- …
Posted on 01/10/2015 12:20:59 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Co-authored James Doogue and JoNova
Empirical data withheld by key scientists shows that since 1910 ocean pH levels have not decreased in our oceans as carbon dioxide levels increased. Overall the trend is messy but more up than down, becoming less acidic. So much for those terrifying oceans of acid that were coming our way.
Scientists have had pH meters and measurements of the oceans for one hundred years. But experts decided that computer simulations in 2014 were better at measuring the pH in 1910 than the pH meters were. The red line (below) is the models recreation of ocean pH. The blue stars are the data points — the empirical evidence.
James Delingpole on ‘Breitbart’:
NOAAgate: ‘ocean acidification’ could turn out to be the biggest con since Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick
The alleged fraud was uncovered by Mike Wallace, a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience now working towards his PhD at the University of New Mexico. While studying a chart produced by Feely and Sabine, apparently showing a strong correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and falling oceanic pH levels, Wallace noticed that some key information had been omitted.
Mysteriously, the chart only began in 1988. But Wallace knew for a fact that there were oceanic pH measurements dating back to at least 100 years earlier and was puzzled that this solid data had been ignored, in favour of computer modelled projections.
It has all the usual marks of modern bureaucratized science: scientists use a short stretch of data and computers to guesstimate a long “dataset”. Then when asked, they get huffy, hide the data, and insult the questioner. The poor sod seeking access to publicly funded data has to do an FOIA request, which in this case wasn’t successful, but then he got the data another way anyhow. Money was wasted hiding the data, it was wasted on bad policies, it was wasted defending an FOIA request, and dare I suggest, it was wasted training and paying the salaries of people who call themselves scientists but don’t act like them.
Feely’s chart, first mentioned, begins in 1988—which is surprising, as instrumental ocean pH data have been measured for more than 100 years — since the invention of the glass electrode pH (GEPH) meter. As a hydrologist, Wallace was aware of GEPH’s history and found it odd that the Feely/Sabine work omitted it. 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 e-mail: “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 e-mail with: “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.” But communications did continue for several more exchanges.
In an effort to obtain access to the records Feely/Sabine didn’t want to provide, Wallace filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
We were told that coral reefs would crumble, crabs and molluscs would be unable to build their protective shells, the ocean food chain would collapse, and therefore the global food chain would fall apart.
Clearly the ten year moving average of ocean pH since 1910 has a slight upward curve. This means that in fact the alkalinity of the ocean has increased, not decreased. It has become LESS ACIDIC. The researchers Feely and Sabine would have known this. But it suited their purpose to truncate the data to start in 1988 to allow them to show a falling pH level over that relatively short period instead of the actual long-term increasing trend.
Wallace says: “Oceanic acidification may seem like a minor issue to some but, besides being wrong, it is a crucial leg to the entire narrative of ‘human-influenced climate change’.”
He adds: “In whose professional world is it acceptable to omit the majority of the data and also not disclose the omission to any other soul or Congressional body?”
What we have here is one of the basic foundations of the climate change scare, that is falling ocean pH levels with increased atmospheric CO2 content, being completely dismissed by the empirical ocean pH data the alarmist climate scientists didn’t want to show anyone because it contradicted their ‘increasing ocean acidity’ narrative.
h/t to Joffa, Climate Depot, Heartland
That makes sense. Anyone who studies diatoms knows that they lock up an amazing amount of carbon.
I had a twenty-something “scientist” gal try to convince me that the oceans were acidifying. She couldn’t even identify her data set or how they determined a baseline for ocean acidity. That’s the state of science in America.
Government is political by nature and politics is lying for a cause. Why should we be surprised?
We need to get government out of science. Even in the basic research field you don’t need government.
I had a circa 1850 book and they had a long article on this PH thing so I think they picked their own cutoff dates.
The Richard Feynman quote seems appropriate here.
Compare it directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. -- Video
These employees should not be smiling-
Dr. Richard A. Feely
Senior Scientist
richard.a.feely@noaa.gov
NOAA/PMEL
Division: Ocean Climate
Project: Ocean Carbon
Dr. Christopher Sabine
PMEL Director
chris.sabine@noaa.gov
NOAA/PMEL
Division: Office of the Director
Project: Ocean Carbon
Thank you for posting this! Good stuff.
That is the reason that after the headline the always insert a weasel word such as may, or might, or could to change the meaning of the headline.
Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]Dear Administrator Jackson:
I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called "Endangerment Finding."
It has been often said that the "science is settled" on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.
The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.
Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.
We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.
(excerpted from Professor Hayden's letter to Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency. More at link.)
Acid rain, the result of coal sulphur going up into the atmosphere, was real. (Scrubbers took care of that) And what goes up, must come down. The thing was, that all those sulphur crystals in the atmosphere actually reflected sunlight/heat.
Cooler planet, but acid rain in certain places based upon prevailing winds and moisture.
An unintended consequence of cleaning up the air, things got a little warmer. So Mother Earth did what Mother Earth had always done, and adjusted, and it got warmer until mother earth did her thing and adjusted again.
Sulphur in the atmosphere is bad, CO2 is not. It may be toxic to mammals and most breathing things, but for plants it’s O2.
Not everything we do on this earth is benign. Blasting off megaton nukes in open air is a really bad idea, for example.
Just sayin
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
Everywhere you look you see these pukes lyings their behinds off for money. There is a dispicable collusion between government and scientific studies that has to be stopped!
LOL!
The entire narrative on ocean acidification is incorrect. You might claim that the ocean is being nuetralized or becoming less basic, but it has a long ways to go before it even begins to acidify.
But of course, that doesn’t sound scary enough for the warmunists.
Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change Climate Disruption...if the science is in, why does the name keep changing?
Excuse me, but do you have a cite for that? If I recall, the UN spent 5 years and spent $800,000,000 looking for some evidence, and came up with zip, and their report said so.
We first started to hear about acid rain when car paint started to peel off in the late '70's. It turned out that the EPA had mandated a reformulation of paint to reduce fumes from drying paint. It took a few years (10) to get that straight.
Scrubbers on coal fired plants had been mandated since the late '60's. So what happened to acid rain? It went to the same place that the dreaded ozone hole went. A discredited scare story.
Here is a prediction that I know for a fact will come true.
Ahem.
"For centuries to come, years will pass."
Thank you. All the adulation is welcome and warranted. You're welcome to borrow it. Feel Free to use it. . . just give proper attribution to Swordmaker.
Your suggested argument is not based on physical reasoning, it is purely rhetorical and suggestive.
1. immaterial
2. no objective physical meaning - a rhetorical premise.
3. given to suggest a syllogism
4. redundant with 1.
5. subjective, and immaterial.
Study question: assumes the rhetorical premise - a mere trick.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
