The man who uncovered the 80 years of missing empirical data on ocean pH is Mike Wallace. That hidden data suggested the ocean had been getting slightly more alkaline in the 20th Century –the opposite of the man-made acidification theory — but that pH change hasn’t been a linear shift. The pH has been cycling up and down, and on his blog back in February Wallace suggested that the pH of the ocean was varying naturally as the PDO cycled*.
It’s an interesting theory. He’s used the PDO index and his global ocean pelagic zone pH time series chart that was based on 1.5 million pH readings.
It’s nice to watch a real scientist at work. His blog is worth a look.
…
..
*PDO means Pacific Decadal Oscillation – the 15 – 30 year long cycles of warmer or cooler sea surface temperatures in the northern Pacific. In a positive phase the western side is cool and the east is warmer, it rains more in California and less in Australia. The negative phase is the opposite.
Looking at that periodicity, the obvious place for a “acidificationist” to choose as the “start point’ is in the late 1980’s..
Oh .. wait !!!
No wonder they got stroppy when asked for the data !!!
364
The most obvious place to start is at the beginning but maybe that’s too obvious.
It wouls appear that there is a crrelation between the rise and fall of the ph and the sea temp.
Is it cyclical or is there something else at work like undesea volcanic activity.
Active undersea volcanoes would raise the water temp as well as push sulfur into the seawater – just a thought.
122
Note the sulfur will be neutralized by carbonate and the byproduct is CO2 (excess to that already released by the volcanism itself, where CO2 is major component, along with water). Nah, it’s just got to be humans, what else could it be?
What else it really could be messes too much with the narrative needed to maintain funding extortion, without which they’d be rendered homeless and be force to obtain a real job based on demonstrable merit.
We can’t have that.
312
The most obvious place to start is when they have data from a representative part of the worlds oceans,at depth and over all seasons, and not just a bit of the North Atlantic off the Irish coast like the 1910-20s data is but that of course does not suit the meme.
126
Yawn !
119
Struggling with the obvious again?
87
The obvious: that your comment are pointless and boringly empty.
Yes.
98
Sorry Un, but 35 years is simply not enough time to show any kind of statistical significance.
Run along now….
182
Un, you are right. But, the investigation has to start somewhere. Now, which parts of the world’s oceans do you consider will be representative (or, perhaps, more representative)? Better yet, why should so many observations that have already been made be ignored? To leap to a conclusion as is being leapt to in such a short time of study has to be considered foolhardy at best, irrational in mediation, or highly suspicious at worst.
121
The beginning, obviously; or at least as near to it as one can get.
Of course if your ‘beginning’ is, in effect, ‘the end’, you have no place to start…
60
“…be force to obtain a real job based on demonstrable merit.”
I suggest not one in a hundred of the so called climate scientists can demonstrate objective merit in proportion to the funds extracted to pay for their so called research. I wouldn’t trust them to dispose of dead rats correctly let alone wash my car. They would demand payment up front, fake the paper work, leave the mess for someone else to clean up, and then demand more payment so they can finish the paper work.
70
Over at Skeptical science there has been abit of a spat about Mike wallace and Feely and Sabine. The general consensus there is that Wallace has made a fundamental error in not taking into account changing geographical and seasonal patterns in availability of data. Not doing so and “simply calculating the mean pH for each year will give all sorts of spurious trends in the analysis”. It is also noted that gridding quality checked data (not sure how this is obtained) and calculatinganaomalies should also have been performed by Wallace. anomaly determinations are necessary. Readers here will be particularly appreciative of the comment that observed pH data are best used for validating model output. Of course, if, as the writer infers the data are not much use as is, will these data be useful to validate model output? Another question is why those data were put out on the internet without some caveat concerning their use.
50
Don’t worry Ian, we are skeptics here and will be examining the data with a fine tooth comb to be sure it is rigorous and that the conclusions are backed up by the data. We don’t just blindingly support conclusion that confirm our biases.
76
Nice to see you admit to being biased. Perhaps if you let that go you may have a better chance of arriving at reasonable conclusions.
102
Having a bias, or a view, before data is in is not bad in any way.
In fact it can be the source of propositions to be tested.
What is really bad is holding back data that does not confirm the bias, adjusting data to fit the bias, refusing to publish data, using influence to suppress opposing views, and insulting critics. All these are the characteristics of the carbon alarm industry.
60
This very succint post shows the basic error that Climate Alarmists invariably do with trends and cycles …
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/remedial-mathematics-for-dimwitted-climate-experts/
151
Would love to see some of these linear warmists try to catch a cricket ball.
PS. 😉 They would still think it was heading upward as it sconed them !! 🙂
203
addemdum..
Would love to see some of these linear warmists try to catch a high cricket ball.
183
Particularly one that hits the spidercam wire.
10
Just like Al Gore who chooses graphs to suit him, he chooses the start and end point, his victims never see the full picture
51
Mike Wallace has published oodles of peer reviewed papers, too! Don’t believe me: check out his web site.
192
Thats odd, I cant seem to find any of his published peer reviewed papers, apart from those published on his own blog
624
Selected Publications and Experience related to Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Hydrogeochemistry, and Hydroclimatology for Michael Wallace. (in reverse chronological order).
here
122
Like I said, a blog
321
Really, so you checked all 39 entries and they were all ‘published on his blog?’
What I am referring to is the list of selected publications that includes papers in the following peer reviewed journals:
-New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin
-Reliability Engineering and System Safety
-Water Resources Research
O, and presentations at conferences are, in effect, ‘publications’.
193
Dont need to, just need to do a papers search on the author, and guess what, its blank
521
Nup, 3 x 2 second searches turn up:
Wallace, M. G., and C. K. Wilgus Hastings, 2013. Exploration of Possible Correlations of the Interstellar Medium (IM) Over Time With the Carboniferous-Permian Boundary (CPB), in The Carboniferous-Permian Transition Conference, New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Bulletin 60, Lucas, S.G., et al. (eds).
Not digitized
Ramsey, J. L., R. Blaine, J. W. Garner, J. C. Helton, J. D. Johnson, L. N. Smith, and M. Wallace, 1998. “Radionuclide and Colloid Transport in the Culebra Dolomite and Associated Complementary Cumulative Distribution Functions in the 1996 Performance Assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Reliability Engineering and System Safety 69,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, September 2000, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 397–420
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832000000405
Marani, M., G. Grossi, F. Napolitano, M. Wallace, and D. Entekhabi, 1997, Forcing, Intermittency, and Land Surface Hydrological Partitioning, Water Resources Research, Vol. 33, No. 1, pages 167-175, Jan, 1997.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/96WR02670/pdf
133
“its blank”
Yep, I guess it would be on the MacDonald’s facebook page. !
You really do need to broaden you research base, y’know !!
184
So 2 papers, great, where are the other oodles of peer reviewed papers?
326
“where are the other oodles of peer reviewed papers?”
Stop searching the MacDonald’s page, child-mind !!!
LJ’s found 3 very quickly.
I bet you haven’t even tried.
You certainly haven’t made any effort to find anything else.
Expecting everybody to spoon-feed you like an pre-adolescent teenager.
173
So is a comment that I can leave McDonald’s Facebook page.
324
“So is a comment that I can leave McDonald’s Facebook page”
Ahhhh so that’s where you get your knowledge.
Your post start to make sense now. !
144
The difference being (obviously) that you weren’t invited to present your professional opinion at McDonalds Facebook Page; nor is the audience at McDonalds Facebook page likely to be the ‘American Geophysical Union’ or the ‘International Mine Water Association’.
213
Un, I am not too sure you fully understand what is meant by “peer-review”.
Have you heard of Deiderik Stapel? Probably not, I would guess. A Dutch “scientist” who has more than 30 peer-reviewed papers to his name. Are you impressed? Would you trust his work over that of, say, Wallace? I bet you are, and I bet you would. However, all – each and every single one – of Stapel’s papers are false, riddled with lies and deceit.
Peer review does not, as you might believe, mean that the paper has been scientifically verified, with its claims and conclusions independently tested; no, it just means that the paper has been read to check for inaccuracies in its calculations, spelling and punctuation. Perhaps “proof-read” might be a more accurate description.
00
I don’t find it odd that you can’t find any papers.
You have proven time and again that you are not good at finding papers.
hint.. many of them are conference papers or commercial reports.
Have fun hunting, little child.. or do you want us to do that for you too. !
174
….and none of them are peer reviewed as claimed, touché
524
You again prove you know NOTHING.
All conference papers are peer reviewed in any part of Engineering.
The Commercial papers deal with REALITY and actuality..
Something you also know nothing about.
164
Hahahahahah
http://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_conference_papers_be_counted_as_publication
419
Hahaha
http://www.uq.edu.au/research/research-at-uq/uq-herdc-pubs-specs-peer
http://www.cis.jhu.edu/publications/papers_in_database/GEMAN/Ten_Reasons.pdf
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/hep/help/published.shtml
http://gaels.lib.gla.ac.uk/infoskills1/module3/type2.html
http://www.spe.org/authors/peer-review/submit-paper.php
216
Yeah, real funny…
153
You poor giggly little child.
Conference papers in Engineering and most real Sciences are peer-reviewed, and are citable as equal to journal papers.
I know you have zero experience in any sort of scientific/engineering field, but that is the way it is, even if you don’t understand the concept.
204
You are just plain wrong, in most cases they have to be submitted for peer review at the conclusion of the conference.
Lets just take Uni of QLD as a convenient local example
What part of this dont you get?
417
“For conference publications, any of the following are acceptable as evidence of peer review:
–there is a statement in the conference proceedings which shows that contributions are peer reviewed;
— there is a statement or acknowledgement from the conference proceedings editor which shows that contributions are peer reviewed;
–a copy of a reviewer’s assessment relating to the conference paper.
”
Yes. so they have been peer reviewed. Thanks. !
There is then a second peer review process for journal publication if required.
You really haven’t had the slightest experience in the procedure, have you.
That EMPTY rhetoric of yours just keeps on flowing . !!
134
Or maybe you would rather believe Stanford
414
or the University of Sydney
Do you notice the word “and” in there “which has been peer reviewed and presented at a conference”
414
I repeat for your thick little skull.
Any conference paper for an academic standard peer-reviewed engineering or science conference is citable by another paper.
It has the same standing as a journal paper.
It is common practice to cite the proceedings of peer-reviewed conferences as scientific references within academic papers.
End of story !!
124
never said it wasnt, but this does not mean its peer reviewed
no such thing, only papers can be peer reviewed.
You pretend to know all this but I get the impression you are just “winging it” as you go
416
So where the evidence that any of Wallace’s conference papers were peer reviewed, still Zero
317
Should have added the /sarc tag.
It’s obviously an unideal state of affairs when funding is driven by publication (quantity over quality being the object, presumably)…
100
Pear reviewed you vacuous twit.Get it right!
51
or “banana approved” I suppose
111
If you have any knowledge of conferences, you would be able to pick the ones that were definitely peer-reviewed.
But you don’t.
Your barista training will not help you, neither will the MacDonald’s facebook page.
Just read the resume and the reports and papers presented,
.. then compare it to your failed 1st year Arts and MacDonald’s barista course..
…and realise that M Wallace is so far above you in knowledge and capability, that you are basically a single cell amoeba in comparison.
143
Un(done) mentions the peer review record of UQ … WOW !! Ask Brandon Shollenberg what he thinks about that. What a veritable academic institution … NOT!!
20
You truly are coming across as a failed first year Arts student.
Not even fit for barista work. !
124
Calm down, Griss. Calm down. You are being played like a fish, and rising to every bait.
93
On the contrary.
He is being dragged out, and is showing he has basically nothing to offer except a solid brain-washed brick wall.
No science can penetrate that brick wall, and he has no science to offer in support of his brain-washed beliefs.
114
Good old dependable Oscar.
12
Un certainly has “peer reviewed” tucked in there real tight, doesn’t he? He reminds me of another guy I debated global warming with a few years ago who wouldn’t even talk about anything that wasn’t peer reviewed. He was a hopeless case.
I understand Griss when he wants to tackle such people.
133
The entire “peer review” think is really getting out of hand. People like Un act as though peer review means someone sat down and reproduced and validated whatever is being reviewed. It does not. There are many peer reviewed papers that could not be reviewed in that manner simply due to the fact that in order to get the lab time, the equipment needed, reproduce the work, analyze it, etc. would cost too much and take to long.
Peer review is much like running a spell checker on a document. Are there any glaring errors, formatting issues, issues with citations and references, etc. It in no way shape or form means the work has been validated, it simply means it has been reviewed. The validation process comes afterwards if it is even done at all.
It seems to be fairly obvious that in climate “science” the validation is not done, instead whatever premise the work contains is then cited and used in other work to generate more “evidence” even though the core assumptions all these snowballed papers rely upon have never been tested or validated.
Because my model does what their model does is not validation. If the real world actually does what the models predict is what matters. But when “science” is based entirely upon model output what else would one expect?
222
They don’t just act like it, they actually believe it, just so long as the paper happens to support their meme. If the paper does not, then rather than publishing a rebuttal they commence denigrating the author of the paper.
102
Science is the dirty underwear we wear to get to a higher point in the mental terrain where we obtain a better view. But for many the whole point seems to be to fawn over the soiled underwear itself. Understanding is the Eldorado, peer review is largely out of step with that, and skewed away from improving the human understanding and better view.
Peer review is potentially a viable mechanism but that mechanism is routinely abused and corrupted and what results can be far from ideal, far from scientific, and very far from ethical or worthwhile. Instead it typically replicates and propagates worthless blather from people who’re not interested in understanding things more clearly at all, but are extremely interested in getting published via a path of least resistance in the shortest time possible, and to not impair or aggravate future attempts to obtain expedited paper publication.
Hence, the number of non-consensus papers that can be pointed to are very low . The IPCC actually pats itself on the back, both at the promotion of consensus as ‘science’, and at the much alleged 4% rejection, despite the constant confounding gush of science-based counterfactuals being reported daily, and the huge traffic volumes reading it daily all over the Internet.
Peer review also ensures non-consensus papers are more likely to be filtered, watered-down and self-censored, to acceptable group-think background-noise. When 100% of funding is directed towards just one theory framework, surprise-surprise, all you will ever get in the Journals are hundreds of papers supporting that funded theory. So peer-review is thus rendered perverse, for it then just represents the warped funding priority (singular, not plural) that was fatally biased from the very outset to assuredly produce a consensus, and only a consensus.
Which implicitly discourages the challenging of prescribed views or questioning of universally applied interpretive conceptions to all data reporting.
Thus instead of clarifying and winnowing, peer review simply actively negates self-corrections in “the science”, which self-correction and adequacy is the principle rational for utilising peer-review at all. If self-correction is thus rendered broken, via endless the promotion of consensus through funding priorities stinking like a decomposing skunk, then peer-review will predictably produce worthless junk. And so it is. At which point its NET role is continuous corruption and dissolution of science inquiry.
If Galileo were to appear today he’d assess the situation, then roundly denounce the IPCC as a wholely obscene anti-scientific abomination, state funding mechanisms implicitly anti-scientific, and the peer-reviewed Journals involved inimical to the publication a better human understandings of our world.
Other than that peer-review is just fricken awesome.
91
Good thinking Robert, now that science and the peer review process is rejecting your evidence you decide to attack it.
14
Frank you truly do have a reading disorder and apparently some type of cognitive disorder as well.
1 – “my” evidence? So tell me what that is that “science and peer review” is rejecting. I’d like to know since you completely missed that point of what I was saying in my comment which was
2 – Explaining how peer review works and how so many misunderstand what it means is not attacking it. Apparently it is in your delusional little world since you are one of the ones that doesn’t understand it and having the fact that it does not mean it validated the work being reviewed brought to your attention is obviously too much to handle. That was the little secret your sort was hoping to be able to b.s. people with for years. But peer review does not mean validation.
Not that you have the slightest idea what is involved in validating a hypothesis or what it means.
11
Nonsense! Read and learn.
11
No Robert, please learn to read, its the whole sci method you now criticise as it rejects your evidence. You dont attack it in astronomy or biology with the same fervour. If you had real evidence it would have gone somewhere .
[How could it be the “whole sci method” and then not criticise other science? What does “WHOLE” mean to you Frank? snip the rest] ED
00
Yet when peer-reviewed papers from one of the world’s top astro/atmospheric physicists are put forward. Peer-review is ignored.
In Un’s case, its nothing to do with peer-review .. (that’s just another façade)
…. the only thing that is important to him is if it fits his brain-washed dogma.
83
You know how it is Griss. Their reasoning progresses something like this starting with the “peer review” requirement/excuse:
“I will accept it if it has been peer reviewed”
Then when it is demonstrated that it has been peer reviewed they transition to the:
“Oh but it has to be published in ‘X'”
So it is then demonstrated that it was published in ‘X’ or an equivalent publication with the same prestige, etc. At which point they will transition to the next excuse as to why anything presented to them that does not fit their meme can be ignored.
It makes it so much easier for them since they don’t have to be able to understand the math or any of the particulars of what is being discussed they can simply claim criteria that have nothing at all to do with science as requirements allowing them to ignore whatever is presented to them without actually understanding it.
72
Oscar,
Have you noticed that nearly all the denier guff isn’t peer reviewed, hence the attacks on pr validity and ‘modern science’. Funny coincidence.
—
The only people who think peer review by anonymous unpaid pals is part of the scientific method are unskeptical “scientists”. It’s a logical fallacy for a reason. – Jo
04
Say, Frank,
Glad you brought that subject up.
Have you never wondered why really large resources are continually directed by alarmist groups to shut down debate?
I mean the really obscene, world’s fair fattest pig blue ribbon winner amounts that are used to close world wide debate in education, the media, and governments.
Seems kind of incongruous to me, wasting those resources on a few radical sceptics unless…
Going off the KPI’s at alarmist sites such as SkS, I’d say your settled science is screwed.
21
Un, the un-troll troll is still around I see.
I wish there was a way to track who is clicking the red and green thumbs. It might be very instructive. But then it wouldn’t be anonymous, would it? So I think the red thumbs would decline rather precipitously if we could do that — hint to Jo. 😉
On second thought, maybe it’s better the way it is. Those wishing nothing but to register disapproval cause no real interference with everyone else that way.
113
I have wondered sometimes if someone isn’t being paid to go through each thread and register disapproval. What do you suppose the going rate is?
Nah! Who would pay someone to do such a thing?
113
I’ve been watching it over the past few weeks. The trend seems to be that they register a red thumb for people who have rubbed the trolls nose in it rather than for what is actually being said by that person in the particular comment. Doesn’t seem to matter what that particular person says in the given comment, they will get at least one red thumb simply for the fact that they made a fool of one of the faithful at some point with their other comments.
That seems to follow alarmist logic. Rather than look at what is being said they will base their “rating” on whether or not they like who is saying it. Or whether or not the person saying it is one of the faithful. Is it any wonder their “science” is so poor?
113
Robert,
I think you’re pretty much correct.
I suspect it’s several people because once you’ve registered your like or dislike you’re thoroughly locked out of doing it again for the same comment.
It’s a very interesting but sad commentary on human nature. It’s much easier to be bold when you can remain anonymous than when you can’t. These terrorists who expect to be so feared by the world also hide their faces and I suspect it means the same thing there.
11
Well, that was fun. You guys really got caught in the diversionary, “I can’t find anything in the Journals where he doesn’t publish“, tactic.
It doesn’t matter swat where or how material gets published and peer reviewed, as long as it is peer reviewed and any errors found. In the preceding post, I put up some work in progress, on this site, because I thought people would be interested. It turned out that I got some pretty good peer review, from people I respect, as a result.
In the eighteenth century, sending papers to your peers, by mail, was the only way that peer review was done. The internet just duplicates that process at the speed of light.
Allowing Un to say that he only publishes on a blog, in a way that implies it is somehow second rate, is just a diversion from the fact that people read the blog, and give peer review as a result.
Un is indulging in agitprop, and should be ignored.
231
The question is, which papers are peer reviewed? It looks like 2 at the most. I’ve looked through several publication databases and have uncovered more the 50 Wallace MG papers post 1980 – if he has done some serious continent and field hopping and written papers not cited on his blog, then he might have more than 2.
25
First thought: How many papers have Gee Eye had “pure reviewed”? Unless he/she can prove more than two, well then IT can just F.O.
Second thought: So now this is where it has sunk to? We have to compare size? Einstein would no IS spinning.
A clear case of “attack the man” and most of us know where that comes from.
71
32 Mark. I review only about one a month these days.
I was not attacking the man btw, I was buying into the debate of which of his published articles are peer reviewed. It looks like there are some but few.
13
No. I cited three. One not digitized.
Moreover the title of the relevant list is: “Selected Publications” which indicates (obviously) that the papers listed have been culled from a larger group (it could be 1 larger, but that is irrelevant).
30
Accidentally hit five stars meant to hit nine. Sorry for skewing the rating!
50
Dont worry, I did the same, hit 5 stars, but I meant to hit 1. So we cancel each other out
315
I don’t know but everybody in the warmist world thinks Wallace has been loose with the empirical data. He’s using actual measured data rather than the more “accurate” modeled data.
Wallace needs to explain his methods.
463
Maybe he should ask the BoM to homogenise the raw data, I’m sure that would be an improvement!! 🙂
233
Mark,
I’ll add my award for most masterful use of sarcasm to Fly’s pick for this thread. Best I’ve seen for a long time 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
11
Wasn’t this effect predictable thanks the Henry’s law? Shouldn’t they of suspected that something like this should seen in the data. If only they looked. Oh my mistake if the world isn’t going to end they don’t get their nice new Car Parking spaces or get to travel the world tell us were all evil and murdering the planet and what ever else they do while they live it up at the Tax payers expense. Sorry I hoped the scientist actually did science my mistake.
212
Interesting that he compares with the PDO Index, which is derived from monthly sea surface temperatures from the North Pacific Ocean. Comparing with a global sea surface temperature series (with all their faults) rather than a single (though large) ocean basin, or restricting the pH data to the same area, might be instructive. I’m sure this work will continue.
130
I would hate to think how much sulfur you would have to drop in the ocean to lower the ph level,that would need a powerful lot of undersea volcanoes going off at the same time.
The Planet seems to know what it is doing,so let’s leave it to go about its business,anything we try and do will cause not one iota of a difference?
[Macsaul – snip – a bit too OT. I’ll email you – Jo]
30
Well, considering that Feely and Sabine made their PH measurements at Hawaii, which is known to have under sea volcanoes and who knows how many vents, then it’s not surprising at all to see a decline in PH. Their data is worthless due to this fact alone.
Localised PH drops in volcanic areas are well known.
11
Wait a minute: That graph shows neither pH nor PDO. It shows 10-year moving averages.
In the words of Grand Master Statistician Briggs:
Later he added:
This is not to say that what Mike Wallace has written is wrong. But his methods invite close scrutiny.
We “all” tend to use smoothing to eliminate the “distracting” large number of data points in graphs but we need to recognize that we a building a model when we smooth data. A model which destroys information.
Any number calculated from (experimental) data is no longer data; it’s just a number.
N.B.: The PDO (Index) is already, just a number, being derived by arithmetic from a variety of different measured data.
220
Somehow I imagined a Valkyrie Youtube video based on the quoted dialogue.
60
Agreed that smoothing is not a great idea for the reasons that Briggs goes into as well as the possibility that the true peaks will be displaced by the running average peaks. For a non-smoothed graph, see the following on Dropbox. I used the same OSD database as far as I can tell, but have 1,564,000 values <200m in depth compared to his 1,567,900. I chose to trim the values to those between 7 and 9.
The actual database has values ranging from 0 to 24,000 (!), so some obvious errors there. I can see that Mike Wallace (no relation) must also have trimmed the data, but don't know his choices.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75831381/pH%20and%20N%20pelagic%20zone%20LT%20200m.jpg
20
Forgot to mention that my Dropbox graph includes the number of observations per year, and shows a tremendous drop from 1990 (N=37,000) to 1992 (14,000). That is also the time that people went to a different method, dropping the glass electrodes. So is the corresponding sharp drop in pH a function of the sharp drop in measurements, the switch to a different measurement method, or an actual change in pH? If the latter, why start in 1990? Atmospheric CO2 (Feely’s villain) showed no sharp change then.
60
your data does not match the pdo?
14
That’s what I also found when I tested this hypothesis 5 days ago.
So it is interesting that the graph Lance draws doen’t match Mike Wallace’s graph during the 1940s – which is also the period that throws a spanner in the works of attempts to prove ocean pH cycles with PDO. That’s probably because Lance isn’t using a moving average. Until I saw Lance’s graph I had no idea the sampling frequency took a dive in the late 1930s, but the effect of WW2 on ocean measurements seems obvious in hindsight.
So while I still conclude that all of the available data, as shown in Mike Wallace’s graph last week, rejects the hypothesis of a natural pH cycle, that’s only because the data that is available is insufficient for showing what happened over more than one PDO cycle.
There is no doubt that the pH of simple basic aqueous solutions varies with temperature, as every acid’s dissociation constant varies with temperature according to the t’Hoff equation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_dissociation_constant#Temperature_dependence
The ocean may be a buffered solution but it’s not so buffered that no pH change is possible, as global average pH changes seem to have been measured occurring recently. Determining how much was due to ocean/temperature cycle and how much was due to aCO2 absorption is the problem.
So there’s plenty of sound theoretical reasons for believing the ocean’s pH cycles with the PDO, or actually AMO is a better fit. However to prove this of the real ocean requires more data than we have because the data before 1960 is paltry and before 1930 it’s nonexistent. It fits over the most recent AMO cycle (60 years), but that’s one hit out of one trial, so n=1. True skeptics wouldn’t accept that as a reliable result, but just remind yourself of where we are.
20
thanks Andrew. A pity your comment has come after most readers have long left this topic and have concluded that Wallace’s work is accurate.
10
Smoothing data. Exactly!
This smoothing of data is a weakness. A periodic variation of pH is very interesting even without trying to explain it by linking to PDO.
I much prefer to see all the data plotted as individual points and let the eye do the smoothing.
And, the use of 10-year moving average temperature trends has been popular recently as it is a trick which helps to cover up what seems to be evidence opposing the orthodoxy.
21
A note about the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). It has a curious history.
It wasn’t discovered until be accident by scientists researching the pacific/north pacific, in about 1995, and it dominates 20th century temperature cycles.
Mostly North American and Western European scientists were looking at increases in world temperatures in the 1980s and early 1990s, and looking mainly at the North Atlantic (note the geographic proximity), and concluded that the Atlantic was not to blame for the then recent rising temperatures. In fact, they concluded that nothing in world cycles could adequately explain the increase in temperatures, particularly during the 1980s and early 1990s, and therefore it must be by human emissions of greenhouse gases.
One of these scientists was Michael Mann.
(He has written about a book about this, and he doesn’t even mention the PDO once in this book-as the discovery was not made by the group he was involved with whilst looking at the North Atlantic, for obvious reasons).
These scientists, along with a small number of like-minded individuals, then changed the 1995 IPCC report to reflect their localised and ‘provincial’ views, that the recent world warming must be due to human activities, as they could find nothing else to explain it. Ironically, and unbeknownst to them, this was the very year the PDO was discovered, and also discovered to be in a warm phase, having begun this warm phase in the late 1970s, exactly the same time that world temperatures began to rise again, (having cooled since the 1940s).
They then set out to publish North Atlantic, and then, world temperatures, going back around 1000 years, largely based on their interpretation of the failure of Atlantic ocean cycles to greatly affect recent world temperatures. This ultimately resulted in the infamous hockeystick.
They also integrated their largely provincial ideas, in all the early IPCC climate models, none of which have ever integrated the effects of the PDO, because it wasn’t discovered until after the original models were formulated, and those who formulated them, now claim a certain ‘ownership’ of them (the ‘first-in’ design problem-similar to the QWERTY keyboard-it isn’t necessarily the best design or model that gains traction, but rather the first to get into the market and do so, which then becomes entrenched, and staunchly defended by the ‘owners’, this occurs in science as much as in industry).
As far as I know, still really isn’t any PDO data or PDO phases integrated within the IPCC models.
Gradually scientists have begun to realise, belatedly, that the PDO has been badly ignored, and they now assign some blame to the current temperature pause on longer term ‘ocean cycles’. They have never really understood however, and don’t like to admit, that the late 20th century warming ALSO has some influence from longer term ‘ocean cycles’, (as well as longer term effects from the sun), and particularly from the PDO; but give them a few more years and this kindergarten piece of obvious causal correlation might dawn on them.
Maybe then they might fix the models, but don’t hold your breath, as the ‘owners’ of the original models are still too deeply involved, and moreover it has long ago left being about the data, but the PDO is becoming an obvious embarrassment to them.
252
I might add that Roy Spencer has a book which describes how the PDO (together with clouds) might have strongly influenced late 20th century warming/temperatures, including decadal time delays from the sun, which has not been hitherto recognised, called:
“The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists”.
It mostly talks about the PDO, clouds, and IPCC models, and is an excellent read.
Michael Mann’s account of some of this stuff is called “The Hockeystick and the climate wars”, but there is no mention of the PDO anywhere in it, or in the index, which I think is very telling.
51
My gut feeling is that oceans pH should vary with temperature as the chemistry of this very mixed-up ionic solution’s reactions would increase with increasing temperature.
CO2 is known to be more soluble in cold water than warm so there should be more CO2 in cold water, just a bit less reactive. CO2 should outgas from warm water but on the way it should be more reactive – just my guess.
As metioned above by MacSual, underwater volcanic activity will be a great confounding factor in oceanic pH change as it pumps CO2, sufites, sulfates, chlorides, etc.
So odd that the fish still thrive in this chemical soup, I wonder what the fishmen make of this information? Fishermen probably have records for where the varying number of fish move to at differing times during the PDO cycle. Or maybe there are records of the position and extent of the periodic algae ‘blooms’. I can not imagine that these organisms are not affected by pH and temperature, whether their movements are reliable indicators would require some studies – Grant please!
101
Your gut feeling is correct and thats one of the reasons that you cant just calculate a “world average” from a collection of data without correction for the collection point parameters. Wallace’s “compelling” analysis is junk.
227
Oh goody! Now admit that rise in atmospheric CO2 also is due to ocean warming.
151
Hasn’t it gone quiet?
Perhaps Un has had to return to TroComCent* for feeding, watering, and reprogramming?
* TroComCent is the approved abbreviation for Troll Command Central
132
*crickets*
52
Woe is UN cause UN is UNdone? MissUNderestimated ? UNappreciated ? UNbelieveable ? Feels UNwelcome ? UNable to UNderstand ? Or just UNwilling ? weUNs would like to know !
Getting my coat….
42
Does oceanic CO2 have different isotope ratios?
23
yes, one example, it has lower C14, thats why carbon dating is not very useful in marine environments but all C and O isotopic ration vary, geographically, with depth and with time. Water temperature and evaporation rates are determining variable, so is run-off dilution (including by glacial melting)
Here is a useful article
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CD0QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-naweb.iaea.org%2Fnapc%2Fih%2Fdocuments%2Fglobal_cycle%2Fvol%2520II%2Fcht_ii_06.pdf&ei=zy2vVJaXM9Dv8gWh3IHYCQ&usg=AFQjCNFquP4YvL8-suM5_iI_z__gz8nAAg&sig2=biFCu4qriIFNjfiBqlHbIg&bvm=bv.83339334,d.dGc
13
Un, my implication was that if increase CO2 is due to release from oceans (has that ever been suggested), then the change in isotope ratios would have to be driven by the new CO2 coming from oceans. It was a simplistic response to BSs glib comment.
Your linked article certainly puts the complexity of C isotopes into focus and that I am best off staying in my own field! I have worked with archaeologists and know that if carbon dating is to have errors and noise minimised, it is best to build up a time series using samples and independent proxies from the same region or a similar climatic region as the sample of interest.
20
ooh a moderated comment. Was it a word or phrase?
[no, the moderation trap has developed a hair trigger. It’s catching almost everyone. Sorry we have our crack team on it] ED
00
Ed, it must be a tough job if they resort to drugs!
20
Bazinga!
I think I’m beginning to develop a deep emotional attachement to you, leaf.
[Ha you think that’s funny but you should have seen the heroin team. It started out they were great but then before long, they died.] ED
10
ED,
Sh*t happens when you don’t pay your debts.
10
Are you suggesting that the oceans, which clearly have warmed significantly since The Little Ice Age, have not released CO2? Are you yet another alarmist crackpot who believes that the entire 30& rise in CO2 is due solely to anthropogenic emissions?
01
UN
Please note that the world’s climate is an aggregation of regonal climates, these have within them macro climates. These smaller climate areas interact in very variable ways with each other, creating the overall ‘global climate’. [e.g. Large woodlands have there own macro-climates – as trees try to affect their own mini-climate change to their best ensure their livelihood. Strip out these trees and climates on other continents can be affected*]
IMO That is part of the UN-IPCC error — homogenizing away the area specific variability thus attempting to reduce all to ‘global climate’ effects to a belief that it is only controlled by CO2.
*see –
Microclimate in Forest Ecosystem and Landscape Ecology
Variations in local climate can be used to monitor and compare the effects of different management regimes, by Jiquan Chen, Sari C. Saunders, Thomas R. Crow, Robert J. Naiman, Kimberley D. Brosofske, Glenn D. Mroz, Brian L. Brookshire, and Jerry F. Franklin (April 1999) at http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org
21
Don’t feed the troll.
10
Actually the trolls eat their own, it is why they are so hard to exterminate.
10
I recently read an article (bugger that I didn’t keep the reference) that said that earth’s oceans cycle through the crust continuously (where there is apparently significantly more water than on the surface) and if so, one would think that this too should be considered in any debate about the nature of our oceans and their effect on our climate.
81
Perhaps this article?
http://all-geo.org/metageologist/2012/09/oceanic-crust-that-sinking-feeling/
10
You should have a read of Richard Telford’s take on this. It is quite interesting. Even more interesting, though, is his total evasion of quite a reasonable question asked by Latimer Alder: why are so many records being ignored? Also, the vituperation that follows the hapless Latimer is rather entertaining.
70
At the risk of using a quote being regarded as “cherry picking” we have this…
“It is simply not possibly to calculate a meaningful average of the ocean pH data due to the varying geographical and seasonal coverage.”
Which makes Telford’s conclusions on the topic largely irrelevant by his own admission. Once again we have a “Ive got it right, trust me on this” scenario from an alarmist.
173
You noticed that too? I brought it up in another thread here and apparently based on the red thumbs my comment received the alarmists don’t like it when we point things like that out to them.
102
OH what fun! I have entered the fray 😛
30
Radical Rodent, your, and Latimer’s restraint in the face of such slimy innuendo and ad hominem, for the most part from that BBD thing, is admirable. I particularly liked:
as it would appear that you are asking what is not possible from their ilk.
A very interesting thread. Keep up the good work!
92
Thank you, FijiDave. One has to maintain a certain decorum when faced with such unthinking hostility.
And it is such fun, drawing the poor saps out, letting them have so much rope, and then watch them happily hang themselves, while they are convinced they’ve got you, this time.
00
There are a lot of buffered chemical reaction which can contribute to both pH over areas. However the PDO seems an artificial construct without reason, although it goes up and down, mirroring the patterns you can see in the models, but it is an arbitary and manufactured measure which frankly contains no specific justification for its existence, except that it is some sort of single variable combination of temperature over both time and area as a multiplier on a model less function. It is possibly meaningless but pretty unless there is some theory which binds them.
Further, that pH and PDO have a rough connection is not surprising. That both pH and PDO are function of local temperature is a given. Temperature changes everything dramatically in reactions, so PDO is connected to pH but there is no mention of CO2?
What has this to do with CO2 and Global Warming and Climate Change? The question in the Global Warming hypothesis is whether increasing CO2 has any impact at all on sea or air temperatures. So far there is no evidence that it does and a great deal of evidence that it does not.
Are we in a ‘hiatus’, a ‘pause’ or have temperatures peaked and are going down? The evidence is for the second. which not only disproves CO2 driven Global Warming, debunks warming at all.
152
I’ve been poking around the net again to see what turns up on global CO2 distribution.
Very regretfully I can’t post images here on Jo’s site but the visual comparisons if I could post are quite staggering.
Now if any one wants confirmation on the complete utter uselessness and the gross misleading of climate related models that are programmed right from the start to emphasis CO2’s role in our global situation and most importantly mankind’s role in generating that mercilessly denigrated, essential to life, minor atmospheric gas CO2, then I think these visual comparisons between a super computer simulation and the actual real time data on global distribution of CO2 around the same calendar period might send a message.
First up is November 2014 NASA super computer generated visual presentation of CO2 concentrations around the planet via the National Geographic.
Stunning NASA Visualization Reveals Secret Swirlings of Carbon Dioxide
The new simulation tracks the invisible gas that’s warming the planet.
_______________________
Next is the actual distribution map of global CO2 as derived from NASA’s / JPL new Orbiting Carbon Observatory around the same time as that simulation above ie; Oct 1 > Nov 11th
Via WUWT
NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory shows surprising CO2 emissions in Southern Hemisphere
__________________________
Next a little information on the Southern Ocean’ s Antarctic Circumpolar Current which I have posted a few times previously on the now closed Weatherzone climate forum.
The whole article at the link below on the ACPC is well worth a read to bring something that i think has a very considerable bearing on our weather systems here in SE Australia more to the fore in weather and climate discussions.
I’ll take this relevant quote from the [ bit dated ] The Antarctic CP Current site.
[ quoted;]
Satellite altimetry and sea surface height analysis have recently revealed a previously unknown feature of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave.
This wave propagates westward against the current but ultimately ends up traveling eastward, due to the massive size of the ACC, at a slower rate than the mean flow.
The wave circles the earth every eight to nine years (White and Peterson, 1996). It has a long wavelength (wavenumber=2) resulting in two crests and two troughs at any given time.
The crests and troughs are associated with massive patches or pools of warm water and cold water respectively. The areas can be thousands of kilometers long.
The warm patches are 2 to 3°C warmer than the mean sea surface temperature (SST) and the cold patches are 2 to 3°C cooler than the mean SST (White and Peterson, 1996).
Though it is not yet clear how these waves are triggered or maintained, they directly influence the temperature of the overlying atmosphere.
While the Wave’s effects on climate are just beginning to be studied, the phase (warm pool vs. cold pool) correlates well with four to five year rainfall cycles found over areas of southern Australia and New Zealand (White and Cherry, 1998). Some scientists believe that the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave may be more important than El Niño in governing rainfall over these regions.
[end]
________________________
If you can find an archive of SST’s say back in Oct 2014 such as this NOAA map [ Operational SST Anomaly Charts For the Year 2014;
Global SST’s 9th Oct; Map = http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2014/anomnight.10.9.2014.gif ] you can see relatively easily the cold pools in the deep south Indian Ocean and in likewise the South Atlantic ocean.
The mid South Pacific region of the ACPC has [ / had in Oct ] a noticeable warm pool.
There is also a cold tongue of ocean waters running up the western South American coast and then extending west back into the Pacific.
Now take that October satellite CO2 distribution map from the WUWT post and compare the locations of lowest CO2 concentrations with the location of the cold pools and cold water tongues in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current .
It would seem from this comparison, simplistic as it might be, that there is probably a quite strong relationship between the SST’s and the local / regional CO2 concentrations.
The very well known phenomena of cold water’s ability to contain a much higher concentration of CO2 than warm water appears to be a factor in these maps of the levels of CO2 and water temperature comparisons.
The cold pools of the ACPC appear to be acting as sinks for CO2.
51
If you do the maths, you will find at the current rate of CO2 absorption by the oceans – and assuming no buffering – then you will find after a century, the amount of the evil gas absorbed is approximately one part CO2 in one million parts of ocean.
Only a card carrying climate jihadist could claim this is dangerous, but unfortunately there are a lot of them out there.
I wish we could move away from the subject of supposed ocean acidification, as it is very similar to that once used in the medieval logic behind the question, “How many angels can dance on the end of a pin?”
141
How many climatologists can dance on the point of a pin?
As many as the model says.
51
Not many, after all with skeptical goading it’s hard for climatologists to kick against the pricks.
20
The total amount of gaseous CO2 known to be in the ocean currently is in total 50x that in the air, close to 5ml of CO2 per 1 litre of ocean water. So if all the CO2 in the air disappeared suddenly into the ocean, the total CO2 in the ocean would increase a tiny 2%. This would not change pH, unless for some reasons it all went only into the top few metres, which is the irrational warmist argument.
To achieve this, proponents have to exclude the ocean below say 300 metres, arguing that it is not connected and the water takes 1,000 years to mix. This ignores what every child knows, that CO2 will rise rapidly from the bottom and the liquid does not have to move at all. The same in absorption. You do not have to stir the liquid to get absorption of CO2 under pressure.
Once the whole ocean is in play, 3.4km deep with 50x as much CO2, you also have an answer for the 50% increase in CO2 over the last century with a slightly warmer ocean surface. Any change in the surface CO2 absorption/outgassing is x50 as the gas is replaced/absorbed with the deep ocean. Pipes of CO2 from the bottom are well known to geologists looking for CH4, as mentioned by a previous blogger. Again you see them in lemonade. This rapid, massive exchange of CO2 and O2 is confirmed by every fish which breathes in every ocean, river and fish tank. They output CO2 as well. Our land existence is simply an extension of our origins in the sea. Try living without water or salt or CO2. However as demonstrated in fish tanks, it is the storms, wind and waves which are the primary method of accelerated gaseous exchange with the surface through the massive surface area enhancement of bubbles in liquid or wet alveoli in your lungs. When you breathe out, your breath has 25% CO2 and 100% humidity, confirming the mechanism of rapid gaseous exchange with your blood.
82
Pelejero et al. looked at interdecadal variations in pH on a part of the Great Barrier Reef since 1700. They found the pH to vary in a 50 year cycle with an amplitude of 0.3 pH units.
They write that their “results suggest that corals at Flinders Reef have experienced a relatively wide range in pH (~0.3 pH units) over the past ~300 years. As a result, these corals have also experienced equivalent changes in the aragonite saturation state….Despite such marked changes, skeletal extension and calcification rates for the Flinders Reef coral fall within the normal range for Porites and are not correlated with Oarag or pH. Therefore, the Porites coral at Flinders Reef seems well adapted to relatively large fluctuations in seawater pH and Oarag.”
Preindustrial to Modern Interdecadal Variability in Coral Reef pH
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5744/2204.abstract
80
The relationship between pH and temperature makes sense to me. If you increase temperature, the solubility of CO2 decreases which then decreases the partial pressure of CO2 in water and it is the partial pressure that changes the ratio of DIC which in turn changes the pH. This can be readily observed with fizzy-drinks which have lower pH values the higher the CO2 partial pressure. If this were the case though and temperature decreased the solubility of ocean CO2 that would decrease the the partial pressure and increase pH rather than lowering it. Would it not? Dunno, I’m completely lost.
10
And wouldn’t the decrease in ocean CO2 and hence change in pH be neutralized by a corresponding decrease in CaCO3 (which exists in equilibrium with CO2) causing no net-change to pH? Perhaps the temperature increase enhances the growth-rates of ocean microorganisms and algae and that is what alters pH rather than the decrease in the partial pressure itself.
30
I came across a blog post by Richard Telford titled “Not pHraud but pHoolishness”, where he claims that Wallace’s study is flawed because he did not account for spatiotemporal changes in the location of the data. Combined with spatial variation in oceanic pH, that would possibly create bias. I believe Telford’s point is valid – has anyonw, including Wallace, rebutted that point?
31
Andre if you read the comments below Richard’s post, you will see the answers to that question and others. Telford also makes the statement;
“It is simply not possibly to calculate a meaningful average of the ocean pH data due to the varying geographical and seasonal coverage.”
Which seriously makes you wonder why he bothers to post a detailed assessment of Wallace’s work vs his own, when he freely admits neither are of any use in determining global acidification(or not) levels.
Its kind of nice to see an alarmist completely undermine the work of his colleagues at panic central either deliberately or accidentally, but either way Jo has been making that same assertion for some time now on both ocean PH and temperature, so his agreement with the proposition is welcome.
153
Ocean ‘acidification’ is not caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, the recent rise in planetary temperature was not caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 was not caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
These subjects are linked, connected. To solve linked/connected problems (there is a physical, unique explanation for everything in the physical world, a solution that makes all the anomalies and paradoxes go away) requires a discussion of all related paradoxes/anomalies. This is a holistic problem, fractional analysis with incorrect theories makes it appear there is no solution to this problem. Incorrect base theories cause specialists to create incorrect toy models which results in incorrect estimations of sinks, sources, reservoirs, and so on which results in incorrect determination of cause and affect. More super computers, more super computer run time, a more complicated toy model,or more funding/scientists doing the same thing will not help to resolve fundamental errors in the base theories.
The long term ocean surface ph changes in this case were caused by changes in the ocean surface temperature in the region in question. Whether the ocean surface temperature is warming or cooling and the initial CO2 in the atmosphere over the ocean region and in the ocean region in question, determines whether CO2 is emitted or absorbed by the ocean region in question which in turn determines whether the ph of the surface ocean in the region in question increases or decreases (if all other related factors are the same).
If the assertions at the top of this comment are correct, ocean ‘acidification’, global warming, and the increase in atmospheric CO2 are over as the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted, the planet has started to cool. Observations to support that assertion are ocean surface temperatures are now starting to drop and there is now record sea ice in the Antarctic and recovery of sea ice in the Arctic. The cooling will accelerate based what has happened in the past when there was an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle.
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2015/anomnight.1.8.2015.gif
The resolution of why ocean ph has changed and will change requires a solution to Salby’s paradox. Salby’s paradox: Detailed phase analysis of changes in atmospheric CO2 supports the assertion that the majority of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to warming of the surface ocean rather than anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Salby’s paradox is created, results from the incorrect belief as to where hydrocarbons come from (the source of hydrocarbons is deep earth not recycled sedimentary rock) and incorrect beliefs as to the size of the sources and sinks for CO2.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/full/nature11299.html
Comment:
There are over a hundred different observations that support the assertion that the source of earth’s surface hydrocarbons is from the deep earth, rather than from a late bombardment of comets, the thin veneer hypothesis (thin veneer hypothesis, hydrocarbons are limited to the surface of the earth and are then recycled). The late Nobel prize winning astrophysics, Thomas Gold in his book The deep hot biosphere: The Myth of Fossil fuels, provides a succinct summary of 50 or so of the observations and logic that supports the deep earth hydrocarbon hypothesis. An example of one of the 100 or so observations that support the deep earth hydrocarbon hypothesis, is the fact that there are massive deposits of methyl hydrates on the ocean floor and in the Arctic and in the Antarctic. The fact that there is CH4 in those regions supports the deep earth CH4 hypothesis. Gases rises in the ocean rather than fall. There is no biological source to produce massive amounts of CH4 at the ocean floor or in the high latitude frozen regions of the planet.) It is a fact that ‘natural’ gas (CH4) is very, very low in C13 which is a paradox if the source of CH4 is recycled biological material. The surface ocean is saturated with CH4 which indicates there is a source of CH4 in the ocean. There are micro organism on the ocean floor that eat CH4 and produce CO2 as a waste product. CH4 eating micro organisms on the ocean floor require a constant source of CH4 (for hundreds of millions of years) to have evolved and to have survived (exist today).
164
You are leaving something out here. The PH measurements were taken at Hawaii, which is highly volcanic, including under sea volcanoes and vents. We all know the effect this can have on PH.
10
Andre,
I came across all the CO2 based climate models since 1988 and all: failed to predict actual events, failed to hindcast historical events and failed replication.
The failure of these CO2 based models therebye proves CO2 is not a factor – has anyone rebutted that I wonder, or do they continue to rely on inaccurate models on which to base alarmist propadanda? It’s rhetorical because they inaccurate models on which to base alarmist propadanda…
Just seems that using cherry-picked periods, homogenising data and hiding research are typical of the vested interests behind climate alarmism not concerned with the validity of the research or accuracy of the result upon which to prove a theory, but rather more interested in the manipulation of data and the stonewalling of science in order to perpetuate a belief.
This is no better represented than by the propaganda tactic of using obfuscation to deflect scrutiny from the subject and to target anyone who questions, rather than scrutinising the subject of the question.
I’m sure Feely/Sabine could have raised any genuinely valid point for themselves if it had existed rather than resort to threat and intimidation.
Ask not ‘has anyone, including Wallace, rebutted that point?’
Ask ‘why has no one, but Wallace, questioned the research?’
This science must be questioned if the facts can’t be observed.
Those who don’t allow the facts to speak for themselves always know the facts will tell a diffferent story.
102
A point I make over and over is that there is no statistically significant difference in the warming rates between the late 1800’s, early 1900’s and between 1978 and 1998 (Phil Jones, CRU East Anglia). There is no “signature” for CO2 “forcing” in the temperature record. It has not and cannot be measured.
Although climate alarmists like to squark “accelerated/accelerating” warming, there is in fact no such thing.
Empirical evidence proves that CO2 is not a factor.
21
I believe Wallace’s work is potentially very important, but it requires addressing sampling issues pointed out by alarmists, if it has not been done already. I guess one way to resolve the issue of temporal shifts in the spatial pattern of the data would be to use a meta-analytical approach, i.e. analyse time series for each location (e.g. grid cell) separately, and then analyze resulting regression estimate against a general null hypothesis (e.g. as simple as one sample t-test) or more specific hypothèses. In other words, taking a longitudinal rather than a cross-sectional, approach. Or using a mixed-model approach such as random coefficients linear model.
20
“…and then analyze resulting regression estimâtes” (missing “s”, quite important, sorry!)
10
Andre,
Wallace found the data that Feely and Sabine ignored.
Direct the scrutiny towards Feely and Sabine.
102
I agree, very important work.
He has actually bought to light that Feely/Sabine knew about this data yet had discounted it.
That means they must have done some preliminary analysis using it. Where is that analysis?
Also, if Telford thinks Wallace has not processed the data properly.. well, the data is there…
Go for it. !! A paper soon from Telford, no doubt! 😉
132
Hi Andre
The data analysis done by Wallace is only a first cut and I would expect that Wallace will in future do a more detailed analysis taking into account location, time season etc. However, with such a extremely large sample size his simple analysis has probably capture the underlying trend in the data despite issues with the accuracy of the instrumentation at the time. The trouble with guys like Telford they have a elementary understanding of data analysis and should be seeking advice from experts in the field ie M&M.
81
OT – The latest from The Conversation: Could climate change have played a role in the AirAsia crash?
These people truly are sick puppies….
122
Yeah they did the same with MH370 as you probably remember.
Its disgraceful opportunism and yet more evidence that climate alarmism is the newest for of terrorism and should be treated as such. The Climate Authority (pffft what a joke) and all organisations like it should be listed as terrorist organisations and its members arrested immediately for the global extortion campaign they are waging on ordinary citizens, while demanding money to change the weather OR ELSE!!
121
Well they have the “journalistic flair” part correct, as to “academic rigor” would they even be asking that question if they had any?
70
That’s not a conversation. Just dogma & censorship.
Here @jonova, this is a conversation.
91
Oh yes, I have a very long list of non controversial posts which have been deleted on The “Conversation”…. apparently because I am a “denier”, however nobody has ever managed to point out exactly what it is that I deny.
120
I’ve tried often over at The Conversation, and have actually had Comments put up there, not that anyone at that site believes a word I say.
However, one thing which does make me smile about that site.
They are so much onto anything that plays the man, and not the ball, like ad homs etc.
However, whenever I added a comment there, it seems I was fair game and their so called rules went out the window.
It seems that it’s okay to bag people who make comments that they don’t want to read.
I’ve also had comments just flat out disappear, even after being posted there.
I don’t comment there any more.
People tell me that I should be making comments at sites like those. Besides there only being so many hours in a day, the personal flak I draw is just not worth the effort.
Oddly, not long after I started leaving comments here at Joanne’s site, mattb actually tried to coerce me to leave comments at SkS, his reasoning being that at that site, my, umm, claims could be, err, tested.
You know, this sort of reasoning, if those comments are here at Joanne’s site, then it’s obviously bovine waste, while if they were over at SkS, then it sort of adds some credibility to it, you know, sort of like peer review!
Just scroll down their home page and note the, umm, huge (/sarc) number of comments accompanying each of their Posts. I’ll bet they wish they had even a fraction of the traffic which Joanne’s site gets.
Nyuk nyuk nyuk!
Tony.
112
Same Tony. Its not so much a conversation as a carefully selected series of mutually supporting nonsense statements. On the good days.
51
Why would anyone bother with the so-called Conversation?
101
The Conversation is cutting edge journalism at its finest.
Each story is fully researched and thoroughly vetted before presentation.
Whoever suggested it be renamed ‘The Collaboration’ should be horse whipped…
82
Very dry, Soused.
40
The sad thing is, that it is journalism at its finest. That is the very best they can do, folks …
110
I agree with Rereke, sadly it is journalism at its finest.
Take for a current example the ehortation from The Conversation’s Brian Mcnair that “terrorists know the media and know how to use it in pursuit of their goals”.
Geez, that’s sort of a wack-off really.
Elevating terrorists to some exalted tactical intelligence level where they manipulate the helpless MSM.
I mean, what do terrorists have to know?
The more accurate headline would be:
“MSM knows terrorists and how to prostitute itself in pursuit of sensationalism”.
71
The PDO seems to be a way to construct a single parameter which represents rather than measures a complex situation over huge areas. Similarly with the very simple idea of a temperature average to define or predict a climate, especially with tiny changes. Averages are at the height of the climate debate and the very idea is almost absurd on a planetary scale except of a gross measure like surface temperature or nett radiation. When you read the argument that this year’s temperature is slightly higher than an ‘average’ from another relatively short period, what does that matter? However it is presented as a rolling disaster caused by CO2, an indication that the sky is falling and that a change in an average even of 0.05C is enough to introduce punitive taxation and wealth redistribution?
Science is about reduction of the variables until you have a clear understanding of the process, but in a huge, complex, multivariate system, this is impossible. Simple processes rarely happen. A great weight falling is easy enough to predict, but a feather? A wall free turbulent worldwide hothouse model? Does anyone seriously believe this?
So there is a feeling in this attempt to represent and understand ocean surface temperatures over a huge area, over seasons, over latitudes with currents, winds, storms which is likely not to be able to be systematized by construction of an arbitrary measure and so the PDO. I would compare this to a study of the path of clothes in a washing machine, intrinsically unpredictable but you could create a ‘busyness’ parameter to indicate how much a sock is moving at any given time and try to relate that to the frequency of the agitator or water temperature. Whether any real understanding is achieved is questionable.
50
O/T
Alex Epstein takes a bat to Cook & Co.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/
41
OT, but something that needs to be brought to light, especially to ‘Un’ who has been promoting this rubbish for the past two days.
As you are all well aware, the MSM and the blog-sphere are alive with the ‘claims’ made by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) that 2014 is officially the hottest year on record. Refer:
http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/2015-01-07/2014-hottest-year-Japan-Meteorological-Agency-124848
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/
http://grist.org/climate-energy/2014-was-officially-the-hottest-year-ever/
..to name but a few.
Well……officially, there are NO such claims or statements made by the JMA at all! Here is the latest official press statement made by the JMA….dated 22nd Dec, 2014;
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/news/press_20141222.pdf
…which is available here;
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/index.html
In it, it states (my bolding);
The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature for the year 2014 (i.e. the combined average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the sea surface temperature) is estimated at +0.27°C* above the 1981-2010 average, likely to become the warmest record for the 124-year period since 1891 (Figure 1).
*Note that this figure (hence its rank in the record, either) is still subject to change, because at the moment of this announcement it is only a preliminary result that was calculated based on temperature observations for the period of January to NOVEMBER in 2014.
and;
The final report on the global temperature for 2014 is scheduled to be published early in February 2015.
At the time of this post, dated Jan 9th, 2015 (AESST), JMA have not even analysed and released data for Dec 2014!
To me, this is nothing but blatant misinformation and misleading crap issued by today’s AGW driven MSM.
Got that ‘Un’…..2014, so far, IS NOT OFFICIALLY THE HOTTEST YEAR EVAH!
*Disclaimer* 2014 may??? become the warmest recorded by JMA, BUT…until JMA release an OFFICIAL statement of such (in FEBRUARY), the MSM should report it as it is…..a preliminary estimate.
101
Good catch Bruce and if the official report comes in as fairly ordinary we can be sure the ABC, Fairfax and Guardian will apologise for being misleading and alarmist.
The story has the feel of a scoop.
51
CET Positively Adjusted
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/08/anthropogenic-warming-in-the-cet-record/
The Klimatariat knows no shame.
20
I am sure that middle of the Northern Hemisphere WINTER makes a difference. It was pretty damn cold!
21
JMA use data from NCDC.
That makes it totally unreliable from the start. !
NCDC were the first to take Tom Wigley’s climategate suggestion to get rid of the 1940 peak.
10
Meanwhile Japan has been plastered with snowstorm after snowstorm with the heavy snowfall causing some buildings to collapse. Japan snowfall levels are far greater than in previous years.By the 18th of December, the Niigata Prefecture Tsunan had a snow height of 207 cm (6 ft – 8 inches), The town of Nagano Nozawaonsen got about six feet of snow and Gunma Minakami got about five feet, seven inches of snow. At least eleven people have died as a result of heavy snowfall. Over 20,000 homes were without electricity.
Last spring also saw record snowfall amounts with the snowstorm in January leaving 900 injured and at least one dead. A record breaking snowstorm in mid February passing through Tokyo and left hundreds of people have to be evacuated from their homes, roofs collapsing, hundreds injured, and at least 13 dead. Another storm hitting at the end of February causing damage or destruction of 14,099 vinyl greenhouses with costs totaling more than ¥50 billion in Tokyo and four other prefectures.
The winter was not done with Japan as another storm hit on the Spring Equinox leaving a record snowfall for March of 115 cm (45 inches) in Nemuro, Hokkaido. Hokkaido, Aomori, Niigata and Nagano prefectures all had unseasonably cold weather. Hachinohe in Aomori saw 40 cms (16 inches) of snow.
Given the storms in 2014, I wonder just how many in Japan will believe the Warmest Year Ever propaganda especially when one of their semi-tropical islands gets a major snow storm in December killing people and collapsing buildings? (2 dead and 1400 without power)
120 households in Tokushima still cut off by snow
(wwwDOT)japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/12/08/national/blizzard-blocked-area-in-shikoku-digging-out/#.VIg4U7ARhoA
Tokushima japan at latitude 34.0° N is sort of like South Carolina. The mean annual temperature in Tokushima, Japan is very mild at 15.9 degrees Celsius (60.6 degrees Fahrenheit). January is the coldest month (cool) having a mean temperature of 5.4 degrees Celsius (41.72 degrees Fahrenheit). Temperatures normally do not go below freezing.
Temperature Graph:
(wwwDOT)tokushima.climatemps.com/tokushima-average-temperatures-chart.gif
20
gai, according to the JMA, Japan had a brutal December. They have released their data for December.
Japan Temperature Anomalies (JMA) for Nov and Dec (1981-2010 baseline);
November;
Northern Japan: +1.0°C
Eastern Japan: +1.0°C
Western Japan: +0.7°C
Okinawa & Amami: +0.6°C
December;
Northern Japan: -0.9°C
Eastern Japan: -1.3°C
Western Japan: -1.6°C
Okinawa & Amami: -1.1°C
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/japan/climate/monthly.html
They have also updated their ENSO predictions;
El Niño conditions are present in the equatorial Pacific, although the atmospheric conditions do not indicate clear features of El Niño events.
It is likely that El Niño conditions will transition to ENSO neutral conditions toward the Northern Hemisphere spring.
…it is likely that El Niño conditions will transition to ENSO neutral conditions toward the Northern Hemisphere spring. However, the uncertainties in the model prediction are large, and it remains possible that El Niño conditions will persist beyond spring.
10
Off topic but ….when will it ever go away?
A Holiday item by a local journalist has emphasized the uncertainty being maintained by the Climateers who support AlGore.
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2803513/ian-kirkwood-climate-truth-is-out-there/?cs=2185
Very little actual activity so far but just me and mark.
Maybe it’s the hot weather.
KK
21
I did not see any comment from you…..?
20
On that one I’m georgeJ
🙂
10
Ok this is timely and relevant.
New study off Tasmania looking at deep sea current and wave movements over the next few months.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/deep-sea-waves-focus-of-global-study/story-e6frgcjx-1227178752662
The interesting parts are the goals:
“The measurements will also provide a better understanding of how cold, low-density water from the depths comes to the surface in an essential ecological mixing process that moderates oceanic water temperature and takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.”
Is it just me or have we been told for years now that the models are flawless? Why is this study necessary if the models already include all known variables? How can the IPCC make statements with 95% certainty if there is so much missing information as to require a study of this magnitude?
“Understanding these processes is a critical step in predicting our climate,” Dr Strutton said.”
I thought we already understood it to a degree that was “settled” and beyond question.
So which is it??
Additionally after reading Richard Telford’s thinly veiled excuses for why data was left out of global PH studies, central to his arguments was the notion that layers of ocean contain differing PH concentrations, but if there are currents which mix deep water with surface water, how does picking a depth make any difference and how do you differentiate between what is in that level and what is brought up or down by currents during your measurements?
Sorry for having the temerity to ask so many questions, I know it marks me as someone who is funded by big oil because in reality I have no desire to know the truth, I just want to ensure I make lots of money from being on the right end of the lies….. yeesh….
51
Mike Wallace did some great initial work!!
At least the one warmist admitted that Wallace has had some papers published.wow..like extracting teeth..
Not sure how much time is worth wasting on the warmists..
The games and tricks are so bad that sometimes I have to wonder if some of the posts here are by sceptics pretending to be warmistas and write such mildly insane garbage.?
Anyway..the problem is..
Too many members on their side dont get care how corrupt the science is..
Yet you guys are wasting your time “debating” them over the science..??
It never was anything to do with science..!!
Its a feel good orwellian meme..
Quick question.
How many warmistas begrudginlgy even admitted here that it was wrong to fake up the graph/refuse to hand over the data over and even threaten wallace.????
Not one…thats the problem..
How many of the warmistas will cringe in horror as Mann goes into the fray again and lies and obfuscates..see Steve Mc in fine action here..
None..no matter how many times their “side” get caught out fudging data/lying etc..the warmistas dont care.
You would think some of them would think “
Nope..
And how many of the warmists worry about the billions that have vanished over 20 years..”fighting climate”..?
None.
And they all drive and use cars..and they all are connected to the grid.
Yet without blushing they troll here..get butchered and go back to their fossil fuelled lives thinking they are fighting the good fight.
Seriously..you couldnt make this up if you tried.. L(
91
***somehow, i don’t think people temporarily displaced because of natural disasters match the lengthy exile of those displaced by major conflicts:
9 Jan: SMH: Reuters: Alister Doyle: Start planning for climate change migrants now, experts warn world’s governments
Oslo: Governments need to plan better for rising migration driven by climate change, experts have said, citing evidence that extreme weather and natural disasters force far more people from their homes than wars.
Projections by leading climate scientists of rising sea levels, heatwaves, floods and droughts linked to global warming are likely to oblige millions of people to move out of harm’s way, with some never able to return…
***”Natural disasters displace three to 10 times more people than all conflicts and war in the world combined,” said Jan Egeland, head of the Norwegian Refugee Council which runs the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre in Geneva…
The centre’s data shows that 22 million people were displaced by extreme events in 2013, led by Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, three times more than the number displaced by conflicts. In many other years, the ratio was much wider.
In the early 1970s, the total number of people displaced was only about 10 million. Extreme events also include earthquakes and tsunamis, unrelated to the weather…
Chaloka Beyani, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons, said governments should step up planning for migrants…
http://www.smh.com.au/world/start-planning-for-climate-change-migrants-now-experts-warn-worlds-governments-20150108-12kmqp.html
Mary’s pdf report is from July 2014 and is 265 pages long!!!
9 Jan: Guardian: Mary Robinson: international law is coming up short in its response to climate change
(Mary Robinson is the former president of Ireland and chair of the Mary Robinson Foundation – Climate Justice )
(Photo of protesters with banner – “We are armed…only with peer-reviewed science”)
When it comes to human suffering, the IPCC doesn’t mince its words. According to its latest report – the culmination of seven years of research and intense negotiations – climate change is on its way to causing “severe, pervasive and irreversible” damage on the world’s people, cultures, ecosystems and economies…
The human cost of global warming has a name: climate injustice. The remedy, then, is climate justice…
The International Bar Association (IBA), the global voice of the legal profession, has released a detailed report on the role of international law in addressing climate change (pdf) (LINK). Its assessment is frankly shocking. It finds that climate change touches on every area of international law – human rights, trade, investment, migration – and everywhere the law is coming up short.
Yet the report is also full of hope. The authors, a group of eminent lawyers from around the world, looked hard at the international legal system and found that more effective and coherent use of existing laws, rules and norms would inform better climate responses at the international and national level…
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jan/09/mary-robinson-law-coming-up-short-climate-change
11
17 Dec: Bloomberg: Buffett’s Smart-Grid Idea Takes Over Your Washing Machine
By Alex Webb and Stefan Nicola
Buffett’s Northern Powergrid Holdings Co. is working with Siemens AG (SIE) to test a so-called smart grid that has the ability to control when consumer appliances will be used in the home…
Being able to better manage when electricity flows allows utilities to lower consumer costs by reducing the need for new equipment, and to better handle surges and gaps from intermittent sources such as wind and solar. The pilot program, known as the Customer-Led Network Revolution, involves just 12,000 households in the U.K. and is one of only a few such projects being tested worldwide…
A four-year trial for the system ends this month in northeast England. It complements the $15 billion investment Buffett has already made in wind and solar power in the U.S. that he said in June he’s ready to double. His MidAmerican Energy Co. is the largest U.S. owner of wind capacity among rate-regulated utilities.
Utilities worldwide are already using smart meters to collect data on customer behavior, and some notify consumers about optimum times to use power. The 54 million-pound ($85 million) trial by Buffett’s U.K.-based system goes a step further. It gives people a choice, allowing them to either use appliances themselves at optimum times, or to let the system decide that for them…
This behavioral shift will be more important as wind and solar power becomes more common, requiring utilities to manage generating systems that don’t produce power on calm days or at night. Wider adoption of renewable power will also involve incorporating many local, disparate energy sources, from large-scale windfarms to residential rooftop solar panels…
Europe will more than triple spending by 2019, to $7.6 billion, mainly driven by the need to integrate renewables and utilities rolling out smart meters, said Colin McKerracher, a senior analyst on smart technologies at New Energy Finance.
“To integrate renewables in a cost-effective way, you need to integrate both grid-level technologies and end-user facing technologies,” he said in an interview.
The U.K. project, which is partly funded by the British government, is one of a handful using similar technology. Alstom SA’s Nice Grid trial in France will end in 2016, and Australia’s Ausgrid ran a A$100 million ($83 million) project…
U.K. regulator Ofgem has called on utilities to lower the cost of delivering renewable energy to customers.
The technology is also generating interest from the energy division of Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A)
“They’re investing very heavily in low-carbon technologies,” said Northern Powergrid’s Lloyd. “So there’s significant interest about what we’re trying to do here.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-17/buffett-s-smart-grid-idea-takes-over-your-washing-machine.html
thanx for your concern Warren, but please stop worrying about manmade global warming:
8 Jan: Reuters: Barbara Goldberg: Record-breaking cold closes U.S. schools, sends penguins inside
Record-breaking cold that gripped the U.S. East and Midwest on Thursday snarled travel, shut schools, filled homeless shelters and even led to zoo penguins being ordered inside…
Records were broken from Montpelier, Vermont, at minus 20 F (minus 29 C), to Jackson, Kentucky, with minus 1 F (minus 18 C), he said…
Frostbite could set in with just 15 minutes’ exposure to the frigid air, the weather service said, advising people to keep pets indoors…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/08/us-usa-weather-idUSKBN0KH10O20150108
31
We have the local power company apparently taking over our air conditioner.
Only recently built, our new place has something like a smart meter.
After 10 minutes on a hot day our fuse switch is “thrown” and requires a manual re-set.
I don’t think this is a faulty machine because on a few days it has kept working as if our zone wasn’t the scheduled “loss taker ” for the day.
Tony might know?
KK
21
[…] for oppsslaget: Joanne Nova: Does ocean pH shift with the PDO cycle? 26. januar 2015 in Alarmer, […]
00