Ocean Acidification pHraud

[Crick]

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]

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!

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:

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

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]

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]

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]

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!

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:

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

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.

So AR4 section on OA was a waste of electrons

 

[SSDD]

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!

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:

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

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.

So AR4 section on OA was a waste of electrons

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So what's the average ocean pH anyway?

 

[Crick]

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!

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:

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

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.

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

 

[Old Rocks]

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]

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

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]

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]

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.