Ocean Acidification pHraud

[Crick]

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]

Ah More bullshit from the land of Oz!

 

[IanC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

1. 
   
   
   • 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.

Tell them about the Oregon Oysters are are melting from CO2

 

[Crick]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

Ah. The answer is 'because'.

Okay.

 

[IanC]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?