Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
an update to yet another gem of denier BS associated with ocean acidification: earlier related posts are added at the bottom (of this post):
in this piece of denier crapola, the much hyped claim was that NOAA scientists had purposely omitted some 80 years of data... and in so doing, fraudulently arrived at their results/analysis that speak to levels of existing ocean acidification at regional levels across the earth's oceans. In the particular denier fallacious attack, a graphic localized to Hawaii was targeted.
in my initial reply I spoke to the data quality aspect relative to ~1990 where ocean community scientists shifted away from using data associated with the less accurate "ph bulb measurement" technique in favour of more accurate data associated with alternate and more enhanced measuring techniques based on, for example, alkalinity and DIC (Dissolved Inorganic Carbon) process methods to arrive at ocean pH. I also highlighted the fact that the denier attacking the NOAA scientists and their analysis was fully aware of why they chose the data they did... in fact, as I wrote, the denier spoke to it himself in his own blog writings... which as I also pointed out... was conveniently left out of the narrative that got mega-hyped across the denialsphere!
of course, the key in the NOAA scientists analysis is that it has a regional focus... analyze data per regional areas and determine pH, per regional area, accordingly. One point I didn't highlight was the additional nonsensical approach the denier took in presuming to calculate an ocean-wide pH trend level... by presuming to just calculate a "global mean pH" for each year without factoring such things as the regional variability in geographic and seasonal patterns in ocean pH. A somewhat analogous/bogus example that illustrates this Big Time Denier Fail would be for someone to attempt to calculate a global temperature figure/trend based on absolute temperature rather than calculating anomalies and gridding quality checked data.
in this piece of denier crapola, the much hyped claim was that NOAA scientists had purposely omitted some 80 years of data... and in so doing, fraudulently arrived at their results/analysis that speak to levels of existing ocean acidification at regional levels across the earth's oceans. In the particular denier fallacious attack, a graphic localized to Hawaii was targeted.
in my initial reply I spoke to the data quality aspect relative to ~1990 where ocean community scientists shifted away from using data associated with the less accurate "ph bulb measurement" technique in favour of more accurate data associated with alternate and more enhanced measuring techniques based on, for example, alkalinity and DIC (Dissolved Inorganic Carbon) process methods to arrive at ocean pH. I also highlighted the fact that the denier attacking the NOAA scientists and their analysis was fully aware of why they chose the data they did... in fact, as I wrote, the denier spoke to it himself in his own blog writings... which as I also pointed out... was conveniently left out of the narrative that got mega-hyped across the denialsphere!
of course, the key in the NOAA scientists analysis is that it has a regional focus... analyze data per regional areas and determine pH, per regional area, accordingly. One point I didn't highlight was the additional nonsensical approach the denier took in presuming to calculate an ocean-wide pH trend level... by presuming to just calculate a "global mean pH" for each year without factoring such things as the regional variability in geographic and seasonal patterns in ocean pH. A somewhat analogous/bogus example that illustrates this Big Time Denier Fail would be for someone to attempt to calculate a global temperature figure/trend based on absolute temperature rather than calculating anomalies and gridding quality checked data.
the related article/paper as published within the journal 'Oceanography'... inclusive of detailed chemistry and a related (data sourced) table of "average concentrations of carbon system parameters and temperature-and-salinity values for surface waters of the major ocean basins based on the global ocean data analysis project data set."
this 'event' has certainly reached the upper echelon of denier hype! What's lost in any denier articles is the, in my understanding, the reason the targeted data begins around 1990 is that it coincides with the availability of more reliable data based on alkalinity and DIC (Dissolved Inorganic Carbon) process methods to arrive at pH... that the 'ocean community' began to rely less upon the older dated 'pH bulb meters' and moved to rely upon other more reliable methods to determine ocean pH.
your suggestion of 'Wallace being a dick' is spot on if you factor he's knowingly manufactured the whole event... in my view, his own blog writing speaks to exactly that. In that regard, Wallace closes a Jan 2014 blog entry with the following passage:
I expect once the holiday break settles out, a formal response will be forthcoming... perhaps even from NOAA directly. In any case, just as stands, it's quite telling to realize the dual standard at play here. On one level we have the denier community purposely cherry-picking ~15-18 years as the reference period to determine surface temperature... apparently, a somewhat relative time-frame for more reliable ocean pH data is verboten!
your suggestion of 'Wallace being a dick' is spot on if you factor he's knowingly manufactured the whole event... in my view, his own blog writing speaks to exactly that. In that regard, Wallace closes a Jan 2014 blog entry with the following passage:
It’s possible that much or all of this post-1988 data was not recorded using glass electrode pH meters. As my earlier posts document, the ocean science community has moved away from glass electrodes starting about 1989, although other parts of the water scientific community and other industries continue to use glass electrode pH meters for all ranges of ionic strengths.
of course, none of the articles I perused across the typical denier blogs have Wallace including this little ditty in his article - go figure!I expect once the holiday break settles out, a formal response will be forthcoming... perhaps even from NOAA directly. In any case, just as stands, it's quite telling to realize the dual standard at play here. On one level we have the denier community purposely cherry-picking ~15-18 years as the reference period to determine surface temperature... apparently, a somewhat relative time-frame for more reliable ocean pH data is verboten!
in regards to my prior response to the denier BS that presumed to accuse NOAA of data manipulation... and fraud... I spoke of an expectation of a formal response from NOAA:this would be the NOAA response: Quality of pH Measurements in the NODC Data Archives
In order to measure changes that are due to ocean acidification we need to monitor very small pH changes in the global oceans. For example, anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) has caused a pH decrease of approximately 0.1, which is about a 26% increase in the hydrogen ion concentration over the past 100 years. Monitoring these small changes requires very sensitive and reliable observations.
The NOAA National Oceanographic Data Center’s (NODC) World Ocean Database has a great deal of historical pH data (nearly 1/4 million profiles; Boyer et al., 2013 – Fig. 2.11). The data collected prior to 1989 are typically not well documented and their metadata is incomplete; therefore, such data are of unknown and probably variable quality. The reasons for this are manifold (see next section). The uncertainty of these older pH measurements is rarely likely to be less than 0.03 in pH, and could easily be as large as 0.2 in pH. This data set is thus not at all well-suited to showing a change of 0.1 in pH over the last 100 years — the amount of pH change that would be expected to occur over the 100 years since the first seawater pH measurements, as a result of the documented increase in atmospheric CO2 levels and assuming that the surface ocean composition remains in approximate equilibrium with respect to the atmosphere.
It is only since the 1990s that it has been possible to discern small pH changes in the ocean with reasonable confidence. The figure in Feely (2008, shown above) shows the changes in pH inferred from measured changes in the seawater carbonate system seen off Hawaii since 1988, when a regular time-series study was instituted there using the best available methods for measuring CO2 changes in seawater. A limited number of other time-series stations have shown a similar pattern (Rhein et al., 2013; Bates et al., 2014).
the fully publication cited NOAA article then proceeds to go into a more lengthy account of both:The NOAA National Oceanographic Data Center’s (NODC) World Ocean Database has a great deal of historical pH data (nearly 1/4 million profiles; Boyer et al., 2013 – Fig. 2.11). The data collected prior to 1989 are typically not well documented and their metadata is incomplete; therefore, such data are of unknown and probably variable quality. The reasons for this are manifold (see next section). The uncertainty of these older pH measurements is rarely likely to be less than 0.03 in pH, and could easily be as large as 0.2 in pH. This data set is thus not at all well-suited to showing a change of 0.1 in pH over the last 100 years — the amount of pH change that would be expected to occur over the 100 years since the first seawater pH measurements, as a result of the documented increase in atmospheric CO2 levels and assuming that the surface ocean composition remains in approximate equilibrium with respect to the atmosphere.
It is only since the 1990s that it has been possible to discern small pH changes in the ocean with reasonable confidence. The figure in Feely (2008, shown above) shows the changes in pH inferred from measured changes in the seawater carbonate system seen off Hawaii since 1988, when a regular time-series study was instituted there using the best available methods for measuring CO2 changes in seawater. A limited number of other time-series stations have shown a similar pattern (Rhein et al., 2013; Bates et al., 2014).
- Issues related to pH measurement technique and data reporting in the pre-1990 era, and
- Improvements on the pH measurement technique and data reporting in the post-1990 era
- Improvements on the pH measurement technique and data reporting in the post-1990 era
Good post; but More Graphs damn you
You seem to be crying for attention now, I wonder how many forums have punted you or ignoring your attempt at debate, because your know-it-all style leaves a lot to be desired.....
And quoting yourself is the ultimate in Narcissism
of note: since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. So why are scientists concerned about such a seemingly small change in pH? Since the pH scale is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity.
many organisms are very sensitive to seemingly small changes in pH... many marine organisms are very sensitive to either direct or indirect effects of the change in acidity (or H+ concentration) in the marine environment. Fundamental physiological processes such as respiration, calcification (shell/skeleton building), photosynthesis, and reproduction have been shown to respond to the magnitude of changes in CO2 concentrations in seawater, along with the resultant changes in pH and carbonate ion concentrations that are expected over the next century.
A map of sample sites rather than a graph . Then we'll need more maps to overlay. Seeing how it's hydrothermally active in the area wees gonna need vent maps and vent chemical maps CO2, H2S CH4 and H CLs out the yin Yang.
Millions and millions and millions of sea floor gas vents and very few are monitored.
Millions and millions and millions of sea floor gas vents and very few are monitored.
I look forward to you presenting evidence of an "uptick" in ocean sea floor venting... one that coincides with the timing ocean scientists have attached to the relatively recent increase in ocean acidification.
AH YES when your claims are proved false change your way of measuring to obtain the data you require to keep the religion alive. WHere is the graphs?
you made a rather incoherent claim that, as you stated, "proved false change your way of measuring to obtain the data you require to keep the religion alive". I challenged you to state what, "claim proven false" you were speaking to.
you refuse to respond with a specific example. Which is, of course, the long-standing pattern of you simply making statements you're not prepared to substantiate... that you're not prepared to back up.
Ron - thanks for all your time and effort in working to remove trolling from this thread! I trust all members will recognize your efforts, respect them, respect the CC Forum and its membership and attempt to quell ongoing, as you say, "repulsive and blatant trolling".
All claims of AGW. Your religion has false prophets. Whenever caught in a lie they quickly change the models. The problem with models is they are only as accurate as the person doing the programing. And when that person has a predetermined outcome in mind it only leads to yet another lie.
models are certainly under continuous revision towards improvement, reducing uncertainty, etc.; I would be interested in you highlighting an example of your declared "caught in a lie... one that resulted in a, as you stated, "quick model change". Citation request - thanks in advance.
didn't miss it - see here:
my question to you is obvious... why would you simply, and automatically, accept that 'Tisdale' article as having any credibility?
now you're just insulting. I'm giving props to the efforts made by a board moderator to clean up trolling from several threads. Is there a problem with that... for you?
this is now the 2nd time you're purposely framing conflict... in another thread, you just a few minutes back blasted out of the gate all concerned about... something??? I asked you to clarify what your point was... you're ignoring that request. I'll ask again... what was the point of your post in that other thread... the one you're ignoring my request for you to clarify?