- …
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
In any field truth is the enemy of those with less-than-honorable agendas.
fyi
Geez... how many nails does this coffin take?
It figures.
And .. the hokus-pokus garbage continues to try to prove global warming and all sorts of junk science.
“But all the Science is in..” /s
What happened to “acid rain”
20 years ago that was all we heard from the MSM here in the midwest and east.
The forests were defoliating at a prodigious rate!
The politicians who jump on board with this fraud should be forced to walk the plank into their so-called “acid ocean.”
When I was a kid we called this sort of thing FRAUD, They ALL BELONG IN PRISON.
When you realize that all of this FRAUD was used to get MONEY from the TAXPAYERS, Prison is probably too lenient.
Most folks with a cognitive brain have been ignoring the alarmists for some time. Anytime you see the kind of full court press marketing that accompanied AGW, you can figure someone’s got a money making scheme that involves persuading the public to buy something whether it’s big macs or AGW.
When fast food chains license Disney characters you know it’s fantasy and marketing. Not much difference with AGW. The poor polar bears were an early indicator. Nothing sells like a sob story.
If anyone had bothered to actually plot the confidence intervals for that data, they find a fairly large spread about the linear regression. You could potentially fit a slew of regressions to that data and it would still be within the bounds of probability because the data is clearly cyclical. Lots of problems fitting 2nd order linear regressions to cyclical data unless there is a secondary overlaid trend occurring.
Oops, someone’s going to lose their grant money.
‘Fake but accurate,’ goes along way in our liberal world.
I read an op-ed in our local Gannett generipaper the other day by some black guy
Republicans talked a lot about "drill baby drill" but Obama was the one who made it happen
/puke
I am not surprised.
Pretty much. You can get statistics to say anything when you have probability to work with. Like we see here, just taking the data from the end of the sample gives you a completely different trend than if you took the whole sample. Both tests were done correctly within their defined boundary conditions, but guess which one is hiding the truth and which one is the more historically accurate. more predictive, and has a narrower confidence interval?
Or get more so they can hide the grift better.
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.