Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

Just like you "admitted you made mistakes" in the three examples I gave above? Have you also forgotten that you're a man named Lonny Eachus dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet while accusing scientists of fraudulent bullshit lies, or do I have to link to that again too? (Go ahead, pretend you don't remember any of this so I have to link it all again. Your absurd evasions are adorable.)

about a week ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

By now you've wrongly suggested that I'm four different people.

Really? And what people are those? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-15]

One two three four.

But since you're struggling I'll throw you a bone. Some of the AC's on number four are a different matter. Seen a new squirrel you've never seen before? Squirrel!

about a week ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

And I'll repeat the question I asked you years ago: why do you ASSUME that meant you? Why do you ASSUME I named that file myself? Why do you ASSUME it was even my file to begin with? [Jane Q. Public]

So you didn't name or even make the file you linked in a public comment at my website. You didn't name or even make the screenshot of our conversation, which you defended after quoting me saying that you made the screenshot. You didn't name the file "asshole-pseudo-scientist.png" and that doesn't refer to me, despite the fact that you've been calling me an asshole for years. And still are.

Again, you're being absurdly evasive, just like every time your misinformation is challenged. Except this time you're blatantly lying. Are you also deliberately lying when you spread all your civilization-paralyzing misinformation? If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

"A lying liar who has to keep lying to cover his previous lies. -- IndEx http://fb.me/2vQzP38Ln" [Joe Newby, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-10]

about a week ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

So when you asked "why didn't you bother to repeat the part...?" you actually meant that I had repeated that part and responded to it?

about a week ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

So when you repeatedly claimed I'd missed where you admitted you were wrong, you meant that I'd quoted you and explained that you'd manufactured unwarranted doubt by inserting words like could and theoretically. I also explained that at the same time, you made additional claims which were never challenged, like equating the MSW effect with lasers. That's why you asked "why didn't you bother to repeat the part...?" when I actually had repeated that part and responded to it?

about a week ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

Fourth time's the charm, maybe? It's fascinating that you wrongly accused me of wanting to ask you 20 questions (then 7 billion!) about your identity when I've only been asking one. Repeatedly. Are you Lonny Eachus? By now you've wrongly suggested that I'm four different people. When you get to 20, will you finally say whether or not you're Lonny Eachus?

I wrote "I now see how, theoretically anyway, it could be a probabilistically-determined superposition. That clears up a lot."

Again, that was the last quote in my debunking that you repeatedly and wrongly claimed I missed.

about a week ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

But what is funny about the whole thing is that it isn't actually an example of what you claim, because I had in fact already explained TO SOMEONE ELSE, IN ANOTHER THREAD, that I understood that I had made a mistake, and what that mistake was. [Jane Q. Public]

Since I already linked and quoted all the places where you'd "explained" your mistake before I debunked you, your complete lack of links to these genuinely vindicating admissions speaks volumes. But if I asked for a link, that would merely be the prelude to the Layzej link gambit where you'd accuse me of being a sociopath. Instead, could we please skip to the part where you provide the vindicating link where you actually admitted your mistake? Otherwise it still seems ironically meta for you to keep arguing endlessly that you admit your mistakes. (Seriously, read that Layzej link and soak it in.)

about a week ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

I have admitted my mistakes, when they were actually shown to be mistakes. You have not done the same. [Jane Q. Public]

Actually, I do. For example, I thanked TinyCO2 and Michael for correcting one mistake, and apologized for the confusion after another mistake.

On the other hand, you miss the point in subtle ways and argue endlessly, never quite coming to grips with reality, while always retreating to some absurd evasion that seems to acknowledge the obvious while, in fact, concluding the exact opposite.

It's so ironically meta for you to argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes. For instance, after I debunked your lecture on neutrino oscillation, you repeatedly claimed that I missed where you admitted you were wrong. Despite the fact that the last quote in my post was the closest example I could find to a genuine admission that you'd been wrong. Even then, you manufactured unwarranted doubt by inserting words like could and theoretically. At the same time, you made additional claims which were never challenged, like equating the MSW effect with lasers.

When I looked for other instances where you'd admitted you were wrong, I found you telling other people to STFU, which even you've called nasty and arrogant. I found you saying that you were continuing the fiction by allowing some to think you didn't get that your answer is incorrect, and not letting on that you know a hell of a lot about neutrino flavor oscillations. That doesn't sound like you understood you had been wrong after it was explained to you. It sounds like you'd been pretending to be ignorant from the very beginning.

If that's what you consider "admitting your mistakes" then do you also think this is a shining example of your intellectual integrity? Obviously you could retreat to some absurd evasion and argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes, but don't you see even a tiny bit of irony there?

about a week ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

You seemed to make it my business when you left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

You could've posted a screenshot of our conversation anonymously at a site like PostImg, but your charming filename seemed like a message. So I wondered if your domain name was also a deliberate message, which would make it my business. But maybe it was just an unintentional rookie mistake.

Haha. No reasonable person (and I have spoken to a few) believe that AC was not you. From all appearances, that is just another aspect of your unethical behavior, and you're trying to parade it as evidence in your favor. I've said it already, but you seem to have a problem with this: your own actions have destroyed your own credibility. It wasn't me. It was you. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-13]

Third time's the charm? You and your Scooby gang of reasonable people should've noticed that I snipped a part of that AC's comment because it used a cuss word to describe you. I've never used that insult to describe you, despite you repeatedly using it to describe me and then complaining that I'm rude, insulting.

Your Scooby gang also should've noticed that if I'd I written that comment, then I wouldn't have to ask if you'd actually lectured on those topics. I've seen you make 40+ absurd claims, in addition to your lectures on climate change, dark matter, neutrino oscillation, the Alcubierre effect and Maxwell's equations, and creationists. I wouldn't have to make up absurd lectures from you, because I already have so many real examples.

about a week ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

... Possibly I am a friend of this person, which is WHY I asked him to post the file. ... [Jane Q. Public]

Thanks for confirming that you asked Lonny Eachus to post the file, because you know him and are possibly his friend. Why are you so ambiguous and evasive about your friendship with Lonny Eachus? It almost sounds like you're ashamed to be his friend. As I've pointed out, you and Lonny Eachus have so much in common that you're clearly soulmates.

Strangely, Lonny Eachus seems to feel the same way about Jane. After I debunked Lonny's claim that dark energy is dead, Lonny went on an evasive rant that seems almost identical to Jane's comments above. Why would Lonny Eachus be ashamed of being friends with Jane, when they have so much in common?

about a week ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

No, I quoted that AC because, as I said, I hadn't heard your lectures on the hollow earth, birds evolving from insects, bismuth being a stable element, water shrinking when it freezes, and super conductivity being the result of electron tripletting.

I have seen you spray nonsense like a firehose on dozens of similarly absurd topics, so I wouldn't be surprised. I just wanted to see if those particular topics were part of Jane/Lonny Eachus's comedy act.

about two weeks ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

No, dozens of experimental data points where Jane might have been honestly overwhelmed by his Sauron-class Morton's demon. One control data point where Jane is definitely lying, because he's a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who's dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. Consider this AC:

"... Jane Q exists to intentionally miss the point in subtle ways and argue endlessly, never quite coming to grips with reality, while always retreating to some absurd evasion that seems to acknowledge the obvious while, in fact, concluding the exact opposite. ... On every topic you could imagine, Jane Q insists upon things such as that the earth is hollow, birds evolved from insects, bismuth is a stable element, water shrinks when it freezes, super conductivity is the result of electron tripletting, dark matter is a myth, Thomas Jefferson created judicial review, etc, etc, etc, on and on forever. There is literally no subject upon which Jane Q will not loudly correct the truth with misapprehension. ..."

While this is an accurate description of Jane and I've also noticed Jane's dark matter claims, I'm curious to hear Jane's lectures about the hollow earth, birds evolving from insects, bismuth being a stable element, water shrinking when it freezes, and super conductivity being the result of electron tripletting.

about two weeks ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

Again, whenever your misinformation is challenged, you almost always double down and refuse to admit your mistakes. I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. You're behaving in exactly the same way. It's getting increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that Jane/Lonny is deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

about two weeks ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

Someone (myself or a friend or even just someone I know) posted a file for me that I later linked to for YOUR viewing (I remember the context of the circumstances and you were being your usual [my opinion] asshole self). Who that was is ambiguous. Possibly I am a friend of this person, which is WHY I asked him to post the file.

Lonny Eachus isn't ambiguous.

The next obvious google search showed that in 2009 Jane Q. Public asked about the "money siphon system" scam a few hours before Lonny Eachus bought into it. Those are the only posts Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus left on that forum. They both disappeared after those posts, presumably by ambiguous coincidence.

about two weeks ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

No, it constitutes proof that in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?

Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.

about two weeks ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

No, the links I've provided link to the things I assert. Again, in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?

Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.

Again, whenever your misinformation is challenged, you almost always double down and refuse to admit your mistakes. I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. You're behaving in exactly the same way. It's getting increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that Jane/Lonny is deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest." -- Anonymous [Lonny Eachus, 2013-09-27]

"A lying liar who has to keep lying to cover his previous lies. -- IndEx http://fb.me/2vQzP38Ln" [Joe Newby, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-10]

"And lying about it. I am not big on attempts to re-write history. That in itself is evil." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-01]

about two weeks ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

Again, in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?

Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.

about two weeks ago
top

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

khayman80 Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (497 comments)

You can argue if you like that a ~ 27.3% increase is large but I disagree, since climate sensitivity to CO2... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-07]

Ocean acidification is independent of climate sensitivity, and it's another reason to be concerned about the unprecedented rapidity of our CO2 emissions.

I would also like to point out again that even if acidification is happening, the RESULTS of that acidification are probably less than alarmists have claimed. Example (2010 article): http://www.rationaloptimist.co... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-10]

Lonny Eachus also linked to that misinformation from Matt Ridley, a journalist with a long history of distorting climate science.

In contrast, I quoted from Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF), Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF), and Ken Caldeira’s 2012 AGU lecture. That last link was from my videos section which also includes:

I'm not a chemist or a marine biologist/ecologist, so I read peer-reviewed papers and go to conferences like the AGU to watch lectures by scientists who do specialize and publish in those fields. For instance, consider that 2011 AGU panel on declining reef health. Nina Keul observed one species of foramanifera Glas et al. 2012 (PDF) growing faster as carbonate ion concentration decreases (which happens when CO2 increases). She provided context by noting that this is one species from one experiment, noting that this is like looking at one puzzle piece of a big puzzle.

Then Adina Paytan provides further context by noting that most species aren't like this. She shows Fig. 2 from Crook et al. 2012 (PDF) which shows that only ~3 out of 9 species of coral are present in locations with naturally low pH and notes that "Because these three species are rarely major contributors to Caribbean reef framework, these data may indicate that today’s more complex frame-building species may be replaced by smaller, possibly patchy, colonies of only a few species along the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef."

Finally, Robert Riding provides a paleo perspective. Note that he admitted a mistake during questions. Contrast this with Matt Ridley's misinformation which repeats many arguments scientists had already tried to correct. Instead of correcting his mistakes, Ridley just recycled the same talking points propped up with different studies.

For instance, Ridley vaguely refers to Jury et al. 2010 (PDF). Ridley and others wrongly imply that Jury et al. 2010 shows that corals in general and other species build their shells using bicarbonate (HCO3-) instead of carbonate (CO_3^2-).

In reality, after a long list of studies, Jury et al. 2010 says "While the studies above show drastic reductions in coral calcification in response to ocean acidification, there are indications that such responses are not ubiquitous."

So Jury et al. 2010 acknowledges that most coral species show drastic calcification reduction, and simply notes that some species don't. So Jury et al. 2010 is consistent with that 2011 AGU panel, which also showed that most (but not all) species of coral are sensitive to the reduced carbonate concentrations caused by our CO2 emissions (i.e. ocean acidification). It's also consistent with Comeau et al. 2012: "[CO_3^2-] played a significant role in light and dark calcification of P. rus, whereas [HCO3-] mainly affected calcification in the light. Both [CO_3^2-] and [HCO3-] had a significant effect on the calcification of H. onkodes, but the strongest relationship was found with [CO_3^2-]."

Chris Langdon had even previously told Matt Ridley: "Empirical studies have shown that many calcifying organisms, including corals, only use CO_3^2- (carbonate) to build their skeletons. The HCO3-, while, 7-times more abundant than the CO_3^2-, does not seem to be available for calcification. A drop in pH from 8.1 to 7.8 has been shown to reduce the ability of many species of coral to build their skeletons by 30 to 40 per cent. This same small reduction in pH has been shown to adversely affect coral reproduction as well by decreasing larval settlement success and post-settlement growth of the juvenile coral. Matt is correct that the skeleton and shell building of some species is unaffected or even increases under reduced pH. However, there is no free lunch. The reduction in pH makes it thermodynamically more difficult to precipitate calcium carbonate. While an organism can chose to overcome the increased expense of producing their skeleton or shell, it generally comes at a cost because less energy is now available for some other life process. Loss of muscle mass in some invertebrates and a reduced growth rate in the case of a coccolithophorid are examples of the tradeoffs that some species have made."

Fabricius et al. 2011 (PDF): Losers and winners in coral reefs acclimatized to elevated carbon dioxide concentrations

"Experiments have shown that ocean acidification due to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations has deleterious effects on the performance of many marine organisms[1,2,3,4]. However, few empirical or modelling studies have addressed the long-term consequences of ocean acidification for marine ecosystems[5,6,7]. Here we show that as pH declines from 8.1 to 7.8 (the change expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from 390 to 750 ppm, consistent with some scenarios for the end of this century) some organisms benefit, but many more lose out. We investigated coral reefs, seagrasses and sediments that are acclimatized to low pH at three cool and shallow volcanic carbon dioxide seeps in Papua New Guinea. At reduced pH, we observed reductions in coral diversity, recruitment and abundances of structurally complex framework builders, and shifts in competitive interactions between taxa. However, coral cover remained constant between pH 8.1 and ~7.8, because massive Porites corals established dominance over structural corals, despite low rates of calcification. Reef development ceased below pH 7.7. Our empirical data from this unique field setting confirm model predictions that ocean acidification, together with temperature stress, will probably lead to severely reduced diversity, structural complexity and resilience of Indo-Pacific coral reefs within this century."

Pandolfi et al. 2011 (PDF): Projecting Coral Reef Futures Under Global Warming and Ocean Acidification

"Many physiological responses in present-day coral reefs to climate change are interpreted as consistent with the imminent disappearance of modern reefs globally because of annual mass bleaching events, carbonate dissolution, and insufficient time for substantial evolutionary responses. Emerging evidence for variability in the coral calcification response to acidification, geographical variation in bleaching susceptibility and recovery, responses to past climate change, and potential rates of adaptation to rapid warming supports an alternative scenario in which reef degradation occurs with greater temporal and spatial heterogeneity than current projections suggest. Reducing uncertainty in projecting coral reef futures requires improved understanding of past responses to rapid climate change; physiological responses to interacting factors, such as temperature, acidification, and nutrients; and the costs and constraints imposed by acclimation and adaptation."

IPCC Breakout Group I-2: Reconciling apparently contradictory observations

"This Breakout Group report summarizes participant discussions on divergent observations of the effects of ocean acidification for marine organisms. For calcification in zooxanthellate corals and in plankton, as well as for other processes, the Breakout Group considered examples of contradictory observations, the level of disagreement among data sets, and possible explanations for apparently conflicting results. From this evaluation, the Breakout Group investigated the complexity and species-specific nature of the coral calcification response to ocean acidification, the importance of clarifying present uncertainty about the responses of coccolithophores to ocean acidification, and the large inherent variability in the effects of ocean acidification for other processes considered."

McCulloch et al. 2012 (PDF): Coral resilience to ocean acidification and global warming through pH up-regulation

"Rapidly rising levels of atmospheric CO2 are not only causing ocean warming, but also lowering seawater pH hence the carbonate saturation state of the oceans, on which many marine organisms depend to calcify their skeletons[1,2]. Using boron isotope systematics[3], we show how scleractinian corals up-regulate pH at their site of calcification such that internal changes are approximately one-half of those in ambient seawater. This species-dependent pH-buffering capacity enables aragonitic corals to raise the saturation state of their calcifying medium, thereby increasing calcification rates at little additional energy cost. Using a model of pH regulation combined with abiotic calcification, we show that the enhanced kinetics of calcification owing to higher temperatures has the potential to counter the effects of ocean acidification. Up-regulation of pH, however, is not ubiquitous among calcifying organisms; those lacking this ability are likely to undergo severe declines in calcification as CO2 levels increase. The capacity to up-regulate pH is thus central to the resilience of calcifiers to ocean acidification, although the fate of zooxanthellate corals ultimately depends on the ability of both the photosymbionts and coral host to adapt to rapidly increasing ocean temperatures[4]."

So Ridley was told that even though some species are tolerant to lower pH, most aren't. Ridley then cites Hendriks et al. 2010 (PDF) claiming "there was no significant mean effect" from lower pH in 372 studies of 44 marine species. But if the Hendriks et al. 2010 meta-study were inadvertently biased towards studies of the few tolerant species, they'd cancel the more numerous vulnerable species. Averages across seasons can also mask vulnerabilities, as in Rosa et al. 2013 which showed different impacts in summer and winter. Here's another problem:

Dupont et al. 2010 (PDF): What meta-analysis can tell us about vulnerability of marine biodiversity to ocean acidification?

"Ocean acidification has been proposed as a major threat for marine biodiversity. Hendriks et al. ... proposed an alternative view and suggested, based on a meta-analysis, that marine biota may be far more resistant to ocean acidification than hitherto believed. However, such a meta-analytical approach can mask more subtle features, for example differing sensitivities during the life-cycle of an organism. Using a similar metric on an echinoderm database, we show that key bottlenecks present in the life-cycle (e.g. larvae being more vulnerable than adults) and responsible for driving the whole species response may be hidden in a global meta-analysis. Our data illustrate that any ecological meta-analysis should be hypothesis driven, taking into account the complexity of biological systems, including all life-cycle stages and key biological processes. Available data allow us to conclude that near-future ocean acidification can/will have dramatic negative impact on some marine species, including echinoderms, with likely consequences at the ecosystem level."

Hendriks and Duarte's reply (PDF) includes: "... Conveying scientific evidence along with an open acknowledgment of uncertainties to help separate evidence from judgment should not harm the need to act to mitigate ocean acidification and should pave the road for robust progress in our understanding of how ocean acidification impacts biota of the ocean."

Other papers have explored bottlenecks in early development:

Melzner et al. 2009 (PDF): Physiological basis for high CO2 tolerance in marine ectothermic animals: pre-adaptation through lifestyle and ontogeny?

"Future ocean acidification has the potential to adversely affect many marine organisms. A growing body of evidence suggests that many species could suffer from reduced fertilization success, decreases in larval- and adult growth rates, reduced calcification rates, and even mortality when being exposed to near-future levels (year 2100 scenarios) of ocean acidification. Little research focus is currently placed on those organisms/taxa that might be less vulnerable to the anticipated changes in ocean chemistry; this is unfortunate, as the comparison of more vulnerable to more tolerant physiotypes could provide us with those physiological traits that are crucial for ecological success in a future ocean. Here, we attempt to summarize some ontogenetic and lifestyle traits that lead to an increased tolerance towards high environmental pCO2. ... while some of these taxa are adapted to cope with elevated pCO2 during their regular embryonic development, gametes, zygotes and early embryonic stages, which lack specialized ion-regulatory epithelia, may be the true bottleneck for ecological success – even of the more tolerant taxa. ..."

Albright 2011 (PDF): Reviewing the Effects of Ocean Acidification on Sexual Reproduction and Early Life History Stages of Reef-Building Corals

"The studies reviewed here demonstrate that ocean acidification has the potential to affect sexual reproduction and multiple early life history stages of corals that are critical to reef persistence and resilience. While further studies are essential, available information indicates that affected processes may include sperm motility and fertilization success, larval metabolism, larval settlement, and postsettlement growth and calcification. ... Although ocean acidification is now recognized as a substantial threat to marine calcifiers and their ability to secrete calcium carbonate shells and/or skeletons, the studies reviewed here demonstrate that increasing pCO2 has the potential to impact multiple life history stages of corals, including critical processes independent of calcification. ... Negative impacts on successive life history stages may cumulate in such a way that the overall effect on recruitment is severe. For example, results of studies conducted with the threatened Caribbean elkhorn coral, Acropora palmata, indicate that ocean acidification has the potential to reduce fertilization success by 12-13% (averaged across all sperm concentrations) and to decrease settlement success by 45–69% at pCO2 concentrations expected for the middle and end of this century. The compounding effect of ocean acidification on these early life history stages translates into a 52–73% reduction in the number of larval settlers on the reef. The net impact on recruitment will likely be even greater, given that depressed postsettlement growth may translate into elevated rates of postsettlement mortality [28]. ..."

This is how scientists learn about research outside of their own fields. Contrast that with Lonny Eachus, who later linked to and retweeted more of Ridley's misinformation where Ridley ignored Tamsin Edwards and other scientists who tried to correct his obvious error. Ridley also advertised a flawed paper by Prof. Richard Tol, who also has problems admitting his mistakes. Instead, anyone interested in ocean acidification should read the peer-reviewed literature and/or watch freely available lectures from scientists who publish in that field.

Regarding other comments, I've repeatedly noted that the PETM's rapid warming stressed ecosystems. So it's not goalpost moving to note that rapid GHG emissions cause rapid warming and ocean acidification, and that these both stress ecosystems. In fact, only a Sky Dragon Slayer would argue that rapidly increasing CO2 wouldn't cause rapid warming, and only someone unfamiliar with past extinctions would argue that rapid warming wouldn't stress ecosystems. Lectures about CO2 vs. methane also aren't necessary; I've noted: The PETM happened ~55 million years ago, and was a rapid spike of about 5C warming over about 200,000 years. It’s not clear if CO2 or CH4 caused the distinct warming and carbon isotope excursion spikes, but it’s clear that ocean outgassing can’t explain the carbon isotope excursion spike: "Atmospheric pCO2 increases from 834 ppm to either 1,500 ppm (CH4 scenario) or 4,200 ppm (Corg scenario) during the main phase of the PETM (Fig. 4d). The corresponding global ocean surface temperature increase during the peak PETM is 2.1C (CH4 scenario) and 6.5C (Corg scenario) respectively. (Fig. 4e)."

This PETM CO2/methane debate is genuine, unlike many baseless claims. For instance, I asked for citations of PETM warming not due to GHG like CO2/methane because of mistaken claims it was due to H2O and/or volcanoes heating the oceans. Let's explore the literature...

Thomas and Shackleton 1996 (PDF): The Paleocene-Eocene benthic foraminiferal extinction and stable isotope anomalies

"In the late Paleocene to early Eocene, deep sea benthic foraminifera suffered their only global extinction of the last 75 million years and diversity decreased worldwide by 30-50% in a few thousand years. At Maud Rise (Weddell Sea, Antarctica; Sites 689 and 690, palaeodepths 1100 m and 1900 m) and Walvis Ridge (Southeastern Atlantic, Sites 525 and 527, palaeodepths 1600 m and 3400 m) post-extinction faunas were low-diversity and high-dominance, but the dominant species differed by geographical location. ... The species-richness remained very low for about 50,000 years, then gradually increased. The extinction was synchronous with a large, negative, short-term excursion of carbon and oxygen isotopes in planktonic and benthic foraminifera and bulk carbonate. The isotope excursions reached peak negative values in a few thousand years and values returned to pre-excursion levels in about 50,000 years. ... The oxygen isotope excursion was about -1.5%o for benthic foraminifera at Walvis Ridge and Maud Rise, -1%o for planktonic foraminifera at Maud Rise. The rapid oxygen isotope excursion at a time when polar ice-sheets were absent or insignificant can be explained by an increase in temperature by 4-6C of high latitude surface waters and deep waters world wide. ..."

Scheibnera and Speijerb 2008 (PDF): Late Paleocene–early Eocene Tethyan carbonate platform evolution — A response to long- and short-term paleoclimatic change

"... The onset of the latter prominent larger foraminifera-dominated platform correlates with the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum. The causes for the change from coral-dominated platforms to larger foraminifera-dominated platforms are multilayered. The decline of coralgal reefs in low latitudes during platform stage II is related to overall warming, leading to sea-surface temperatures in the tropics beyond the maximum temperature range of corals. The overall low occurrence of coral reefs in the Paleogene might be related to the presence of a calcite sea. At the same time larger foraminifera started to flourish after their near extinction at the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary. The demise of coralgal reefs at all studied paleolatitudes in platform stage III can be founded on the effects of the PETM, resulting in short-term warming, eutrophic conditions on the shelves and acidification of the oceans, hampering the growth of aragonitic corals, while calcitic larger foraminifera flourished. In the absence of other successful carbonate-producing organisms, larger foraminifera were able to take over the role as the dominant carbonate platform inhabitant, leading to a stepwise Tethyan platform stage evolution around the Paleocene/Eocene boundary. This szenario might be also effective for threatened coral reef sites."

Payne and Clapham 2012 (PDF): End-Permian Mass Extinction in the Oceans: An Ancient Analog for the Twenty-First Century?

"The greatest loss of biodiversity in the history of animal life occurred at the end of the Permian Period (~252 million years ago). This biotic catastrophe coincided with an interval of widespread ocean anoxia and the eruption of one of Earth's largest continental flood basalt provinces, the Siberian Traps. Volatile release from basaltic magma and sedimentary strata during emplacement of the Siberian Traps can account for most end-Permian paleontological and geochemical observations. Climate change and, perhaps, destruction of the ozone layer can explain extinctions on land, whereas changes in ocean oxygen levels, CO2, pH, and temperature can account for extinction selectivity across marine animals. These emerging insights from geology, geochemistry, and paleobiology suggest that the end-Permian extinction may serve as an important ancient analog for twenty-first century oceans."

Kiessling and Simpson 2010: On the potential for ocean acidification to be a general cause of ancient reef crises

"Anthropogenic rise in the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere leads to global warming and acidification of the oceans. Ocean acidification (OA) is harmful to many organisms but especially to those that build massive skeletons of calcium carbonate, such as reef corals. Here, we test the recent suggestion that OA leads not only to declining calcification of reef corals and reduced growth rates of reefs but may also have been a trigger of ancient reef crises and mass extinctions in the sea. We analyse the fossil record of biogenic reefs and marine organisms to (1) assess the timing and intensity of ancient reef crises, (2) check which reef crises were concurrent with inferred pulses of carbon dioxide concentrations and (3) evaluate the correlation between reef crises and mass extinctions and their selectivity in terms of inferred physiological buffering. We conclude that four of five global metazoan reef crises in the last 500 Myr were probably at least partially governed by OA and rapid global warming. However, only two of the big five mass extinctions show geological evidence of OA."

Since Ridley also seems to think that rapid pH swings make coral insensitive to ocean acidification, it's worth pointing out that these rapid swings have been happening since the oceans formed. But they didn't prevent past instances of ocean acidification from stressing ecosystems. Here's more modern research:

Okazaki 2013: Stress-tolerant corals of Florida Bay are vulnerable to ocean acidification

"In situ calcification measurements tested the hypothesis that corals from environments (Florida Bay, USA) that naturally experience large swings in pCO2 and pH will be tolerant or less sensitive to ocean acidification than species from laboratory experiments with less variable carbonate chemistry. The pCO2 in Florida Bay varies from summer to winter by several hundred ppm roughly comparable to the increase predicted by the end of the century. Rates of net photosynthesis and calcification of two stress-tolerant coral species, Siderastrea radians and Solenastrea hyades, were measured under the prevailing ambient chemical conditions and under conditions amended to simulate a pH drop of 0.1–0.2 units at bimonthly intervals over a 2-yr period. Net photosynthesis was not changed by the elevation in pCO2 and drop in pH; however, calcification declined by 52 and 50 % per unit decrease in saturation state, respectively. These results indicate that the calcification rates of S. radians and S. hyades are just as sensitive to a reduction in saturation state as coral species that have been previously studied. In other words, stress tolerance to temperature and salinity extremes as well as regular exposure to large swings in pCO2 and pH did not make them any less sensitive to ocean acidification. These two species likely survive in Florida Bay in part because they devote proportionately less energy to calcification than most other species and the average saturation state is elevated relative to that of nearby offshore water due to high rates of primary production by seagrasses."

Finally, calcification isn't everything. Hamilton et al. 2013 shows that ocean acidification increases fish anxiety, and Simpson et al. 2011 (PDF) shows that it erodes crucial auditory behaviour in a marine fish. Munday et al. 2014 shows that fish stop avoiding predator odor, possibly because of the added stress of using bicarbonate in lower pH waters. Naturally, this doesn't work out well. A billion people depend on seafood.

about two weeks ago

Submissions

top

Editor Resigns Over Spencer and Braswell Paper

khayman80 khayman80 writes  |  more than 2 years ago

khayman80 writes "The editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner, writes:

... as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published. After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing. With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011 [2], the main author’s personal homepage [3], the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes [4], and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News [5], to name just a few. ... why, after a more careful study of the pro and contra arguments, have I changed my initial view? The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chiefto make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.

"

Link to Original Source

Journals

top

Falsifiability is the basis of science

khayman80 khayman80 writes  |  more than 3 years ago

Just one final clarification for you - keep in mind that my comments on error bars were musings on the falsifiability of global warming, from a philosophy of science perspective. [ShakaUVM]

That's quite a euphemism for repeatedly accusing scientists of failing to construct and test falsifiable theories, or accusing them of dishonestly claiming more knowledge than there is.

Because

Now, I'd grown accustomed to 'spiritual'Â claims, and had decided to ignore them because they weren't falsifiable . ... I would like to see falsifiable evidence that they exist, rather than mere supposition. [emphasis added in all quotes] [Dumb Scientist]

science

My sense of duty to science stops here, unfortunately, so I can't falsify this hypothesis. [Dumb Scientist]

is

scientific theories have to make unique, falsifiable predictions. ... A metatheory has to be specific enough that it can be falsified entirely, though, otherwise it's not scientific. ... The Big Bang metatheory could be proven wrong by ... in the strictest sense his theory was falsified in the 1940s ... Evolution can also be falsified ... [Dumb Scientist]

primarily

... But don't include experimental data or unfalsifiable assumptions about parallel universes in order to account for fine-tuning of any physical constants ... [Dumb Scientist]

DEFINED

... presumably high-speed photography could falsify Chris's explanation. On the other hand, it's harder to falsify my hypothesis because ... [Dumb Scientist]

by

I agree that models which don't make falsifiable predictions are worthless. I've just never seen that happen in peer reviewed journals. [Dumb Scientist]

falsifiability,

It's definitely falsifiable science, too. [Dumb Scientist]

you

My third piece of evidence is the concept of falsifiability. You see, a scientific hypothesis needs more than naturalism to be valid. It also needs to be falsifiable in the sense that an experiment (either real or gedanken) can be performed that will either support the theory or disprove it. Evolution, for example, is falsifiable in many different ways. ... any scientific theory proposes a naturalistic explanation for some feature of the world, and makes falsifiable predictions ... Because 'Intelligent Design'Â is not naturalistic and makes no falsifiable predictions, it not only isn't right, it isn't even wrong. ... it's clear that you think evolution produces no predictions and is not falsifiable. ... supernatural explanations are ... not falsifiable ... [Dumb Scientist]

should

But evolution as a whole just isn't comparable to an unfalsifiable concept like the Flying Spaghetti Monster or intelligent design. ... Evolution is falsifiable science, while intelligent design is a religious belief. [Dumb Scientist]

probably

... evolution is only compatible with the evidence 'all life uses the same DNA,'Â which means evolution is falsifiable science and creationism is theology instead. [Dumb Scientist]

just

It's possible that abiogenesis happened several times, so finding two types of DNA wouldn't falsify evolution. ... evolution is falsifiable science. ... I've explored the idea that computer simulations can falsify evolution here. ... It's yet another way to falsify evolution. It wouldn't falsify creationism ... when did you offer these falsifiable predictions for creationism/ID? ... Please show me specific falsifiable predictions that could - in principle - falsify creationism/ID. [Dumb Scientist]

admit

The word 'falsifiable' isn't applicable, because creationism/ID isn't science. ... that's my central point: creationism/ID isn't science because it's not falsifiable. Every time I mention this, you provide an example that could falsify evolution and claim that it's (somehow) a way to falsify creationism. [Dumb Scientist]

that

I'll note that too short a time between the bombardment and the first microbes could falsify evolution. ... it's one of the simplest ways to falsify evolution. ... they're not making falsifiable statements. When omnipotence (or omniscience, or any kind of supernatural power) is an acceptable answer, falsification is impossible because there's literally no limit to what an omnipotent being could do. [Dumb Scientist]

your

While I admire your attempt to adhere to the scientific method, I'm not sure that these examples constitute falsifiability in a rigorous sense. If every animal had different DNA bases, that would utterly demolish evolution. All of the predictions you're offering as falsifications merely seem to add a few more 'why'Â questions (as you say) to an already gigantic stack of 'why'Â questions that theologians have struggled with for centuries. [Dumb Scientist]

nonsensical

In science, nothing is ever proven true. Experiments might sometimes fail to falsify theories, but that's very different from being 'proven true.'Â [Dumb Scientist]

and

I don't know if you're discussing heresy or orthodoxy. All I'm saying is that you're discussing religion of some variety, not falsifiable science. [Dumb Scientist]

insulting

You say that as though my life's work isn't developing and falsifying hypotheses. ... [Dumb Scientist]

comments

But, as I've stressed, creationism can't ever be refuted, because its inherently supernatural properties make it compatible with any potential discovery. On the other hand, I've listed two simple falsifications of evolution: chimpanzees in the Precambrian and many species with totally different DNA bases. ... Note that I'm not saying creationism is wrong! Quite the opposite! It's just not a scientific theory because it isn't falsifiable. [Dumb Scientist]

on

Scientific theories compete in the sense that every new observation either supports or falsifies them. ... [Dumb Scientist]

error

Science is falsifiable. It produces specific predictions. Creationism/ID doesn't. [Dumb Scientist]

bars

That's what falsifiability means. There has to be some type of evidence which could, in principle, prove the theory wrong. I've linked to many many more tests in the conversation that list was taken from. [Dumb Scientist]

were

Evolution is thus falsifiable in that manner. Creationism can work either way, so it's not falsifiable and therefore not science. ... It's just not falsifiable, and therefore not a scientific statement. [Dumb Scientist]

"libel".

And yet again, the distinction is that your belief can't ever be disproven because it's based on religious faith, whereas scientific theories have to be testable by definition. [Dumb Scientist]

... It's nice to see that we both agree on the core matter. ... [ShakaUVM]

No, the "core matter" here is that you're repeatedly and baselessly libelling an entire subfield of physicists, which I most certainly do not agree with, in any sense of the word.

Why do people insult scientists in this manner? It's like telling a plumber "Oh, come on... you don't really know the difference between a bathtub and a sink." Presumably, people wouldn't insult him by suggesting that he's fundamentally incompetent at his life's work. Maybe that's because plumbers carry big wrenches, while scientists carry calculators? [Dumb Scientist]

... the point of my original post above was to talk about the very paradox of verification and falsification in regards to climate science... which I think it seems you agree with. They are very problematic. [ShakaUVM]

This is the second time you've claimed that I agree with your bizarre misconceptions. Please stop. It wasn't true then, and it's not true now. As I've already discussed, some physics topics can seem very problematic if you spend your time (for instance) running a small business. That's why professional physicists spend that time doing physics and getting structured feedback from other physicists. As it turns out, experience and peer-review can help one tackle subjects which armchair quarterbacks might consider "very problematic." If that weren't true, then physicists probably would agree with you... but only if they could manage to stop muttering "f*ckin' magnets, how do they work?"

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...