Ocean Acidification pHraud

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

"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]

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.

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]

Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification

1. O. Hoegh-Guldberg1,*,
2. P. J. Mumby2,
3. A. J. Hooten3,
4. R. S. Steneck4,
5. P. Greenfield5,
6. E. Gomez6,
7. C. D. Harvell7,
8. P. F. Sale8,
9. A. J. Edwards9,
10. K. Caldeira10,
11. N. Knowlton11,
12. C. M. Eakin12,
13. R. Iglesias-Prieto13,
14. N. Muthiga14,
15. R. H. Bradbury15,
16. A. Dubi16,
17. M. E. Hatziolos17

+Author Affiliations

1. ↵* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

• 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?

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]

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.

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

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

 

[JoeMoma]

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]

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.

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.

You did not read the linked articles.

 

[cnm]

edited....Already done.

 

[cnm]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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?

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

 

[westwall]

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?

Evidence could. How about you present some.

 

[Crick]

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?

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?

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]

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?

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?

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.

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]

Evidence could. How about you present some.

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