JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Oceans not acidifying – “scientists” hid 80 years of pH data

Co-authored James Doogue and JoNova

Empirical data withheld by key scientists shows that since 1910 ocean pH levels have not decreased in our oceans as carbon dioxide levels increased. Overall the trend is messy but more up than down, becoming less acidic. So much for those terrifying oceans of acid that were coming our way.

What happened to those graphs?

Scientists have had pH meters and measurements of the oceans for one hundred years. But experts decided that computer simulations in 2014 were better at measuring the pH in 1910 than the pH meters were. The red line (below) is the models recreation of ocean pH. The blue stars are the data points — the empirical evidence.

James Delingpole on ‘Breitbart’:

NOAAgate: ‘ocean acidification’ could turn out to be the biggest con since Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick

 

ocean acidifcation, ph,


[CFACT] Marita Noon:

The alleged fraud was uncovered by Mike Wallace, a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience now working towards his PhD at the University of New Mexico. While studying a chart produced by Feely and Sabine, apparently showing a strong correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and falling oceanic pH levels, Wallace noticed that some key information had been omitted.

Mysteriously, the chart only began in 1988. But Wallace knew for a fact that there were oceanic pH measurements dating back to at least 100 years earlier and was puzzled that this solid data had been ignored, in favour of computer modelled projections.

It has all the usual marks of modern bureaucratized science: scientists use a short stretch of data and computers to guesstimate a long “dataset”. Then when asked, they get huffy, hide the data, and insult the questioner. The poor sod seeking access to publicly funded data has to do an FOIA request, which in this case wasn’t successful, but then he got the data another way anyhow.  Money was wasted hiding the data, it was wasted on bad policies, it was wasted defending an FOIA request, and dare I suggest, it was wasted training and paying the salaries of people who call themselves scientists but don’t act like them.

[CFACT] Marita Noon:

Feely’s chart, first mentioned, begins in 1988—which is surprising, as instrumental ocean pH data have been measured for more than 100 years — since the invention of the glass electrode pH (GEPH) meter. As a hydrologist, Wallace was aware of GEPH’s history and found it odd that the Feely/Sabine work omitted it. He went to the source. The NOAA paper with the chart beginning in 1850 lists Dave Bard, with Pew Charitable Trust, as the contact.

Wallace sent Bard an e-mail: “I’m looking in fact for the source references for the red curve in their plot which was labeled ‘Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2.’ This plot is at the top of the second page. It covers the period of my interest.” Bard responded and suggested that Wallace communicate with Feely and Sabine—which he did over a period of several months. Wallace asked again for the “time series data (NOT MODELING) of ocean pH for 20th Century.”

Sabine responded by saying that it was inappropriate for Wallace to question their “motives or quality of our science,” adding that if he continued in this manner, “you will not last long in your career.” He then included a few links to websites that Wallace, after spending hours reviewing them, called “blind alleys.”  Sabine concludes the e-mail with: “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.” But communications did continue for several more exchanges.

In an effort to obtain access to the records Feely/Sabine didn’t want to provide, Wallace filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

We were told that coral reefs would crumble, crabs and molluscs would be unable to build their protective shells, the ocean food chain would collapse, and therefore the global food chain would fall apart.

Clearly the ten year moving average of ocean pH since 1910 has a slight upward curve. This means that in fact the alkalinity of the ocean has increased, not decreased. It has become LESS ACIDIC. The researchers Feely and Sabine would have known this. But it suited their purpose to truncate the data to start in 1988 to allow them to show a falling pH level over that relatively short period instead of the actual long-term increasing trend.

Wallace says: “Oceanic acidification may seem like a minor issue to some but, besides being wrong, it is a crucial leg to the entire narrative of ‘human-influenced climate change’.”

He adds: “In whose professional world is it acceptable to omit the majority of the data and also not disclose the omission to any other soul or Congressional body?”

What we have here is one of the basic foundations of the climate change scare, that is falling ocean pH levels with increased atmospheric CO2 content, being completely dismissed by the empirical ocean pH data the alarmist climate scientists didn’t want to show anyone because it contradicted their ‘increasing ocean acidity’ narrative.

Further information

h/t to Joffa, Climate Depot, Heartland

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (135 votes cast)
Oceans not acidifying – “scientists” hid 80 years of pH data, 9.6 out of 10 based on 135 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/mkxrb3j

279 comments to Oceans not acidifying – “scientists” hid 80 years of pH data

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Sorry to start the thread with an OT but this one was too good to miss. The jury is finally out on AGW as a religion, the Pope has provided final confirmation.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/04/the-popes-mistaken-moral-calculus-on-global-warming/

    Religious people worrying about climate change is cognitive dissonance at its best. You sincerely believe the world will be destroyed by your spaghetti monster any day now, yet you care whether its 2c warmer when it happens. More climate/religious comedy gold lol :D

    334

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      And some are not laughing. See Pierre Gosselin on NoTricksZone.

      120

    • #
      MacSual

      You sincerely believe the world will be destroyed by your spaghetti monster any day now, yet you care whether its 2c warmer when it happens.

      I don’t know of any main stream religion that worships a “spaghetti monster” though I have heard that a there is a group of atheists who worship this identity,which I suppose makes them theists.

      132

      • #
        sophocles

        I have heard that a there is a group of atheists who worship this identity,which I suppose makes them theists.

        I do not!

        Oops, a case of make up your mind. :-) You have heard of a group of theists who worship…. if they’re worshiping something, anything as a deity then they, by definition, cannot be atheists.

        60

        • #
          The Backslider

          then they, by definition, cannot be atheists

          Not quite so, it depends on what you accept as a true definition.

          Many atheists in fact worship nature, assigning to it incredible powers of intelligence and the power to perform miracles contrary to known science.

          51

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      If Pierre is right then it will be disappointing. Cardinal Pell was one of Australia’s leading cautious sceptics. Then he was called to Rome to work apparently as a financial auditor. It is quite feasible that a non Italian pope would use a non Italian auditor to check out the clique that have been running the organisation for a very long time. But I hope they didn’t call Cardinal Pell to Rome just to take him out of the Climate Change scene.

      If the pope does come out on the side of the CO2 alarmists, he will be putting the doctrine of papal infallibility on the line.

      How much influence does Al Gore have at The Vatican?

      As for the acidification story. How far away is the last straw? It seems the majority of people of the US have rejected AGW. Why is it still so strong in Australia. How did Australians get so ignorant?

      241

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Why is it [acceptance of AGW] still so strong in Australia. How did Australians get so ignorant?

        They didn’t. As a keen observer of Australians in their natural habitat (which would take me off topic, so I won’t go there), the majority are very stoic and pragmatic, and just get on with life and doing what they do, in spite of, “those-bloody-Government-bastards”. They are just taciturn, so you don’t hear much from them. But they don’t give AGW much credence.

        It is the minority, vapourous, latte-sipping, luvvies, living in the “better inner city apartments”, and eating in the currently fashionable restaurants in Sydney and Melbourne, who make all the noise about the end of society as they know it. And they are probably right, because their world of make believe may be about to change radically.

        What will they do then? Poor dears.

        431

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          So long as the money flows from the Government (State or Federal, whichever supplies their income) the minority, latte-sipping luvvies living in the “better inner city apartments”, and eating in the currently fashionable restaurants in Sydney and Melbourne, will continue watching the ABC and make all the noise about the end of society as they know it.

          When the climate changes (financially or weather-wise) they will become hysterical. I feel sorry, slightly – very slightly – or maybe not at all – for them as they have been cocooned in calm, well (financially) nourished conditions and have lost the ability to adapt to other conditions. They all believe there is a big never ending bag of money available for their needs and enthusiasms. You will have noticed that it is always other people’s money they want spent on wind farms/breeding mules/unicorn farming etc. There will be another financial crisis shortly, the banks still think they will be bailed out and the debts of the UK and Europe are worse. Their income (wages, super, pensions) all depend on the government, and when it can’t pay they wind up scavenging from garbage cans as in Greece.

          A bankrupt government will stop all subsidies for solar and wind farms, making them worthless, but I have no sympathy at all for the owners of them, who must have known that was the case.

          231

          • #
            Willy

            Let you all know what happens to the towers they abandon, after liquidating their companies and losing super fund monies.

            50

        • #
          JLC of Perth

          I agree, RW. The few who support AGW are noisy about it.
          The rest of us are getting on with real life.

          160

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          Didn’t you see the Victorian elections? And the Queensland polls? That minority has proved that if you tell a lie loud enough and often enough half the people will believe it. The pragmatic are now in the minority.

          All for want of proper leadership!

          100

          • #
            Dariusz

            If you repeat a lie a 100 times it becomes the truth, a maxim that Joseph Goebells followed and from memory invented. Greens are just following a well proven formula.

            120

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          > “As a keen observer of Australians in their natural habitat…”

          Soooo… Queenstown in August, basically.

          50

      • #
        sophocles

        he will be putting the doctrine of papal infallibility on the line.

        It won’t be the first time. Henry George wrote an open letter to Pope Leo XIII in 1891 about his freshly issued encyclical Rerum Novarum in May 1891, which addressed the condition of the working classes. There’s some interesting history behind all that.

        50

    • #
      gnome

      The pope has a vested interest in keeping as many people as possible poor.

      Demonising CO2 is good religious practice because the poor will grow richer if they are given access to cheap reliable power. If they are richer they will become better educated and reject the authority of their betters. Your ignorance is the pope’s bliss.

      The pope won’t be giving up his energy guzzling ways any more than Al Gore will. Send money- they need it more than you do, and you will only spend it on improving your lifestyle if you are allowed to spend it as you wish.

      230

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      As an agnostic and part-time atheist, there’s only one church I could envision myself joining.
      A daily ringing of the pots and pans on Capitol Hill at 5pm might help the Liberal Party finally see the light, BONG!!

      50

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        I know Dawkins is not exactly the most loved character on this site, but reading most of his books and watching the Rational Thought DVD’s cured my agnosticism. The likelihood of a personal god is so remote as to be safely ruled out.

        My apologies for the tone of my post above though. If there is one thing I have learned from watching Dawkins debate, its that he often undoes his excellent messages with his arrogant and pompous approach to people of faith. I fell into that trap when addressing the issue and again, if I offended anyone I do apologise.

        As a sceptic my desire for evidence runs into everything I do. As a professional compliance auditor, its always “show me, don’t tell me”. But faith is not auditing and I would rather see a peaceful world where everyone respected the beliefs of others than an adversarial world the like of which we seem to be moving into these days, with not only religion vs religion, but religions fighting within themselves.

        My point was really that its quite perplexing to me why anyone who has read revelations (I have read the Bible 3 times and the Quran 1.5 times and keep both on my bookshelf) would care about AGW. If it is a sin to damage the planet, then it will only hasten the end of days anyway which is the goal. There seems to be no explanation why someone who sees this life as a stepping stone to the next would care.

        71

        • #
          Radical Rodent

          It would be interesting to observe Dawkins’ reaction when he finds out he is wrong…

          As for reading the Bible – I tried that, too. Most of it went over my head. It was only when I was shown that it is needed to study it that much of it made sense. It is a long, complex collection of works, and one fascinating thing is that much of it is still relevant today.

          One well-known maxim is that those who do not believe in God will believe in anything; surely, this glowbull warbling thing must show you that.

          75

        • #
          Dariusz

          I read many of his books, logical and old fashioned scientist, but I wonder about his stance on the global climatism. Is he as smart as David Attenborough? Sarc.

          40

        • #
          The Backslider

          As a sceptic my desire for evidence runs into everything I do.

          Then why do you not look? All of nature screams at you “I could not possibly have made myself”.

          All of what you believe is reliant on one sole factor: chance. Very simply math will show you that you simply do not have enough time on your side to create what you believe in.

          52

          • #
            Radical Rodent

            “Seek, and you shall find…”

            So few people do seek; they prefer to take what others – such as Dawkins – say as, er… gospel.

            60

          • #
            Safetyguy66

            Not hijacking this thread any further. :)

            10

          • #
            Winston

            BS,

            I am an atheist, have been since an argument with my scripture teacher at 7 or 8 years of age.

            However, people like Dawkins give atheists like me a bad name. He is every bit the zealot as those he would decry. He is as faith based in his belief system as the most devout religious acolyte.

            That being said, there is an elegance to the universe that goes beyond mere chance or probability, and there are significant entropic forces that must be overcome to drive “creation”. Explanations derived from science seem to my eye to be logistically flawed (though possibly rudimentary and incomplete rather than necessarily wholly incorrect) and my position is that our conscious reality is but a mere speck of a much broader plane (or multiple planes) of existence.

            I don’t think that necessitates a deity as such (and certainly not a human embodiment as often depicted), and I don’t believe (sadly) that humankind will ever be at a place where it can conceptualise reality in its proper and broadest possible perspective. We are not highly evolved enough creatures, and are not capable of perceiving it, and never will be.

            10

            • #
              The Backslider

              That being said, there is an elegance to the universe that goes beyond mere chance or probability

              But, that is all that you have and the numbers are very much against you.

              00

    • #

      The Pope also has declared homosexuality a sin, abortion to be murder, same sex marriage to be wrong, and most interestingly, opposes birth control, which means increasing the world’s population which goes against the global warming mantra. So following the Pope on climate change would seem to be one of those dread “cherry picks” the global warming advocates warn about with skeptics. Here we have a prime example of warmists cherry picking away. (At least many of the warmists. I’m sure some many follow all the ideas of the Pope, except the make-more-people one.)

      50

    • #
      JohnM

      Starting with an OT post is exceptionally rude and a major inconvenience to anyone who wants to read comments ABOUT THE ARTICLE.

      Please refrain from doing this in future.

      51

  • #

    Ocean Acidification was grasped upon, as every other catastrophic climate consequence first requires there to be significant warming from the greenhouse effect.
    It may not be pure climate, but the methods are the same. Take a cut of the data that shows the results you desire, magnify the change, blame it on wicked human beings, and then state the findings as a new truth.

    612

    • #
      Konrad

      These days those most desperately grasping at the “Ocean Acidification” straw are the Big Wind subsidy farmers. Their anti shale gas propaganda campaign has run out of gas and CO2 doesn’t cause warming, so they need something else to throw their bird-blood soaked propaganda dollars into. Something that still makes CO2 the demon.

      But “Ocean Acidification was always a dead end. First they didn’t call it “Ocean Neutralisation”, so everyone knew they were shameless pseudo-scientific propagandists. Second the oceans can’t become acidic until the planet runs out of rocks. Now Feely and Sabine are exposed as as malfeasant as Gergis and Karoly.

      310

    • #
      tony thomas

      As I understand it, ocean Ph varies by place, depth and time of day. The millions of early measurements seem to have been random samplings all over the shop. To get any sensible result, you would need a series based on the same place, depth and time of day. Feely’s post 1988 work met those criteria. The early data is just a mess.
      I fully agree that ‘ocean acidification’ is a junk science theme, but in this instance i fear sceptics have got the bull by the tail.

      13

      • #

        The plot shown doesn’t have “millions of early measurements” marked on it, so how are the datapoints selected? Looking at the data at http://www.abeqas.com/global-ocean-ph-measured-1910-1920/ there seems to be a consistent relationship between depth and pH. Not to difficult to parameterise for that I would say. Likewise for latitude (according to other data I have seen before). I don’t believe time of day wil make any difference beyond depths of a few metres.

        20

      • #

        It looks like Mike Wallace has simply averaged the data for each year in the WOD database. This need to be adjusted for latitude, since ocean pH varies quite strongly in a gradient from the equator polewards. The early measurements (1910-1914) are north Atlantic only.

        10

      • #

        I agree that this may not be what it is presented as—an example of withheld data and fraud. It’s difficult to actually follow what Wallace did. Rog Tallbloke says he simply averaged the data for each year. That would be problematic, as Tallbloke notes.

        This also illustrates the difficulty in trying to turn widely varying values into one number, be it ocean pH or global average temperature. There is a clear admission here by warmists and others that a single value has to be obtained by multiple statistical and mathematical formulas being applied to the data. The thing that stands out most clearly is ONE number in no way represents anything global—not temperature, not pH of the ocean, nothing.

        While ocean pH has been presented as a single number, we are now seeing just how different the numbers really are from place to place. That would seem to be the most important lesson.

        40

  • #
  • #
    Leigh

    I love their reasoning that they didn’t actually “hide” the data.
    It was always there.
    But they didn’t bother to tell anyone while they built the lies around the scare campaign.
    And i might add Jo calling it a scare is stretching the bow to record limits.
    How much have they and their totally dishonest ilk around the world pocketed in “reasearch” monies?
    As each day exposes another “scare”.
    How long do concerned scientists need to “bite” their collective tongues before they call these “scarers” exactly what they are?
    Jo, their science by their silence is killing science.

    503

    • #
      Hasbeen

      For sure genuine scientists need to start to take the UN, & it’s lying groups to task, or take up another line of work.

      There is no longer any scientific announcement that I even take seriously, let alone believe, unless I have taken it apart, & can put it back together, & GOT THE SAME ANSWER. I can only be bothered doing this with things that really interest me, & really matter.

      Otherwise I simply reject what they have said, on the grounds that so many are simply lying. It is I believe, fair to say almost the whole of academia has an agenda, which is anti the general public, & our living standards.

      I simply don’t believe anything any scientist says today, & unless they bring their rogue element into line, & quickly, they will find a huge backlash which will decimate their funding.

      333

      • #
        MacSual

        What is a “genuine” scientist?
        From what I have seen a “genuine scientist” is one who’s work we agree on!

        The term “scientist” is abstract,it is open to interpretation.

        39

        • #
          Leigh

          It’s not about “genuine” or non “genuine” scientists.
          It’s about replicating with the same data the conclusions the “scary scientists” arrived at.
          Concerned scientists are the ones that look at the same data ,if their “lucky” enough to get a look at it and say “hang on a minute, this just doesn’t seem to add up.”
          When posing questions and requests for data to these “scary scientists” they’re more often than not simply told to bugger off.
          Why?
          Because the “scary scientists” say you might find fault with our 97% consensus interpretation of “our data” collected on behalf of the taxpayer.
          I payed for the data and like seeing a doctors report that I’m not happy about.
          I’m entitled to a second opinion.

          210

        • #
          manalive

          Just as a scientific theory can be proved wrong but never right, it’s hard to define a ‘genuine scientist’ but most people I think know a charlatan cheat deceiver fra*dster and scoundrel when they see one.

          190

        • #
          Sean McHugh

          What is a “genuine” scientist?

          1. Someone who isn’t a professional activist.
          2. Someone who doesn’t need to cheat.
          3. Someone who realises that data trumps models.
          4. Someone too busy for PC.
          5. Someone who realises that Hanson-Young and Milne are as dumb as doorknobs.
          6. Someone whose predictions aren’t covered by whatever happens.
          7. Someone who gets more science right than the layman.
          8. Someone who doesn’t do gender studies.
          9. Someone whose main degree isn’t what he adds to the thermometers.
          10. Someone who is very unlikely to be made Australian of the year.

          That will do for now.

          31

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Its the saddest trend in modern science that seems to have originated and proliferated from AGW research (using the word research in its widest possible definition). The tendency to publish the results you like and not publish the ones you don’t, its the hallmark of climate science.

      Keep in mind, this is all happening in an environment where sceptics who discover these matters are called “cherry pickers” when in reality they are completing the cherry picked data of the original researcher.

      As I keep saying to anyone who wants to talk “cherry picking”. An accusation of cherry picking is a direct acknowledgement that evidence exists that refutes, weakens or contradicts an assertion.

      It only makes you more in awe of the physicists who have managed to successfully obscure the counter evidence for gravity so their findings are not “cherry picked” by those pesky times when you drop something and it falls upwards. /sarc off

      252

      • #
        Leonard Lane

        This is an old trick that predates AGW frauds. For example, see Lysenko and his genetics.
        My point is it is when scientists 1) become radical leftists, and 2) when they depend upon radical leftists governments for their support then this type of fraud or post modern science or climate science develops. Leftists lack virtue because they lack honesty and all other desirable qualities. So fraud and deceit and cheating, etc. are the natural result.

        201

      • #

        I like your point that when someone says “cherry picked”, it means there is another possible explanation that they don’t want to talk about. I will remember that.

        00

      • #
        the Griss

        I know a guy who’s contract has been cancelled because the data analysis did not support the claims his employers wanted to make. (yes, its climate related).`

        Without support for “the climate change meme”, the project had nowhere else they wanted to take the contract.

        That’s climate science for you. !!!

        Now he might have to look at how he can get an ARC grant or other climate funding ;-)

        (Sorry, but because he needs the possibility of other work, I cannot give further information on this particular issue, y’all know how vindictive the “climate” guys can be !just ask Salby, Carter etc !)

        31

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Ocean acidification is one of the myths perpetuated by the would -be rulers to bring in the gullible and those who avoided chemistry ( probably rightly given the intellectual capabilities revealed by some trolls in their comments).

    The biggest argument against the idea has always been the White Cliffs of Dover, laid down over millions of years in the Cretaceous when CO2 levels were 3-4 times those of today. Obviously the ocean didn’t become acid, or even get low enough in pH to interfere with marine life, big or small. As for other evidence it requires a knowledge of chemistry which I feel is beyond most trolls.

    I should point out that there is a case known of CO2 causing some sea water to be become slightly acid. It was on a coral reef in PNG where neat CO2 was bubbling out under pressure and the water immediately in contact was slightly acid ( >6.2) but that 30 cms away was alkaline. Think about it before commenting, that mean that 100% CO2 might acidify the sea, but there would be no life on Earth and no way for it to happen.

    Since no gullible troll will be able to resist leaving their mark, we can then measure the number infesting this blog.

    383

  • #
    thingadonta

    “It has all the usual marks of modern bureaucratized science..”

    Yes, the paradox is that we need institutions to run an effective society, but these institutions tend to develop institutional bias which suits the institutions and those within it, not society. All countries struggle with this, and it is the key to developing sound policies and economies.

    The trick is to try and make science more accountable, including improving internal procedures and getting science to follow its’ own rules. Things like access to, and reproducibility results is mandatory.

    141

    • #
      MacSual

      We should not be trying to make science more accountable because that would surmise a starting point of what is accountability ,what we should be encouraging is a general rise in honesty amongst all people.

      110

      • #
        thingadonta

        Whilst I agree that a ‘general rise in honesty in all people’ is certainly part of the issue, I don’t think ‘honesty’ is really the main issue here. It’s much more about deeply held human bias.

        A deeply biased person often thinks he/she is being ‘honest’. A biased person generally thinks it is ok to stretch the truth, or what they can prove, a little. A biased person thinks that it is ok to steadfastly adhere to the organisation’s general agenda because the organisation is doing good work, and doing it such and such a way supports the organisation.

        A biased person generally thinks that being biased is ok.

        (If you look at religion, most deeply religious people wouldn’t consider themselves ‘dishonest’, but they would perhaps consider themselves biased towards their particular beliefs. In fact, many of them might consider themselves extremely ‘honest’, but note they are only being ‘honest’ to their hidden assumptions and beliefs to begin with).

        The biased person may think themselves as being ‘honest’, in one sense, in the sense they are being true to what they believe and think is true in the first place, (such as extending ph data back in time, or cutting off data that doesn’t support the hockeystick), but what they are actually doing is conforming to a biased, pre-determined belief.

        Scientists, like most people, are sometimes terrible at examining and questioning their various, often unconscious, biases. It pops up in various forms all the time, such as researcher bias, confirmation bias, etc etc.

        And moreover, I think a lot of ‘bias’ isn’t about ‘lying’, or dishonesty, as such, but more about deeply held, largely unconscious, biases and assumptions. A good scientist will learn to question their assumptions, the trouble is within some organisations you aren’t really allowed to do this. So over time, those organisations tend to become more and more biased. This is partly why we invented democracy, to deal with the human tendency towards bias (particularly institutional bias), as much as towards things like blatant corruption etc etc.

        Some kind of independent verification, or accountability (or whatever you want to call it), or review, is often required to address issues related to unconscious bias, particularly when it becomes institutionalised.

        100

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        A hallmark of sound science is the publication of all data associated with your experiments and research. This allows every aspect of your work to be seen and assessed. If that counts as “honesty” then so be it, but in reality it is just sound practice.

        http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble

        150

  • #
    Dave N

    Perhaps they could have referred to wind shear measurements instead?

    /sarc

    120

  • #
    • #
      Mark D.

      Acidgate!

      That is good.

      Goes with the heartburn I’m presently dealing with.

      70

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Newsflash: IPCC climate scientists have made an incredible discovery of a civilization that has evolved in the planets increasingly acidic oceans due to dangerous atmospheric CO2 levels, the creatures called ‘Gastricians’ have already built a city that scientists have named ‘Mylantis’.

        IPCC ‘Acidic think tank’ spokesperson Dr Chuck Upton stated “The most exciting part for us is having someone who can actually stomach the rich science we dish out, this life form is perfect for testing our most un-digestable ideas mostly due to it’s caustic persona which is akin to having the ability to clone Milne’s.”

        However an unfortunate turn of events could see Mylantis fall due to a long running war with the Sea Monkeys, the war was started when the Mylantian king ‘William Burnheart’ called the Sea Monkey king a ‘shrimp’ to which a retort of ‘not having the guts’ was directed at Burnheart, the ensuing gastric reflux action has led to a complex Sea Monkey life and death struggle which can be recreated from the back of any comic book.

        291

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      I thought that was about Timothy Leery. ;-)

      30

  • #
    bemused

    Now if this could be put into layman’s language and disseminated appropriately, the outcomes would be interesting. Wishful thinking I guess.

    50

    • #
      Jaymez

      One way to make that happen is readers writing on blogs and to the ‘letters to the editor’, and to members of parliament with appropriate citations showing what we are being told is untruthful.

      It is taking a huge effort to battle the millions of people on the Climate Change gravy train with their vested interests. And battling the millions of academics, journalists and politicians around the world who swallowed the faulty ‘science’ hook, line and sinker, and don’t want to admit they were wrong.

      81

  • #
    Winston

    This is so typical of this entire rancid and foetid CAGW hypothesis and their unethical proponents. This is deliberately deceptive and dishonest, compounded by hiding data and implied threats to anyone who might question their methodology.

    The most appalling part is that societies like the APS and the Royal Society who should provide some oversight and leadership in such matters through censure at the very least, would instead happily tar and feather Mike Wallace, and recommend Nobel prizes to Sabine and Feely, such is the inherent corruption that we have descended into.

    I have lost all confidence in science as it is currently administered, with my own branch (Medicine) being far from immune from the same moral bankruptcy.

    514

    • #
      Frank

      W,
      I agree, the whole scientific community should be chastised and then they’ll stop doing it.

      106

      • #
        Mark D.

        I suppose that would do it. We know that burnings and guillotine are UNfashionable and out of style.

        What else is there left?

        112

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          We can’t use the guillotine, even if we wanted to. Modern Physics, based on computer models, shows that they cannot generate kinetic energy, sufficient to chop somebody’s head off.

          194

    • #
      LevelGaze

      Winston, valued colleague, I think you might be going quite a bit too hard on Medicine in general.

      What you say is possibly true for psychiatrists, probably for psychologists, certainly for Public Health physicians, and absolutely for Public Hospital Administrators (though not all of the last are medical graduates).

      Having been on more than my fair share of the receiving end of medical treatment I have to say that I’m only still here because of it.

      Still, the only gripe I have with my GP (a lovely lass) is over my hypertension medication. She is of the heretical School Of Thought which mandates that NO-ONE’S systolic should be more than 140mm Hg, whereas I was cheerfully taught that 100 + the patient’s age in years was the acceptable norm.

      She pooh-poohs my postural hypotension under her regime.
      And my systolic still isn’t down to 140.
      And probably will never be without killing me.

      90

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    “Climate” “Scientists” faking rsults by fiddling/fineagling/hiding inconveniant data. Really! Who would have thunk it? I mean what kind of mann or womann would do such a thing?

    213

    • #
      MurrayA

      “Climate” “Scientists” faking rsults by fiddling/fineagling/hiding inconveniant data.
      The current euphemism for this is “homogenising”. After all, we must pay due deference to their integrity (sarc.)

      162

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      So we should refer to the collection and publication of real, unadulterated, and verifiable, data as ‘hetrogenising’? Just a thought …

      91

  • #
    TdeF

    There seems to be a lack of understanding of acidic and basic. At ph7, acid and alkali radicals, the two halves of H2O are exactly equal at 10-7 concentration. Acidic is pH under 7. Basic/Alkali is pH over seven. All this data is show alkali. The oceans are alkali, but it has hardly caustic in a practical sense. You could swim in this stuff forever. All life came from this environment.

    The fact is that this talk about becoming more “acidic”, “acidification” is playing semantics. It would be like taking out your own money from the bank makes you more in debt. It is not true.

    At the top alkali pH of 8.2, the population of H+ is (10^1.2)^2 or 256x that of OH-. At the bottom level 7.8 there are still 40x more acid radicals than alkali. At a Ph of 7, they are exactly equal which is neutral fresh water and hardly dangerous anyway.

    Very acidic Cola has a pH of 2.5, so the number of H+ is 1 billion times the concentration of OH-. Now that’s an acid, but there is not even a health warning for acid. Sugar maybe.

    Finally even warmists agree that the amount of CO2 already in the oceans is 50x that in the air, so logically if the oceans are not acid now, they never can be.

    There was no need to hide this data. It shows the sea water is incredibly innocuous and apart from the salt, not the slightest bit dangerous to anyone, even coral.

    363

    • #
      Frank

      Tdef,
      This is reassuring stuff, too good for here, please send it to the CSIRO as they clearly dont know what acids and bases are.

      2314

      • #
        the Griss

        “the CSIRO as they clearly don’t know what acids and bases are”

        Poor Frankie boy, the only time he gets anything right is when he’s trying to be sarcastic. ! :-)

        232

      • #
        TdeF

        Frank, you are clearly familiar with acids and bases. Would you please explain how CO2 causes the alkali oceans to be acid? As you say, the CSIRO would be very interested as well.

        152

        • #
          the Griss

          Maybe Frankie Boi should start searching for a second paper…… one from the CSIRO that shows that a modelled change from ph 8.25 to pH 8.1 makes the oceans acidic.

          He really hasn’t had much success with that one that shows that CO causes warming in an open atmosphere.

          None, Nada, Zip,

          EMPTY.

          122

          • #
            Frank

            G

            Try the IPCC reports , NASA , CSIRO , the whole bloody world , go look them up.

            So apart from them ,no I dont have any evidence and there is a global [snip]

            Just leave your sheltered workshop and submit the evidence please.

            [Stop making such unsupported claims. They will be removed at will and if you persist, you may be removed as well.] ED

            116

            • #
              Robert

              Well it is obviously not “the whole bloody world” as there are many who disagree. Now if you happen to live on another planet as many here suspect you do then perhaps it is YOUR whole bloody world.

              You are quite the drama queen aren’t you? But that seems to be the hallmark of your sort, no actual facts or data just emotive appeals to authority and grandiose statements that you can’t back up.

              How many times do we need to bang you over the head with the fact that the burden of proof is on you? You can stomp your feet here each time you post with your “submit the evidence please” nonsense, but the fact is more people here in their comments have submitted data, links to data, links to studies, and other materials in one day than you have in the entire time you have been thread bombing this site.

              Frank, you wouldn’t know evidence if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the…

              112

            • #
              The Backslider

              submit the evidence please

              You have the evidence on ocean acidification right in front of you, however as a true warmist denier you refuse to look at it.

              101

            • #
              the Griss

              Love the desperation you are showing, Frank.

              You have nothing to back up any of the claims of CO2 atmospheric warming or ocean acidification,

              …. and you know that, because neither of these is happening or can ever happen.

              but you are desperate to “believe” …. because its all you have.

              82

              • #
                Frank

                G,
                Its not me you need to convince G.
                All this mutual backslapping means nothing in the real scientific world.
                You have to leave to comfort of your knitting circle and submit your stuff for peer review where it’ll get the treatment it deserves.

                17

              • #
                the Griss

                Well you can bet that you will never convince anyone of anything except that you are a scientific illiterate with zero concept of science.

                You have not once been able to provide one skerrick of scientific proof for the main warming or acidification fallacies, just cries of worship to the agw priests.

                Your brain-washing has left your mind as empty and irrelevant as your posts :-)

                41

            • #
              Frank

              ED,
              You sniped my pertinent joke about CT paranoia !
              Re: “unsupported claims” my evidence claims are only supported by the vast majority of climate scientists ( real scientists ) whereas your evidence is continually shot down.
              [I snipped an unsupported claim of conspiracy. You are too thick to even understand that was why. My advice to you is to follow instructions and rules or you'll be dealt with accordingly. Your "joke" is not funny and in circles of like minded warmers I'm sure you get all wet every time you mention the C word. I'm here to dry you up.] ED

              16

              • #
                the Griss

                You on the other hand have NO evidence to shoot down.

                You have NOTHING except your infantile pleas to a bunch of paid propagandists.

                You now have two SCIENTIFIC papers you need to provide links to.

                Not doing too well at the moment on that score, are you Frankie Boi !! :-)

                61

              • #
                Frank

                ED,
                Re: the C word , do you read the posts here , eg Griss ? , If it walks like a duck ……..
                Re: AGW evidence, It seems that since all the world’s reputable scientific bodies are BS , then I cant help you, hence the C word justification and the paranoia joke.
                The scientific consensus is not rationally addressed ,instead we just get bizarre CT
                Good luck in the sandpit with the creationists.

                [Yawn Frank. Never let an opportunity to use appeal from authority pass you by eh Frank? Speaking of walking like a duck, I think you walk like a warmist acolyte. Someone with little knowledge and even less understanding. Just a sock puppet spewing as much propaganda as he can. Good luck in the sand pit with the other faithful warmers] ED

                02

            • #
              The Backslider

              Just leave your sheltered workshop and submit the evidence please.

              Ahh right, so you are Michael the Surrealist’s long lost brother and insist on “peer reviewed science” for everything (from us), with no capability for simple investigation and reason on your own behalf (why am I not surprised?).

              You mention IPCC, but this is not even a scientific body and have nothing to do with it. It is a political organisation. You are perfectly happy to accept anything that they say, without peer review. Why is that?

              Ok, so, you want peer reviewed science? Fine, start with this lot and we would be more than happy to debate with you on any of them: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

              20

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Try the IPCC reports , NASA , CSIRO , the whole bloody world , go look them up.

              OK, I looked them up, but only because you asked so nicely. What I found was interesting.

              The IPCC is a bureaucratic organ of the United Nations, which is, itself a standing committee of political delegates, appointed by each country in the world (except one). Do you know which one has chosen not to be a member? I didn’t, until I looked it up.

              NASA is responsible for producing the satellite temperature data, which it releases without adjustment or homogenisation. That data shows no significant warming anywhere. If you disagree then please produce alternative data from NASA that has also not been adjusted and/or homogenised.

              CSIRO only releases temperature data that has been adjusted and/or homogenised, but refuses to release the raw data or details of the adjustment and homogenisation processes. That seems rather odd, for a Government department. It makes you wonder what secrets it might hold.

              “The whole bloody world”, does not notice any appreciable change, because humans are not sensitive to temperature variations measured in hundredths of a degree, per decade, which is what most of the reports address.

              So, you demand that we produce some evidence, but that evidence is not made available to us, to produce to you. But since you are so certain, perhaps you can supply us with what evidence you have, that makes you so certain of the warming, so that we can present it back to you in the context of our scepticism.

              And before you jump up and down, claiming that all of the onus is on us, what I am suggesting is perfectly normal in peer review, in the areas in which I work.

              50

              • #
                The Backslider

                “The whole bloody world”, does not notice any appreciable change, because humans are not sensitive to temperature variations measured in hundredths of a degree, per decade, which is what most of the reports address.

                And this is what most people do not realise, because they constantly hear things like “rapid temperature rise”, “rapid warming”, “accelerated warming” etc.

                The fact is that for the twenty year period in question, 1978 to 1998, the planet warmed a WHOPPING 0.3 degrees.

                This is absolutely nothing whatsoever to be alarmed about, particularly considering that the warming trend has remained flat since 1998.

                Of course, alarmists like to say that the planet has warmed 1 degree (still not much), however the earlier warming periods are not considered by climate scientists to have been affected by anthropogenic influences in any significant way.

                If we look at a graph which shows average global temperatures since 1900 in the same way that a bulb thermometer shows temperature, you can barely see the difference year to year.

                10

        • #
          Carbon500

          TdeF: You’re expecting numbers from Frank. That’ll be the day!

          101

    • #
      TdeF

      Sorry. Usual lack of proof reading. It should read

      “At the top pH of 8.2 in the graph, the concentration of alkali OH- is (10^1.2)^2 or 256x that of acid H+ atoms. At the bottom level 7.8 in the graph, there are still 40x more alkali radicals than acid. “

      140

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        TdeF, I did wonder when I read that! Thanks for correcting it, I feel better now! (I had to re-sit final year chemistry, but I do know about acid and base, I think!)

        60

    • #
      Jaymez

      Excellent comment!

      50

    • #
      Richard

      Nicely put. To add to that, the IPCC’s models ignore CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) precipitation. CaCO3 is a very powerful pH buffer and maintains oceanic pH at around 8. Because the dissolved CO2 in the ocean exists in a state of chemical equilibrium with CaCO3 any extra CO2 added to the ocean would create a corresponding increase in CaCO3 and automatically arrest any pH change. And because there is an overabundance of calcium in the ocean they should have trouble converting the extra CO2 added by humans into CaCO3. As Segalstad explains in his 1996 paper, all the IPCC’s scary model-predications about ocean acidification ignore CaCO3 precipitation.

      41

      • #

        “Once dissolved in seawater, CO2 reacts with water, H2O, to form carbonic acid, H2CO3: CO2 + H2O ↔ H2CO3. Carbonic acid dissolves rapidly to form H+ ions (an acid) and bicarbonate, HCO3-(a base).” from http://theotherco2problem.wordpress.com/what-happens-chemically/

        This site actually notes that the ocean is not acidifying, rather becoming less basic. I mention this because the CaCO3 is mostly in the carbonate and bicarbonate forms, not as CaCO3. There is definatley buffering occurring. I read somewhere, but can’t find it right now, that some believe the CaCO3 is reduced to virtually all ions and really does not exist in the ocean much.

        20

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Sheri
          There are a lot of calcium and magnesium ions dissolved in sea water, conventionally described as the chloride form. With carbonic acid they react to mostly insoluble carbonates, but yes they could be said to be in equilibrium if finely divided solids.

          The question is how much CO2 actually reacts to form ions. Not a lot, probably around 2% with the rest as dissolved gas. Being dissolved is how it’s solubility can change with temperature. The small amount that reacts is dependent on the pH of the sea water; the amount reacting is increased substantially at pH 12 but decreases as the pH drops. Thus the supposed “acidification” reduces the amount converted.
          As I mention elsewhere forcing CO2 in under pressure will lower the pH, but 100% CO2 at 2 atmospheres pressure isn’t possible except on a soft drink bottling line. And most soft drinks have acid added to get the pH down.

          10

          • #

            Graeme No.3: You put this better than I did. There is not a lot of reaction by the CO2 to form the ions. The CO2 does not raise the pH of the ocean in any appreciable fashion.

            10

        • #
          Richard

          That’s interesting, yeah, by my understanding as you increase the partial pressure of dissolved CO2 in a solution you do change pH, namely you lower it (or make it less basic) as can be appreciated by looking at a Bjerrum plot. While HCO3 is basic though it obviously does not negate the “acidifying” from an increase in H2CO3 because the concentration of HCO3 relative to H2CO3 decreases dramatically with pressure. However there is not such a decrease in the relative concentration of CaCO3 when you increase the pressure of dissolved CO2, the ratio remains rather stable which keeps the pH within relatively narrow bounds. Even if the IPCC are right though and pH has decreased there are a host of environmental factors such as eutrophication/degradation, land-based effluents, and temperature that can do the job. But these possible causes have not been eliminated by the IPCC et al much less investigated.

          10

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Agreed, but as you lower the pH the equilibrium shifts away from bicarbonate back to CO2.

            1. Partial pressure
            2. temperature
            3. pH.

            Higher partial pressure means more GAS in solution (the others being the same).
            Lower temperature, more GAS will dissolve.
            pH lower figure means less conversion to bicarbonate so pH doesn’t drop as much.

            So with No.1 constant, lower temperature, lower pH. Higher temperature higher pH.
            With No. 2 constant, higher partial pressure, lower pH – but if the oceans are warming or CO2 causes warming then there will be less CO2 dissolved, so the pH will change little.

            So from this, claims that higher CO2 will cause acidification are fiction and indicate that the gullibles don’t believe CO2 causes warming or that they don’t know any chemistry, or maybe both.

            And remember that even if you tripled the conversion rate you would only be adding 24 ppm of a weak acid to a highly buffered solution.

            00

  • #
    pat

    try telling this to our academics and scientific journals!

    5 Jan: The Conversation: ‘Climate hacking’ would be easy – that doesn’t mean we should do it
    by Erik van Sebille, Research Fellow and Lecturer in Oceanography at UNSW Australia and
    Katelijn Van Hende, Lecturer in Energy Law and Geopolitics at University College London
    Disclosure Statement:
    Erik van Sebille receives funding from the Australian Research Council
    Katelijn Van Hende is a Lecturer at University College London, Australia
    There are three major problems that make this form of geoengineering so dangerous that, hopefully, it will never be used.
    First, it does not address the root cause of climate change. It only addresses one of the symptoms: global warming, while failing to deal with related issues such as ocean acidification. This is because our carbon dioxide emissions will continue to build up in the atmosphere and dissolve in the oceans, making seawater more acidic and making it harder for species like corals and oysters to form their skeletons….
    http://theconversation.com/climate-hacking-would-be-easy-that-doesnt-mean-we-should-do-it-35200

    30 Dec: Scientific American: John Upton: Rapidly Warming Oceans Set to Release Heat into the Atmosphere
    The seas have stored most of the excess heat generated by greenhouse gases since 2000, but they are due to send it back skyward
    The impacts of ocean acidification, which is caused when carbon dioxide dissolves into seas and reacts with water, is a topic that scientists and governments are only just starting to grasp in meaningful ways. With taskforces and research projects being launched across the globe, 2015 promises more answers not only on ocean warming, but on the shellfish-ravaging and fish-baffling effects of falling pH levels.
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rapidly-warming-oceans-set-to-release-heat-into-the-atmosphere/

    82

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      They should change the name of their journal, but to what?

      The Hysterical Scientist?
      The Ignorant Scientist?
      The ILLOGICAL Scientist?

      121

    • #
      Raven


      It’s Michael Mann vs Mother nature.

      Mann tried to hide the decline and the MWP.
      Mother Nature apparently responds by hiding the heat in the deep oceans and she’s probably hiding the ‘acid’ down there as well.

      Mother Nature is so darn clever.
      She’s hiding all the parameters that Climate Science™ is trying to measure.

      20

  • #

    It’s pretty much the inverse of the AMO.

    40

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Well spotted, Ulric.

      Even crudely placing a graph of temperature, AMO, and PDO over the top of the pH readings shows a probable causal relationship.

      The PDO (shown in blue) is just there for completeness, and some parts of pH mimic it a little bit, but I agree the AMO (in green) looks much more similar to pH when vertically flipped.

      Hypothesis
      Presumably the temperature oscillation and the pH oscillation are both caused by recurring oscillations in the speed of ocean overturning. As most chemists would be aware, the ocean is a highly pH buffered solution. An increase in carbonic acid ion is offset by its conversion into other molecules with commensurate reversible consumption of the buffering species. With the rate of CO2 entering the oceans it is however possible that the surface can be slightly depleted in buffering species. Overturning would bring water from the deep that is both cold and richer in buffering chemicals, thus decreasing ocean temperatures and increasing pH. (It also temporarily stores surface heat and CO2 deeper down which both presumably escape at a much slower pace once put there.)

      The maximum daytime surface temperature sets the speed of overturning overnight, so the temperature is an indicator of the volumetric overturning rate. Similarly the pH and the temperature should be proportional to the integral of the overturning rate, as “coldness” and buffer are incrementally deposited at the surface during fast overturning, and are depleted by insolation and CO2 during slower overturning.

      The AMO index is another indication of the phase of the oscillation in overturning speed and also bears a close resemblance to temperature when detrended by 0.5°C.

      Test
      To roughly test this hypothesis of natural pH change there are two ways to try to reconstruct the pH from other observed data.
      * The AMO can be smoothed and flipped vertically.
      * The temperature can be detrended and flipped vertically.

      The result looks like this graph.
      The integral of temperature is used to estimate the hypothetical global overturning oscillator in green.
      The temeprature-based proxy of pH is shown in red.
      The AMO-based proxy of pH is shown in blue.

      Result
      Unfortunately, as you can see, the hypothesis is rejected by the data, at least under this simplistic processing method. The pH predicted by the AMO or SST series does not match the pH data revealed by Wallace at any time prior to 1960. There is no 1940s plateau in the proxy as seen in the pH measurements.
      As the AMO is about a 60 year cycle at the moment this data doesn’t match for even one whole cycle, let alone the two it would take to be sure of a match.
      It would be easy at this point to cherry pick data to ignore/emphasise, but that wouldn’t be defensible.

      So we are left with pH roughly following AMO/temperature-based overturning after 1960, but that could be coincidence, and what happened before 1960 is uncertain.

      Another hypothesis: what if the apparent relationship is because the pH measuring equipment was systemically biased by the sample water temperature and hasn’t been corrected. I mean, they don’t measure pH using that equipment design any more, maybe there’s a good reason for that??

      30

      • #
        The Backslider

        It would be easy at this point to cherry pick data to ignore/emphasise, but that wouldn’t be defensible.

        Sure it would! Just ask Feely and Sabine…..

        30

  • #
    Cookster

    This is yet another piece of information that should be sent to all science journalists and politicians. No it won’t change the MSM reporting on its own but every little bit of truth helps – it plants another seed of doubt in their minds that what they are being fed about human caused global warming is the whole truth. It’s bad enough they use acidification to describe a slight lessening of the alkalinity of the oceans but that they have also withheld data is nothing short of a disgrace and they all deserve public embarrassment as a result.

    101

    • #
      Old_Scientist

      another piece of information that should be sent to all science journalists and politicians

      It definitely should not be circulated as it’s flawed junk science. If that’s Wallace’s level of scientific competency he will not be getting a PhD. If you need to know why it is scientifically flawed I can walk you through the errors.

      also withheld data

      That is not strictly accurate as the pH data are freely available on NOAA’s website. They are, however, of little use as they lack quality assurance by not being repetitive measurements at the same depth, at the same chronological time and date, at the same locality for multiple years.

      [Old_scientist, if authors were not prepared to tell Wallace where they got their source data, then it was being withheld - don't quibble! Wallace is not some pimply-faced young upstart, he is a highly experienced, knowledgeable post grad qualified hydrologist. I accept that the NOAA data is not ideal, but that didn't stop NOAA's chief from using a selective period of the data to exclaim: The speed by which the oceans' acid levels has risen caught scientists off-guard, with the problem now considered to be climate change's "equally evil twin," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco told The Associated Press.

      It is only fair therefore to look at the complete record of data being used to make such claims. - Mod]

      217

      • #
        The Backslider

        If you need to know why it is scientifically flawed I can walk you through the erro

        We keenly await your erudite dissertation on this topic.

        Fire away!

        101

        • #
          Old_Scientist

          Let me repeat: Wallace’s lack quality assurance by not being repetitive measurements at the same depth, at the same chronological time and date, at the same locality for multiple years. Now if that doesn’t help you figure out what is wrong with Wallace’s work go a little deeper:

          1) the problem with the graph made by Wallace is that he lumped all available glass electrode pH data together, no matter the distribution of the samples over the places or seasons where/when they were taken in a certain year. Latitude can make a difference of up to 1 pH unit and the seasons add up to 0.2 pH unit to that. As the whole theoretical drop in pH is not more than 0.1 pH unit over 160 years (of which 0.04 pH unit, measured since 1984), what Wallace has done has no value at all.
          2) Seawater chemistry calculations are already done for over 80 years. Any calculated pH from other known ocean values is more accurate than the pH measurements made by glass electrodes.
          3) Wallace’s compilation is wrong can be also simply proven: some of his results violate Henry’s Law with changes of global pH of 0.2 units or more from one year to the next. That is only possible if there was a change of 200 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere (or acid/base equivalent) in one year which has not been observed in the history of the planet. While the ocean is complex, the influence of CO₂ on every part of the oceans is straight-forward: if CO₂ increases in the atmosphere, that pushes more CO₂ into the oceans or decreases the releases. The same for a global temperature increase or a global increase in bio-life.
          4) There is an overlap between Sabine and Wallace’s datasets in the period 1984-current where the former shows a drop of 0.04 pH unit for the fixed stations and the latter 0.3 pH units. Wallace’s is chemically and physically impossible, as that needs some 300 ppmv CO₂ increase in the atmosphere (or acid equivalent) over the same period once.

          15

          • #
            the Griss

            “Wallace’s is chemically and physically impossible, as that needs some 300 ppmv CO₂ increase in the atmosphere (or acid equivalent) over the same period once.”

            Only if you are so naive and non-scientific to actually believe that CO2 is the only driver of ocean pH level.

            72

            • #
              Old_Scientist

              I’ll bite … what shifted the global ocean pH as you allege and tell me why it was not observed at the dedicated monitoring stations?

              15

              • #
                the Griss

                “what shifted the global ocean pH”

                I don’t allege any shift in global ocean pH.

                That’s your baby !

                81

            • #
              The Backslider

              I don’t allege any shift in global ocean pH.

              Ha ha ha! I think he may be suffering “old timer’s disease” :-P

              00

            • #
              Old_Scientist

              About the drop in pH: there are several possibilities to lower the pH of the oceans, like undersea volcanoes (more SO₂, HCl and other strong acids), but if that was the case, the total amount of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) would drop with reduced pH, expelling CO₂ into the atmosphere. Currently the reverse is observed: DIC increases with reducing pH. That means that more CO₂ is pushed into the oceans, in quite the exact ratio to the increase in the atmosphere (which is governed by Henry’s law). That is what is/was observed and measured over the past 30 years.

              Ocean carbon chemistry was established over 80 years ago and is quite straightforward: if you have a few accurate measurements, you can calculate all the other parameters, including pH. The calculation in general is more accurate than a direct pH measurement with electrodes. In the case of historical CO₂ levels, it is possible to back calculate the pH from ancient levels, like the beginning of the industrial revolution or even during ice ages… Wallace only used the glass electrode pH data and ignored the differences in sampling place and time, making his pH “trend” to have no meaning at all. He also ignores the calculated pH from the past and current which show more reliable pH levels. There was no fraud from Sabine or Feely or the many other that have measured a lot of ocean items over the years, only a wrong interpretation of inaccurate pH data by Wallace which gets him to conclude a 0.3 pH shift (versus observed and measured at 0.04) which you alleged support.

              02

          • #
            The Backslider

            As the whole theoretical drop in pH is not more than 0.1 pH unit over 160 years

            Right. So we are all supposed to be alarmed over a “theoretical drop” of only 0.1 over 160 years????

            You are of course aware that a theory is not complete science. Next you need empirical evidence.

            After that you need to convince us all that we should be alarmed about something which is well within the bounds of natural variation (which you have so eloquently pointed out all by yourself).

            Hurry along now, won’t you?

            31

            • #
              Old_Scientist

              a theory is not complete science

              may be you need to look up what theory means in science. Thanks for the confirmation that you’re neither a scientist nor scientifically literate. FYI: current instruments measure pH to .001 pH accuracy.

              13

              • #

                OS, BS cannot concede that point or one of his arguments against just about anything scientific would be exposed.

                31

              • #
                The Backslider

                may be you need to look up what theory means in science

                No, I do not. I just used words which you can understand, since you misapply the term in place of “hypothesis”.

                You see, to create a true theory, yes, empirical evidence is required, which you do not have because it has been discarded. Computer simulations cannot provide empirical evidence, which is essentially all that you have.

                Again, you have failed to show why we should be alarmed over a hypothetical 0.1 drop over 160 years.

                You also need to show us the DATA for the complete 160 years, otherwise you have nothing.

                You show to us that you are no scientist, but rather only a troll, since your main line of defense is always ad hominem (as is with Gee Aye).

                Off you go now…..

                32

              • #
                the Griss

                Thing is, that any REAL scientist would know that nearly every “scientific theory” is always up for revision, therefore NOT complete.

                That is what REAL science is about.

                But then, you are not a REAL scientist, are you, or you would know that.

                22

  • #
    realist

    With a past life in marine science, I’m appalled by the (sometimes) gross lack of professionalism exhibited by people who do and should know better, where the somewhat sordid culture of green activism has been so contaminating even once-respected marine scientists have been sucked into the whirlpool of the alleged “ocean acidification” meme. Any scientist worth their salt knows pH is simply a measure of the hydrogen ion concentration of a solution. In marine and particularly estuarine waters, pH is also a very dynamic parameter, varying with depth, temperature, tides, seasons, geography and other factors.

    And, most important, marine waters are alkaline (or basic). So to specifically mis-use (or apply) the term, “acidification”, is not only deliberately misleading so as to confuse those less “expert” in basic chemistry, one could suggest, in a scientific context, it’s also bordering on fraudulent when used for political motives and monetary gain (follow the grants or tenure trail).

    The noun, acidification, is the process of (a solution) becoming acid or being converted into an acid. In other words, crossing the line, as it were, from neutral (pH 7.0) to be less than 7.0, or to decrease further, to become more acid. If pH is greater than 7.0, by definition the solution is basic, or alkaline.

    If the pH changed from 7.9 to 8.2, it would be correct to say it was become more alkaline, not becoming “less acid” (it wasn’t acidic to begin with). Equally, if a solution changed from pH 5.8 to 6.5, it would not be correct to say it was “being alkalised”, it’s just becoming less acidic. So to suggest, imply or deliberately state that (alkaline) marine (oceanic) waters are being subject to “acidification” (by CO2 “caused by” AGW) is a deliberate mis-use of terminology, and secondly, correlation is not causation.

    If the pH of marine (oceanic) water falls from 8.2 to 7.9, what is not occurring, is “acidification”; it’s simply becoming less alkaline. The AGW meme has contaminated the professional standing of science by the poor choice of attitude and behaviour of people, although “trained” (the definition of which is somewhat circumspect) in the discipline of science, who instead appear to prefer the lack-of-any-standard, environmentalism and political activism.

    It’s perhaps just as well such “eminent scientists” don’t equally mis-use and mis-apply the terms, aerobic and anaerobic, as they do with alkaline with acid(ification), lest they try to pass of the latter as the former, as that would really cause a stink.

    333

    • #
      Winston

      I think the above implies that it is not even becoming “less alkali”, let alone acidifying- so it is a misrepresentation of a fabrication- therefore doubly dishonest.

      That tangled web being woven by the climate brethren threatens to ensnare them completely.

      121

    • #
      StefanL

      “aerobic and anaerobic, …….. , as that would really cause a stink.”
      Very nice pun.

      50

      • #
        the Griss

        I was doing what was meant to be ‘aerobic’ exercises the other day.

        My lungs told me it was very much anaerobic !!

        A decided lack of O2 !

        72

        • #
          the Griss

          seriously.. how can a post making fun of my own lack of physical fitness earn two red thumbs !

          I’m sure these twerp can’t read or understand anything !

          … its just brainless, non-IQ “bot” response.

          01

  • #
    handjive

    All aboard!
    The Pope boards the Doomsday Global Warming Gravy Train. Standing Room Only!

    Pope Francis: ‘I believe in guardian angels…and everyone should listen to their advice’
    ~ ~ ~

    And so, life imitates art …
    In this 3.00 minute youtube video, Linus explains the papal science in the return of Doomsday Global Warming the Great Pumpkin.

    (From the movie, An Inconvenient Truth It’s The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown)

    Charlie Brown sums it all up @24+seconds: “They’re obviously separated by denominational differences.”

    The irony continues.
    The laughs continue …

    80

  • #
    stephen

    I think that most climate scientists are conning us as I stated last week about another bent one , who’s up next week

    92

  • #
    handjive

    New Ocean Map Reveals Thousands of New Sea Mounts

    The researchers say the new map is twice as accurate as the previous map created about 20 years ago.

    This video from Scripps Oceanography shows you some of the findings around the globe with the new ocean maps.

    The video shows the fracture zones around our planet and some unexplored ocean ridges discovered by the virtual gravity gradients on the maps.

    http://www.sciencespacerobots.com/new-ocean-map-reveals-thousands-of-new-sea-mounts-101120142

    The surface of Mars is better known than the surface of our deep oceans.

    90

  • #
    Geoffrey Cousens

    I caught up with old[30 years] school friends the other night [Melbourne Grammar] and was trying to explain the green blob cartoon when a sickening realization hit me,they had all turned green.Oh the horror!
    I really do think it is demonstrative of a form of mental illness.
    Needless to say I got out as soon as possible.Sad.

    141

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      I know the feeling! I just cannot find anybody in my immediate circle of friends or relatives that does not believe in AGW and, worse, are prepared to listen to a different point of view. Unfortunately, it is a discussion that I cannot have with anybody, which is why I read this blog every day. It is SO comforting!

      110

      • #
        Jaymez

        The best way to discuss climate change with people like that is to let them tell you what they believe. You then simply ask why? They almost never have any understanding of the facts, they are just repeating what they have heard or read. Then you can fill in the gaps for them starting with really basic stuff which confirms some of what they believe: e.g.

        1. No doubt you have read about retreating glaciers? They answer yes isn’t it terribly? You ask why is it terrible? They usually have no answer.

        Then you can say the retreating glaciers are revealing that forests and grasslands used to stand where the glaciers covered. Which do you think is better for the Earth’s biodiversity, forests and grasslands, or barren ice?

        If they are really smart they might say “but the glaciers provide much of the water flow down stream to some of the world’s mightiest rivers, and support massive populations.”

        That is true you say. But how is the glacier formed? It is formed by falling snow compacting and eventually becoming heavy enough to compress into ice and gradually flow down hill. In summer mass melting and break up of ice can cause severe flooding down stream. Don’t you think a slightly warmer climate might actually be better for civilisation? Where precipitation falls as more consistent rain rather than snow and flows downhill to form more consistently flowing rivers upon which populations can rely for water supply, damming and storage, hydro-electricity and irrigation. Less flooding, more growth? What’s the problem?

        2. Ask have they heard of previous warm periods in history which were as warm or warmer than present day temperatures? These were known as the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, The Minoan Warm period. They would almost invariably nod their heads in accent. Then you can explain that well before the ‘global warming’ scare, scientists would generally refer to these periods collectively as the ‘Climate Optimum’ periods. Do you know why? Because these warmer conditions were considered optimum for human growth and habitation. Growing seasons were longer, areas where crops would successfully grow were more extensive, in fact much further north than today.

        What would be wrong with returning to such periods of abundance?

        3. Have you heard of the Little Ice Age? Yes they would say. Did you know that the LIA was one of the worst periods in recent human history in which to live? Growing seasons were shorter, frost and cold caused many crops to fail. Livestock starved or died from cold. An estimated one third of the then population in Europe died from starvation and disease.

        The end of the LIA coincided with the start of industrialisation and the current global warming trend. In fact since about 1860 the rate of global warming has risen and fallen and had periods of stagnation, but in general has remained about the long term trend rate despite claims by scientists that warming has accelerated, and despite the exponential increase in atmospheric CO2.

        So clearly there is not a great correlation between global warming and human CO2 emissions, which is why the IPCC’s climate models failed to predict the lack of any warming since 1998. Of course the IPCC had claimed the science was settled back in the 1980′s and 1990′s, but now there are dozens of theories as to why the world hasn’t warmed since 1998 despite ever increasing CO2 emissions. Does that sound like the science is settled to you?

        But frankly, why would anyone want to return to the global temperatures which existed prior to Industrialisation? The cooler temperatures, shorter growing seasons, lower crop yields would lead to starvation and would impact on the poor much more than the wealthy. The need and cost for heating would rise as would fuel costs. I’m hoping we stay in this Climate Optimum period which is called the Modern Warm Period.

        4. Have you heard the theory that if the frozen tundra’s melt then all the carbon dioxide and methane which is locked up in the frozen soil will be released? That this will cause a massive positive feedback loop multiplying the global warming caused by human CO2 emissions? Your friends would probably nod yes, they had heard that. Then ask them how was that methane created in the first place where did it come from? There faces will probably draw a blank. So you can explain that the soil hasn’t always been frozen. In fact it was covered with plants. These plants grew, died, rotted, and more plants grew in their place. Then the earth grew cold the ground froze and the methane and carbon dioxide from the laid down decaying plant material, which would naturally be stored or released from the soil was frozen in place. Sure if that soil now melts there will be a release of methane and carbon dioxide. But the soil will also be able to once again support plant life as it had once before. That plant life will act as a carbon dioxide sink extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and so the cycle will continue. Nothing to fear at all.

        Where is that explanation in the climate alarmist warming models?

        I could go on with so many examples. At some point I say, look, virtually all of the fear about global warming is based on not actual data, and what is actually happening, but it is based on computer modelling which automatically assumes that the climate is sensitive to human released carbon dioxide. This theory is being disproved every day as human CO2 emissions increase, yet the predicted acceleration of global warming fails to appear. And the accelerated sea level rises, and ocean acidification and so on and so on.

        Unfortunately there are so many academics, scientists, environmental activists, journalists, celebrities, politicians and so on, who may have expressed concern about man made global warming from a genuine belief, but now find that they can’t back down from there very public support. So they either keep pushing, or keep quiet unfortunately allowing misguided and mis-directed policies from proceeding. It will take a whole generation of turnover before they stop clutching at their straws.

        232

        • #
          the Griss

          Jaymez,

          I am so glad when someone write a long post like this.

          I really don’t have time or inclination to try to write this much to explain things to the twerpish agw bletheren. (I’ve taught below 100 IQ students for way too long)

          Copy to word and save.. use later if needed.

          Thanks for the time and effort. :-)

          00

      • #
        Hasbeen

        That is interesting.

        Most of my friends are not young, with a wide range of education standard. I can’t think of one who does believe in AGW, except perhaps my lady.

        Being a nice lady she would never knock the system, so just may believe, but not mention it. She certainly avoids the topic.

        One thing I find heartening, my son [30] & all his mates use very strong language in condemning the whole AGW thing as a scam.

        70

      • #
        Dariusz

        PP
        Once you start thinking your effectively banish yourself to your own mind. Over the years I have subjected myself to such a banishment on regular basis and the climarage is no different. At first I used to despair, but now my best friend is my brain. I enjoy seeing it learn, expand knowledge, get lost sometimes, but never dull. I am never bored as I am continually conversing, changing sides, never get angry, although annoyed sometimes. I do have a good relationship and we celebrate together getting wiser.
        Jo,s web is a welcomed enjoyment but no substitute.
        All sound cheesy though, but agree with Maggie Thatcher “there is no such thing as a society”. There is only you and your brain.

        40

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    I was expecting a few acid comments from the eco-fascists.

    101

  • #
    pat

    am watching the Hopman Cup in Perth…so there is mention of the heat. here are two reports:

    5 Jan: PerthNow: AAP 1.53pm: Claire Bickers: Heat warning as temperatures in Perth forecast to soar to 41C
    THE mercury hase soared past the predicted maximum of 41C, with Perth recording a baking hot 43.4C around lunchtime…
    The all-time January record for Perth is 45.8C on January 31, 1991. The record for any month is 46.2C, on February 2, 1991…
    The mercury is expected to drop throughout the week, with 36C forecast on Tuesday, 33C on Wednesday, 30C on Thursday and 29C on Friday…
    http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/heat-warning-as-temperatures-in-perth-forecast-to-soar-to-41c/story-fnhocxo3-1227174069845

    Fairfax’s WA Today reports a slightly higher temp for today. also Fairfax doesn’t report the considerable drops in temperature being forecast for the rest of the week, (even if they don’t pan out), preferring to write “With the temperatures to stay hot over the coming days”…

    5 Jan: WA Today 1.08pm: Brendan Foster: Perth cooks as the mercury passes 40 degrees
    According to the Bureau of Meteorology, shortly after 1pm, temperatures soared to 44.2 degrees in the city – making it the third hottest January day since records began in 1876…
    Only January 31, 1991, at an incredible 45.8 degress and the 44.7 degrees hit on 12 January, 1978, surpass the temperatures, in January, hit in the city on Monday.
    It looks unlikely that the temperature will continue to rise and will fall somewhat short of the highest ever recorded temperature in Perth of 46.2 degress back in 23 February, 1991…
    The hot spot was Pearce, north east of Perth, which was a stifling 44.3 degrees just after midday…
    With the temperatures to stay hot over the coming days, the WA Health Department says Perthites needed to take measures to avoid heat stress…
    http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perth-cooks-as-the-mercury-passes-40-degrees-20150105-12i6cz.html

    61

    • #
      JLC of Perth

      This is normal for Perth. We get several 45 degree days every summer, usually in February but a hot spell in January is not surprising. It’s been quite a mild summer so far. Christmas Day was a pleasant 30.

      100

      • #
        Dariusz

        Listening to the radio this arvo one would think that this was a catastrophic event. No one said that November and December were usually cold last year in Perth. But wait, one day of hot weather in Perth all hell breaks loose.
        This kind of reporting is relentless now and it spread from OUR ABC to commercial TVs. Now I can,t watch any of them, can,t buy water melons, can,t go to church fearing green pope mobile and waiting for the year of the green death.

        40

      • #

        Not every summer; about 1 in 5.

        iiNet blamed their overheating data centre problems on “record” temperatures. I corrected them on Facebook.

        iiNet has a tough job because it’s quite clear from comments on the subject that very many of their customers have little to no idea how stuff works; and they’re not interested in finding out. They just want stuff to work all of the time and don’t care to know why things can break.

        00

  • #
    Ernest Bush

    There is an excellent post by Willis Eschenbach at WUWT dated Jan 2 which goes into a lot of detail about this subject. One thing that is very apparent from the article is that there is no real average ocean pH. It varies greatly, sometimes from day to day, in any one spot. Setting an average is about as useful as using the GISS database to determine a world average temperature. Some areas have repeated measurements over long periods of time, but vast stretches of ocean do not. He also advises skeptics to use the term neutralization instead of acidification. One thing apparent from the article is that fish actual enjoy a more neutral environment than an alkali one. Something I remember, also, from high school is that the scale is not linear.

    Another article by a skeptic attempts to show that if you took all the CO2 out of the atmosphere and suddenly put it in the ocean there would not be enough to change the pH from 8.1 to 8.0. It’s a big ocean out there and a wispy little atmosphere over our heads.

    121

  • #
    Richo

    Most sea creatures evolved in an acidic environment so they are unlikely to be adversely affected by the reduced alkalinity of the oceans ie H2S emissions from hydrothermal vents. The Permian-Triassic extinction event was probably caused by H2S from volcanoes and the creatures that survived are probably adapted for mildly acidic environments. Increasing alkalinity is more likely to have an adverse impact on sea creatures.

    30

    • #
      Dariusz

      90%’of species disappeared at the end of the Paleozoic, far more catastrophic than the extinction of dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous (about 65% of species) and that was caused by the asteroid impact.
      But readless of the true nature of the extinction the Australian continental shelf is dominated by kilometres of carbonate sedimentation. This also applies to the cold South Australian water. To turn this acidic is like bringing 20 litre HCL drum to the ex-Sheraton Laguna hotel swimming pool in Bali.

      20

  • #
    RoHa

    Lesee now.

    The temperature isn’t rising.
    There is no troposphere hot spot.
    The Earth radiated more heat when the temperature was rising.
    The Poles are not melting.
    Northern Hemisphere winters are getting colder and snowier.
    Australia is not stuck in a permanent drought. (Pissing down here in Brisbane.)

    And now, sea is not getting more acidic.

    Can the Warmers keep up this impressive record? Surely they must get something right some time, even if only by accident.

    274

    • #
      Konrad

      “Surely they must get something right some time, even if only by accident.”

      Actually this is impossible for the climastrologists. Even if they admit to the lack of warming, they have to lie about the reasons. They can never admit the truth for fear of public lynching*. And the truth is they got the most “basic physics” of the “settled science” utterly wrong. There is no net radiative GHE on planet ocean, therefore AGW due to CO2 is physically impossible.

      Climastrologists calculated that the surface of the planet, which they claimed was a “near blackbody” would be at 255K for an average of 240 w/m2 of received solar radiation if there were no radiative atmosphere. They claimed that this was being raised 33K by our radiative atmosphere. 255K is fine for a “near blackbody”, but 71% of the surface of our planet is actually an extreme short-wave selective surface. Our radiatively cooled atmosphere is cooling our solar heated oceans. The climastrologists got it so wrong it beggars the imagination.

      *note – for the humour deprived I am not advocating actual public lynching. I want climastrologists to face as many years of burning public shame, kept searingly hot by the permanent record of the internet, as absolutely possible.

      70

  • #
    Frederick Colbourne

    The 10-year average for ocean pH (the light blue line in the chart) seems to have moved in line with the ocean temperatures, not CO2 content of the atmosphere as measured at Mauna Loa.

    This is consistent with out-gassing of CO2 in response to warming, which would infer the causation as follows: Warming produces increased atmospheric CO2 out-gassing from the oceans (Henry’s Law).

    You see CO2 out-gassing when your carbonated drink generates bubbles and eventually becomes flat. The CO2 is out-gassed because your drink warms up.

    Dr Murray has claimed that ocean warming causes net ocean outgassing of CO2, which seems to be why Macquarie University in Australia him. Dr Salby is one of the world’s leading atmospheric physicists who has authored a leading textbook, Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate.
    http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Atmosphere-Climate-Murry-Salby/dp/0521767180

    NASA’s orbiting carbon observatory may confirm Dr Salby’s claim. Note that the online map shows more intense carbon dioxide levels about where the inter-tropical convergence zone (ITCZ) lies.

    There are other areas of high atmospheric carbon intensity of course, but did anyone expect the intensity to be so high in the tropics. Apparently, Dr Salby did.

    http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/

    174

  • #
    pat

    shock…horror…call for his resignation immediately:

    6 Jan: SMH: Latika Bourke: Taxpayers fund Abbott MP’s climate-change denialism
    One of the federal government’s most prominent climate-change deniers has billed taxpayers for a series of books that argues global warming is a hoax.
    MPs are allowed to buy publications including books, journals, magazines and newspapers as part of their taxpayer-funded allowances.
    Queensland National MP George Christensen’s latest expenses filed with the Finance Department show that he bought three books on climate-change denialism: The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future; Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fuelled Global Chaos; and Taxing Air Australia.
    Mr Christensen has previously told a sceptics conference in the United States that climate change is like a science-fiction-cum-comedy film plot…
    He could not be reached for comment.
    The books cost taxpayers $100…
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/taxpayers-fund-abbott-mps-climatechange-denialism-20150105-12i57u.html

    surely this is one of the most insane CAGW pieces Fairfax has ever reported!

    151

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Why haven’t Feely and Sabine been sacked and sued for misappropriation of public money?

    155

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Perhaps it is because those who supply them with public money, see them as useful idiots?

      153

    • #
      Old_Scientist

      Simple answer, Feely and Sabine are scientifically correct whereas Wallace’s scientific incompetence has fooled you. If you don’t know why start by mulling over why trends are determined by anomaly data and not empirical.

      [This is absurd. Anomaly data is simply a reference to the empirical data over a selected period of time. However long term trends are based on the empirical data. What F & S were trying to do is cut and pace a statistically short period of time from the empirical data, and use that as their trend line. Had they shown the long term empirical data it would have shown up their work for what it was. Which is of course why they were reluctant to release the data. - Mod]

      424

      • #
        The Backslider

        Feely and Sabine are scientifically correct

        Please explain to us all how computer simulations are science and not just statistics (lies, damned lies and statistics).

        142

      • #
        Old_Scientist

        Obviously the moderator is not a scientist nor scientifically literate. Empirical data at random locations measured randomly in time are almost meaningless and the rest of you answer is just factually incorrect and nonsense. See my fuller explanation of where Wallace went wrong in reply to the person who needed more science time stamped January 6, 2015 at 7:40 am.

        410

        • #
          StefanL

          “Empirical data at random locations measured randomly in time are almost meaningless ..”
          If there are sufficiently many data points and they are in fact randomly distributed in location and time, then in any short time interval there will be a distribution of data values and the time evolution of these distributions (e.g. the median value) is useful information.

          53

          • #

            Isn’t that what “bootstrapping” does? You don’t have a sample you need, so you create a sample that is similar. Do it over and over and it is believed to produce good results (whatever that is). I don’t know how yet to use “R” to create these, but I know it’s becoming more and more used in global warming. If any of you reading this know how this works or can explain better than my clumsy attempt here, does bootstrapping basically create sample data out of data that is available, with the belief that this can be applied to unknown data?

            20

            • #
              The Backslider

              Isn’t that what “bootstrapping” does? You don’t have a sample you need, so you create a sample that is similar.

              I think you have it. Then with Sabine and Feely we have the different case of: You don’t have the sample you want, so you disregard it and fabricate your sample with a computer simulation which you know will always give you the expected result. Climate models function in exactly the same way.

              22

          • #
            Mark D.

            “Empirical data at random locations measured randomly in time are almost meaningless ..”

            Hilarious really! Random + random = random. IT IS IDEAL DATA!

            Old Scientist, you are either not old enough or you weren’t very good.

            73

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              In fact, it give you a pretty good median value within a given time window.

              Perhaps that is all that the much vaunted climate models do. Wouldn’t that be a hoot if word got out …

              00

        • #
          the Griss

          “is not a scientist nor scientifically literate”

          I would say the same about you. !

          33

        • #
          The Backslider

          Empirical data at random locations measured randomly in time are almost meaningless

          I do not believe that anybody has suggested that, however you must now show that data output by a computer simulation shows anything at all worthwhile and is science in it’s true sense (it cannot be science, because it is unfalsifiable).

          00

          • #
            Old_Scientist

            Before you comment you should do some reading. Wallace’s work is based on empirical data at random locations measured randomly in time and are meaningless with respect to global projections or indications. No scientists use the data, which are freely available, due to the inherent quality assurance problems.

            49

            • #
              The Backslider

              No scientists use the data, which are freely available, due to the inherent quality assurance problems.

              Everything that you say is essentially false. Not climate alarmist scientist will use the data, we have already seen that, however I don’t think that you can show to us that all of those years of collecting that data were a complete waste of time.

              I eagerly await for you to show that I am wrong and that it indeed was a complete waste of time and money.

              Run along now….

              44

              • #
                Old_Scientist

                Except for Wallace and deniers like you … no one uses the data because they are useless and far more accurate data can be computed from other more reliable ocean chemistry data, etc. Could you explain in scientific terms why you consider the data Wallace used may be reliable or useful as he himself has not been able to give answers.

                [oooh the dreaded "D" word! Now explain what exactly is denied otherwise do not use that word again. It is the fastest way to get moderated.] ED

                26

              • #
                The Backslider

                deniers like you

                Now you are in extremely deep deep water. Explain to us all exactly what it is that I deny.

                Your continued ad hominem shows to us all that you are definitely not a scientist in any shape or form.

                far more accurate data can be computed from other more reliable ocean chemistry data

                Which data is this? Can you show the computations made by Sabine and Feely to support your arguments? Remember now, this is data for 160 years.

                We keenly await your data and computations.

                Run along now….

                10

              • #
                Old_Scientist

                Let me help you out with what you deny. Methinks you don’t know how to calculate pH so therefore you deny that computed pH is more accurate (and reliable) than measured. You deny that the data used by Wallace lacks three important controls viz data quality (assurance with some of the early data given to only one decimal place and a strange excess exactly pH 8), repeatability at the same location (most are random) and a range over several decades or more. You deny that when pH data quality concerns are obvious to anyone in this field they most likely wouldn’t be discussed in the literature very much. You deny when the measure pH data are of insufficient quality scientists will simply stop using them. Now before asking me (us) to do all your education read up on what you are apparently missing and confused about and then ask specific questions that you were not able to resolve using your own skills. Start by doing the obvious and see how calculated pH for the ocean at any locality can be computed/derived.

                13

              • #
                The Backslider

                Let me help you out with what you deny.

                You know nothing at all about me. I have not denied anything whatsoever, but rather I have asked you questions which you are unable to answer, thus you resort to ad hominem.

                Let me just help you with what you in fact deny:

                1. You deny that the planet stopped warming in 1998, known among warmist scientists as “the pause” or “the hiatus”.

                2. You deny that the planet cooled between 1940 and 1978

                3. You deny that everything that you believe hinges on a slight warming trend of 0.3 degrees between 1978 and 1998.

                4. You deny that 1/4 of anthropogenic CO2 emissions since The Industrial Revolution have occurred since 1998, yet we see no warming from that.

                5. You deny that the Medieval Warm Period was both global and warmer than today.

                6. You deny that there is no statistically significant difference between the warming rates of the late 1800′s, early 1900′s and between 1978 and 1998 and that there is no “signature” for CO2 “forcing” in the temperature record.

                7. You deny that the two earlier warming periods mentioned above were natural.

                8. You deny that the ocean is massively buffered and that a rise of 0.00175% in atmospheric CO2 concentrations would make zero difference to ocean PH.

                9. You deny that the “97% consensus” is a crock.

                10. You deny that the sun and oceans drive the earth’s climate, rather than CO2.

                11. You deny that CO2 “back radiation” cannot warm the oceans.

                12. You deny that alarmist “Hottest day/year evah!!!” squarks are based on manipulated data and electronic thermometers which instantly record brief fluctuations in temperature which bulb thermometers cannot.

                There, that is a start. I am perfectly happy for you to say “No, I actually believe that” to any of them. I am also happy to provide you the peer reviewed scienct to support any of them.

                Go for it sonny!

                32

              • #
                the Griss

                “read up on what you are apparently missing and confused about”

                IF you were once a scientist, you seem to have forgotten a whole lot of it.

                Certainly your posts indicate you are missing a lot of science, and are very confused.

                22

              • #
                Old_Scientist

                There was no ad hominem maybe you require an English tutor in addition to the one for science to assist you with pH calculation versus measurements versus accuracy.
                [At 28.2.2.3.1 you said "Let me help you out with what you deny.", in response to Backslider. That is a ad hominem, since it is directed towards the person and not to the subject at hand.]

                21

              • #
                the Griss

                Once-a-maybe-scientist, your attitude and tone, right from your very first post was one big, egotistical ad hom…

                … yet offers very little indication of any real knowledge of science.

                Most of your comments are like those of a failed 1st year Arts/Science student.

                01

              • #
                The Backslider

                There was no ad hominem

                Followed by yet more ad hominem – perhaps you require a Latin tutor.

                Why am I not surprised that you are in fact unable to answer any of my questions, particularly the last?

                20

              • #
                The Backslider

                Oh, while you are at it Old Codger, perhaps also you can explain how PH calculations have been made for the past 160 years….. they must be based on empirical data of some sort, mustn’t they?

                00

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                There was no ad hominem

                Except for Wallace and deniers like you

                Who said that old fart? We can add liar to your resume.

                10

            • #
              the Griss

              please do some reading.. listen and learn.

              http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/a-neutral-view-of-oceanic-ph/

              The data that was “left out” shows NO change in pH in the last 100 or so years.

              No wonder they had to leave it out. !!

              73

            • #
              Chester

              what a classic. old_scientist absolutely creams the lot of them and he is threatened with censorship and expulsion.

              This site is utterly laughable.

              The single worst Group Think site in the Net.

              Little wonder jo had to change her banner about fighting it when she’s one of the worst perps.

              Please give her money. Remember how she primoted the disappearing
              Notch Filter that predicted years of cooling, right at the time we have the hottest global temperature on record? Surel she deserves money for that? who else would have the hide?

              03

              • #
                Lord Jim

                This site is utterly laughable.

                I wouldn’t say that. Some of the comments of participants – such as yourself and your co-religionists – are quite laughable, however.

                The single worst Group Think site in the Net.

                So you say in solidarity with ‘old scientist’ without bothering to make any comment whatsoever about the validity of his criticism: iow – he agrees with the group you identify with – he must be right!

                Please give her money. Remember how she primoted [sic] the disappearing Notch Filter that predicted years of cooling, right at the time we have the hottest global temperature on record? Surel she deserves money for that? who else would have the hide?

                LOL. ‘Notch Filter was blogged in JUNE 2014!!!

                And you expect for there to have been – and I quote you – ‘years of cooling’ between June 2014 and January 2015.

                Hahahahahaha.

                How many years fall between June 2014 and January 2015, pray tell.

                You might as well just admit that you dismissed the ‘Notch Filter’ hypothesis as soon as it was blogged – how could you not? It disagrees with your fundamental beliefs of impending doom.

                And then you parrot the ‘hottest year evah’ meme. Never mind temperature, despite huge increases in co2, has simply been bumping along a plateau, never mind the temperature has been on the rise since the end of the little ice age (when the first records began), never mind the models did not predict the pause and cannot account for it; no, never mind any of these things because facts don’t matter, only the opinion of peers.

                30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Do you know why these trolls go around in threes?

                One can read, and one can write, and the other one is there to bail out the intellectuals, if they get caught in their own convoluted logic.

                10

              • #

                And yet here you are Chester, reading the site, adding to the visitor count and participating in the comment section. What does that say about you?

                10

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                Chester the clown is back!

                00

  • #
    pat

    4 Jan: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: Wind turbine collapses in Northern Ireland
    ***A 328-foot tall wind turbine worth more than £2 million has buckled and collapsed on a mountainside in Northern Ireland.
    Unconfirmed reports suggested the blades of the turbine had spun out of control – despite only light wind speeds – before the structure came crashing to the ground on Friday.
    Locals claimed the sound of the turbine hitting the mountain could be heard up to seven miles away from the Screggagh wind farm, near Fintona in County Tyrone.
    Some people compared it to an explosion while others claimed to have heard the sound of metal grinding throughout the day…
    The turbine was one of eight at the site, which opened in 2011 at a total cost of £26 million, implying a project cost of more than £3 million per turbine.
    The actual turbine equipment itself cost just over £2m, Screggagh wind farm’s owners said…
    The remaining seven turbines have been shut down while manufacturers investigate what went wrong. Wind speeds were “medium” or 10 to 12 metres per second, they added…
    German manufacturer Nordex is currently delivering a new, even bigger turbine design for other sites in the UK…
    In 2012 the company was fined £26,000 after admitting health and safety failings at a site in Stirlingshire where a 19-year-old worker fell 100ft down a turbine to his death…
    And in September 2013 an eight-year-old Nordex turbine in a German wind farm reportedly caught fire…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/11324119/Wind-turbine-collapses-in-Northern-Ireland.html

    Screggagh wind farm’s owners say the turbine cost over 2 million pounds; Daily Mail’s Clair Carter says 500,000 pounds!

    4 Jan: Daily Mail: Claire Carter: Aren’t they supposed to be able to handle a bit of wind? 260ft turbine buckles and collapses in 15mph breeze
    ***The 262ft tall structure at Screggagh wind farm worth around £500,000…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2896069/80m-turbine-buckles-collapses-15mph-breeze.html

    71

  • #
    pat

    4 Jan: Perth Now: Nick Clark: Global warming too hot to handle in future, says Greens Leader Christine Milne
    THE Abbott Government’s denials about the effects of global warming would be a bigger burden for the next generation than the Budget “emergency”, Greens Leader Christine Milne said yesterday…
    “They refuse to accept that their denial of global warming is going to make life a lot worse for people in the future,’’ she said.
    “Every year we are going to face these extreme weather events that are going to cost lives and infrastructure.
    “Enough is enough, the Abbott Government has to stop climate denial and get the country prepared for these extreme conditions.’’…
    Senator Cormann: “If Christine Milne was concerned about Australian families she would abandon support for the failed carbon tax which cost more than $5300 per tonne of carbon abated.
    “In contrast, the Government’s Direct Action plan will reduce emissions at less than 1 per cent of the cost per tonne.”…
    http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/global-warming-too-hot-to-handle-in-future-says-greens-leader-christine-milne/story-fnjj6012-1227174152501

    61

    • #
      StefanL

      Here’s a letter that I sent to the Editor of the Adelaide Advertiser today.

      1860 Bushfire.
      It didn’t take long for the Greens to blame anthropogenic global warming (AGW) for the intensity of the Adelaide Hills bushfire this weekend.
      Yet in the very same issue of the paper, in “The Way We Were” feature, there is a story about blazing heat and an immense bushfire in the hills exactly 155 years ago. So, hot summer days and bushfires in South Australia are nothing new and do not support the hypothesis of AGW.

      263

  • #
    duxu

    Clearly, the alarmist faction’s game is:

    (a) Assume flat-lining is the norm in a perfect world.
    (b) Scour nature’s realm for any measurable parameter that seems to be changing.
    (c) Call these “anomalies” (oooh!), as that’s a scary word that means things aren’t going as they should in the Utopia of Predictabilous.
    (d) If the change is trifling, find statistical ways (data selection and adjustment etc.) to magnify the change and attenuate the noise.
    (e) Invent some nasty outcomes that could be attributed to the change. Convergent outcomes desirable (e.g. arctic ice reduction –> Polar bears endangered, arctic ice over-amplification –> Polar bears endangered) as changing tack is efficient and not so meme-altering.

    Monopoly anyone?

    124

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The nice thing about anomalies is that they have magnitude but no sign. So even a positive variation can be spun as a negative impact, if surrounded by conjecture about scary outcomes.

      00

  • #
    ROM

    I don’t think that there is any doubt that a fall in the respect for science and scientists is becoming ever more precipitous compared to the past’s quite overblown respect for scientists. And that fall in respect is accelerating not only in the blog sphere but is now starting to penetrate into the public consciousness as well.

    From there if the fall in respect for science continues and accelerates that increasing disrespect for scientists and science will become ever more widespread, eventually feed into the political and bureaucratic systems of most developed nations which are deeply interlinked in the academic and science fields at every level.
    The consequences for science will be very serious in the long term for it’s practitioners, for science and for science societies and institutions who are really at the base of the entire problem in that most of those scientific societies and institutions are completely implicit and even partners in the corruption of much science that is becoming so epidemic today.

    Far from all of science is becoming corrupted, I still have complete confidence in agricultural science which I am familiar with even though I know that there are large discrepancies in the levels of skill within every part of Ag science.

    There is nothing like a taste of Nature’s sheer perverseness when trying to breed new plant varieties and crop varieties with new or better quality or growth or disease resistance characteristics to keep a plant scientist’s feet very firmly fixed on the very harsh realities of life in the raw..
    Then a further performance criteria for Ag scientists generally including plant and animal scientists, soil scientists and every other brand of scientist associated with agriculture at every level and every aspect of food production is the role the trained agronomists who are the link between farmers and Ag scientists and who are generally paid by farmers for their information, advice and expertise. They keep Ag scientists very honest and performing.

    If the end product doesn’t work as advertised in the field then it reflects severely back on those scientists and breeders at the very start of the genetic selection loop on down through the whole breeding process and they sure get to know about it.
    It is sure shot way of both keeping Ag scientists reasonably honest plus sorting out the really good ones from the Ag science riff raff.

    There are many other branches of the estimated 612 different science disciplines existent today [ a number very disputed and argued about. Nobody knows the true figure as definitions of what is a "science" abound ] that are justifiably held in high regard and are relatively free, we hope, of corruption and distortion of data and research results.

    Every time I now see some press release on some science subject I treat it with very considerable skepticism and straight out doubt whilst searching for those key words such as “could” , “might”, “perhaps” , “will” and etc, each and every such word of a similar nature being a prediction for the completely unknowable future which the scientists involved seem to believe they have the amazing ability to predict such future as implied in their press releases.

    A second factor I look for is the word “models” and how that “model” word has been used by those press releasing scientists
    If a model is used to research the way water flows in a stream , something than can then be actually checked immediately following the model run, then models are a very useful tool when used in such a manner and we would be much worse off without them.

    When “models” are used as stand alone method of prediction for the future without both the hard data to check them against and with out the ability to verify let alone validate them, they are far worse than useless.
    They become a major impediment and scourge to advancing society if their predictions are at all believed anywhere.
    Something that the climate models have actually provided proof of by their utterly catastrophic prediction record plus the immense amount of resources that based on the predictions of those same climate models have been totally wasted without a single redeeming factor being seen on the performance of those climate models and the climate modellers who must be getting close to the rank of exploiters of humanity..
    And that doesn’t account for the human misery created by those same climate scientists / modellers and unscrupulous climate scientists who promulgate the false predictions using their prestige a scientist to promote their own personal beliefs and ideology into the public and political sphere as we see above with Ocean acidification claims.

    There is one other point which in our time and age is possibly the most damning of large sections of the so called environmental sciences which covers a whole range of sciences and is becoming a significant factor which has the capability of completely destroying respect for any science that falls into this category.

    Every single case of known corruption in a science project and /or a research paper and in the data across the entire environmental science field and as promoted to the public and politicals has been heavily backed by those eco-fascists, the Greens including such as Greenpeace, the WWF , the Sierra Club and all their various Front organisations, all continually backing known false and corrupted science and backing it on a global scale.

    Starting at home on corrupted science and the green eco-fascists support for thoroughly corrupted and / or dishonest and cherry picked science.

    A half a century of research on preventative burning to slow down and prevent bushfires but a few [ solicited ? ] papers on how damaging preventive burning is to anything that moves and doesn’t or can’t move in the natural bushland and the preventive burning is fought tooth and nail by the greens.
    So immensly damaging bush fires resulting.

    The 3000 kms of the Great Barrier reef being destroyed by what ever is the current industry dracula of the moment’

    A few billion dollars worth of desalination plants that are virtually useless as despite all the science supported by the greens claiming it will never rain again due to climate change or something approaching that, it rained. In fact it flooded every thing in sight.

    A favorite at the moment of the greens; The Coal industry is to blame for everything according to some research papers supported by the greens so the coal industry must be destroyed say the greens and a host of academics.
    There exists a complete mental deficiency by the greens and anti coal academic supporters who seem totally bereft of any form of intelligence capable of just having a quick look at where all that power they use when they throw switch actually comes from.

    Polar bears going extinct say polar bear researchers supported eagerly by the greens whilst their numbers are climbing to levels where, the locals according to a friend of mine who placed Australia’s most essential seed stock into Norway’s Spitsbergen Millennium vault , are saying polar bears have become a very serious menace due to their numbers. They now go nowhere either singly or in groups without carrying at least one high powered rifle with them.

    Antarctica melting due to global warming all at minus 25 to minus 50 C. Meanwhile a very slow decline in Antarctic temperatures has been measured over the last half century and Antarctic sea ice is now at the greatest levels ever recorded

    Arctic ice dissapearing whilst Arctic summer Ice is now more extensive and surprisingly found to be much thicker than expected.

    Everything getting warmer. Try telling the Americans, Russians , Germans where long term temperatures are slowly declining, most of Europe, the Japanese, the northern Chinese and etc that when they are up to their ears in snow that was predicted and still claimed by the scientists and greens to become something that our children will never see.

    Flooding of new York city and etc and etc

    The list is now almost endless of climate scientists predictions backed to the hilt by the Green scum that have already been proven to be completely at odds with the reality .

    But still the Greens persist in backing totally corrupted and known to be false science.

    Science across most fields of research will be destroyed in the public’s estimation unless and until a revolution cleaning out of the corrupted scum of corrupted green supported science is instituted by science itself.

    If science won’t clean out it’s own Aegean Stables then someday a ruthless political apparatus will do it for science and there will be blood on the floor as a consequence.
    And we the public who are forced to pay for all of this will be very much the worse off unless science cleans and purifies itself and again starts down the road to doing real science.

    175

    • #
      TdeF

      Climate Change is not science. Global Warming is not science. Al Gore and Barack Obama and John Kerry know no science. Yes, there are scientists who support this absurdity, but they are few. Do not fall for this 97% story. However they are supported by communist infiltrated fake Green parties, activists and the sheeple who follow them. Please do not put all scientists and all science in this basket.

      Scientists are no different to anyone else. They have families, mortgages and jobs. Most are not allowed to say anything and work in narrow corridors. Great scientists like Galileo were locked up for the term of their natural lives, for just telling the truth. However every gun, every weapon, every bomb was designed by engineers and scientists, but then so was every labor saving gadget, every circuit, every life saving medication.

      Yes some celebrity scientists take the cash and in my view prostitute themselves and damn the consequences, but that is true of so many professions. No, the great advances in quality of life in the 20th century came wholly from science, not politics but they are so connected. Not all priests believe in their religion and not all scientists are altruists. Please do not convict all scientists because of the few. Remember this as you type on a keyboard, on a screen, on an internet, connected to others by science. Blame is easy. Solutions are harder.

      203

      • #
        ROM

        TdeF
        You are completely right and perhaps I am remiss in not making that point, that far from all science is corrupt or corrupted.

        But despite that the numbers of fraudulent and plagiarized papers being uncovered in every science discipline is climbing rapidly with a number of papers actually being researched and written on those very subjects of scientific fraud. false and misleading data, false claims and outcomes.
        The list of science’s proven mis-demeanours and deliberate false hoods from a very wide range of researchers is climbing rapidly.

        Retraction Watch has just had a large injection of funding and will apparently expand it’s entire science watch operation in the future

        And it has been a growing problem in science for quite a few decades as per James Lovelocks interview with the Guardian in March 2010.
        Reading that interview again and with the present situation James Lovelock looks to be very prescient indeed.

        James Lovelock on the value of sceptics and why Copenhagen was doomed

        111

        • #
          TdeF

          ROM, your frustration is understandable but 99.99% of all real scientists are not involved in this scam. Unfortunately most scientists, engineers and geologists are totally disinterested, seeing it as an absurd side show to real science, an aberration of little consequence. They have little interest in politics either. Yes, there has always been science fraud and faux science and Religious science, as Galileo knew. What annoys me personally are the science fringe dwellers like Gore and Flannery who avoided mathematics and real physical sciences but speak as if they are world experts on meteorology and hard science. Don’t get me started on Scientology.

          72

      • #
        TdeF

        ROM, while we understand your frustration, I would also like to point out that our hardworking sleepless hosts are both professional scientists generously giving so much of their own unpaid time to help fight this global menace. I hope you are as generous in your support for their efforts and costs and time and their tip jar as you are critical of scientists in general.

        82

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Aegean stables? For sea horses ROM?

      50

  • #
    Old_Scientist

    I’ll give you a few hints why Wallace the originator of this pH [snip] will not be awarded a PhD if this is his level of science competence. First, anomalies have to be plotted and not empirical data (if you don’t know why ask a high school science student). Second, lack of spatial and temporal distributions (again if you don’t know why ask the student). Third, repeated measurements at the same depth and at the same chronological time and date for multiple years (you know what to do if you don’t know why this is scientifically necessary). If you need more hints I can help but three scientific faux pas should be sufficient to demonstrate why the non-scientists who wrote this article are [snip] when it comes to basic science and feed junk pseudoscience to the gullible. Sabine was scientifically correct to tell Wallace if he continued in this manner, “you will not last long in your career” for sound scientific reasons.

    [Old-Scientist, you can't possibly be claiming that no scientists, let alone climate scientists ever plot actual empirical data. NOAA, NASA, WMO, BOM, CSIRO, the UN IPCC are just some of the sources of graphs where empirical data is plotted. In fact it was empirical data (although selectively chosen) which the NOAA chief was referring to here:

    The speed by which the oceans' acid levels has risen caught scientists off-guard, with the problem now considered to be climate change's "equally evil twin," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco told The Associated Press.

    Of course if the empirical data had supported what Feely and Sabine were claiming, it would have been provided on request in an instant. Otherwise what had they to hide? - Mod]

    521

    • #
      Robert

      Sabine was scientifically politically correct to tell Wallace if he continued in this manner, “you will not last long in your career” for sound scientific purely political reasons.

      Fixed it for you. So you’re an “old scientist” are you? That would be from the days of alchemy I take it? After reading your comment it becomes apparent that you could do with a chat with that high school science student since he or she undoubtedly knows more about it than you do.

      112

    • #
      The Backslider

      you will not last long in your career

      This was an overt threat. That you support it shows your own bias and lack of moral courage.

      You need to explain to us all how exactly is was scientifically superior to ignore 100+ years of empirical data and to replace this with computer simulations. I assume that you have indeed run these simulations yourself for verification.

      We await with bated breath for your exposition.

      122

      • #
        the Griss

        The fact that “Once was Scientist” seems to accept that this threat should have been made speaks way more about him and whatever branch of science he once pretends to have worked in than anything else.

        What branch of science would that be? social science? political science ??

        93

      • #
        Robert

        Lets take the rest of that comment which was:

        Sabine responded by saying that it was inappropriate for Wallace to question their “motives or quality of our science,”

        That any scientist can actually say to another that it is “inappropriate to question the quality of their science” is sad, that people will actually come to their defense and try and justify their saying it is even sadder.

        Questioning the quality of science is what scientists are supposed to do. That there appear to be so many “scientists” out there who seem to feel that their “science” is beyond question is very concerning.

        40

    • #
      Glen Michel

      I can smell a sophist a long way off.

      40

    • #
      the Griss

      “anomalies have to be plotted and not empirical data ”

      RUBBISH !

      .. plotting anomalies implies that you have a predetermined zero line or reference point.

      .. almost certainly cherry-picked to show your data in the way you wish it to be seen.

      Climate science 101 !!

      72

    • #
      Old_Scientist

      Sorry moderator but you’re out of your depth suggesting empirical data are simply plotted to produce graphs in climate science … you list a lot of sound organizations but don’t quote any global graphs that were supposedly plotted that way. And no the NOAA chief was not stating what you allege as the graphs are scientifically manipulated from empirical data

      Let me repeat: Wallace’s lack quality assurance by not being repetitive measurements at the same depth, at the same chronological time and date, at the same locality for multiple years. Now if that does’nt help you figure out what is wrong with Wallace’s work go a little deeper:

      1) the problem with the graph made by Wallace is that he lumped all available glass electrode pH data together, no matter the distribution of the samples over the places or seasons where/when they were taken in a certain year. Latitude can make a difference of up to 1 pH unit and the seasons add up to 0.2 pH unit to that. As the whole theoretical drop in pH is not more than 0.1 pH unit over 160 years (of which 0.04 pH unit, measured since 1984), what Wallace has done has no value at all.
      2) Seawater chemistry calculations are already done for over 80 years. Any calculated pH from other known ocean values is more accurate than the pH measurements made by glass electrodes.
      3) Wallace’s compilation is wrong can be also simply proven: some of his results violate Henry’s Law with changes of global pH of 0.2 units or more from one year to the next. That is only possible if there was a change of 200 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere (or acid/base equivalent) in one year which has not been observed in the history of the planet. While the ocean is complex, the influence of CO₂ on every part of the oceans is straight-forward: if CO₂ increases in the atmosphere, that pushes more CO₂ into the oceans or decreases the releases. The same for a global temperature increase or a global increase in bio-life.
      4) There is an overlap between Sabine and Wallace’s datasets in the period 1984-current where the former shows a drop of 0.04 pH unit for the fixed stations and the latter 0.3 pH units. Wallace’s is chemically and physically impossible, as that needs some 300 ppmv CO₂ increase in the atmosphere (or acid equivalent) over the same period once.

      [The Griss is correct, plotting anomalies automatically introduces a bias because you have to select the period for your base measurement. Graphs plotting anomalies are used to 'interpret' data not display the data. And that 'interpretation' automatically introduces a bias to the baseline used. Your claim that it is unscientific to plot actual empirical data is just silly. Read an IPCC report, check the graphs on atmospheric CO2, and tell me it isn't empirical data from Mauna Loa. But there are so many examples of empirical data plotted in climate science this is just a silly argument.
      I had already acknowledged the limitations of the data collected, but hey, if you want to complain about crappy data, the you can start with the 'Hockey Stick' yet alarmists are still claiming Michael Mann is the Messiah!
      Wallace's data is an indication. It was available to Feely and Sabine but they didn't address it an in fact tried to restrict access to it. Why? We know why - it didn't suit their purpose. You are flogging a dead horse OS.

      Christopher Sabine and Richard Feely are so lacking in credibility, or in need of attention, they still claims under 'Awards' that they were awarded "Nobel Peace Prize (co-shared with Al Gore and other members of IPCC) - 2007" Here: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Christopher+L.+Sabine,+Ph.D. and here: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Richard++A.+Feely,+Ph.D.

      If they can't differentiate between the IPCC receiving the award, and themselves receiving it, what credibility do they have? I note that previously organisations such as MSF and Amnesty International have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize but people who worked for those organisations, despite not having PhD's, didn't claim they were Nobel laureates! - Mod]

      [We might also point out that the Nobel Peace Prize is totally separate from the other Nobel Prizes, in that it is not awarded by the Nobel committee, but rather, awarded by a political consensus.] -Fly

      212

      • #
        the Griss

        Again the [snip], NON-scientist assumption that CO2 is the driver of ocean pH.

        You ain’t no scientist , what ever else you are.!

        41

        • #
          Robert

          Or just the assumption, as with temperatures, that CO2 is the only or primary driver. I won’t be holding my breath waiting on the so called “Old Scientist” to provide proof that it can only be CO2 that influences ocean pH and therefore Wallace must be wrong. As that is his argument at present.

          20

      • #
        Frank

        OS,
        Its no use , there’s no getting through the confirmation bias here.

        14

        • #
          the Griss

          You are the one that is TOTALLY UNABLE to back up your bias and brain-washing with any science what-so-ever.

          None, Nada, Zip

          EMPTY !

          41

          • #
            Frank

            Oscar,
            Another knee-slapper, your wit consists of simply turning my assertions back onto me , I love it.
            For scientific evidence please refer to the outside world , the burden of proof is on you, with still no progress.

            16

            • #
              the Griss

              But all you have is falsified assurtions.

              I don’t need to turn them back on you…

              … you keep doing that yourself by proving your total inability to support even the most basic AGW meme with any sort of science.

              You have absolutely no science to back your meaningless drivel… NOTHING !!

              21

              • #
                Frank

                Oscar,

                “But all you have is falsified assurtions.”

                And you wonder why I call you out as a CT ?.

                14

              • #
                the Griss

                gees, a ‘u’ instead of an ‘e’ on a small screen while I’m working on some actual science
                (related to climate, I might add).

                Is that the best feeble “call out” you can offer. roflmao !

                Your mind truly is an empty echo chamber of meaningless triviality, isn’t it Frankie-Boi.. !

                All “climate science (TM)” has is falsified assertions…. nothing even really to the hypothesis stage.

                Certainly NO science to back up anything.. as you continue to prove with your every post.

                31

            • #
              the Griss

              ps… and I have linked several SCIENTIFIC papers that show pretty conclusively that the basic assumptions/hypotheses of the AGW farce are based on empty non-science (your sort of science).

              I doubt you even bothered, or had the ability, to read them.

              You, on the other hand, have produced a very feeble NOTHING.

              Yet you continue to duck and weave, because you know you can’t produce anything.

              31

            • #
              Robert

              You truly are a brick Frank.

              By the scientific method those making a claim i.e. CO2 will cause X assume the burden of proving said claim. It has not been done.

              All your attempts at reversing that burden of proof accomplish is to inform everyone that you are unable to prove said claim and have nothing left with which to defend it than to try and place the burden elsewhere.

              So by all means continue, the more you try the more you establish that you know nothing of science.

              Peer review is not validation. Doesn’t matter how many peer reviewed papers you think exist to support said claim when none of them have been validated. Without validation the claim is just a claim. We don’t have to invalidate something that was never validated to begin with.

              That you cannot understand that is no surprise, there doesn’t appear to be very much you do understand.

              81

            • #
              Lord Jim

              the burden of proof is on you, with still no progress.

              Apparently awe-thority stricken Frankie thinks repeating a rebutted argument ad nauseum makes it true.

              Unfortunately for Frankie this too is a fallacy: the argumentum ad nauseam.

              31

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              at least he has a wit. You are without one.

              00

        • #
          Old_Scientist

          That is so true. Scientific ignorance is considered a virtue by the majority on this blog.

          23

          • #
            the Griss

            “Scientific ignorance is considered a virtue by the majority on this blog”

            Yes, we find people like you and Frankie-Boi quite amusing..

            Every blog needs a village I-d-I-o-t / f-o-o-l

            …you and he seem to be putting up your hands for this role quite regularly.

            30

          • #
            Lord Jim

            Scientific ignorance is considered a virtue by the majority on this blog.

            Oh, really, did some catastrophic warming just happen and I missed it?

            Or is still an unproved hypothesis sold as holy writ and now pronounced ex cathedra by the Pope (no doubt the next IPCC report would be more properly issued as a Papal Bull.

            50

            • #
              the Griss

              Hey, the poor guy knows his religions is not worth much..(except financially)

              … he is just trying to combine it with something else to give it a boost !!

              He is now pope of a duo-theistic church ! :-)

              31

            • #
              gai

              “.. did some catastrophic warming just happen and I missed it?”

              ….

              Yes, a snow storm in the middle east. The strongest for many years – is forecast to hit all of Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan. Who knows Egypt may have snow yet.

              http://www.alaan.tv/news/world-news/121782/arab-countries-blizzard-strongest-years-ago-in-the-middle-east

              Funny how these snowstorms make the front page in China but are never mentioned in EU or US news.

              20

              • #
                StefanL

                That’s two years in a row.
                This CAGW/AGW/GW/climate-change stuff is quite versatile.
                “The Northern Hemisphere weather extremes have been linked to the melting of Arctic sea ice, which alters atmospheric circulation in a way that leads to more snow and ice.”
                [Wikipedia '2013 Extreme Weather Events']

                10

              • #
                the Griss

                “Wikipedia ’2013 “

                LOL

                William “the con” at work still.

                He has made Wiki totally irrelevant wrt anything related to climate or science.

                Well down, dropkick, for destroying what could have been a worthwhile resource.

                00

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              A beef farmer down the road from me has a bull called “Paypal”. The local Priest was a bit put out, until the spelling was explained to him.

              10

    • #
      Chester

      Old_scientist,

      You are wasting your time. Griss is a circus clown who is given license here to abuse anyone dissenting from the Group Think – the record of it is available to all on the site. he’s a financial contributor to Jo, so she allows it.

      What you have pointed out is known by everyone with half a scientific brain.
      These guys are so self deluded they are beyond help.
      Suggest you leave them to their circle of superiority.

      Jo will never be employable in any worthwhile field of science again (she thinks using a stage name will guard against this) so she needs to make money out of this while she can.

      Meanwhile, they are creating a nice scientific record of what den:;$ is and does. Their sole contribution to science.

      11

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        What you have pointed out is known by everyone with half a scientific brain.

        Which is probably why only the vapourous adherents of climate catastrophe du jour believe it. They are the ones with half a brain. Brilliant observation, there, Chester. Well done.

        00

      • #

        Have you considered that a record of global warming advocate nonsense is what is really being built? It’s a sure fire way to get the true believers of global warming to come out and go on record as having nothing but name-calling, insults and vague comments about science. At least Old-Scientist makes some comments about the science and why he disagrees. You’re just in here proving that the answer to the scientific question of global warming is to insult people and avoid all discussion, thus teaching that science is all about bullying and nothing about theories or evidence. I think that’s a worthwhile thing to keep record of.

        00

      • #
        Old_Scientist

        Chester

        North Korean officials are in awe when they visit this and I understand this site’s moderator and editor’s tactics are used in their propaganda censorship classes.

        [funny that it is only you Old Scientist? Maybe it is YOU O.S.? Maybe it is something YOU do that gets you moderated? Even Chester gets through.] ED

        [Snip the rest though I have saved it for some laughs and analysis of what makes a warmist thick.] ED

        03

        • #
          The Backslider

          I challenge you Old Codger: Go to Skeptical Science and pretend to be a CAGW skeptic. Watch carefully their Nazi ways.

          Come back and tell us all how you did.

          You have only been asked to pull back on the ad hominem and not use the “D” word.

          11

  • #
    TdeF

    The Australian was amazing again this morning, front page. It seems we might reach our RET target by 2020! One great hope is that we will soon stop making any cars at all and so the CO2 output of Australia will drop even more than that caused by massive electricity prices, subsidized Chinese solar panels. Oh joy! Give everyone a medal.

    Am I dreaming or has the popular hatred of evil CO2 become so great, such a given fact that the deindustrialization of Australia is now a wonderful event to anticipate? The cars have to be made somewhere, the CO2 generated somewhere, but NIMBY (Not in My Backyard). If CO2 ‘pollution’ is a world problem, what is the gain?

    Still the Green lobby has convinced even reasonable people of the logic, manufacturing = CO2, CO2 is bad, stopping manufacture and sending all our business overseas is good. So we import solar panels and windmills from China stuffed with rare earths and poisons. Cars come from overseas. They get all the CO2, the rare earths, the cadmium. Great. We just buy the stuff with money we make from exporting coal and gas and steel and bauxite and rutile and uranium and silver and gold. We are innocent, poster boys for CO2 reduction, the great evil. Only the Chinese are killing themselves with CO2, increasing their output more every year than our entire output, not our 20% savings.

    What sort of insanity is this? When did Australian journalists go completely mad?

    212

    • #

      This furphy of reaching 20% of power from renewables has nothing to do with rooftop solar panels, nothing at all to do with current wind power, and nothing whatsoever to do with any form of renewable power generation.

      It is only due to the reducing consumption of power here in Oz, and that has nothing at all to do with people becoming more responsible in their consumption in their homes, eg, power consumption in the residential sector, because if the real truth is told, residential power consumption has gone up, mainly BECAUSE of rooftop panels, and people now thinking (thinking only, not doing) that because they have panels on their roof, then they can use more, and those without those panels still consume what they always have.

      The Commerce sector, well, that consumption has remained static or rising also.

      That leaves the Industrial sector, and here you need to understand that usage in that Industrial sector, where a large industry can consume up to and more than 1000 times more power than the average home, and some of them many thousands of homes. So, kill off one big Industrial consumer, and there’s a huge slice off Australia’s total consumption of power, and that is exactly what is happening.

      That RET is not increasing because renewable power is taking a greater hold. The overall total is coming down, and coming down quite considerably, as big industry moves out of Australia, so it gives the impression that RET is rising because there is more of it. Bovine Waste all of it.

      Still there is one benefit for all Governments. They can begin to shut down those large scale coal fired power plants now that the power is not needed. (/sarc)

      Go on, I dare you.

      Tony.

      151

      • #
        ROM

        From the Bishop Hill blog

        On Scottish renewable energy re wind turbines.

        WWF spivs are spinning

        It seems that the WWF is being VERY economical with the truth all over again so has now got itself a new logo.

        WTF

        70

      • #
        realist

        Tony, it would be fair to say you are the “resident” (and respected) authority on energy here at Jo’s site, hence my question to you. The term “renewable” is applied to wind and solar “generation” of energy (actually conversion), or in physics terminology, conversion of sunight or wind pressure to electrical energy. Coal, hydrocarbon, water-hydro, nuclear, etc, are simply different forms or methods of energy conversion to instantaneous conductive energy (as a loose definition of electricity). So solar and wind are simply alternative forms of generation/conversion. But not replacements as claimed.

        However, if one takes into account the embedded energy in solar panels or wind turbines, such as metals, cement, magnets, plastics, etc, not to mention the labour, infrastructure and opportunity cost of necessary co-investment (plus subsidies), all accounted for as energy investment, coupled with the relative efficiency and life cycle (before redundancy) of the capital investment in solar or wind, (compared to say coal), would it be fair to suggest the term “renewable” is somewhat of an oxymoron? If we applied “renewable” to, say, a Prius car because it’s energy source is (heaven forbid, coal-generated) electricity, it would be scoffed at as “renewable” (except perhaps by the Greens).

        Therefore, would the term, “aternative” (to coal, etc) be more appropriate and correct (as others have suggested), to “renewable”? That’s all solar and wind sources of electricity generation are, an alternative: they utilise sunlight (when is shines enough in the daytime) and wind (when it blows “right”), but definitely not an alternative a replacement to sustain the needs of a modern economy or society, unless there is another Law of Thermodynamics we haven’t been informed about. If one take the necessary requirement of the embedded energy to “make” electricity from a solar panel or wind turbine, they are no more renewable than a Prius without an external and convenient (not to mention, reliable) power source. In context, also no diferent to a re-chargable battery in one’s torch.

        Therefore, just as AGW is a more correct term for the theory of global atmospheric temperature change (“caused” by release of human-induced CO2 “emissions”) than the non-descriptive “climate change”, is “alternative” the more technically correct term than the alleged “renewable” for generation of electrical energy? What should be used here?

        21

        • #
          TdeF

          Yes, a good point. The CO2 payback time for a lot of these ‘renewable’ energy sources like solar cells is measured in years. However they are made overseas so we do not count the CO2 as being part of Australia’s CO2 output.

          That is the insanity of CO2 targets and RET when China does not have such targets. Western industry is reducing manufacturing and sending it all to Asia, especially China. Australia may meet its CO2 target for 2020 but to acheive this the world is worse off for generation of CO2 which would not otherwise be generated anywhere!

          If the country which generates half the world’s CO2 has no obligation to reduce CO2 at all, even signed an agreement with the US not to do so, tracking CO2 emission targets and having a Renewable Energy Target is high farce, self flagellation for someone else’s sins. Idiocy.

          10

  • #
    Manfred

    RE: mushrooms or ostriches?

    Oceans not acidifying – “scientists” hid 80 years of pH data

    If ANYONE had any residual doubt about “climate change” as a stalking horse for the manipulative progressive eco-socialist agenda…..

    140

  • #
    the Griss

    As I have said before.

    All the rivers that flow into the oceans are acid,

    All the rains that fall on the oceans are acidic,

    Yet after millions and millions of years, the seas remain steadfastly alkaline.

    Anyone that thinks in very minor change in atmospheric CO2 is going to have even the slightest effect on ocean pH must have been seriously puffing numerous hallucinogenic substances. Really “working the green weed” so to speak !!

    There are far, far greater chemical equilibriums that have to be overcome first !!

    Namely that of the equilibrium between the absolutely huge amounts of carbonates, limestone and basaltic rocks that are below and surrounding those very oceans.

    The oceans cannot change acidity by even the smallest amount without dissolving the very fabric of the Earth !

    182

    • #
      Richo

      Hi Griss

      It is highly unlikely that the oceans will be become acidic unless there is a massive volcanic eruption that pumps huge amounts of H2SO4, H2S and HCl into the atmosphere. If that happens ocean acidification is going to be the least of our worries.

      110

      • #
        the Griss

        Its going to have to be one heck of a lot of those things to have any affect whatsoever, except on a local scale.

        An eruption with enough of those acids to actually acidify the oceans would firstly have to neutralise all the alkaline rock structures.

        It would obliterate all life on Earth long before that happened.

        132

  • #

    [...] at Jo Nova, she has one of the clearest instances of criminal fraud that has been seen in this whole $trillion [...]

    41

  • #
    Tim

    Yet another Al-Gore-ithm BUSTED.

    102

  • #
    RogueElement451

    Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.
    How many tabs of LSD does it take to transform science?
    Whilst on the subject of delusion this is slightly off topic but well worth a look , referred to me by Stefan The Denier :-

    https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x#.VJOzeTAOog

    That’s right folks The University of Queensland offering a diploma in how to deal with those pesky deniers.
    I thought it was actually something from Peoples Cube, you know some satirical item with accompanying cheesy photos but it appears to be real!!
    Get your climate scientist certificates here $150 a go, you know it makes sense .
    Cook and Nutticcelli must be feeling the pinch.

    72

    • #
      el gordo

      From that link.

      ‘We will look at the most common climate myths from “global warming stopped in 1998” to “global warming is caused by the sun” to “climate impacts are nothing to worry about.”

      It would be worth doing the course just for a good argument.

      91

    • #
      Jaymez

      I note that to enrol in the course “Basic High School Science is Recommended”. But no problem if you don’t have that, or an ability to recognise manipulated and fraudulent use of data. In fact that will place you at an advantage in this course; otherwise you would risk failure. I wish I had the time and inclination to enrol and debunk it as it goes – starting with the credentials of some of the course contributors!

      81

    • #
      Allen Ford

      Tony Thomas, over on Quadrant , has pre-empted you, back in November, when this great initiative was first announced.

      Given Tony’s track record for puncturing pomposity, I think the perpetrators of this milestone effort are in for some industrial strength drubbing.

      Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of w@nkers!

      10

  • #

    Here are some pH values of some common liquids, sea water and pure water included.
    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH-Wert

    70

  • #
    pat

    TdeF -

    just going offline, but saw your comment re the following:

    Carbon reduction ‘is on target’
    The Australian-22 hours ago
    Ford, Holden and Toyota would cease making cars in Australia by the end…

    i heard this article being read on radio for the visually impaired this morning and couldn’t believe my ears. it’s behind a paywall, so i’m not bothering with it, but it was just so cool about how losing more industry was great cos it would bring down our CO2 emissions. why not just shut down everything and we’ll all head to the beach…forever.

    it also reminded me of one i meant to post a few days ago:

    THESE FOLKS ARE ECSTATIC ABOUT WHAT!!!!!

    2 Jan: CarbonBrief: Christian Hunt/Simon Evans: Holiday news roundup
    Happy new year!
    ***2015 promises to be an exciting one for energy and climate news, and we’re already off to a busy start…
    Looking forward to 2015 and Paris…
    Attenborough on climate…(DOESN’T MENTION DEPOPULATION, OF COURSE)
    Catholic call for climate action…
    Several outlets reported that Pope Francis is expected to tell Catholics that acting on climate is “essential to the faith” as Climate Progress puts it…
    The Guardian says the Pope’s move will “anger deniers and US churches”….
    Blackout Britain
    The UK is unprepared for prolonged blackouts, according to a secret government document reported by the Telegraph in a series of articles…
    Rising seas to claim UK homes…
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/holiday-new-roundup/

    40

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Empirical data withheld by key scientists…

    Who would have thought a scientist would do such a thing? What’s next, made up hockey stick graphs?

    It keeps getting better and better. That long ago biblical admonition about things done in secret ending up being shouted from the rooftops is coming true right in front of our eyes.

    One more scare down the drain. :-(

    71

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Well, I know Jo doesn’t like to make a claim of [snip]. But this one is too clear cut to ignore so I’ve got to say it. This is [snip], pure and simple.

      [no problem Roy] ED

      61

  • #
    Ron C.

    As the climate models are increasingly discredited by the lack of warming, the focus is shifting to the bogeyman of ocean acidification. On this topic, alarmists are contradicting IPCC science.

    Of course, the AR5 SPM features alarming statements, which are then second-guessed (undermined) by the actual science imbedded in the report details. The SPM asserts on Page 17 that fish habitats and production will fall and that ocean acidification threatens marine ecosystems.

    WGII Report, Chapter 6 covers Ocean Systems. There we find more nuance and objectivity:

    “Few field observations conducted in the last decade demonstrate biotic responses attributable to anthropogenic ocean acidification” pg 4

    “Due to contradictory observations there is currently uncertainty about the future trends of major upwelling systems and how their drivers (enhanced productivity, acidification, and hypoxia) will shape ecosystem characteristics (low confidence).” Pg 5

    “Both acclimatization and adaptation will shift sensitivity thresholds but the capacity and limits of species to acclimatize or adapt remain largely unknown” Pg 23

    “Production, growth, and recruitment of most but not all non-calcifying
    seaweeds also increased at CO2 levels from 700 to 900 µatm Pg 25

    “Contributions of anthropogenic ocean acidification to climate-induced alterations in the field have rarely been established and are limited to observations in individual species” Pg. 27

    “To date, very few ecosystem-level changes in the field have been attributed to anthropogenic or local ocean acidification.” Pg 39

    I am finding much more credible the Senate Testimony of John T. Everett, in which he said:

    “There is no reliable observational evidence of negative trends that can be traced definitively to lowered pH of the water. . . Papers that herald findings that show negative impacts need to be dismissed if they used acids rather than CO2 to reduce alkalinity, if they simulated CO2 values beyond triple those of today, while not reporting results at concentrations of half, present, double and triple, or as pointed out in several studies, they did not investigate adaptations over many generations.”

    “In the oceans, major climate warming and cooling and pH (ocean pH about 8.1) changes are a fact of life, whether it is over a few years as in an El Niño, over decades as in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the North Atlantic Oscillation, or over a few hours as a burst of upwelling (pH about 7.59-7.8) appears or a storm brings acidic rainwater (pH about 4-6) into an estuary.”

    http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=db302137-13f6-40cc-8968-3c9aac133b16

    20

  • #
    Rud Istvan

    There are two issues here. One concerns the withheld pH data. There are quality and regional sampling issues. The Feely chart Jo posted is the HOT data from station Aloha, which does not have quality issues but does not represent the vast pH differences caused by seasonal biorhythms. It is deceptive not to discuss the earlier pH data and its limitations, Itbos more deceptive to show Aloha without the biological context.
    The second issue is the role of NOAA PMEL and Feely himself. He is senior author on the ‘smoking gun’ oyster spat/acidification which amounts to pure academic misconduct. IN MY OPINION worse than Mann’s hockeystick because so simply blatant. See essay Shell Games in ebook Blowing Smoke for details. Governmental misconduct on a scale rivaling BOM temperature fiddles at Rutherglen.

    61

    • #
      RogueElement451

      The main issue is that scientists cherry picked data to support a hypotheses ,ignoring quite deliberately other data which did not give credence to their views. That surely is just bad work. No doubt it was suitably peer reviewed and therefore absolved of any blame.Science is science ,it is not touchy (feely) guestimates, it is not philosophy ,it is not consensus, nor does it bear any relationship to a huge amount of “belief”. It is empirical evidence based knowledge based on observation overcoming conjecture.
      Sick of this nonsense!

      50

  • #
    KR

    Wallace has exceedingly dubious statistics that really say nothing whatsoever regarding global mean pH. Richard Telford has described the situation quite well in his article Not pHraud but pHoolishness.

    Summary: pH readings over the last century are of low accuracy (+/- 0.1 pH), come from hugely varying transect locations, seasons, times of day, etc, are absolute values rather than anomalies, and hence what Wallace is showing is sample variation rather than trends.

    If there was a series of pH readings taken consistently (season, depth, time of day) in several locations, over a period of time, that data could be used to determine pH trends directly. For example, the data used by Feely and Sabine. It’s possible to extract such data from the WOD if you take some care (last graph/table), but jumbling mismatched sampling with no area weighting or consistency like Wallace does is nonsense.

    Of course, you could also compute the pH over the last century from other factors such as atmospheric CO2 and simple carbonate chemistry using the WOD database, as in Feely and Sabine et al 2004. In which case you would again find that Wallaces accusations of fraud are completely unfounded. And that the ocean pH is dropping due to increased CO2.

    [Wallace's data is not ideal but it is what he has got. It seems remarkable that climate scientist queue up to make claims about global average temperature based on proxies gleaned from bristle pine cone tree rings from a certain side of the slope, or sediment data, or ice core data from different locations and their data can be graphed in lets say imaginative ways, such as tacking on actual data to the end of a proxy curve because the curve was going the wrong way. Or we can use the one location in the world as our source of Global atmospheric CO2. And all that is fine and dandy. But when a researcher wishes to use actual empirical data of ph levels collected around the world over a long time period (which obviates any lack of mixing argument), they all want to say "that's not statistically accurate". Well it may not be ideal, but it is an appropriate comparison to the approach of climate scientists around the world take. And it is a starting point.

    And if it was irrelevant, why try to avoid releasing the data? - Mod]

    813

    • #
      KR

      Mod – If the statement “not statistically accurate” is correct, then taking inaccurate conclusions from that data and accusing someone of fraud (as Wallace and Noon have done) is egregiously wrong.

      And that is the case here. Wallace is using data where the sampling variations (location, season, depth, time of day, instrument accuracy) are far larger than the trends, and hasn’t corrected for (or apparently even considered) any of those issues. His graph is therefore nonsense.

      The early 20th century data just wasn’t part of the most recent F&S paper – and I quite frankly suspect Wallaces demands for it weren’t exactly polite – Sabine apparently responded in one exchange by saying that ‘it was inappropriate for Wallace to question their “motives or quality of our science”’. Given that approach by Wallace, I think I would have told him to take a hike too.

      Wallace used bad data, made an unsupportable conclusion, and has falsely (by that evidence) accused several people of fraud. I see that as a problem, not a cause for celebration.

      [ Proxy validation - determining whether a particular proxy reflects the parameter of interest - is a large part of the literature. You cannot criticize a proxy without addressing its validation, and to be blunt I don't see much of that in these dicussions. And where I do see such discussion (ClimateAudit, for example), such criticisms tend to be cherry-picked and don't hold up. But that's a side note to the accusations of fraud here, and I don't intend to go into a discussion on it here. ]

      44

    • #
      Robert

      It is simply not possibly to calculate a meaningful average of the ocean pH data due to the varying geographical and seasonal coverage.
      Beginning in the 1980s, there are continuous time series of pH at a few locations (eg. Hawaii, Canary Islands and Bahamas). It would make no sense to append a global mean pH (even if one could be calculated) onto these station data.

      That quote is from the author of the first link you provided.

      So if it is “simply not possible to calculate a meaningful average of the ocean pH data…” then why are we supposed to consider a modeled extrapolation of 2 or 3 locations as being representative of all locations? If you can’t calculate it how the hell are you supposed to model it?

      The temperatures aren’t doing what the models claim they would be doing so why would anyone expect the ocean pH is doing what their models claim they will be doing?

      If I used your argument and substituted the cooling trend we have been seeing in my location as “proof” that it is cooling everywhere we all know what kind of noise I’d hear about that, the weather not climate crap and so on. So why should I consider this any different? At least Wallace is using real data which is more than can be said for the bulk of what we get from climate “scientists” not to mention the fact that I see Dana was there in the comments asking to use the post in your first link on Skeptical Science which pretty well destroys any credibility the author was hoping for with those of us who are capable of thinking for ourselves.

      125

    • #
      TdeF

      Very odd non science. So you should compute pH values from CO2 values and the unproven hypothesis and ignore actual empirical) measurements of pH, something which is absurdly easy to measure, like temperature?

      This sounds so much like the BOM way of determining temperature. Ignore the carefully measured and recorded real data you do not like from Stevenson boxes and simply infer the temperature by from acceptable measurements hundreds of kilometers away. Neither of these are science. Both are ways of using a hypothesis to generate fake data. Since when does ‘computing’ something make it right?

      In fact why not ignore all the 19th century thermometer data and use bristlecone pine rings from a hill on the warmer side of the planet with a completely different climate? This is all quite absurd and not science at all. You do not adjust the data or generate the data from the model you are trying to prove or disprove. That is the exact reverse of scientific method.

      74

      • #
        the Griss

        “That is the exact reverse of scientific method”

        TdeF, you have nailed the methodology of “Climate Science™”

        This is the ‘science’ (lol) that KR supports. !

        63

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Sorry Mod, one of the thumbs up was for you, not KR whoever he is (I suspect Retired Scientist).

      I am unable to understand why plotting raw data means nothing whereas plotting anomalies is the best thing since sliced bread. If you use the raw data you can calculate trend lines etc. indeed the idea that anomalies are the answer seems to occur only in Climate “science”.

      53

      • #

        Plotting the actual data is the correct way of finding a trend. It tells us all we need to know about is there a trend, etc. You do not need anamolies. You also avoid the problem of missing stations and so forth. You have what is actualliy happening at the time the data was gathered. Part of it is a lack of understanding of what statistics are used for and when they are appropriate. You do not need statistics and anamolies from an arbitrary line when all you want to know is what the pH is and did it increase. Absolutely not. You really don’t even need trend lines. You can simply look at the data and see if the values at the end of your series are higher than the beginning one, or whatever trend you are looking for. The idea that anomolies are the way to go is found mainly in climate science. Where models and statistics replace reality. Which is not very scientific but does mean very little raw data is ever used, even where it would be appropriate.

        32

    • #
      The Backslider

      So tell us KR, what exactly did Feely and Sabine use?

      00

      • #
        KR

        The graph Wallace discussed is presented in a number of papers including Feely et al, and can be found for example here, as Fig. 1. The description of the graph is:

        Fig. 1 Time series of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa (ppmv) and surface ocean pH and pCO2 (µatm) at Ocean Station Aloha in the subtropical North Pacific Ocean. Note that the increase in oceanic CO2 over the last 17 years is consistent with the atmospheric increase within the statistical limits of the measurements. Mauna Loa data: Dr. Pieter Tans, NOAA/ESRL (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends); HOTS/Aloha data: Dr. David Karl, University of Hawaii

        Note that this is a description of a local measurement (not global), with just an added note towards the consistency with other measures.

        Feely et al reference other works regarding longer term global pH changes, such as Royal Society. 2005. Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Which means that the global values Wallace argues about aren’t even part of Feely and Sabine’s work – making his accusations of fraud even less reasonable.

        [KR, the paper you referenced simply repeats the Sabine and Feely graph which fails to show the available data prior to the period they selected. It is not showing a graph of data obtained and displayed by Wallace. In the Royal Society paper you reference there are a lot of projections, but I don't see a graph of the data Wallace has included - Mod]

        00

        • #
          KR

          Mod – That’s correct, since I was responding to “what exactly did Feely and Sabine use”, and Feely and Sabine weren’t using the WOD data that Wallace graphed.

          Wallace was demanding something that wasn’t part of the Feely et al paper. And when asked, they told him that the WOD information wasn’t complete enough for what he was looking for, due to aforementioned issues with inconsistency of place, season, depth, with instrument resolution, etc. But Wallace went ahead and graphed without addressing (or acknowledging) any of these issues, and followed with accusations of fraud.

          Accusations that are entirely unsupportable based on the data Wallace (mis)used, and are quite frankly libelous.

          10

          • #
            The Backslider

            since I was responding to “what exactly did Feely and Sabine use

            Which you have yet to answer.

            Why are you talking about Wallace when I have asked you a question re. Feely and Sabine? I will ask again:

            What data did they use for the 160 years you speak of?

            00

            • #
              KR

              “What data did they (Feely and Sabine et al) use for the 160 years you speak of?”

              None. They didn’t present such data, nor drew new conclusions about the last 160 year period. They have been writing about the last 35 years or so of direct measurements. Hence no such data, hence an unreasonable demand.

              They have indeed referenced works on historic pH, such as the Royal Society paper I mentioned above, and placed their own observations in that context. Feely has, for example incorporated such works in several State of the Climate reports (Feely publications here). But any issues you might have with longer term pH trends should address those supporting works, and not involve unsupported accusations of fraud against Feely and Sabine.

              00

              • #
                The Backslider

                Sorry, the other troll here mentioned the 160 years.

                They have been writing about the last 35 years or so of direct measurements.

                Is that so? Well then, they do not have a long enough period of time for statistical significance.

                Out of interest, exactly how many data locations do they have?

                20

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    The answer is simple. The oceans are buffer solutions on a planetary scale. They will not, repeat not, acidify because any change to pH is always offset by the carbonate / bicarbonate ions which act as a buffer to changes in pH.

    92

  • #
    pat

    record-breaking temperatures, AAP? it’s one thing for iiNet to tweet it, but why did you write it***?

    6 Jan: Yahoo7: AAP: Perth heat melts the internet
    Extreme hot weather in Perth has sent the internet into meltdown.
    Thousands of iiNet customers across Australia have found themselves offline after the company shut down some of its systems at its Perth data centre because of ***record breaking-temperatures.
    “Due to record breaking temperatures, iiNet Toolbox, Email and our corporate websites are unavailable. Apologies for any inconvenience caused,” iiNet tweeted…
    ***Monday was Perth’s sixth hottest day on record, reaching 44.4C just before 2pm.
    It was also the city’s hottest January day since 31, 1991…
    https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/25904176/perth-heat-melts-the-internet/

    bring on some global warming!

    5 Jan: KOAT7ABC: Brutal cold will chill 70% of the U.S.
    24 states will be in the chiller for most of the week
    (CNN) —You know it’s going to be bad when 0 degrees Fahrenheit (-17 Celsius) will be the high temperature.
    “This arctic cold is potentially deadly and dangerous,” Maginnis said. “And a second blast of cold air will reinforce the deep freeze on Tuesday.”
    Chicago won’t be much better, with an estimated wind chill of 23 degrees below zero (-30 degrees Celsius) on Monday, CNN meterologist Tom Sater said…
    “About 70% of the United States is going to feel very cold temperatures in the coming couple of days,” CNN meteorologist Pedram Javaheri said…
    The blast from the north could be strong enough to push not just to Florida, but also into the Caribbean.
    ***”It staggers the imagination,” Sater said. “There’s a change a-coming.”
    http://www.koat.com/national/brutal-cold-will-freeze-70-of-the-us/30528286?absolute=true

    10

  • #
    Ruairí

    The ‘science’was clear as could be.
    The pH was down in the sea.
    But the true acid test,
    Was Wallace’s quest,
    In researching his PhD.

    80

  • #
    manalive

    I wish so-called climate scientists would stop trying desperately to prove their cherished theory right and, with even greater vigour, try to disproved it as genuine scientists are supposed to.

    81

  • #
    Radical Rodent

    To wander slightly off-topic before bringing it back again, I have just watched the first episode of a BBC travelogue called “Tropic of Capricorn”. An interesting concept for a programme, ruined by the presenter, a youngster with absolutely no gravitas in his inane ramblings. Anyway, to cut to the chase, he ends up in the middle of Oz, with farmers suffering from the “Big Dry”. Naturally, he brings up the glowball warbling thing (well into the prog, and I was beginning to wonder when it would be raised), and tries to get these stalwarts to blame the drought on that, but to no avail; they resolutely stick to the idea that it is part of a cycle, and they just have to stick it out.

    Unabashed, our stout reporter ventures to the coast, to see the coal trains – and then blames them and their cargo for feeding the emissions for GW. Eventually, our hapless hero ends up on the Great Barrier Reef, to meet a lady scientist who agrees with him – the coral bleaching is all the fault of GW, don’cha know! Oddly enough, though, this scientist does not blame the bleaching on “acidification… erm… isationising” (if you’re want to sound sciency, make your words lo-o-o-ong) but on temperatures. Now, as the world’s oceans have risen an unmeasurable amount, how can this person say that, with absolutely no doubt in her assertion? Surely, the reefs are experiencing daily temperature fluctuations greater than is being claimed the seas are rising (0.02K was the last figure I saw ascribed to it), so why blame temperatures for bleaching? Another thing – hasn’t the bleaching thing been shown to be another damp squib in the catastrophe stakes?

    70

  • #
    Scott Scarborough

    What would the PH VS Year plot linear regression look like if the 5 obvious out-lairs were removed?
    It looks like it would be very close to level… no net change for the entire period.

    10

  • #
    Robert of Ottawa

    Hide the incline!

    30

  • #
    pat

    5 Jan: Forbes:Tim Worstall: Larry Summers Calls For A Carbon Tax Now That Oil Prices Have Fallen
    ???There’s rather a joy at being ahead of the crowd and when that following crowd is an economist and public policy maker of the calibre of Larry Summers it’s really very enjoyable indeed. And that’s the position I find myself in today as Larry Summers has come out and said that the recent fall in the oil price makes this a great time to institute a proper carbon tax…
    Summers is here in the FT (Financial Times) with his call:
    “The case for carbon taxes has long been compelling. With the recent steep fall in oil prices and associated declines in other energy prices it is overwhelming. There is room for debate about the size of the tax and about how the proceeds should be deployed. But there should be no doubt that starting from the current zero tax rate on carbon, increased taxation would be desirable.”…
    Please note that this is nothing at all to do with whether climate change is actually happening, whether it’s going to be a problem if it does and so on. This is purely about, well, what’s the appropriate public policy response if everything the IPCC tells us is true? And it really is just that carbon tax…
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/05/larry-summers-calls-for-a-carbon-tax-now-that-oil-prices-have-fallen/
    (re the writer, Tim Worstall, from Wikipedia: Worstall is a supporter of the UK Independence Party UKIP, stood as a candidate for London in the European Parliament election, 2009, and acted as the party’s press officer)

    30 Dec: Newsweek: Lucy Westcott: UKIP Energy Spokesman Questions Link Between Humans and Climate Change
    Ukip’s energy spokesman has said that the link between climate change and human activity remains “open to question”. He also lambasted mainstream attitudes towards climate science in an interview with The Independent newspaper.
    Helmer, Ukip’s MEP for the East Midlands, criticized “climate alarmism” over rising temperatures and said the figures were “grossly exaggerated” by scientists. He also said that a Ukip government would get rid of legal targets to cut down on carbon emissions. He also said the UK should start fracking and begin the process of drilling for oil and gas…
    Ukip want to repeal the Climate Change Act and abolish the Department of Energy and “green subsidies.”…
    Helmer said: “We think the relation between human activity and Co2 levels is open to question, while the relationship between global temperature and atmospheric Co2 levels is hugely open to question, especially as there hasn’t been any global warming for the last 18 years according to satellite data.”…
    http://www.newsweek.com/ukip-energy-spokesman-questions-link-between-humans-and-climate-change-295673

    10

  • #
    pat

    5 Jan: BBC: Phil Mercer: Why Australians are using sunblock to protect grape crops
    Slip, slop, slap. It was a cartoon seagull wearing shorts, t-shirt and a hat that famously urged sun-loving Australians in the 1980s to protect themselves from damaging ultraviolet rays.
    While sunblock has shielded generations from harm, it is also being used to safeguard the health and vitality of Australian grapes as the nation reflects on another scorching year when temperature records continued to tumble…
    “You put sunscreen on your kids when they go out in the sun, so we put it on our grapevines. That just goes on like a normal spray,” says Bruce Tyrrell, the chief executive of Tyrrell’s Wines.
    “Your vineyard gets this funny white-blue colour, and you look on the berries and there is a little coating on them. It is just like putting sunscreen on and it gives it some protection.”…
    Prof Christopher Wright from the University of Sydney Business School explains that many industries would have to heatproof their operations, including agriculture, retail and insurance companies…
    “Heatwaves are becoming longer, and they are becoming more severe, and that becomes hard to manage depending in which business sector you are in. …
    Heatwaves cause more deaths each year in Australia than any other natural disaster, and they pose particular risks to the bedrock of the economy: the workforce…
    Yet, this is a land of extremes. And while there is disagreement about man’s influence on the climate, there is a shared belief that Australia has thrived in the face of unrelenting environmental challenges, from drought to floods, to bushfires and a burning sun…
    “The ***tyranny of extreme climate has shaped us,” says Tim Harcourt from the University of New South Wales Business School…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30660063

    ***so our climate is a tyranny now?

    20

  • #
    Dave J

    The Feely model of ocean acidification is very simplistic and rather disingenuous. Basically he starts with a preindustrial level of ocean pH of around 8.2 and atmospheric CO2 at 280 parts per million. Then he postulates that as the atmospheric CO2 increases so will the ocean pH decrease. What he doesn’t explain is that pH is on a log-scale. That means just to get down to an ocean pH of 7.2 you’d need to increase the atmospheric CO2 to 2800 PPM. And 7.2 is still basic (a base)!

    So a hundred years of burning fossil fuels has barely changed the pH at all, and Mike Wallace’s data clearly reveals that pH has cycled through a considerable range over the past hundred years. Other evidence of near-coastal variations in pH show changes from near 7.0 to 8.2 within a few weeks, indicating this number is not constant, and the ocean is extremely resilient.

    Moreover, we only have perhaps 100 years worth of oil left, and perhaps another 500 years worth of coal. Let’s take those two numbers and put them together to make 600 years more carbon. In one hundred years CO2 in the atmosphere went from 280 to 400, or 120 PPM. In another 600 years what will happen? Will we go up by another 720 to 1120 PPM? That still less than halfway to reaching neutral ocean pH before we run out of carbon. And if anything we know that ocean life actually likes more carbon, since ocean life is commonly found close to coastlines where the pH is considerably lower than in the deep oceans. So this whole OA argument is nothing but a hoax. IMHO.

    72

    • #
      Mark D.

      Good points DaveJ, imagine too whether we’ll even tap out all that carbon. We’ve done amazing things with the energy we’ve borrowed from nature in just the first 100 years. We’d probably be a lot closer to true sustainable energy (fusion) if we didn’t have to put up with naysayers and doomsdayers with regard to all things nuclear. Give us one third of your proposed 600 years of carbon and imagine what we’ll have accomplished (if we are still more or less free to think and do and not enslaved by government)?

      But right now even a simple pipeline to get low cost energy to market is halted by anti-carbon activists even though there is no serious contender for “renewable” energy. (save Hydro but they are against dams too) Really these anti-Carbon people are quite insane.

      20

  • #
  • #
    Mickey Reno

    This is a good rebuttal to CAGW alarmists, and it has implications beyond PH levels. For example, that the current increased CO2 in the atmosphere is mostly due to natural processes, such as oceanic out-gassing and bio-decay, and NOT so much to human emissions. This is an hypothesis which appears to be supported by the new CO2 remote sensing satellite images, which shows high concentrations of CO2 over Southern hemisphere summer tropical jungles and warm ocean waters. If higher CO2 concentrations reliably and seasonally shift north and south, this supports the notion that the ice core lag during major glaciation shifts is real and dependent on oceanic out-gassing. Which implies that CO2 is not driving the bus but merely following the summer sun.

    30