# Ocean Acidification pHraud



## IanC (Apr 6, 2015)

a report was presented to a Congressional hearing by Dr R Feely, and is now hosted at NOAA. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/feel2899/feel2899.pdf

it contains this graph












this is the data used to model CO2 and pH changes.

late last year M Wallace contacted A Watts to make public this story. Touchy Feely Science one chart suggests there s a pHraud in omitting Ocean Acidification data in Congressional testimony Watts Up With That 

"
Mike Wallace is a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience, who is now working on his Ph.D. in nanogeosciences at the University of New Mexico. In the course of his studies, he uncovered a startling data omission that he told me: “eclipses even the so-called climategate event.” Feely’s work is based on computer models that don’t line up with real-world data—which Feely acknowledged in email communications with Wallace (which I have read). And, as Wallace determined, there is real world data. Feely, and his coauthor Dr. Christopher L. Sabine, PMEL Director, omitted 80 years of data, which incorporate more than 2 million records of ocean pH levels.
"
"
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 email: “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 email with: “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.”
"
"
Interestingly, in this same general timeframe, NOAA reissued its World Ocean Database. Wallace was then able to extract the instrumental records he sought and turned the GEPH data into a meaningful time series chart, which reveals that the oceans are not acidifying. (For another day, Wallace found that the levels coincide with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.) As Wallace emphasized: “there is no global acidification trend.”
"





end paragraph-


> “In whose professional world,” Wallace asks, *“is it acceptable to omit the majority of the data and also to not disclose the omission to any other soul or Congressional body?”*


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2015)

last month Wallace added another article-  Ocean pH Accuracy Arguments Challenged with 80 Years of Instrumental Data Watts Up With That 






end paragraph- 


> The ocean pH data omission was an unprecedented and disturbing incident in the history of hydrological sciences. Only NOAA can likely correct this. That’s because NOAA contains the source of the problem (the FEEL2899 pH time series product) as well as its solution (the WOD database). To help resolve that paralyzing disorder, scientists and others may wish to consider signing a petition that I have authored at (11). It may seem overly prescriptive, but in some ways it merely asks that the ocean pH data omissions be corrected by NOAA, and that GOpH measurements follow the OA authorities’ own published guidelines.


----------



## cnm (Apr 6, 2015)

Apparently Wallace is comparing mean oceanic data taken in various locations at various times with data taken from one location over time and complaining of a lack of congruency between the two.  This even though ocean pH varies with location and season. 

I guess it's the sort of science we've come to expect.


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2015)

cnm said:


> Apparently Wallace is comparing mean oceanic data taken in various locations at various times with data taken from one location over time and complaining of a lack of congruency between the two.  This even though ocean pH varies with location and season.
> 
> I guess it's the sort of science we've come to expect.




legitimate point I suppose. I just looked over the NOAA report and it doesnt specify that the graph was just for Hawaii, and the language implies global. is it correct in climate science's eyes to ignore the global data and replace it with one locales data from 1988 and estimate through modelling back to 1850? apparently so.

I was also a little bit shocked to hear that Wallace was 'warned' that his investigation would be bad for his career. judging from the climategate emails, I probably shouldnt have been surprised at all.


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)

CAPTION: The map was created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution using Community Earth System Model data. This map was created by comparing average conditions during the 1880s with average conditions during the most recent 10 years (2003–2012). Aragonite saturation has only been measured at selected locations during the last few decades, but it can be calculated reliably for different times and locations based on the relationships scientists have observed among aragonite saturation, pH, dissolved carbon, water temperature, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and other factors that can be measured. This map shows changes in the amount of aragonite dissolved in ocean surface waters between the 1880s and the most recent decade (2003–2012). Aragonite saturation is a ratio that compares the amount of aragonite that is actually present with the total amount of aragonite that the water could hold if it were completely saturated. The more negative the change in aragonite saturation, the larger the decrease in aragonite available in the water, and the harder it is for marine creatures to produce their skeletons and shells. The global map shows changes over time in the amount of aragonite dissolved in ocean water, which is called aragonite saturation.

In how many locations in the world ocean do you see zero change?


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)

IanC said:


> I was also a little bit shocked to hear that Wallace was 'warned' that his investigation would be bad for his career. judging from the climategate emails, I probably shouldnt have been surprised at all.



I wasn't.  You're listening solely to his side of the story.  If Sabine told him he shouldn't be making comments about his motives, then it would seem very likely that Wallace was doing just that.  Why would Wallace make a comment about Sabine's motives?  Is there any possibility he could have a basis for such a comment?  Aside for their conversations about Feely's study (*The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2  **Christopher L. Sabine, Richard A. Feely, Nicolas Gruber, Robert M. Key, Kitack Lee, John L. Bullister, Rik Wanninkhof, C. S. Wong, Douglas, W. R. Wallace, Bronte Tilbrook, Frank J. Millero, Tsung-Hung Peng, Alexander Kozyr, Tsueno Ono, Aida F. Rios*) they seem to have been complete strangers.  My conclusion - based in part on the fact that Wallace chose to describe this conversation, is that Wallace was acting like a childish ass and earned the comments he got.  I took Sabine's comments (if he actually made them) to mean "your career will not advance well if you continue to act like such an ass" rather than any threat of revenge, like "My pals and I will end your career if you don't back off" which is, of course, the standard denier interpretation.


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2015)

interesting paper.  http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/22-4_feely.pdf

perhaps it is even worse than I thought! proxy data from 1990-1998, fed into a NCAR model. at least that's what it seems to be saying on p.40 under 'Data Sets and Modeling Approach'.


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I was also a little bit shocked to hear that Wallace was 'warned' that his investigation would be bad for his career. judging from the climategate emails, I probably shouldnt have been surprised at all.
> ...




you have a right to interpret it anyway you want. 



> Feely’s work is based on computer models that don’t line up with real-world data—which Feely acknowledged in email communications with Wallace (which I have read)



I am not sure if the 'which I have read' applies to Noon, the original journalist or Watts. but asking for the data sure got a surly response.


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)

That paper was the work of 15 PhDs.  Wallace is a student.  I will not default to taking Wallace's story and I've seen nothing from the authors yet.  Can I count on you to dig up their response to Wallace's comments?


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2015)

Crick said:


> That paper was the work of 15 PhDs.  Wallace is a student.  I will not default to taking Wallace's story and I've seen nothing from the authors yet.  Can I count on you to dig up their response to Wallace's comments?




here we go again. kinda like when you called Nic Lewis 'unemployed'.



> Mike Wallace is a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience, who is now working on his Ph.D. in nanogeosciences at the University of New Mexico. In the course of his studies, he uncovered a startling data omission that, he told me, “eclipses even the so-called climategate event.” - See more at: What if Obama s climate change policies are based on pHraud



or you could just go to his website. it appears that he has made an appearance at the AGU.  About MW A - Michael Wallace Associates


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)

If he's working on his doctorate, he's a student Ian.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 6, 2015)

pHffffffft


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)

What do the Iranian nuke talks have to do with ocean acidification?


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2015)

Crick said:


> If he's working on his doctorate, he's a student Ian.




OK. if you want to call a Hydrologist with 30 years experience and his own company just a 'student' that is your prerogative.


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)

For all you know, the man specialized in crop irrigation.

That you immediately accept the word of Wallace against the professional opinion of 15 PhDs in a peer reviewed paper tends to indicate that you approached the question with an answer already in mind.


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2015)

Crick said:


> For all you know, the man specialized in crop irrigation.
> 
> That you immediately accept the word of Wallace against the professional opinion of 15 PhDs in a peer reviewed paper tends to indicate that you approached the question with an answer already in mind.




You can see his last ten years of projects on his website. He found the discrepancy in the data while researching for his doctorate. That's why he was pissed that the data was being hidden.

Edit- most papers only have a few main authors, the others usually only provide specific details.


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)

I bet the paper invalidated his thesis.


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2015)

Crick said:


> I bet the paper invalidated his thesis.



I believe he stated that he wanted real data rather than modeled results. You have a problem with that?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 6, 2015)

Crick said:


> CAPTION: The map was created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution using Community Earth System Model data. This map was created by comparing average conditions during the 1880s with average conditions during the most recent 10 years (2003–2012). Aragonite saturation has only been measured at selected locations during the last few decades, but it can be calculated reliably for different times and locations based on the relationships scientists have observed among aragonite saturation, pH, dissolved carbon, water temperature, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and other factors that can be measured. This map shows changes in the amount of aragonite dissolved in ocean surface waters between the 1880s and the most recent decade (2003–2012). Aragonite saturation is a ratio that compares the amount of aragonite that is actually present with the total amount of aragonite that the water could hold if it were completely saturated. The more negative the change in aragonite saturation, the larger the decrease in aragonite available in the water, and the harder it is for marine creatures to produce their skeletons and shells. The global map shows changes over time in the amount of aragonite dissolved in ocean water, which is called aragonite saturation.
> 
> In how many locations in the world ocean do you see zero change?



Can you provide the measurements from 1880?


----------



## IanC (Apr 6, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTION: The map was created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution using Community Earth System Model data. This map was created by comparing average conditions during the 1880s with average conditions during the most recent 10 years (2003–2012). Aragonite saturation has only been measured at selected locations during the last few decades, but it can be calculated reliably for different times and locations based on the relationships scientists have observed among aragonite saturation, pH, dissolved carbon, water temperature, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and other factors that can be measured. This map shows changes in the amount of aragonite dissolved in ocean surface waters between the 1880s and the most recent decade (2003–2012). Aragonite saturation is a ratio that compares the amount of aragonite that is actually present with the total amount of aragonite that the water could hold if it were completely saturated. The more negative the change in aragonite saturation, the larger the decrease in aragonite available in the water, and the harder it is for marine creatures to produce their skeletons and shells. The global map shows changes over time in the amount of aragonite dissolved in ocean water, which is called aragonite saturation.
> ...




Not from the stated method in the paper.


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I bet the paper invalidated his thesis.
> ...



He can want anything he can think of.  What he may not be able to do is tell 15 PhDs what they should have done.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


and there it is!!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 6, 2015)

Data set from 1880:

End of data set


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Data set from 1880:
> 
> End of data set


priceless!


----------



## mamooth (Apr 6, 2015)

Deniers, suckered again. Why? Because in Denierstan, it's more important to go along with the other cultists than it is to do the science correctly.

Weights Measures and Esoterica What Wallace did wrong

It's too long and complex of an explanation to post here. The summary is that if Wallace wants to salvage a career, he needs to retract his fables and issue some grovelling apologies to all the people he lied about. And if Ian wishes to salvage his credibility, he ought to do the same.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Deniers, suckered again. Why? Because in Denierstan, it's more important to go along with the other cultists than it is to do the science correctly.
> 
> Weights Measures and Esoterica What Wallace did wrong
> 
> It's too long and complex of an explanation to post here. The summary is that if Wallace wants to salvage a career, he needs to retract his fables and issue some grovelling apologies to all the people he lied about. And if Ian wishes to salvage his credibility, he ought to do the same.


keep your lips to yourself.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 6, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Deniers, suckered again. Why? Because in Denierstan, it's more important to go along with the other cultists than it is to do the science correctly.
> 
> Weights Measures and Esoterica What Wallace did wrong
> 
> It's too long and complex of an explanation to post here. The summary is that if Wallace wants to salvage a career, he needs to retract his fables and issue some grovelling apologies to all the people he lied about. And if Ian wishes to salvage his credibility, he ought to do the same.



Oh, so you have the data set from 1880.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 6, 2015)

"Takes me woid on it, the ocean was far less acidic in 1880 arkarkarkarka" -- a Leading Expert on ocean pH circa 1880


----------



## mamooth (Apr 6, 2015)

Frank, you're a moron. The chart didn't say they took pH measurements in 1880. You made that up.

Remember Frank, you lying about the science doesn't make the science untrue. It just makes you a piss-guzzling cult liar Now, why don't you and jc run along and have another cult piss chugging contest? I'm sure you both can fall for stupider scams than this one, if you really put your minds to it.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Frank, you're a moron. The chart didn't say they took pH measurements in 1880. You made that up.
> 
> Remember Frank, you lying about the science doesn't make the science untrue. It just makes you a piss-guzzling cult liar Now, why don't you and jc run along and have another cult piss chugging contest? I'm sure you both can fall for stupider scams than this one, if you really put your minds to it.


badda boom!!!!!!

Edit: (laughing as I write this), holy crap tooth watch out for a straight jacket coming your way! I mean, (laughing some more), holy crap. I get that defeat is tough to take, but wow.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2015)

hahahahahhaha, need to watch out for that straight jacket old tooth, it may be closer than you think.  Boo!  scare ya?  don't step on any cracks tooth, you break your mama's back. I appreciate the fondness you have for skeptics and am proud you think I am tops.  I am.  I have quite a lot of confidence that you apparently don't have.  keep up the good work toward getting that jacket though, you've earned it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 6, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Frank, you're a moron. The chart didn't say they took pH measurements in 1880. You made that up.
> 
> Remember Frank, you lying about the science doesn't make the science untrue. It just makes you a piss-guzzling cult liar Now, why don't you and jc run along and have another cult piss chugging contest? I'm sure you both can fall for stupider scams than this one, if you really put your minds to it.



Like your BFF (Best Fetish Friend) g5000, it's clear you use any post as an excuse to remind us all of your pee fetish, that's fine. 

How's the weather? Well it's fine if like Mamooth you love a Golden shower.

In any event if you don't have the data from 1880, why pretend?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2015)

I supposed I could have responded with, you're right I am way too stupid for your conversations.  I have no idea what the hell you think being that you have no data to support any side of the climate discussion. You're right I am too stupid for you!! your stupid is rated so high, I think you top the charts with stupid discussions.  You have it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc, you need to understand you're too stupid to be in this discussion.
> ...



All we know for certain is that Mamooth has a liquid fetish and not ocean water either


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2015)

funny how they have no open mind to a discussion, and lack the ability to converse.  individuals on the left are whack jobs on message boards, they believe they know all of the answers.  How is that?  When the world is so big?  I don't get it, so I am too stupid to their line of reasoning. I want to learn, to know, to broaden who I am. My CP grandson wants to run, he can't, he'd like to ride a bike, he can't.  These fools are not familiar at all with reality and what is what on this planet.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> funny how they have no open mind to a discussion, and lack the ability to converse.  individuals on the left are whack jobs on message boards, they believe they know all of the answers.  How is that?  When the world is so big?  I don't get it, so I am too stupid to their line of reasoning. I want to learn, to know, to broaden who I am. My CP grandson wants to run, he can't, he'd like to ride a bike, he can't.  These fools are not familiar at all with reality and what is what on this planet.



It's from being in a Cult. They can't discuss science, they need to try end all debate by telling us they have "Consensus", which is not a term found in science.

The next Republican President needs to zero out all federal funding for this insane batshit crazy Doomsday Cult


----------



## cnm (Apr 6, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Deniers, suckered again. Why? Because in Denierstan, it's more important to go along with the other cultists than it is to do the science correctly.
> 
> Weights Measures and Esoterica What Wallace did wrong
> 
> It's too long and complex of an explanation to post here. The summary is that if Wallace wants to salvage a career, he needs to retract his fables and issue some grovelling apologies to all the people he lied about. And if Ian wishes to salvage his credibility, he ought to do the same.



Weights Measures and Esoterica What Wallace did wrong

Wallace isn't going to recover from that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 6, 2015)

*Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification*

O. Hoegh-Guldberg1,*, 
P. J. Mumby2, 
A. J. Hooten3, 
R. S. Steneck4, 
P. Greenfield5, 
E. Gomez6, 
C. D. Harvell7,
P. F. Sale8, 
A. J. Edwards9, 
K. Caldeira10, 
N. Knowlton11, 
C. M. Eakin12, 
R. Iglesias-Prieto13, 
N. Muthiga14,
R. H. Bradbury15, 
A. Dubi16, 
M. E. Hatziolos17
+Author Affiliations


↵* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: oveh@uq.edu.au

ABSTRACT
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is expected to exceed 500 parts per million and global temperatures to rise by at least 2°C by 2050 to 2100, values that significantly exceed those of at least the past 420,000 years during which most extant marine organisms evolved. Under conditions expected in the 21st century, global warming and ocean acidification will compromise carbonate accretion, with corals becoming increasingly rare on reef systems. The result will be less diverse reef communities and carbonate reef structures that fail to be maintained. Climate change also exacerbates local stresses from declining water quality and overexploitation of key species, driving reefs increasingly toward the tipping point for functional collapse. This review presents future scenarios for coral reefs that predict increasingly serious consequences for reef-associated fisheries, tourism, coastal protection, and people. As the International Year of the Reef 2008 begins, scaled-up management intervention and decisive action on global emissions are required if the loss of coral-dominated ecosystems is to be avoided.

Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification

*And what does one find in the peer reviewed literature?*


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 6, 2015)

*Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms*
James C. Orr1, Victoria J. Fabry2, Olivier Aumont3, Laurent Bopp1, Scott C. Doney4, Richard A. Feely5, Anand Gnanadesikan6, Nicolas Gruber7, Akio Ishida8, Fortunat Joos9, Robert M. Key10, Keith Lindsay11, Ernst Maier-Reimer12, Richard Matear13, Patrick Monfray1,19, Anne Mouchet14, Raymond G. Najjar15, Gian-Kasper Plattner7,9, Keith B. Rodgers1,16,19, Christopher L. Sabine5, Jorge L. Sarmiento10, Reiner Schlitzer17, Richard D. Slater10, Ian J. Totterdell18,19, Marie-France Weirig17, Yasuhiro Yamanaka8 & Andrew Yool18

Today's surface ocean is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate, but increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, and thus the level of calcium carbonate saturation. Experimental evidence suggests that if these trends continue, key marine organisms—such as corals and some plankton—will have difficulty maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons. Here we use 13 models of the ocean–carbon cycle to assess calcium carbonate saturation under the IS92a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. In our projections, Southern Ocean surface waters will begin to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of calcium carbonate, by the year 2050. By 2100, this undersaturation could extend throughout the entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean. When live pteropods were exposed to our predicted level of undersaturation during a two-day shipboard experiment, their aragonite shells showed notable dissolution. Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7059/full/nature04095.html

*Decades, not centuries.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 6, 2015)

*Meta-analysis reveals negative yet variable effects of ocean acidification on marine organisms

Kristy J. Kroeker1,*, 
Rebecca L. Kordas2,
Ryan N. Crim2 and
Gerald G. Singh2
*

*Abstract*
Ocean acidification is a pervasive stressor that could affect many marine organisms and cause profound ecological shifts. A variety of biological responses to ocean acidification have been measured across a range of taxa, but this information exists as case studies and has not been synthesized into meaningful comparisons amongst response variables and functional groups. We used meta-analytic techniques to explore the biological responses to ocean acidification, and found negative effects on survival, calcification, growth and reproduction. However, there was significant variation in the sensitivity of marine organisms. Calcifying organisms generally exhibited larger negative responses than non-calcifying organisms across numerous response variables, with the exception of crustaceans, which calcify but were not negatively affected. Calcification responses varied significantly amongst organisms using different mineral forms of calcium carbonate. Organisms using one of the more soluble forms of calcium carbonate (high-magnesium calcite) can be more resilient to ocean acidification than less soluble forms (calcite and aragonite). Additionally, there was variation in the sensitivities of different developmental stages, but this variation was dependent on the taxonomic group. Our analyses suggest that the biological effects of ocean acidification are generally large and negative, but the variation in sensitivity amongst organisms has important implications for ecosystem responses.

*Many, many more aticles available from Google Scholar. Odd, cannot find a single one stating what a good thing that ocean acidification is. *


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2015)

No More Mister Nice Blog Annals of Derp Global whacking

Not pHraud but pHoolishness Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology

HotWhopper Know your data - ocean acidification again

From Mamooth's link above, which is even more worth reading.

Mike Wallace best not give up his day job.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2015)

Ah     More bullshit from the land of Oz!


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2015)

my thanks go out to those who linked up articles disagreeing with Wallace, especially the pooh flinging monkey. I like and appreciate hearing from both sides, unlike many of the posters here.

this issue is a great example of climate science in general. let's go over Wallace's complaint again, and then talk about the science.

Wallace was looking for ocean pH data, apparently in connection for his doctoral thesis, so he contacted an eminent climate scientist who specializes in that field and who had recently made a presentation to a congressional hearing. the scientist did not give out the information although he did admit that his results did not agree with historical measurements. after Wallace continued to inquire he was given false leads that led nowhere, and finally given a (not so) veiled threat about his career being in jeopardy if he continued his questions. when Wallace found the historical data at a different source indeed it did not match Feely's results, so he complained that congress had been misled and (millions of pieces of) data were ignored.

these types of complaints are common in climate science, and are written out in the climategate emails. Wallace should not have been denied data or threatened. but what about the science?

see next comment


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2015)

Feely presented a graph to Congress that supposedly mapped out past and future pH changes-






it is based on a decade and a half's worth of data from one locale. during that period there was a big volcano and the biggest ENSO  event measured. yet they have no problem extrapolating out a hundred years on either end. more than 90% infill with one data block in the middle from turbulent times. ohhh the wonders of modeling. Did Congress know it was modeled data? hmmmmm.

Wallace plotted up actual measurement data here-






do I think this graph is accurate? hell no! but at least it comes from real data. there are a lot of people here who believe in proxy data graphs. these real measurements are _much better_ than proxies. 

every global temp dataset has SSTs (sea surface temps) going back into the 19th century. they have the same crap coverage as pH measurements from the 1940s ish.


the biggest problem I have with climate science is their unwarranted certainty about their models. the newest model is perfect, and let's not talk about the old model anymore. although sometimes it is 'the model is perfect but doesnt match the data so let's change the data'. I am all for using models to help our understanding of climate. but we should realize that they have little skill at predicting the future.

so was Congress misled by parading modeled results and ignoring real data? maybe. should the NOAA version online have some reference to real world data? probably.

should Feely and Sabine have withheld information? obviously not. should Sabine have freaked out and threatened Wallace's career? I think the emails should be brought to the appropriate authorities and Sabine should be publicly censured.


----------



## Crick (Apr 7, 2015)

You didn't check out the links, did you.

Wallace took all data, from unknown locations, from depths less than 200 meters.  This depth strata (the surface) has the highest pH (the lowest acidity) of all ocean strata.  He made no attempt to correct for seasonal variation, which is extreme.  He made no attempt to correct for areal sampling density.  He made no attempt to do much of anything that would have improved the accuracy of the data he was presenting.  Read the article to which Mamooth linked and the three articles linked at its bottom and then tell us that you're confident student Wallace has the goods on the 15 PhDs he's libeled.

I see despite my comments you've decided that you only need hear one side of the Wallace-Sabine conversation to know what was said and why.  Wallace's work here was grossly incompetent and his use of his 'results' was as unprofessional as he could possibly have made it.  His career is at an end by his own hand.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 7, 2015)

The Decline Hiders don't care about the science, that's how you know their a Cult.  After East Angelia was busted as a data manufacturing outfit they carried on without skipping a beat. They won't care about this altered data and fudged models either, Cult members never do


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> You didn't check out the links, did you.
> 
> Wallace took all data, from unknown locations, from depths less than 200 meters.  This depth strata (the surface) has the highest pH (the lowest acidity) of all ocean strata.  He made no attempt to correct for seasonal variation, which is extreme.  He made no attempt to correct for areal sampling density.  He made no attempt to do much of anything that would have improved the accuracy of the data he was presenting.  Read the article to which Mamooth linked and the three articles linked at its bottom and then tell us that you're confident student Wallace has the goods on the 15 PhDs he's libeled.



Right, he didn't alter the data, therefore he's a heretic.

Wheres the data from 1880 btw?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 7, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *Meta-analysis reveals negative yet variable effects of ocean acidification on marine organisms*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tell them about the Oregon Oysters are are melting from CO2


----------



## Crick (Apr 7, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't check out the links, did you.
> ...



Frank, did you read the article to which Mamooth linked?  You might want to do that before you throw your lot in any deeper with Mr Walllace.


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> You didn't check out the links, did you.
> 
> Wallace took all data, from unknown locations, from depths less than 200 meters.  This depth strata (the surface) has the highest pH (the lowest acidity) of all ocean strata.  He made no attempt to correct for seasonal variation, which is extreme.  He made no attempt to correct for areal sampling density.  He made no attempt to do much of anything that would have improved the accuracy of the data he was presenting.  Read the article to which Mamooth linked and the three articles linked at its bottom and then tell us that you're confident student Wallace has the goods on the 15 PhDs he's libeled.




I checked most, if not all of the links posted (well, not Old Rocks links, I quit doing that a long time ago). and more links on pH. it's an interesting topic.

are you saying Wallace was treated properly by Feely and Sabine?

I havent read the Congressional transcripts but the NOAA hosted article doesnt mention that model data makes up the overwhelming bulk of results. as you have no problems with any of the other misdirections, etc that I have pointed out to you before I suppose you wont have a problem this time either. Tiljander, stripbark, padding proxy data with instrumental data before splicing, cherrypicking, using inappropriate methodologies, lying about methodology, ignoring/hiding data that doesnt agree, peer review politics, etc, etc. you're like Old Rocks there. if you refuse to read about it, it never happened. hahahaha


----------



## Crick (Apr 7, 2015)

If you read those articles, do you still believe that Wallace's work is competent and meaningful?

In your reading you seem to have missed the point that Wallace is demanding a time series for data that simply does not exist.  The data Feely, Sabine, et al used came from a project that implanted permanent sensors in several locations *IN 1988.  *There IS no earlier data in that set.


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> If you read those articles, do you still believe that Wallace's work is competent and meaningful?
> 
> In your reading you seem to have missed the point that Wallace is demanding a time series for data that simply does not exist.  The data Feely, Sabine, et al used came from a project that implanted permanent sensors in several locations *IN 1988.  *There IS no earlier data in that set.




I havent seen Wallace's methodology. because Feely acknowledged his work did not agree with historical measurements, that is enough of a reason for him to have mentioned it. scientists are not lawyers, they are supposed to give all the evidence, not just the stuff they like.


----------



## cnm (Apr 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> I checked most, if not all of the links posted


So if you read Mamooth's link 

Weights Measures and Esoterica What Wallace did wrong

why don't you respond to the information in it?


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2015)

cnm said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I checked most, if not all of the links posted
> ...




sure. if I remember correctly they moved the goalposts. they poo-poohed pH at <200m because their shiny new model says it is more important to know what the pH is at the depth of a transition point for carb/bicarb, or something along those lines. because we only have data since 1990 for at depth pH we should ignore surface data and Wallace is a dope. that about right? throw out the historical data we have and switch to the new stuff we like.

sounds a lot like SLR. let's use satellites to measure the rise! woohoo!!! a jump from 2mm/yr to 3mm/yr at the exact time we switched over. great! mid-2000s and the 'pause' is playing havoc with the numbers? no problem, we'll just add a fudge factor in. another .3mm/yr should do it.       no one can check the ocean height away from the coast, and they are very chary with information on which coastal tide gauges they are using to calibrate the satellites with. so if someone doesnt like the numbers, what are they going to do about it? what was the first satellite used? Envisat? it showed basically no change in raw data but after 'corrections' for orbital decay and such, it gave just the right answer.


----------



## cnm (Apr 7, 2015)

Ah. The answer is 'because'. 

Okay.


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2015)

cnm said:


> Ah. The answer is 'because'.
> 
> Okay.




I actually quite enjoyed the article. it had lots of information in it. I just didnt think it nullified the usefulness of surface pH numbers. point me to a description of Wallace's methodology for analyzing the historical numbers and we can probably find some problems with assumptions made. there always is. I am very skeptical of the pre-wwII data. so what? it's all we have.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



You mean the first article that said you can't rely on  pre-1998 data?

Did you read it?

Where's your data from 1880


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2015)

cnm said:


> Ah. The answer is 'because'.
> 
> Okay.




someone else was complaining about the big jump around 1960 Sou perhaps?). fair enough. has anyone here complained about the big jump in OHC in Levitus2012 at the same time? both situations are unrealistic. some things collect more criticism than others. so cnm, were you happy with the changes in OHC when Trenberth came out with his 'reanalysis' and suddenly volcanic signatures were there that had been invisible before? 

everything is uncertain, and needs to be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 7, 2015)

So did you see McIntyre's latest humiliating failure?

When commenting on the recent Rahmsdorf 2015 paper on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), McIntyre made the colossal blunder of thinking the N15 isotope proxy that Rahmsdorf references measures temperature, when it actually measures flow. Then he takes that failure to understand and runs with it.

Rahmstorf s Third Trick Climate Audit

So, the usual thing with McIntyre. He pooches the science hard, then screams how it proves that everyone else is wrong and a big fraud.

Naturally, Ian and Westwall will still point to McIntyre's faceplant there as yet another example of their infallible DearLeader debunking the mainstream science.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 7, 2015)

mamooth said:


> So did you see McIntyre's latest humiliating failure?
> 
> When commenting on the recent Rahmsdorf 2015 paper on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), McIntyre made the colossal blunder of thinking the N15 isotope proxy that Rahmsdorf references measures temperature, when it actually measures flow. Then he takes that failure to understand and runs with it.
> 
> ...


point it out to us tooth, where did he make that blunder, can you quote it?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> No More Mister Nice Blog Annals of Derp Global whacking
> 
> Not pHraud but pHoolishness Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology
> 
> ...



"Well...1988 is when they started measuring it at the Aloha Station, one of the four long-term time series observatories operated by the US Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS) and the first to get going. The caption says they're from Aloha Station! They couldn't have gotten the data before they had taken any observations.

While there are earlier data on ocean acidification, going back to 1910 or so and available online from the NOAA, they do not come from long-term time series observations done under controlled conditions at consistent locations, and if Michael Wallace (who claims to have found that there has been no oceanic acidification at all over the past century) thinks he can somehow turn these millions of observations taken from essentially random stations into one global time series, well, he's not explaining his methodology clearly enough for me. Or at all. I'm pretty sure he found garbage."

Had you bothered reading the articles you linked to, you'd see the pre 1988 data is unreliable.

So how are you making out on posting the "data" from 1880?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Ah. The answer is 'because'.
> ...



Wallace's methods disprove the 15 Phd's modeled world.  IT shows that the model is wrong. Even without adjusting for this, that, and the other, the average of all of the data points shows that the models, with all their adjustments, failed.  If you averaged the models created data points, they do not match empirical evidence.  That is why they are being venomous towards him.  It's not a matter of libel, its a matter of empirical evidence vs. fantasy land models.


----------



## westwall (Apr 7, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification*
> 
> O. Hoegh-Guldberg1,*,
> P. J. Mumby2,
> ...







Every lab experiment that has been run shows that the critters build thicker shells in response to levels of acid that they would never experience in the oceans.  In other words these computer modeled tales are just that...tall tales with no basis in reality.

http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/people/faculty/personalpages/tbralower/Bralower2002.pdf

Evolutionary consequences of the latest Paleocene thermal maximum... ingentaconnect


----------



## westwall (Apr 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So did you see McIntyre's latest humiliating failure?
> ...








I don't think mammy has a clue what he posted.  I really don't.


----------



## JoeMoma (Apr 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> CAPTION: The map was created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution using Community Earth System Model data. This map was created by comparing average conditions during the 1880s with average conditions during the most recent 10 years (2003–2012). Aragonite saturation has only been measured at selected locations during the last few decades, but it can be calculated reliably for different times and locations based on the relationships scientists have observed among aragonite saturation, pH, dissolved carbon, water temperature, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and other factors that can be measured. This map shows changes in the amount of aragonite dissolved in ocean surface waters between the 1880s and the most recent decade (2003–2012). Aragonite saturation is a ratio that compares the amount of aragonite that is actually present with the total amount of aragonite that the water could hold if it were completely saturated. The more negative the change in aragonite saturation, the larger the decrease in aragonite available in the water, and the harder it is for marine creatures to produce their skeletons and shells. The global map shows changes over time in the amount of aragonite dissolved in ocean water, which is called aragonite saturation.
> 
> In how many locations in the world ocean do you see zero change?


There's accurate data on that for  all over the oceans of the world from the 1880s......Wow!


----------



## Crick (Apr 7, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...



You did not read the linked articles.


----------



## cnm (Apr 7, 2015)

edited....Already done.


----------



## cnm (Apr 7, 2015)

westwall said:


> Every lab experiment that has been run shows that the critters build thicker shells in response to levels of acid that they would never experience in the oceans.  In other words these computer modeled tales are just that...tall tales with no basis in reality.
> 
> http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/people/faculty/personalpages/tbralower/Bralower2002.pdf
> 
> Evolutionary consequences of the latest Paleocene thermal maximum... ingentaconnect


So you agree it's happening? Let's ignore for the moment the mass extinctions that accompanied the one you reference.


----------



## westwall (Apr 8, 2015)

cnm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Every lab experiment that has been run shows that the critters build thicker shells in response to levels of acid that they would never experience in the oceans.  In other words these computer modeled tales are just that...tall tales with no basis in reality.
> ...







No, I don't.  However, if it were, it would not be a problem.  The biggest problem that the ocean acidification people have to contend with is you could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the net result would be to lower the pH level from 8.1 to 8.0.  Still very alkaline.


----------



## westwall (Apr 8, 2015)

cnm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Every lab experiment that has been run shows that the critters build thicker shells in response to levels of acid that they would never experience in the oceans.  In other words these computer modeled tales are just that...tall tales with no basis in reality.
> ...








What mass extinctions?  A good portion of benthic forams went extinct, but critters higher up in the water columne did fine.  Critters go extinct all the time.  Further the extinctions were local which leads one to conclude that it was due to anoxic conditions.  What is known about the PETM is that terrestrial life exploded.  All the mammalian species that exist today, originated during the PETM.  You need to get out more...

Here's the wiki entry, crappy as it is, it actually gives a reasoned overview of life during the PETM, and as you can see it was nice.

The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years – the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction (e.g.,[27][28][29]). Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated extensively around this time.

The deep-sea extinctions are difficult to explain, because many species of benthic foraminifera in the deep-sea are cosmopolitan, and can find refugia against local extinction.[30] General hypotheses such as a temperature-related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosion due to carbonate undersaturated deep waters, are insufficient as explanations. Acidification may also have played a role in the extinction of the calcifying foraminifera, and the higher temperatures would have increased metabolic rates, thus demanding a higher food supply. Such a higher food supply might not have materialized because warming and increased ocean stratification might have led to declining productivity [31] and/or increased remineralization of organic matter in the water column, before it reached the benthic foraminifera on the sea floor ([32]). The only factor global in extent was an increase in temperature. Regional extinctions in the North Atlantic can be attributed to increased deep-sea anoxia, which could be due to the slowdown of overturning ocean currents,[18] or the release and rapid oxidation of large amounts of methane. Oxygen minimum zones in the oceans may have expanded.[33]

In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on corals.[34] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying plankton.[35] However, the strong acids used to simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from elevated CO2 concentrations may have given misleading results, and the most recent evidence is that coccolithophores (_E. huxleyi_ at least) become _more_, not less, calcified and abundant in acidic waters.[36] Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM.[36] Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae[37] and weakly calcified forams.[38]

*The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota.* Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[39][40] – which may have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders – including the Artiodactyla, horses, and primates – appeared and spread around the globe 13,000 to 22,000 years after the initiation of the PETM.[39

Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## cnm (Apr 8, 2015)

westwall said:


> No, I don't.


What evidence could convince you that the oceans are becoming less alkaline?

edit...Perhaps more interestingly, what evidence do you have that leads you to reject the evidence presented the oceans are becoming less alkaline?


----------



## IanC (Apr 8, 2015)

mamooth said:


> So did you see McIntyre's latest humiliating failure?
> 
> When commenting on the recent Rahmsdorf 2015 paper on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), McIntyre made the colossal blunder of thinking the N15 isotope proxy that Rahmsdorf references measures temperature, when it actually measures flow. Then he takes that failure to understand and runs with it.
> 
> ...




thanks for pointing this out. indeed McIntyre did publish an article 1apr15 Rahmstorf s Third Trick Climate Audit , with comments on the 6th pointing out a discrepancy in evaluation. here is the graph under review-






he assumed that the 15N proxy was being compared to temperature.......wait, what???

and he recognized the 15N data-






 Figure 2. Left – excerpt from Sherwood et al 2011 Figure 3, showing gridcell temperature (as per Sherwood et al reference); right panel: digitized version of Sherwood 2011 Figure 3, with d15N shown in inverted scale.
















oh well. something is a bit haywire. I'll check it out in a day or two when things have settled out a bit.


hey pooh flinging monkey - where are the blog posts defending the _first two_ Rahmstorf tricks?


edit-  here is the blog post criticizing McIntyre. HotWhopper Steve McIntyre s big blooper - mistaking water mass movement for water temperature 

check out the comment sections and see if you can discern any difference in 'tone'. hahahaha


----------



## mamooth (Apr 8, 2015)

IanC said:


> hey pooh flinging monkey - where are the blog posts defending the _first two_ Rahmstorf tricks?



You neglect the possibilities that:

1. Nobody could understand DearLeader.
2. Nobody cared.

Remember, those outside of the cult don't hang on DearLeader's every word. And as this thread illustrates, you've learned well from DearLeader, calling people frauds because your own side made a mistake.

When you think you've found an obvious error that mainstream science has overlooked, it is highly probably that you yourself are mistaken. Instead of screaming "fraud!", you'll look less silly if you politely ask the scientists about what you see as a discrepancy. The scientists are usually happy to explain, provided you're not acting like McIntyre.



> check out the comment sections and see if you can discern any difference in 'tone'. hahahaha



It's McIntyre's usual tone, where he starts out denying any mistakes were made, then shifts to saying the mistakes don't matter, because they don't. He does finally admit the Wegman Report was wrong, but says it was not his fault that Wegman used his bad code.


----------



## westwall (Apr 8, 2015)

cnm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, I don't.
> ...








How many lab experiments do you have to see that show critters growing thicker shells before you acknowledge the fact that it's not a problem?  How many times does it need to be shown to you that CO2 levels have been orders of magnitude greater than they are today, and the oceans never became acidic?   When are you going to pay attention to real data and begin to ignore proven computer models of zero value?


----------



## cnm (Apr 8, 2015)

westwall said:


> How many lab experiments do you have to see that show critters growing thicker shells before you acknowledge the fact that it's not a problem?


So, no evidence can convince you the oceans are becoming less alkaline. Is that right?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2015)

cnm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How many lab experiments do you have to see that show critters growing thicker shells before you acknowledge the fact that it's not a problem?
> ...


well not the kind you've presented. seems quite clear.  Do you not know how to talk?


----------



## westwall (Apr 8, 2015)

cnm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How many lab experiments do you have to see that show critters growing thicker shells before you acknowledge the fact that it's not a problem?
> ...







Evidence could.  How about you present some.


----------



## Crick (Apr 8, 2015)

westwall said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



CO2 excursions in the past took place over thousands if not millions of years.  Buffering from CaCO3 weathering ashore prevented large excursions in pH and in aragonite saturation states.  Due to the rate at which aragonite solubility is currently changing, buffering will not have time to help.  PH will drop more than it has in millions of years.  The results will be mass extinctions of calcium and aragonite-fixing organisms.


----------



## westwall (Apr 8, 2015)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...








Lab experiments show your supposition to be wrong.  The critters have been hit with acid levels equivalent to a CO2 level of over 3000 ppm over a period of a few days and the critters simply grew thicker shells.  Empirical data doesn't support your statements.


----------



## cnm (Apr 8, 2015)

westwall said:


> Evidence could.  How about you present some.


Here is evidence of decreasing ocean alkalinity off Hawaii. Do you accept this?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 8, 2015)

cnm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Evidence could.  How about you present some.
> ...


0.00018 Ph drop in one location, near a dam volcano...  and this is some how relevant to the whole world?  

Excuse me while i laugh my ass off..  You do realize that swings of + or - 0.5 Ph are commonplace as ocean cycles warm and cool?

More alarmist clap trap fear-mongering..


----------



## cnm (Apr 9, 2015)

Apparently for you, Billy_Bob, evidence is evidence there is no evidence.  But as a matter of curiosity, from where do you get _'0.00018 Ph drop'_?


----------



## Crick (Apr 9, 2015)

Did that data (the pH showing a ~0.03 decrease or the pCO2 or the CO2) look cyclical to you Billy Boy?


----------



## IanC (Apr 9, 2015)

name a trend, I can find it for you.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 9, 2015)

cnm said:


> Apparently for you, Billy_Bob, evidence is evidence there is no evidence.  But as a matter of curiosity, from where do you get _'0.00018 Ph drop'_?


Obviously you failed to read the paper or do the math...


----------



## Crick (Apr 9, 2015)

Let's hear it, then, cause that number does not appear in the paper and could not be read from the graph.

And, again, did the pH data look cyclical to you?


----------



## cnm (Apr 9, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently for you, Billy_Bob, evidence is evidence there is no evidence.  But as a matter of curiosity, from where do you get _'0.00018 Ph drop'_?
> ...


Plucked it from your arse, eh? Don't blame you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 9, 2015)

Well, that is Billy Boob's favorite source. 

Odd how we have the deniars flapping yap about no acidification, while about 100% of the papers in the peer reviewed journals are stating that acidification is happening and affecting the food chain.


----------



## Crick (Apr 10, 2015)

Give the man a chance.

C'mon Billy Boy, make us all look stupid.  Show us a pH change of 0.00018 in that link.  Show us the math we failed to do.


----------



## IanC (Apr 14, 2015)

how odd....

I found this graph in an old Willis article on pH. the original reference was to the AGU but it was no longer available. so I googled it. I thought I had found a copy on a blog about quantitative palaeoecology but it wasnt there. 



> Certainly, Wallace’s “compelling” analysis is junk. I hope the rest of his PhD is better than this pHoolishess.
> 
> UPDATE: I’ve replaced the figures after finding a glitch in my analyses.









apparently that's what you got with a few million data points before Feely modeled pH.

from Willis-


> The final thing I learned from this study is that creatures in the ocean live happily in a wide range of alkalinities, from a high of over 8.0 down to almost neutral. As a result, the idea that a slight change in alkalinity will somehow knock the ocean dead doesn’t make any sense. By geological standards, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is currently quite low. It has been several times higher in the past, with the inevitable changes in the oceanic pH … and despite that, the life in the ocean continued to flourish.
> 
> My conclusion? To mis-quote Mark Twain, “The reports of the ocean’s death have been greatly exaggerated.”


----------



## jc456 (Apr 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, that is Billy Boob's favorite source.
> 
> Odd how we have the deniars flapping yap about no acidification, while about 100% of the papers in the peer reviewed journals are stating that acidification is happening and affecting the food chain.


what about the other journals that aren't affiliated with the good old boys peer group?  You really expect that in a peer group they'd actually question each other?  you're so full of the lie that you can't understand how utterly stupid that comment was about peer review.


----------



## IanC (Apr 14, 2015)

IanC said:


> how odd....
> 
> I found this graph in an old Willis article on pH. the original reference was to the AGU but it was no longer available. so I googled it. I thought I had found a copy on a blog about quantitative palaeoecology but it wasnt there.
> 
> ...



I may have screwed up. This is probably the Hawaii data.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 14, 2015)

There have been two recent papers on the PTB (Permian-Triassic Boundary) extinction event of 252 million years ago. Both point the finger at sudden ocean acidification following the sudden flood of carbon going in to the oceans from the Siberian Traps eruptions.

M. O. Clarkson1, S. A. Kasemann, R. A. Wood, T. M. Lenton, S. J. Daines, S. Richoz, F. Ohnemueller, A. Meixner, S. W. Poulton, E. T. Tipper. "*Ocean acidification and the Permo-Triassic mass extinction.*" Science 10 April 2015: Vol. 348 no. 6231 pp. 229-232  Science Magazine Sign In (subs req'd)

Galina P. Nestell, Merlynd K. Nestell, Brooks B. Ellwood, Bruce R. Wardlaw, Asish R. Basu, Nilotpal Ghosh, Luu Thi Phuong Lan, Harry D. Rowe, Andrew Hunt, Jonathan H. Tomkin, Kenneth T. Ratcliffe. "*High influx of carbon in walls of agglutinated foraminifers during the Permian–Triassic transition in global oceans.*" International Geology Review, 2015; 57 (4): 411 An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie (subs req'd)


----------



## Crick (Apr 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> what about the other journals that aren't affiliated with the good old boys peer group?  You really expect that in a peer group they'd actually question each other?  you're so full of the lie that you can't understand how utterly stupid that comment was about peer review.



What other journals would that be jc?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 15, 2015)

I think jc if refering to those wonderful scientfiic journals, Briebart, National Enquirer, and Weekly World.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > what about the other journals that aren't affiliated with the good old boys peer group?  You really expect that in a peer group they'd actually question each other?  you're so full of the lie that you can't understand how utterly stupid that comment was about peer review.
> ...


The more you write, the more I question your sincerity toward science.  I see you believe that only one side of a problem exists and if one doesn't agree with the path of that side, opposing thoughts automatically becomes junk.  I believe Judith Curry is well known and I believe is working on challenging the current peered groups on your side.  Her name is now being muddied in this forum just because she is positioning herself.  How is that?  How does she loose credibility only because she believes differently than those peer groups?


----------



## Crick (Apr 15, 2015)

Judith Curry has been discussed long before this topic appeared.  She has _some_ credibility on the topic.  For instance, she poo-poos the idea that NOAA, CRU, et al are manipulating the temperature data to make things look worse.  But she has a large number of climate scientists opposing her ideas.  Curry has not published any peer reviewed information about ocean acidification because, as she admits, "I don’t have much expertise on this [ocean acidification]".  She has, however, started a thread on the topic on her website (Ocean acidification discussion thread Climate Etc.) where she puts the views of *Scott Done*y, "_Senior Scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Woods Hole MA _against those of *Craig Idso*,_ "founder, former president and current chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change"._  Craig has a PhD in Geography and he and his organization argue that increase atmospheric CO2 is beneficial.  He strenuously rejects the conclusions of the IPCC.  More detailed biographical information for both men may be had at Judith Curry's website via the link above.

I would suggest you read the contents of the thread and Curry's comments.  I do not think you will find her in agreement with you or Westwall or SSDD on this topic.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Judith Curry has been discussed long before this topic appeared.  She has _some_ credibility on the topic.  For instance, she poo-poos the idea that NOAA, CRU, et al are manipulating the temperature data to make things look worse.  But she has a large number of climate scientists opposing her ideas.  Curry has not published any peer reviewed information about ocean acidification because, as she admits, "I don’t have much expertise on this [ocean acidification]".  She has, however, started a thread on the topic on her website (Ocean acidification discussion thread Climate Etc.) where she puts the views of *Scott Done*y, "_Senior Scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Woods Hole MA _against those of *Craig Idso*,_ "founder, former president and current chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change"._  Craig has a PhD in Geography and he and his organization argue that increase atmospheric CO2 is beneficial.  He strenuously rejects the conclusions of the IPCC.  More detailed biographical information for both men may be had at Judith Curry's website via the link above.
> 
> I would suggest you read the contents of the thread and Curry's comments.  I do not think you will find her in agreement with you or Westwall or SSDD on this topic.


There you go again why would she put anything in front of a peer review? She doesn't agree with them! She will be invited to the house of representative for discussion on climate we will see what comes out of that hearing.


----------



## Crick (Apr 15, 2015)

Do you not speak English?  I am telling you to go to HER website and read HER comments on the matter.  Your comments and those of Westwall and SSDD ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH HERS...  AT ALL.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 15, 2015)

Crick said:


> Do you not speak English?  I am telling you to go to HER website and read HER comments on the matter.  Your comments and those of Westwall and SSDD ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH HERS...  AT ALL.


Draft APS Statement on Climate Change Climate Etc.

From her site! Mate

Edit: perhaps you should go to her site and actually read.  Do you even know the site name?


----------



## Crick (Apr 16, 2015)

You are such a fucking idiot.  I posted the link to her site and her discussion on ocean acidification in particular back on post #97.

What you have linked to is her discussion of the draft statement of the APS on AGW - a draft which makes virtually no change at all from their previous statement: the world is getting warmer, humans are the primary cause and that warming presents a significant threat.  It is NOT a discussion of ocean acidification, which, last time I checked, is the topic of this thread.

Such a fucking idiot.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> You are such a fucking idiot.  I posted the link to her site and her discussion on ocean acidification in particular back on post #97.
> 
> What you have linked to is her discussion of the draft statement of the APS on AGW - a draft which makes virtually no change at all from their previous statement: the world is getting warmer, humans are the primary cause and that warming presents a significant threat.  It is NOT a discussion of ocean acidification, which, last time I checked, is the topic of this thread.
> 
> Such a fucking idiot.


You didn't read the article


----------



## Crick (Apr 17, 2015)

I did read the article.  You apparently can't read anything.


----------



## IanC (Apr 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> I did read the article.  You apparently can't read anything.




I read the article. what did you take away as Curry's main points on the two men's dissertations?


----------



## Crick (Apr 17, 2015)

That she does't trust Doney because he didn't express sufficient doubt in his own conclusions during congressional testimony and likes Idso's because he makes comments referring to multiple views on the issue.  

What did YOU think of Doney's and Idso's comments?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> That she does't trust Doney because he didn't express sufficient doubt in his own conclusions during congressional testimony and likes Idso's because he makes comments referring to multiple views on the issue.
> 
> What did YOU think of Doney's and Idso's comments?


Here is an excerpt from Curry herself:
"_In the public arena, a definition that generated wide agreement was that advocacy is attempting to influence a specific outcome, to tell an external stakeholder, “This is what you should do!” It is a deliberate, purposeful public expression of an opinion or point of view. In this understanding, it is using one’s scientific position and expertise to accomplish a specific policy goal, whether the advocacy is directed at the public or at a policymaker. Although not a popular view at the workshop, one participant likened it to a salesperson selling a product: in both instances you stress the data that support your opinion and disregard data that do not. An implication of this definition is that “science” and “advocacy” are clearly separable activities: When you “do” science, you investigate, report, explain, and interpret; when you urge a course of action, you are “doing” advocacy, not science."_

*This is the entire problem.  *


----------



## Crick (Apr 17, 2015)

Wrong.

It is not a salesman who is selling something because he will profit from doing so regardless of the quality of the merchandise.  It is a scientist whose research has revealed to him a threat, from which he acts to save the rest of us.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> Wrong.
> 
> It is not a salesman who is selling something because he will profit from doing so regardless of the quality of the merchandise.  It is a scientist whose research has revealed to him a threat, from which he acts to save the rest of us.


I'll go with JC


----------



## Crick (Apr 17, 2015)

I won't.  I'll go with the vast majority of the world's climate scientists who disagree with her on almost everything.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> That she does't trust Doney because he didn't express sufficient doubt in his own conclusions during congressional testimony and likes Idso's because he makes comments referring to multiple views on the issue.
> 
> What did YOU think of Doney's and Idso's comments?




Doney has personal doubt's about his work, stating that the field is still in its infancy. Curry was sensibly concerned that none of these uncertainties were expressed in his presentation to the govt panel. Leaving out pertinent information in science is one step away from lying.


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

And do you believe that Craig Idso is speaking truthfully when he tells us that in both the atmosphere and the oceans, added CO2 is beneficial?  Between Doney and Idso, which do you think more likely to be accurately describing the situation regarding ocean acidification?


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> And do you believe that Craig Idso is speaking truthfully when he tells us that in both the atmosphere and the oceans, added CO2 is beneficial?  Between Doney and Idso, which do you think more likely to be accurately describing the situation regarding ocean acidification?




I dont have to believe either one of them. Im a sceptic, remember?

I dont believe that a small change in pH, when compared to the much larger day-to-day range is going to cause any of the doomsday scenarios that are so popular in the media.


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

And on what do you base that belief?


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> And on what do you base that belief?




Do you ever even try to comprehend what I say? 

If a change is two orders of magnitude less than the natural range, and the range itself varies within short distances, then I do not believe that organisms will simply die out. Move, perhaps. Adapt, perhaps.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> And on what do you base that belief?



The fact that greater changes happen hour to hour and day to day with no ill effect...and the fact that most of modern sea life evolved to their modern state during a time when atmospheric CO2 was far far greater than it is today.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 18, 2015)

Global warming idiots are the most pathetic dumbshits on the face of the Earth.

It is practically impossible to be that fucking unintelligent.


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

What do you believe is the cause of the rapid warming observed over the last 150 years (assuming you believe it's been getting warmer)?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> I won't.  I'll go with the vast majority of the world's climate scientists who disagree with her on almost everything.


Who are wrong proven now!!!!'


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2015)

Crick said:


> What do you believe is the cause of the rapid warming observed over the last 150 years (assuming you believe it's been getting warmer)?


Hahahaha. prove it's with real data sets. Ah, you can't your side faked up all of the data


----------



## cnm (Apr 18, 2015)

What a conspiracy! One has to admire it. I mean it's dragged in every world government except the Saudis, I think. NASA, NOAA, the Pentagon, the DoD, 97% of published peer reviewed climate scientists.

The sheer scope of the plot deserves an evil genius award ceremony held on an atoll shaped like a skull.


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What do you believe is the cause of the rapid warming observed over the last 150 years (assuming you believe it's been getting warmer)?
> ...




One thing I have been saying for years, and is prominent in the data adjustments, is the attenuation of the warming in the 30s 40s and cooling of the 60s 70s, which leads to a change in shape of the datasets more than just an exaggeration of the actual absolute warming. When researchers use this data they are trying to fit their theories to incorrect or absent warm and cool periods. Papers from the 80s and 90s are definitely based on different data than now.


----------



## cnm (Apr 18, 2015)

You'd think someone would expose that 'abuse', wouldn't you?


----------



## Crick (Apr 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Are you suggesting that known errors should have been left in the datasets to protect the false integrity of earlier work?


----------



## IanC (Apr 18, 2015)

Obviously I am implying that the global datasets of today have been scrubbed of inconvenient variation. A la BEST chopping station histories into pieces averaging less than 6 years and splicing them into a convenient shape, while claiming to be able to pull 30 year long climate patterns from the mix.


----------



## cnm (Apr 18, 2015)

Wow. You'd think some climate scientist wanting to make a name would expose that in a heartbeat.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2015)

cnm said:


> What a conspiracy! One has to admire it. I mean it's dragged in every world government except the Saudis, I think. NASA, NOAA, the Pentagon, the DoD, 97% of published peer reviewed climate scientists.
> 
> The sheer scope of the plot deserves an evil genius award ceremony held on an atoll shaped like a skull.


Why do you care then?


----------



## cnm (Apr 19, 2015)

I admire the evil genius who can carry out such a scheme. Don't you? He must be such a genius and so evil he'd need 3 mini-hims to share the load. And probably four submersible skull shaped islands.

Imagine his evil laugh. And the number of white cats he'd go through. What's not to admire? I mean, scamming every country in the world apart from the Saudis!

Legend!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





cnm said:


> I admire the evil genius who can carry out such a scheme. Don't you? He must be such a genius and so evil he'd need 3 mini-hims to share the load. And probably four submersible skull shaped islands.
> 
> Imagine his evil laugh. And the number of white cats he'd go through. What's not to admire? I mean, scamming every country in the world apart from the Saudis!
> 
> Legend!


right,they're laughing all the way to the bank. Again why do you care what I think? Any skin off your back?


----------



## cnm (Apr 19, 2015)

I have forgotten where I commented on what you think. Remind me.

edit...Oh, the fake data sets.

Well I'm very indignant about them as well, even though I admire the evil genius who set up the scheme that sucked in every world government apart from the Saudis, not to mention suborning all those US government agencies.

Who could ignore such a scandal? I can't imagine why you wonder that I'm concerned about it, I'm only surprised you don't seem to be worried more people aren't up in arms about such a world wide plot to deceive governments as has been carried out.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2015)

Btw, if there's nothing to hide, why hide the data?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2015)

cnm said:


> I have forgotten where I commented on what you think. Remind me.
> 
> edit...Oh, the fake data sets.
> 
> ...


Why respond at all. You're obsessed with being a dumbass.


----------



## Crick (Apr 19, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Btw, if there's nothing to hide, why hide the data?



jc, type the following into the search field in Google: "global temperature data".  Tell us what you get.


----------



## cnm (Apr 19, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Btw, if there's nothing to hide, why hide the data?


Absolutely. It's shocking! The entire world policy held hostage to data sets faked and hidden by a criminal genius who has sucked in 97% of peer reviewed published climate scientists, all the world governments and important US government agencies.

Shocking!


----------



## cnm (Apr 19, 2015)

I bet the Saudis are laughing.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2015)

cnm said:


> I bet the Saudis are laughing.


Cause they have the global warming


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2015)

Oh, and the  money!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Btw, if there's nothing to hide, why hide the data?
> ...


Not the raw data


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2015)

You do know what raw means right?


----------



## Crick (Apr 19, 2015)

That's not what you said.  You said data was hidden.  What data do you believe is hidden?

And, for the umpteenth time, allow me to ask why we hear NO complaints about these data adjustments from the thousands of climate scientists who use them, professionally, on a daily basis?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> That's not what you said.  You said data was hidden.  What data do you believe is hidden?
> 
> And, for the umpteenth time, allow me to ask why we hear NO complaints about these data adjustments from the thousands of climate scientists who use them, professionally, on a daily basis?


Then why hasn't Mann presented his raw data?


----------



## Crick (Apr 19, 2015)

To which data do you refer?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> To which data do you refer?


The set he went to court for.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2015)

Ever hear of hide the decline?


----------



## cnm (Apr 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> And, for the umpteenth time, allow me to ask why we hear NO complaints about these data adjustments from the thousands of climate scientists who use them, professionally, on a daily basis?


They're part of the conspiracy. If you brush them down you'll find white cat hairs.


----------



## cnm (Apr 19, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Ever hear of hide the decline?


Ever hear of [Richard] Muller of Berkeley Earth, the sceptic who painstakingly went through the data and pronounced the published data to be correct?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2015)

What does reconstruction mean?


----------



## cnm (Apr 19, 2015)

_*The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic*
_
www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
_
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases._​


----------



## cnm (Apr 19, 2015)

_The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis._​


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2015)

cnm said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Ever hear of hide the decline?
> ...


It wasn't the raw set, go figure! Everyone gets the same results. Now let's get the raw data and then run it.


----------



## Crick (Apr 19, 2015)

What raw data do you want?  Ring widths?


----------



## Crick (Apr 19, 2015)

Michael Mann Responds to Misleading Filings in Climate Change Lawsuit - The Equation

jc, note the emboldened paragraph below beginning "As Dr Mann's response brief notes..."

*Michael Mann Responds to Misleading Filings in Climate Change Lawsuit*




Aaron Huertas, science communication officer
September 3, 2014




Two years ago, a Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) analyst said something incredibly nasty about Penn State University climate researcher Michael Mann:

“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.”

Mark Steyn at the National Review passed on those comments in a blog post and added that Dr. Mann is “behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph…”

Dr. Mann subsequently sued both institutions and court filings have been flying back and forth ever since. Dr. Mann’s lawyers have just filed a response to scientific and legal claims from the National Review and CEI. As their new brief makes clear, any claim that Dr. Mann’s research is “fraudulent” is pure bunk.

*The Serengeti strategy at work*
In his book chronicling the attacks he’s faced, Dr. Mann compares climate contrarians’ strategy to the one used by predator animals he saw in Serengeti National Park in Tanzania. Rather than trying to take on all the world’s climate scientists, they pick out someone from the herd who they think they can attack effectively. He’s faced many over-the-top criticisms of his research—and his character—from the _Wall Street Journal_ editorial board, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and a whole host of front groups, political actors and online haters.

Why all the fuss? In the late 1990s, Dr. Mann and his colleagues found that much of world is warmer than it used to be. The key graph from their research looks like an upturned hockeystick, a nickname that stuck. At the time, it was groundbreaking work. It also blew a hole in a standard contrarian talking point: that it used to be warmer in the Middle Ages.

Fifteen years after Dr. Mann and colleagues published their initial research, climate contrarians are still attacking it as if it’s the keystone that holds up the entire edifice of climate science.

*Climate science goes to court*
The National Review’s last filing in this case devotes a section to rehashing whether or not research Dr. Mann’s original research is valid. They largely cite contrarian books, statements from Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), an article from the _Telegraph_ newspaper and Congressional testimony from a contrarian climate scientist. Nothing in their brief substantiates an accusation of “fraud.”

CEI has done the same in some of its filings, though it takes a more sophisticated approach. CEI does more to dress up its accusations in the language of science, but their brief emphasizes typical scientific uncertainties and nitpicking while downplaying the fundamental soundness of the original hockeystick. Again, there’s no evidence of “fraud” in their brief.

What’s missing, of course, from all their briefs, are legitimate scientific citations rejecting or refuting Dr. Mann’s work. That’s because _those don’t exist_.

*As Dr. Mann’s response brief notes, follow-up studies have “not only replicated Dr. Mann’s work using the same data and methods, but independently validated and extended his conclusions using other techniques, and using newer and more extensive datasets.”*

Indeed, climate scientists have more hockeysticks than an NHL locker room:




That’s a lot of hockeysticks! From a 2008 Mann et al. paper. Graphic from Skeptical Science.






A 2013 study took a comprehensive look at so-called “paleoclimate reconstructions.” The result “looks like a twin” of the original hockeystick, according to researcher Stefan Rahmstorf. Graphic via ThinkProgress.

It’s fair to say that Dr. Mann’s original research is among the most scrutinized scientific papers of all time. If it were fraudulent – or even just wrong – we’d know by now.

Scientists take fraud and retractions very seriously. Look at the Andrew Wakefield case:_The Lancet_ retracted his research on vaccines and autism and he was banned from practicing medicine. Or skim the great work over at Retraction Watch.

CEI and the National Review also pass on lame rehashings of emails that were stolen from climate scientists back in 2009. National Review’s brief largely ignores the investigations that cleared Dr. Mann and other scientists of the accusations climate contrarians lobbed at them. CEI’s brief cites these investigations, including one from the National Science Foundation (NSF), but tries to downplay them and question their credibility.

As Dr. Mann’s response brief notes, two universities and six government agencies examined the claims climate contrarians were making about the emails and rejected them. His brief cites the NSF’s conclusion that, “…no direct evidence has been presented that indicates [Dr. Mann] fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified the results.”

Again, no fraud.

Never the less, National Review’s Steyn has tripled-down on his initial accusations. In a recent post on the case, he called Mann “Doctor Fraudpants.” I suppose in some circles, that’s hilarious. But the humor of accusing a scientist of living a lie is lost on me.

*Different worlds*
I attended a hearing related to this case last June. It was disturbing to listen to lawyers for CEI and the National Review accuse Dr. Mann of conducting fraudulent research while he was sitting right there. I squirmed in my seat more than once and quietly shook my head at their presentations. It was clear that the lawyers didn’t understand the scientific research they were discussing. I felt like I had stepped way, way down a rabbit hole.

After the hearing concluded, one of the lawyers for the defendants walked up to Dr. Mann outside the court room and asked to shake his hand. He was aghast when Dr. Mann politely declined – as if the lawyer was the one who just had his honor and integrity insulted.

From the lawyers’ perspective, perhaps this was just another day at the office. But for Dr. Mann it was an affront to his character, ethics and work as a scientist.

*Crossing the line with attacks on science*
I’m not a libel lawyer or a First Amendment scholar. Unlike Dr. Mann’s detractors, I’m not so convinced of my own righteousness that I claim to have expertise on topics that are well outside my wheelhouse. I’m just a guy who loves science and appreciates everything scientists do to inform us about our world.

It’s worth noting that other judges have previously sided with Dr. Mann. Litigants in those cases, including Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, also did not have a leg to stand on when it came to accusing Dr. Mann of fraud.

Generally, courts and judges have shown respect for the weight of the evidence on a range of scientific issues, including climate, tobacco and asbestos. In this case, it’s abundantly clear to me that the attacks on Dr. Mann are the result of ideological thinking run amok, not any real dispute about the science. Steyn, National Review and CEI can argue against government policies all they want, but misrepresenting scientific research to make their case simply degrades public discourse.

Finally, comparing a scientist to a child molester and accusing him of fraud is ethically indefensible. Whether or not it is legally defensible remains to be seen, of course, but I’ll be watching this case closely.

Posted in: Science and Democracy, Science Communication Tags: attacks on scientists,competitive enterprise institute, Mark Styen, Michael Mann, National Review


----------



## Crick (Apr 19, 2015)

Again, jc, what raw data are you looking for?


----------



## Crick (Apr 19, 2015)

Do you even know?


----------



## Crick (Apr 19, 2015)

jc...

From Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

[Stephen] McIntyre downloaded datasets for MBH99 from a ftp server, but could not locate the ftp site for MBH98 datasets and on 8 April wrote to Mann to request this information. Following email exchanges, Mann's assistant sent the information as text files around 23 April 2003.[89]

89) McIntyre 28 Oct. 2003 (blog).


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2015)

cnm said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Ever hear of hide the decline?
> ...


Yep, he isn't me and sir until you can show an experiment that CO2 is the cause I'm in. But alas you can't.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2015)

No the ones from the stations and remove the set from the sites that don't exist.


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc...
> 
> From Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...




And was all the data there in those files? No it wasn't. Did the Nature journal follow their written protocol and force Mann to release the data? No they did not.

I would recommend that people read both sides of these issues before they decide who is telling the truth.


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2015)

cnm said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Ever hear of hide the decline?
> ...




 Muller was never a skeptic or even a lukewarmer. there are dozens of his lectures available that show he was a solid proponent of the IPCC. his only excursion was to publically out Michael Mann as a fraud.


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2015)

anyone who wants an informative view of the making of the Hockeystick can watch this series of videos


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2015)

hahahaha. I watched the three parts of McIntyre's video and while I was aware of all the topics that he spoke about it was nice to get the chronology refreshed. this speech was at a Heartland conference. at the end McIntyre spoke a bit about what his position was on climate change and the causes, which did not go over that well with the audience. I loved his quip about getting a standing ovation at the beginning and polite applause at the end. hahaha


----------



## Crick (Apr 19, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > To which data do you refer?
> ...



He didn't go to court for data.  He is in court for libel and slander.


----------



## Crick (Apr 19, 2015)

IanC said:


> anyone who wants an informative view of the making of the Hockeystick can watch this series of videos



Why in god's name would I go to Stephen McIntyre for an explanation of hide the decline?  That's like going to Saddam Hussein for an explanation of Bush's foreign policy.


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2015)

Simple. To see what the evidence looks like on the other side. You could even investigate all the graphs and quotes to see if they are legitimate.


----------



## Crick (Apr 19, 2015)

Hide the decline was discussed in the IPCC's assessment reports before it was ever leaked to the public amidst denier fantasies.  It was a common term in the field of dendrochronology.  It has a history that CLEARLY says you and Stephen McIntyre "don't have a fucking clue".  Or you do, but you don't care.


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2015)

I encourage people to listen to the lecture and decide on the evidence whether the IPCC, or the Inquiries did due diligence on investigating 'hide the decline'. At the very least it will give you questions that the warmers side should answer, rather than just listening to answers to questions not asked.


----------



## Crick (Apr 19, 2015)

Decide on the evidence presented by McIntyre.  Don't listen to anyone else.  Hate to see any informed opinions.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> Decide on the evidence presented by McIntyre.  Don't listen to anyone else.  Hate to see any informed opinions.


Figures you only see with eyes closed


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 19, 2015)

The Decline Hiders don't care how many times they get caught fudging the data, they have a planet to save!!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Decline Hiders don't care how many times they get caught fudging the data, they have a planet to save!!


I thought humans to kill right?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 19, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And on what do you base that belief?
> ...



This is why I believe Crick is a paid shill.  no matter what evidence is supplied he will always revert to his mantra. He always goes right back to pontificating the lie. There are several others who do this too on this board. they do not want debate they want to derail or misinform. He seems to think that how we are today was how its always been and this is NORMAL for the earth.. He fails to grasp the simple concept that the earth doesn't obey him or his liberal socialist seeking agenda.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 19, 2015)

cnm said:


> What a conspiracy! One has to admire it. I mean it's dragged in every world government except the Saudis, I think. NASA, NOAA, the Pentagon, the DoD, 97% of published peer reviewed climate scientists.
> 
> The sheer scope of the plot deserves an evil genius award ceremony held on an atoll shaped like a skull.



Your shear stupidity and ignorance on the matter is stunning to behold.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 19, 2015)

IanC said:


> anyone who wants an informative view of the making of the Hockeystick can watch this series of videos



Excellent Video!!!

IT describes in detail the fraud and how it is perpetuated on the general public. Disclosing how the liars work is a good thing.. Being honest about his own beliefs separated from his work was good forum and he made that distinction clear.


----------



## Crick (Apr 19, 2015)

You people are just so inCREDibly stupid.


----------



## Crick (Apr 19, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Decide on the evidence presented by McIntyre.  Don't listen to anyone else.  Hate to see any informed opinions.
> ...



Figures you never cease to amaze.


----------



## IanC (Apr 19, 2015)

Crick said:


> You people are just so inCREDibly stupid.




McIntyre's video covers the same ground as Muller did in his, just with more detail (that you could independently check). Did Muller lie? Did you even watch Muller's video?


----------



## Crick (Apr 20, 2015)

Where's the peer review on McIntyre's video?  Let me guess: it's you guys watching it here.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> Where's the peer review on McIntyre's video?  Let me guess: it's you guys watching it here.




Hahahaha. Peer review on a speech?

Why do you have such irrational hatred for McIntyre? I hate Michael Mann and I can give you a list of his transgressions. What is on your list for McIntyre?


----------



## Crick (Apr 20, 2015)

My dislike for McIntyre, unlike yours for Mann, is quite rational.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> My dislike for McIntyre, unlike yours for Mann, is quite rational.



Interesting....mann has lied to you and sold you a bill of goods and you like him while mcintyre pointed out the errors and you hate him for it....very cultish of you....and predictable.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> My dislike for McIntyre, unlike yours for Mann, is quite rational.




Rational? And yet you won't tell me the reasons. I think the closest you have come is that think he has a big ego. If you don't read him, how do you know anything about his ego? You haven't been taking someone else's word for it, have you?


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> For all you know, the man specialized in crop irrigation.
> 
> That you immediately accept the word of Wallace against the professional opinion of 15 PhDs in a peer reviewed paper tends to indicate that you approached the question with an answer already in mind.


15 PhDs who are all sucking on the government tit.  They get paid to prove the AGW is true.  What a surprise that they would publish papers to that effect.


----------



## IanC (Apr 20, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > For all you know, the man specialized in crop irrigation.
> ...




Yup. They collected a few years of data, shoehorned it into a computer model that disagrees with past data, and make doomsday predictions for the future. SOP.


----------



## Crick (Apr 21, 2015)

Is that a serious comment or are you making fun of Paddie?


----------



## cnm (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Yep, he isn't me and sir until you can show an experiment that CO2 is the cause I'm in. But alas you can't.


No worries. There is nothing I can do about the fact you can't be persuaded by a predicted rise in temperature due to the greenhouse gas effect followed by an observed temperature rise.

After all, predictions and observations are almost as unscientific as consensus.


----------



## cnm (Apr 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> McIntyre's video covers the same ground as Muller did in his, just with more detail (that you could independently check). Did Muller lie? Did you even watch Muller's video?


A little. I was more interested in his article in the WSJ, where he effectively admits to his inability to be convinced against his prejudices...


*The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism*

Richard A. Muller The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism - WSJ
_
When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that._​


----------



## cnm (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Why respond at all. You're obsessed with being a dumbass.


I'm amused at the way cataloguing the people you consider to be duping/duped with/by the global warming scam is being a dumbass.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

cnm said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Why respond at all. You're obsessed with being a dumbass.
> ...


It's what one is when one ignores the fact there is no evidence!


----------



## cnm (Apr 21, 2015)

Well, only that from the duped/duping. Which category is NASA, btw?






Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Analysis Graphs and Plots


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

cnm said:


> Well, only that from the duped/duping. Which category is NASA, btw?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well I'll go with this even though I question the actual dataset used, and no temperatures are provided, however,  still no evidence concerning CO2. Still waiting. This graph even shows the pause.  interesting, even questioning  the dataset still can't get you where you need to be able to prove anything.  There is 1940 to 1970 showing cooling when supposedly CO2 was increasing and the current pause, again with supposed CO2 increases.  Not sure what you're trying to prove with this graph.


----------



## cnm (Apr 21, 2015)

Evidence of warming. You agree? 



> even though I question the actual dataset used



Are the publishers duped or duping?


----------



## Crick (Apr 21, 2015)

*YO MUHAMMED*



Muhammed said:


> Global warming idiots are the most pathetic dumbshits on the face of the Earth.
> 
> It is practically impossible to be that fucking unintelligent.



What do you believe is the cause of the rapid warming observed over the last 150 years (assuming you believe it's been getting warmer)?


----------



## Crick (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Who are wrong proven now!!!!'



"Wrong proven now"?   Wow... didn't it occur to you to fix that while you could?


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> *YO MUHAMMED*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


150 years? Where the fuck did you come up with that timeframe? 

Are you one of those global warming idiots?


----------



## Crick (Apr 21, 2015)

Are you just a flamer?


----------



## cnm (Apr 21, 2015)

This 'no evidence' trope is a laugh. I mean who really has evidence for anything?

Evidence for the theory of gravity? That two objects of different mass will fall at the same speed in a vacuum? The only evidence we have for that is a US government film, which obviously cannot be trusted.

I bet jc is as sceptical of the theory of gravity as he is of the greenhouse gas theory.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

cnm said:


> Evidence of warming. You agree?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess you can't read


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

cnm said:


> This 'no evidence' trope is a laugh. I mean who really has evidence for anything?
> 
> Evidence for the theory of gravity? That two objects of different mass will fall at the same speed in a vacuum? The only evidence we have for that is a US government film, which obviously cannot be trusted.
> 
> I bet jc is as sceptical of the theory of gravity as he is of the greenhouse gas theory.


Drop a rock  to the ground gravity, evidence


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

cnm said:


> Evidence of warming. You agree?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes how many times do you want me to tell you that hundred and 30,000 times are 3000 times yes I believe they''re duped, liars whatever you wished to call them


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Who are wrong proven now!!!!'
> ...


Guess I missed it. Sort of like you missing the experiment


----------



## cnm (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> I guess you can't read


I certainly haven't been able to read where you've said whether you consider the publishers of that graph to be duped or duping.


----------



## cnm (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Yes how many times do you want me to tell you that hundred and 30,000 times are 3000 times yes I believe they''re duped, liars whatever you wished to call them


Those are opposite conditions. Which one do you mean? Are they lying or lied to?


----------



## cnm (Apr 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Drop a rock  to the ground gravity, evidence


Temperature increases, evidence.

What evidence do you have that objects of different mass will fall at the same rate in a vacuum?

An experiment by NASA?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 22, 2015)

cnm said:


> This 'no evidence' trope is a laugh. I mean who really has evidence for anything?
> 
> Evidence for the theory of gravity? That two objects of different mass will fall at the same speed in a vacuum? The only evidence we have for that is a US government film, which obviously cannot be trusted.
> 
> I bet jc is as sceptical of the theory of gravity as he is of the greenhouse gas theory.


I bet you don't have that  evidence right?


----------



## cnm (Apr 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> I bet you don't have that  evidence right?


Absolutely right. I'm as dependent on scientists for evidence of the theory of gravity as I am dependent on them for evidence of the greenhouse theory effect.

You seem to think you are not, yet you fail to front up with any evidence regarding two objects of different mass falling at the same rate in a vacuum, let alone your own independent evidence of this fact.


----------



## cnm (Apr 22, 2015)

You still haven't said whether you consider the publishers of that graph to be lying or lied to. Which do you think is the case?


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Yes how many times do you want me to tell you that hundred and 30,000 times are 3000 times yes I believe they''re duped, liars whatever you wished to call them



jc, what is this supposed to mean?

If it helps:

3,000 x 10 = 30,000

3,000 x 100 = 300,000


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2015)

jc456 said:


> I bet you don't have that  evidence right?





cnm said:


> Absolutely right. I'm as dependent on scientists for evidence of the theory of gravity as I am dependent on them for evidence of the greenhouse theory effect.
> 
> You seem to think you are not, yet you fail to front up with any evidence regarding two objects of different mass falling at the same rate in a vacuum, let alone your own independent evidence of this fact.





jc456 said:


> Hahaha you loser you have no idea about life fuck off



Reviewing the conversation, you two were talking about evidence for the greenhouse effect and for Newtonian gravity.  You weren't talking about life.  And CNM was being completely polite and respectful to you.   So why do you make this comment jc?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes how many times do you want me to tell you that hundred and 30,000 times are 3000 times yes I believe they''re duped, liars whatever you wished to call them
> ...


What it said


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2015)

What it says is unintelligible.  Is it perhaps missing some punctuation?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> What it says is unintelligible.  Is it perhaps missing some punctuation?


Nope


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2015)

*ADDRESS the OP folks.*


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2015)

westwall said:


> *ADDRESS the OP folks.*


Strawmen questions need to stop!


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2015)

jc456 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > *ADDRESS the OP folks.*
> ...







If it's a strawman argument point that out as you destroy it.  But address the OP.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2015)

westwall said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Really, most every point is a strawman. When one can not provide evidence the rest is straw.


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2015)

jc456 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...






It doesn't matter.  Follow the rules when you post.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 26, 2015)

cnm said:


> Evidence of warming. You agree?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Warming?  Possibly...(depends on how many homogenizations and adjustments have been made) The cause of the hypothesized warming is totally Natural Variation unless you have proof of any other cause.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 26, 2015)

If you think temperature variation is not natural, then you necessarily believe in the supernatural.

And I think you're delusional.


----------



## IanC (Sep 9, 2015)

I wonder what the reaction will be to the upcoming paper that crushes the validity of ocean pH papers.

Written by a warmer but he wants climate science to step up their game.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 9, 2015)

IanC said:


> I wonder what the reaction will be to the upcoming paper that crushes the validity of ocean pH papers.
> 
> Written by a warmer but he wants climate science to step up their game.



Do the Argus buoys monitor pH? Seems you need another one of those fruitless GLOBALBALONEY single numbers here. You know the kinda number that's only truely useful to make the AGW case....

And who's the victim --- I mean author     ---- of this more honester piece of work?


----------



## IanC (Sep 9, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what the reaction will be to the upcoming paper that crushes the validity of ocean pH papers.
> ...




Sorry flac-, the name of the author and where it was discussed eludes me at present. It sounded like a detailed critique of the methods employed by most of the pH papers, and how to improve the results and reliability. It should be coming shortly. I think it was in the end stages of review. Sorry I can't be more help right now.


----------



## Crick (Sep 10, 2015)

So, an amazing paper with incredible contents that we can only experience through your memory.  Isn't that something.  Well, heck, I'm sold.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2016)

Some new information just popped up on the ocean acidification fraud...courtesy of FOIA.  Good stuff which sheds some real light on the topic...not that those who believe will ever admit it.

It seems that a little team of ocean acidification "experts" put together a scary op ed for the New York times just to keep the fear level up on the topic of acidification.

The team collaborated with the editor, and the editor noted that the piece was good, but that they needed to sex it up a bit.  The editor said:



> _It’s very interesting, but in order to work for us it needs to be geared more toward the general reader. Can the authors give us more specific, descriptive images about how acidification has already affected the oceans? Is the situation akin to the acid rain phenomenon that hit North America? What can be done to counteract the problem?_


_

Dr Busch who works for NOAA's ocean acidification program and Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle responded to the request as follows:




Unfortunately, I can’t provide this information to you because* it doesn’t exist*. As I said in my last email, *currently there are NO areas of the world that are severely degraded because of OA or even areas that we know are definitely affected by OA right now.* If you want to use this type of language, you could write about the CO2 vent sites in Italy or Polynesia as examples of things to come. Sorry that I can’t be more helpful on this!

Click to expand...



Get that....DOESN'T EXIST.....NO AREAS OF THE WORLD THAT ARE SEVERELY DEGRADED BECAUSE OF OA *OR EVEN AREAS THAT WE KNOW ARE DEFINATELY AFFECTED BY OA RIGHT NOW.
*_
So not having any actual evidence to support the claims being made in the opinion piece whose purpose was to keep up the fear of ocean acidification, he suggests that she write about completely natural CO2 vents in Italy and Polynesia as if they were evidence to support the claims made in the opinion piece.  This is the nature of climate science today.  Dr Busch had more integrity than most climate scientists in admitting that there was no data to support the ocean acidification narrative, but was fine with adding some scare factor with the natural CO2 vents...

Dr Busch went on to write to Madelyn Applebaum of NOAA:

_



			Thanks for letting me chime in on this piece.  My two general impressions are the following:
		
Click to expand...

_


> _1) This article is mostly gloom and doom, which research has shown that people don’t respond to well. In fact, people just stop reading gloom and doom environmental stories. It could be good to highlight ways we can and are dealing with OA [Ocean Acidification] now and that we have an opportunity to prevent the major predicted impacts of OA by stopping carbon emissions before larger chemistry changes happen…_
> 
> _2) I think it is really important to resist the NYT editor’s impulse to say that OA is wreaking all sorts of havoc RIGHT NOW, because for ecological systems, *we don’t yet have the evidence to say that. OA is a problem today because it is changing ocean chemistry so quickly. The vast majority of the biological impacts of OA will only occur under projected future chemistry conditions. Also, the study of the biological impacts of OA is so young that we don’t have any data sets that show a direct effect of OA on population health or trajectory*. Best, Shallin._


_

 During the course of these emails, Dr. Busch had some comments regarding statements made by Chris Sabine, the director of the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory regarding the Great Barrier Reef.




			I’m not sure that I agree with Chris’s statement about the impact of OA on the Great Barrier Reef, [namely] ‘but underlying all of those factors is the fact that the corals are so stressed from ocean acidification that they can’t recover from those other impacts the way they used to be able to recover.’ Given my knowledge of the literature, OA is more of a future problem than a problem right now for the Great Barrier Reef. I think it is important to resist the
		
Click to expand...

_


> NYT_ editor’s impulse to say that OA is wreaking all sorts of havoc RIGHT NOW, because for ecological systems, we don’t yet have the evidence to say that._


_

The emails go on extensively and provide a revealing window into the back room conversations and the sheer dishonesty present in the field of climate science...it its this sort of information that justifies the recent congressional demand for emails regarding the back room conversations about the so called pause busting rewrite of the temperature data base...these people are liars, and criminals engaging in deliberate deception.

_


----------



## IanC (Jan 1, 2016)

wasnt Sabine the one who 'threatened' the guy who wanted information? something to the effect of 'you wont work in this field' if you keep asking for that data. he didnt realize the PhD candidate already had his own business and wouldnt be scared off. Sabine never did give up the data though.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2016)

IanC said:


> wasnt Sabine the one who 'threatened' the guy who wanted information? something to the effect of 'you wont work in this field' if you keep asking for that data. he didnt realize the PhD candidate already had his own business and wouldnt be scared off. Sabine never did give up the data though.



It is the "private" conversations that reveal the abject dishonesty present in all areas of climate science and I understand perfectly why they would fight tooth and nail to keep the evidence of their conniving out of the public eye....politicians who are their masters would not hesitate to throw any of them under the bus in a heartbeat in order to keep themselves from being implicated in any of the chicanery happening in climate science.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 1, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Some new information just popped up on the ocean acidification fraud...courtesy of FOIA.  Good stuff which sheds some real light on the topic...not that those who believe will ever admit it.
> 
> It seems that a little team of ocean acidification "experts" put together a scary op ed for the New York times just to keep the fear level up on the topic of acidification.
> 
> ...


So AR4 section on OA was a waste of electrons


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Some new information just popped up on the ocean acidification fraud...courtesy of FOIA.  Good stuff which sheds some real light on the topic...not that those who believe will ever admit it.
> ...



Well they did get a lot of mileage out of that steaming pile.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 1, 2016)

So what's the average ocean pH anyway?


----------



## Crick (Jan 1, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Some new information just popped up on the ocean acidification fraud...courtesy of FOIA.  Good stuff which sheds some real light on the topic...not that those who believe will ever admit it.
> 
> It seems that a little team of ocean acidification "experts" put together a scary op ed for the New York times just to keep the fear level up on the topic of acidification.
> 
> ...



So, it looks as if your charge of alarmism has, by your hand, just fallen on its face.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 1, 2016)

Values of pH in surface seawater have shown a clear long-term trend of decrease from 3°N and 34°N along the repeat hydrographic line at 137°E in winter (Jan. - Feb.) since 1984. The rate of decrease is approximately 0.01 - 0.02 per decade at each latitude.








*Long-term trends of pH at 10, 20 and 30°N in winter (left) and JMA’s repeat hydrographic line at 137°E (right).*
The Numbers in the figure on the left indicate rates of change at each latitude. The '±' symbols indicate a 95% confidence interval.

*So, according to our 'Conservative' dingle berries, there is an international conspiracy to falsify the pH data. LOL*


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 1, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Values of pH in surface seawater have shown a clear long-term trend of decrease from 3°N and 34°N along the repeat hydrographic line at 137°E in winter (Jan. - Feb.) since 1984. The rate of decrease is approximately 0.01 - 0.02 per decade at each latitude.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow O-Rocks --- An entire 0.05 change in over 30 years.. Why that's almost 0.0017 per YEAR !!! Yikes.. 
Did it account for water temp? Did it account for current changes? What is the YEARLY NATURAL variation in that area? Inquiring minds ask questions. Closed frightened minds just cast "dingle berries"....


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 1, 2016)

Hell OldyRocks. That testline off Japan might just be detecting the SUPER HUMONGEOUS new volume of "acidic" melt from the Antarctic.. Wouldn't that make you feel safer??  If it was due to a higher concentration of PURE GLACIER FRESH spring water??  Instead of evil dark and nasty CO2 ???


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 1, 2016)

When enough scientists are seeing the same type of changes in enough different places, that does mean something is happening. Whether it fits your politics or not.


----------

