Noted: ‘Stupidity is not one dimensional problem’. Thanks, Wow.
From the discussion of the Arora et al. study:
“Limitations remain in our study. First, we do not comprehensively assess the effect of uncertainty in model parameter values. Figure S5 characterizes how the uncertainty in the half-life of the stem component of the dead trees changes the diagnosed effect of the MPB disturbance. Similar sensitivity analyses for other model parameters, planned for future, will yield further insight into the associated uncertainty in so far as the objective is to determine the model response to the MPB disturbance versus the response to changing climate and increasing [CO2]. Second, the model also suffers from structural uncertainty due to lack of representation of certain processes whose effect can only be assessed qualitatively. The model version used in our study does not dynamically simulate the fractional coverage of its PFTs. Studies that have used bioclimatic envelopes for projecting future distribution of tree species in BC [Hamann and Wang, 2006; Wang et al., 2012] suggest that climate envelopes for relatively productive species that currently exist in coastal and mild-climate interior regions will expand over rest of BC at the expense of less productive subboreal, subalpine, and alpine ecosystems. The implications for the resulting carbon balance of these projected changes, however, are unclear since tree species do not migrate as quickly as the projected shifts in climate envelopes. The terrestrial ecosystem model used does not account for the age distribution of forest stands. The modeled response to climate change and increasing [CO2] is based on that of an average-aged tree in the landscape, without an explicit representation of self-thinning that would increase mortality as biomass increases. The average age of forests in BC is increasing, and so the reduction in tree growth due to increasing age counteracts the environmentally driven growth enhancement [Hember et al., 2012].”
Note what I said earlier about the ability of trees to track a rapidly warming climate. Most species exist within well-defined thermal envelopes and have thermoneutral optima. Once temperatures go above (or below) these envelopes then the species have to expend more metabolic energy, potentially compromising their fitness and survival. This explains why species have weel defined geographical distributions. If climate warming continues unabated, then this will more than offset any short term increases in biomass, unless they are able to shift their distributions. The problem with this is obvious: trees and many large plants do not diperse as effectively as more mobile organisms, and their soil-based mutualists including mycorrhizal fungae will certainly not track them effectively.
And then there is also the matter of shifting C:N:P rations in plant tissues. Carbon is not a limiting nutrient for most plants. Moreover, if carbon concentrations become excessive, then this shunts out other nutrients that are vital for plant growth as well as consumers associated with the plant. And, as I have explained before, changes in plant stoichiometry also affect plant allelochemistry as well as volatile profiles. All of these changes have profound ecological consequences. Scientists trained in the relevant fields – including me – are well aware of this. Nitwits who have no formal education in the fields, including GSW and Betula, don’t. To them its all a simple matter of linear dynamics.
The paper is actually well written and not sensationalized as the right wing corporate media have done. The conclusions and limitations are clearly spelled out. Trust the denial lobby to exaggerate the findings out of all proportion.
“Lionel will tell you that predictions are for “soothsayers” and “prophets”.”
If you accept his word as absolute truth and accuracy, why the fuck are you arguing about how he’s wrong?
Or do you know you’re wrong, but can’t let it lie?
“He will then say it was taken out of context,”
Isn’t that a prediction??? See your earlier claim re: predictions. Prove it, retard.
What is the context of the claim about flooding and the 20ft rise, you thundering idiot? Lets see if you can manage your “prediction” OF YOUR OWN ACTIONS.
Or will you ignore the question and pretend it’s never been asked, and cause the denialidiot wheel to spin yet one more time?
Re your post, cRR, Scott Adams put it well in a story about him and the dead new battery in his phone.
Apparently he was an idiot who couldn’t even insert the battery the right way round. Yet despite this monumental stupidity, he managed to operate a complex vehicle and not kill anyone with it on his irate drive to the local store.
Stupidity isn’t a singular value like some sort of RPG stat.
Understanding that you can understand the stupidity of apparently smart people.
And accept that some, e.g. Betty, are just monumentally dense morons without a single glimmer of intelligence.
Me – “He will then say it was taken out of context,”
Wow – “Isn’t that a prediction??? See your earlier claim re: predictions. Prove it, retard”
Lionel @ 67 pg 3 – Note the context of my writing that, it was in connection with the projected future of the polar bear population.
Lionel @ 12 Pg 4 – “Once again, CONTEXT you clown!”
Of course, it never was taken out of context:
Me – “Because only the things we don’t depend on will increase under current predicted catastrophic-only climate scenarios…..unless there is development on a global scale to prevent the predictions”.
Lionel – “Clot, nobody here is making predictions, that is for soothsayers and prophets, science uses projections based upon scenarios.”
And then there is this gem from Wow – “If you accept his word as absolute truth and accuracy, why the fuck are you arguing about how he’s wrong?”
Who said he was wrong?
“Of course, it never was taken out of context:”
Given you’ve lied about the context, why do you expect anyone to take your word this time either? Especially when it’s so easy to check (if boring to wade through your tripe)?
“Who said he was wrong?”
Who said he was right?
Wow – “Who said he was right?”
Lionel…. he’s the one who said it.
You do have a hard time with words, don’t you. Did you attend the same school of scrambled symbols as Kampen?
Wow – “Given you’ve lied about the context, why do you expect anyone to take your word this time either? Especially when it’s so easy to check (if boring to wade through your tripe)?”
Since I have already given you the context, where is the iie?
Tell you what, you being slow and all, I’ll make what is easy for most, easier for you…
Lionel’s comment is at #43 pg 2. Make sure you copy anything you see there about polar bears and get back to me.
No need to be embarrassed, I already know you’re dumb as dirt.
“Since I have already given you the context, where is the iie?”
Since you have lied about what it is, you haven’t given the context, betty.
“Lionel…. he’s the one who said it.”
No he didn’t. Lionel was the one you were talking about, retard.
I think this conversation would go much better if you knew what you were talking about.
Perhaps you should read the comments before you comment rather than prove yourself to be on the retarded side…..which is what you have done.
I can’t help you.
We know that you clot, been obvious since your first Deltoid contribution. Now foxtrot-oscar like the little beetle infester you are.
But I wonder how much of a hand your day job had in this
The first of the above discusses the problems that forestry and other land management issues impact oceanic species populations, particularly those with a life cycle encompassing both oceanic and fresh water stages.
This found by going via link at that Page2 #43 post.
My guess is this is one reason you are so hostile whilst remaining ignorant of the consequences of your actions.
Context you clown, projections may be called predictions to reach the uneducated, but you appear to fall into that special category of uneducated and ineducable – one of the deliberately ignorant. IOW a member of The Wendy Club.
Lionel #67 pg 3 – “Note the context of my writing that, it was in connection with the projected future of the polar bear population. Most everybody clued up understood that but not you Betsy Boob”
Polar Bears? Lets look:
Lionel # 43 pg 2 –
“What an asinine and absurd statement. It is clear that you are totally clueless about the extent of human reliance on ecological services and the intricacy of the webs which link all the species within.”
“Consider just one phenomenon that is rolling out through the oceans as we decimate fish stocks — the burgeoning populations of certain species of what are commonly known as jellyfish. Now I mentioned this upthread but go find a copy of Lisa-ann Gershwin’s excellent,”
‘Stung! On Jellyfish Blooms and the Future of the Ocean’.
…unless there is development on a global scale to prevent the predictions.
“Clot, nobody here is making predictions, that is for soothsayers and prophets, science uses projections based upon scenarios”
All this in response to my (sarcastic) comment to Hardley @ 41 pg 2:
Hardley – “The point is to prevent the world from experiencing the predicted decrease in living things that humans are dependent upon”
“Because only the things we don’t depend on will increase under current predicted catastrophic-only climate scenarios…..unless there is development on a global scale to prevent the predictions.”
Nothing out of context, except your retarded imaginations.
The Deltoid asylum at it’s best.
Retarded Soothsayer Stew Recipe –
Lionel – “Clot, nobody here is making predictions, that is for soothsayers and prophets, science uses projections based upon scenarios”
Mixed with this – “Note the context of my writing that, it was in connection with the projected future of the polar bear population. Most everybody clued up understood that but not you Betsy Boob”
Makes this – http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/07-2089.1/abstract
Jellyfish for desert.
Yes, it’s “dessert”.
Ah, more madeupbollox from the current moron infestation.
sorry dear, but nobody’s reading.
I predicted you would say that.
Of course, it was your only option.
And that’s because you know I’m right.
You said it’s “so easy to check”, yet you have nothing.
Give it up Wow, let it go….you’re done.
It’s easy to check, and it’s all here on this thread. Are you asking me to link to this thread????
Or is pretending you’re even dumber than previously discussed your best option now?
Still nothing. Impressive.
No, not impressive at all, betty.
You’re being quite pathetic,really, but I guess that’s the best you got.
You know, nothing,but the ego-led need to say SOMETHING, no matter how dumbasss it is.
You have yet to link to anything you claim I lied about. Nothing. At what point do you become embarrassed?
And, as usual, you haven’t read what I’ve said.
Why do you want me to link to THIS THREAD WE ARE ON, betty? Are you really so dumb you need pointing at it while you’re still on it?
And what will you do with it? The same as you did when I pointed out your lying or complete idiocy (take your pick: feel free to pick both) when you were talking about Lionel but claimed it was someone Lionel was talking about.
You never even noticed.
Betsy Boo Boo.
From that Wiley link in your #14 (which is a repeat on your part) we find that the Abstract kicks off thusly:
Projections of polar bear (Ursus maritimus) sea ice habitat distribution in the polar basin during the 21st century were developed to understand the consequences of anticipated sea ice reductions on polar bear populations….
Now I have pointed that out up-thread already, you are just so slow, being as thick as two short planks (to use an old naval expression), presumably of Birch.
Now stop being such a £u(k wit.
Wow – when you were talking about Lionel but claimed it was someone Lionel was talking about.
It would help if you actually read what Lionel said, you know, so you would know what you were talking about.
Wow – Why do you want me to link to THIS THREAD WE ARE ON, betty?
Look, I just linked you on this thread, showing how you still haven’t linked anything. Nothing.
See how easy that was.
Lionel, regarding #14, I suggest you eat your dessert.
“It would help if you actually read what Lionel said”
I did. And I also read what you said. And I read what I said. And I read your reply.
And the statement I made you have “replied” to here is neither relevant nor accurate.
IOW another lie.
“Look, I just linked you on this thread”
Which I didn’t require or ask for.
“showing how you still haven’t linked anything”
Yeah, and I’ve never said otherwise.
“See how easy that was.”
See how it wasn’t relevant.
Wow – “I did. And I also read what you said. And I read what I said. And I read your reply”
And you still have no idea what we are talking about.
Now all you have to do is put it all in order, put away your ideologies and imagination, and comprehend what was said.
It is only then that you will realize just how retarded you are.
“And you still have no idea what we are talking about.”
Ah, well, another lie, betty. So sad.
Fairly pointless trying to nail this Betula jelly to the wall, a typical double-talking dipshit, parodied in ‘Blazing Saddles’.
“Fairly pointless trying to nail this Betula jelly to the wall”
Hard to do when you aren’t sure if you are talking about Jelly fish or polar bears…eh Lionel?
New comments have been disabled.
Well, scienceblogs is shutting down at the end of the month. I don’t want all the…
Happy new year!