest of the study says

so, when you post
Stop posting stuff you don't understand
you are really talking to yourself, right? because your posts above prove that not only did you *not read* the whole study, you didn't understand anything that was in it

you gave:
blatant intellectual dishonesty

attempted strawman with obvious fallacious comment based upon obfuscation of study

attempted red herring with fallacious comment

argument from ignorance

Jul 06, 2015
Oh, the spinning! Beautiful. The projection is a nice ploy too. Is that a trick MIT teaches?

Better check your reference to 6.1; you actually put it in your post: it talks about how tropospheric aerosols in the model were exaggerated in the forcing run model relative to actual amounts, explaining why the observations were different from the output of the model.

The mention of "independent reasons" to believe a reduced aerosol change is more realistic is intriguing, and suggests un-understood variables.

Translated, the scientists realize the models didn't match observation, and think it is because forcing factors were given larger than actual values.

Thus, to their credit, they admit that the models did not match observation, and sought explanations.

Stop posting and referring to what you don't understand.

False theories are falsified. Leave nature ALONE.

Jul 06, 2015
In summary... limitations
Final part of section 6.1:
http://pubs.giss....al_3.pdf @d
glad you told me the paper... it is fascinating what you left out... right after "limitations." it continued, (which you somehow forgot to add) But in a broad sense our climate model does a credible job of simulating observed global temperature change in response to short time-scale (volcanic aerosol) as well as century time-scale forcings. This model capability provides sufficient reason to examine the model for information about large-scale regional climate effects of practical importance and to extend the climate simulations to investigate potential global consequences of alternative climate forcing scenarios.


Please summarize the passage.

Jul 07, 2015
Please summarize the passage
@d
that is easily done, as they did it right at the beginning of the section:
Our climate model, driven by all of the estimated forcings, simulates observed global mean temperature change over the period 1880–2003 reasonably well
but even if you summarize just that paragraph, you still have to add in the part *you* intentionally left out
But in a broad sense our climate model does a credible job of simulating observed global temperature change in response to short time-scale (volcanic aerosol) as well as century time-scale forcings
which is interesting that you would not only *not* include it, but now point it out, yet again, while stating
Oh, the spinning...The projection is a nice ploy too
this diversion is simply reinforcing your need to find *any* data that supports your fallacious belief

2Bcont'd

Jul 07, 2015
@d cont'd
the most delusional part fo your post is here
Translated, the scientists realize the models didn't match observation, and think it is because forcing factors were given larger than actual values
this study actually talks about models and their accuracy, which is stated in the abstract
Discrepancies between observations and simulations with all forcings are due to model deficiencies, inaccurate or incomplete forcings, and imperfect observations
& again, the next part is the "key"
Although there are notable discrepancies between model and observations, the fidelity is sufficient to encourage use of the model for simulations of future climate change. By using a fixed well-documented model and accurately defining the 1880–2003 forcings, we aim to provide a benchmark against which the effect of improvements in the model, climate forcings, and observations can be tested
2BCont'd

Jul 07, 2015
@d cont'd
the part you want to cling to about
uncertainties in the forcings are the temporal and spatial variations of anthropogenic aerosols and their indirect effects on clouds
is a pointer for future research, and please note that this study is from 2007.

just because you want to cling to past data without looking for future references doesn't mean you are correct. WAS there uncertainties re: aerosols? yes... is there the same level of uncertainty? no

https://scholar.g...scisbd=1

since even 2011, there have been plenty of research into the subject (a simple demo from google scholar above, if you can learn how to use the link)

when you only get your "data" or opinion from political or conspiracy sites, then you will only get clips and misconstrued data as they see fit to share... you will never see the whole picture unless you actually read the SCIENCE over the BS

Jul 07, 2015
@d
from the scholar link i gave you
the radiation calculations performed by MODTRAN are fully consistent with those produced by the CCSM3 radiation code, which itself is extensively evaluated
against line-by-line models (Collins et al., 2006b; Oreopoulos and Mlawer, 2010). While the shortwave OSSE calculations from MODTRAN have already been extensively validated against CCSM3 all-sky and clear-sky albedo (Feldman et al., 2011a), the long-wave fields are a new and critical feature to the OSSE, representing the first time that the hyperspectral climate change signal has been simulated and validated across the entire shortwave and long-wave energy budget of the climate system
http://www.geosci...2015.pdf

so you see, there IS still further research you are refusing to look at or consider because you are locked into believing your own conspiracy and political delusions over actual science

Jul 07, 2015
@d cont'd
you will not be able to understand the current studies without a background in the past studies and how they advanced. something you've "refused" to even try to do

so when you say
Stop posting and referring to what you don't understand
you are really just admonishing yourself and using transference because you know you are out of your own element (which is political conspiracy theory and religious claptrap)
By all means, you've demonstrated more often than not that you have no idea what is going on... that is why you focused on ONE study (from 2007) and ignored all the rest... and even *that* study is showing you to be incapable of comprehending what it is stating

nice try with the troll logic... maybe your aliens will come out of the Ceres pyramid and join your Area 51 buds to help you refute logic and science?

i can't wait to see how you screw up the above

Jul 07, 2015
In summary... limitations
Final part of section 6.1:
http://pubs.giss....al_3.pdf @d
glad you told me the paper... it is fascinating what you left out... right after "limitations." it continued, (which you somehow forgot to add) But in a broad sense our climate model does a credible job of simulating observed global temperature change in response to short time-scale (volcanic aerosol) as well as century time-scale forcings. This model capability provides sufficient reason to examine the model for information about large-scale regional climate effects of practical importance and to extend the climate simulations to investigate potential global consequences of alternative climate forcing scenarios.


Please summarize the passage in your own words.


Jul 07, 2015
Please summarize the passage
@dTROLL
asked and answered
reiterating a delusional lie doesn't make it more true (see: religious argument)
distracting from the logical mistakes you've made doesn't make your delusional misinterpretations of science more true either

trolling baiting comment is simply trolling, baiting and spam
epic failure

Jul 07, 2015
In summary... limitations
Final part of section 6.1:
http://pubs.giss....al_3.pdf @d
glad you told me the paper... it is fascinating what you left out... right after "limitations." it continued, (which you somehow forgot to add) But in a broad sense our climate model does a credible job of simulating observed global temperature change in response to short time-scale (volcanic aerosol) as well as century time-scale forcings. This model capability provides sufficient reason to examine the model for information about large-scale regional climate effects of practical importance and to extend the climate simulations to investigate potential global consequences of alternative climate forcing scenarios.


Please summarize the passage in your own words.

You cannot. Do not post or refer to what you don't understand.


Jul 07, 2015
Please summarize the passage in your own words.

You cannot. Do not post or refer to what you don't understand
@dTROLL
as stated above - asked and answered

reiterating a delusional lie doesn't make it more true (see: religious argument)

distracting from the logical mistakes you've made doesn't make your delusional misinterpretations of science more true either

trolling baiting comment is simply trolling, baiting and spam
epic failure

Jul 07, 2015
In summary... limitations
Final part of section 6.1:
http://pubs.giss....al_3.pdf @d
glad you told me the paper... it is fascinating what you left out... right after "limitations." it continued, (which you somehow forgot to add) But in a broad sense our climate model does a credible job of simulating observed global temperature change in response to short time-scale (volcanic aerosol) as well as century time-scale forcings. This model capability provides sufficient reason to examine the model for information about large-scale regional climate effects of practical importance and to extend the climate simulations to investigate potential global consequences of alternative climate forcing scenarios.


Please summarize the passage in your own words.

You cannot. Do not post or refer to what you don't understand.


Jul 07, 2015
Summary: Our model agrees with broad, long-term patterns in climate. It does not agree with short-term variations, but was not expected to in the first place.

By analogy, let us say I wanted to create a procedural terrain-generating algorithm. The algorithm produces mountains pretty well, but I decide to zoom in, and find it doesn't make good boulders. Well that's okay, my algorithm was intended to make mountains.

Physics, and science more broadly, is always about trying to answer a simpler question, one with limited scope, because answering broad scope questions is fundamentally *hard*. The climate model produced by these scientists was designed to handle long-time-scale evolution of climate. It can generate the "mountains" in the data. They did not set out to create a model that handles short-time-scale evolutions (the "boulders").

In their due-diligence reporting, they honestly reported the limitations of their work, that it could not do short-scale reproduction

Jul 07, 2015
Please summarize the passage in your own words
@dTROLL
1- reposting a troll post?
2- asked and answered
Our climate model, driven by all of the estimated forcings, simulates observed global mean temperature change over the period 1880–2003 reasonably well...in a broad sense our climate model does a credible job of simulating observed global temperature change
the failure of your reading and comprehension skills is not my fault
You cannot
repeating a lie doesn't make it true
Do not post or refer to what you don't understand
just because you don't understand it doesn't mean no one else does
argument from ignorance and strawman
distraction from argument with improper semantics due to misinterpretation and illiteracy skills

See also: Shavera's post above

great post SHAVERA!

Jul 07, 2015
In summary... limitations
Final part of section 6.1:
http://pubs.giss....al_3.pdf @d
glad you told me the paper... it is fascinating what you left out... right after "limitations." it continued, (which you somehow forgot to add) But in a broad sense our climate model does a credible job of simulating observed global temperature change in response to short time-scale (volcanic aerosol) as well as century time-scale forcings. This model capability provides sufficient reason to examine the model for information about large-scale regional climate effects of practical importance and to extend the climate simulations to investigate potential global consequences of alternative climate forcing scenarios.


Please summarize the passage in your own words.

You cannot. Do not post or refer to what you don't understand.


Jul 07, 2015
Summary: Our model agrees with broad, long-term patterns in climate. It does not agree with short-term variations, but was not expected to in the first place.

Nice shot at it Shavera, but you have it backwards.

The model does a fair job in short term, perhaps so much that it may prove useful in allowing insight into long(large)-term periods, particularly when examining volcanic aerosols, which values were thought to be exaggerated as (among other unnamed aerosol) forcing factors in the summary (that I created for MIT).

To have included those other two paragraphs in my first submission would have been redundant.

Anywho, you took a shot at it...academic papers are not easy to read.

What can be concluded? Climate models are not good enough to predict climate change; especially to the extent that allows moral and economic chaos. How we ever got to thinking it could justify meddling with ecosystems is... ... awful


Jul 07, 2015
Thread pwnt. Good night folks, make sure to tip your waitress.

Jul 08, 2015
Summary: Our model agrees with broad, long-term patterns in climate. It does not agree with short-term variations, but was not expected to in the first place....... They did not set out to create a model that handles short-time-scale evolutions (the "boulders").

In their due-diligence reporting, they honestly reported the limitations of their work, that it could not do short-scale reproduction

Good post Shavera.....

All of course intuitively obvious to the scientifically literate.


Jul 08, 2015
@dTROLL continues trolling
Please summarize the passage in your own words
1- asked and answered
2- also see Shavera's post
3- also see Runrig's post
the failure of your reading and comprehension skills is no fault of anyone else but you
You cannot
repeating a lie doesn't make it true
Do not post or refer to what you don't understand
just because you don't understand it doesn't mean no one else does
intentional trolling/baiting red herring
argument from ignorance and strawman
distraction from argument due to misinterpretation and illiteracy skills
Thread pwnt. Good night folks, make sure to tip your waitress
Dunning-Kruger, narcissistic egotistical assumptions based upon delusional conspiracy ideation

your posts are validation of the following: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

Jul 08, 2015
In summary... limitations
Final part of section 6.1:
http://pubs.giss....al_3.pdf @d
glad you told me the paper... it is fascinating what you left out... right after "limitations." it continued, (which you somehow forgot to add) But in a broad sense our climate model does a credible job of simulating observed global temperature change in response to short time-scale (volcanic aerosol) as well as century time-scale forcings. This model capability provides sufficient reason to examine the model for information about large-scale regional climate effects of practical importance and to extend the climate simulations to investigate potential global consequences of alternative climate forcing scenarios.


Please summarize the passage in your own words.

You cannot. Do not post or refer to what you don't understand.

Take another look runrig.


Jul 08, 2015
Mean while, in the real world, as the globe has cooled for the last 18 years, the AGW Cult is having a tough time supporting their umpteenth lie that all the heat is going into the oceans.

Jul 08, 2015
"Please summarize the passage in your own words."
-----------------------------

Could you not get it? It says the model is good enough to be extrapolated into scenarios not originally intended for it, and play what-if games.

Those of you not in technical fields have a hard time with stuff.

Jul 08, 2015
the globe has cooled for the last 18 years
NOT

http://www.woodfo...60/trend

nice to see that Dng and AntiG live in the same delusion...
considering the typical posts of each, there is a very good possibility that they are the same person, especially as they are too willing to ignore the blatantly obvious and consider repetitious lies somehow equivalent to empirical evidence and reputable peer reviewed validated studies...

Jul 08, 2015
I had several successful "careers" in my 71 years
-None of which lasted very long did they? A dozen or so temp positions lasting 6 mos or less.
I was a Maker, working from age twelve for my father the local electrical contractor
What the hell is a maker? Troublemaker like you are here?
I was an electronics tech in the Air Force, with some good assignments
-which didnt last
I worked as an Industrial Engineer with exotic equipment, made heat-shrink materials, plastics moldings, cast iron engine blocks for 10,500 HP engines was an Electronic Test Engineer making Integrated Circuits, a Research Engineer for a while
LIE. You were never an engineer by your own admission. Inflated job shop titles merely went to your head.
and in Technical Services for a large utility, before going out on my own as a consultant to power companies
-During which nobody called because they knew you were full of shit.

Right or wrong?


Jul 08, 2015
Could you not get it? It says the model is good enough to be extrapolated into scenarios not originally intended for it, and play what-if games.

Your Master's Degree got close! Wow! But, sadly, missed some key elements. Try again, or would you like me to point out what I already pointed out to Shavera?

nice to see that Dng and AntiG live in the same delusion...

By failing to interpret what you were jamming in my face, you have lost all credibility. You were glorifying yourself, waving a banner that you couldn't even read. You ought to call MIT and get your money back.

The saddest part of all of this is that there is a population that will engage in all sorts of self-immolation to justify the meddling with of wildlife ecosystems. Look at the above. Would anyone in their right mind embarrass themselves to this extent in order to justify cruelty to animals?

Jul 08, 2015
denglish, are you at home living off the government you seem to hate?

Get them to explain how electricity works. Ask how much you use each day in MWh.

Jul 08, 2015
By failing to interpret what you were jamming in my face, you have lost all credibility
WOW
repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true
argument from ignorance as well as strawman AND red herring distraction from your lies

by not being able to comprehend a study and blatantly lying about the contents, you think you have gained credibility?

you think it is credible to argue "intellectual dishonesty" when you cannot comprehend that opinion and conjecture are *not* equivalent to evidence or validated studies, then blatantly lie about study contents because you don't understand what is written, but keep repeating it (showing that you didn't understand it)

IOW - troll comments

Now i can truthfully label you a troll and simply downvote further discourse without reply, as you will simply ignore the evidence anyway
thanks for being honest about your reasons for being here

Jul 08, 2015
Get them to explain how electricity works.

Your Master's Degree, summarize the passage. Properly this time.

repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true

By failing to interpret what you were jamming in my face, you have lost all credibility

The saddest part of all of this is that there is a population that will engage in all sorts of self-immolation to justify the meddling with of wildlife ecosystems. Look at the above. Would anyone in their right mind embarrass themselves to this extent in order to justify cruelty to animals?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more