Testimony before Congress was based on model hindcast, actual data ignored
Guest essay by Michael Wallace, Hydrologist
Members of the global science and lay communities have begun to learn of the confirmed omission of 80 years of instrumental data from contemporary ocean acidification (OA) scientific products. The missing ~2 million data points comprise a majority of the world’s historical ocean pH measurements. The data was replaced without disclosure, by a model hind cast. The substituted history, known as the FEEL2899 report (1) was itself used as the technical basis for testimony to the US Congress (2). In turn, OA mitigation research funding was augmented, and the regulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was strengthened and deepened.
This occurrence of a model-replacing-data-without-disclosure has few publicized precedents of this scale. Already some in media have chosen to headline this as a case of “pHraud” (3). Whatever it is called, a fundamental question remains whether or not this omission will ever be corrected. Currently the major obstacle to rapid correction appears to be a consensus among those in power, that ocean pH cannot (and could never) be instrumentally measured using any conceivable means for any conceivable ocean purpose by any conceivable scientist. Therefore those in power effectively assert that the world must put aside expectations of data accessibility and transparency, and accept the PMEL authors’ formerly undisclosed SeaCarb model hindcast replacement as the entire truth of past ocean pH.
I came into awareness of the ocean pH data omission myself, purely through research activities, which led to personal communications with the authors of the omission (4). I learned through two of those authors some facts concerning the origins, pervasiveness, and structure of the omissions.
Originally I had simply hoped to find somewhere a complete basic ocean instrumental pH time series data set, in order to compare to other ocean and climate indices of interest to me. Although it was a detour from my primary research, I found it necessary to begin to construct my own time series and geospatial products, based on the new information, obliquely brought to my attention by the PMEL authors towards the end of our communications, which I later downloaded.
I have continued to follow up through ongoing stochastic evaluations of the actual omitted instrumental data (5). I think this information largely speaks for itself and so I’ve adapted some of those evaluations for the attached figure. In addition I’ve traced some of the OA citation pathways in order to focus on the most likely reasons for the existing disconnects between the OA research community and the rest of the aqueous pH measuring communities.
One of the greatest disconnects relates to the question of instrumental measurement accuracy. In my communications with the FEEL2899 authors from the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), they asserted that instrumental ocean pH measurements prior to around 1988 were not sufficiently accurate (4).
Figure 1-a. includes a subset of the FEEL2899 pH time series product as the thick reddish curve. Some aspects of the NOAA World Ocean Database (WOD) (6) global ocean pelagic pH data (GOPpH) are plotted over the same time frame. These include the ten year moving average in blue, and a rounded version of that as open green circles. Please note that although there doesn’t appear to be a clear trend up or down, both of the WOD-based curves suggest an oscillatory behavior, over the period shown.
NOAA’s WOD pH data are typically published to two decimal places. This is presumably because of the 0.01 pH unit accuracy of the meters utilized. This accuracy is standard for many modern day glass electrode pH (GEpH) meters as well. In addition, the natural global ocean pH (GOpH) values for all depths can range over 4 full pH units. That yields at least 400 unique possibilities along a continuous ocean pH curve, that can be accurately identified by any pH meter of its time. Even a measurement taken with an accuracy of only one decimal place yields 40 possible points along that curve. Either accuracy should be more than adequate for initial and publishable GOpH and/or GOPpH trend analyses.
As a rough illustration, I have included the green open circles of Figure 1.a., which are simply the blue curve data rounded to the nearest 0.1 pH unit. The apparent oscillatory pattern of the more refined time series is preserved. This holds even though I’ve already severely restricted the pH range of that data set due to the 10 year averaging filter.
The real data continue to receive additional confirmatory support. For example, I have been profiling outside natural indexes which appear to correlate with the WOD GOPpH data set (5). These include the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Otowi stream gage in the US Southwest. I’ve included part b. of Figure 1 to summarize some of those findings here (7). As shown, my construction of the GOPpH time series shows a higher correlation to a premier continental stream gage (the Otowi gage of the Upper Rio Grande in the US Southwest) than correlations of that gage to the El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and atmospheric CO2 (from Mauna Loa Observatory).
To me, this is interesting. I know that the correlation between GOPpH and the Otowi stream gage is not high enough to be useful by itself for forecasting purposes. Yet it would appear to be more justified than ENSO and/or CO2, even though those are the ‘go to’ drivers employed to justify contemporary assertions about hydrology in this region.
In any case, given such reproducible and stochastically interesting outcomes for GOPpH, why do OA researchers consistently maintain that GEpH meters are insufficiently accurate for any conceivable ocean hydroclimatologic use? Why do they also assert that only spectrophotometric (SP) based pH meters are up to the claimed accuracy challenge?
These assertions appear to be largely based upon invalid referencing (8,9) to the document known as “SCOR Working Group 75” (SCOR75) (10). The SCOR75 report contradicts those claims by clearly stating that “Under the best circumstances, the absolute value of pH is only known within 0.01 pH unit”. Moreover, it appears that the validity of SP based pH measurements is only supported when those measurements are backed up by, of all things, GEpH meter readings. In fact, one of the FEEL2899 authors has contributed to a report where this GEpH specification is repeated many times (8).
Perhaps even these inconsistencies are overshadowed by another twist; why do SP based pH measurements also require the use of conventional pH indicator dyes? Unlike typical applications for SPs, the emission or absorption of the target ion species (hydronium in this context) is not directly measured. Rather, the SPs in this context appear to be nothing more than expensive, exotic, titration- fed colorimeters.
The non-OA community might benefit to know of this pernicious limitation that all ocean scientists are now constrained to. Is it conceivable that if only for consistency, authorities soon will pressure the rest of us to abandon GEpH meters in favor of a technology that is no more accurate, yet exponentially more expensive and time consuming?
No doubt I have biases, but I believe that the scientific consensus will eventually condense around the omitted NOAA WOD GOpH data as the most practical and useful foundation for any credible and complete ocean pH time series analyses. It is amazingly rich and informative, and appears to align with many independent hydroclimatologic patterns and expectations.
The ocean pH data omission was an unprecedented and disturbing incident in the history of hydrological sciences. Only NOAA can likely correct this. That’s because NOAA contains the source of the problem (the FEEL2899 pH time series product) as well as its solution (the WOD database). To help resolve that paralyzing disorder, scientists and others may wish to consider signing a petition that I have authored at (11). It may seem overly prescriptive, but in some ways it merely asks that the ocean pH data omissions be corrected by NOAA, and that GOpH measurements follow the OA authorities’ own published guidelines.
REFERENCES
- Feely, R.A., C.L. Sabine, and V.J. Fabry, 2006, CARBON DIOXIDE AND OUR OCEAN LEGACY http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/feel2899/feel2899.pdf
- American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 U.S. House of Representatives Rept. 111-137 Part 1. 111th Congress. CRPT-111hrpt137.pdf
- For example: Noon, M. 2014 article at:http://www.cfact.org/2014/12/22/what-if-obamas-climate-change-policies-are-based-on-phraud/
- Wallace, M., 2013 PMEL & Pew Charitable Trust Communications transcript compiled by Wallace. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/100449329/June2013WallaceResponseToFeel2899EmailString.pdf
- Wallace, M. 2014 – present, pH and Ocean Acidification (13 posts), www.abeqas.com
- NOAA NODC Ocean Climate Laboratory http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OCL/
- Wallace, M. 2014 draft paper parked at: https://www.academia.edu/9071357/The_Relative_Impact_of_the_Pacific_Decadal_Oscillation_Upon_the_Hydrology_of_the_Upper_Rio_Grande_and_Adjacent_Watersheds_in_the_Southwestern_United_States._3_4_5
- Dickson, A.G., Sabine, C.L. and Christian, J.R. (Eds.) 2007. Guide to best practices for ocean CO2 measurements. PICES Special Publication 3, 191 pp.
- Aßmann S., C. Frank, and A. Kortzinger, 2011, Spectrophotometric high-precision seawater pH determination for use in underway measuring systems. Ocean Science 7, 597-607
- Final Report of SCOR Working Group 75, 1992, Methodology for oceanic CO2 measurements. UNESCO technical papers in marine science
- http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/restore-the-worlds-ocean-ph-measurements
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

An unvalidated model is nothing more than an illustration of somebody’s hypothesis.
This hoax was debunked some time ago.
Do tell us more. Debunking stories are usually very enjoyable.
https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2014/12/26/not-phraud-but-phoolishness/
@harrytwinotter,
Your ‘authority’ is a blog??
If you’re going to place credence in blogs, at least pick one that has credibility. That one doesn’t.
WUWT has won the internet’s BEST SCIENCE award for the past three years running. That’s why so many real scientists, engineers, and others in the hard sciences write articles and comment here.
If you want to learn, read this site. The one you linked to is nonsense.
dbstealey.
You could not be more ironic if you tried.
@harrytwinotter,
And how, exactly, was my comment ironic?
Speak up, boy! You’re beginning to sound like Mosher.
Why is the linked site nonsense?
“A global-ocean mean pH: what could possibly go wrong?” 🙂 Sums it up really.
So, when the models show the “global ocean mean pH” becoming “acidic”, they are right, but when the data does not, the data must be wrong.
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?
Well I will ignore your rhetorical question. It sounds like a “false dichotomy” anyway.
Data is fine as long as it is good data. Historical data gathered the way the article suggests is not going to be good. Plus you cannot work out a global average by just averaging a bunch of data points, it is more complicated than that.
You only have the article-writer’s word for it that the “model” is no good. If I thought the writer was trying to be scientific I would say that he needs to prove that claim.
So Harry, is the “correct” way to get a global mean by smearing the data points around a 1000km grid cell and then averaging them together?
“Data is fine as long as it is good data. Historical data gathered the way the article suggests is not going to be good. Plus you cannot work out a global average by just averaging a bunch of data points, it is more complicated than that.”
So Harry, using that criteria, the surface temperature data should not be used either.
I guess the only way to know what is happening in the real world is to consult models since no form of observation is worthy of consideration.
IMO, those 2 million or so data points may not show an average but they are useful in showing trends. As long as they aren’t “adjusted” by the same folks who manipulate the surface station data in order to better match the incomplete models.
My interpretation of a “no good” model is one which does not compare well with actual observational data.
Looks like John and I had the same idea at the exact same time… 🙂
Why are people so hung up on ‘averaging’ when that is totally meaningless due to the large variances in pH around the measurements being taken. Not to mention the obvious misunderstanding of precision vs accuracy. The only reason I can see it being useful is that politicians can be persuaded by it to provide more funding – as shown in this article. So obtaining funding is the purpose of the modeled average; it is useless from a scientific viewpoint.
@ur momisugly harrytwinotter March 31, 2015 at 6:27 am
Geeezze, ….harrytwin, …….have you told the IPCC and all the other Global Average Temperature calculating proponents of CAGW about your above stated fact?
Warning – subject change! Not to mention what is probably a false-analogy.
We were actually discussing ocean pH and acidification. Focus people, focus!
harrytwinotter
The models have to be proved wrong??? And you are not allowed to use the available data to do that??? That is crazy!!!!
So the only way to prove the models wrong is to go into the models and show that their fundamental premises are wrong?
Wow, people have been trying to get a look inside climate models for years. Not allowed. Has everything about this model been made public?
A model is at best a hypothesis — the validity of which is determined by comparing it to measured data. What you are demanding is the nullification of that fundamental precept. You are preaching non-science. Like it or not it is fair to say that this model is “faith based”. (Can you hear the song “Give Me That Old Time Religion” playing in the background?)
Modelers are taking us back to the age of superstition. When models are claimed to produce data then the the models are nothing but superstition and the modelers ignorant savages dancing around camp fires.
Eugene WR Gallun
Eugene WR Gallun.
That is what I am saying, yes. The article does not say why the models are wrong – it should.
I ignored the rest of your comment because it was irrelevant gibberish. If you hear a song playing in your head, that is your own affair.
harrytwinotter is getting badly beat up here, so I’m reluctant to pile on…
…OK, not really.
Harry says:
Data is fine as long as it is good data.
Agreed. But there’s no really good data on ocean pH, is there? There are models, and so what? That’s why it is such a juicy subject for the climate alarmist crowd. They can say anything. All skeptics can say is ‘show us’. Instead, they keep repeating the “acidification” mantra/narrative. In other words, heads we win, tails you lose.
Post your “good data”, harry. I want to look at it. Then we’ll see…
Harry
Good to see your scepticism showing through with your comments about historical data. Presumably you will not be mpressed by Sea surface temperature measurements back to 1850?
Tonyb
dbstealey.
I am not worried about your dog whistle. It appears to be your job on this blog.
@harrytwinotter,
Yet another cryptic post.
Explain your “dog whistle” comment — if you’re not just trolling.
And what, pray tell, is my “job”? FYI, no one employs me or tells me what to do. I speak 100% for myself. So… your comment wouldn’t be projection, would it? Is your job to troll, and run interference here?
As I stated above, you are getting badly beaten up here, and it’s because you can’t seem to man-up and respond.
harryotter says:
You only have the article-writer’s word for it that the “model” is no good. If I thought the writer was trying to be scientific I would say that he needs to prove that claim.
Wrong again, and I for one have stoped counting. You still don’t understand the meaning of “scientific”. For one thing, it means that skeptics have nothing to prove. So enough with demanding that the skeptical author of this article must “prove that claim”.
The only ones who have the onus of supporting their “acidification” conjecture are the alarmists who are pushing that narrative; those who produce models, then call those models data. They are the ones claiming that their model works, when it is clear it doesn’t.
There are no verifiable measurements showing changes in ocean pH that are outside the error bars. The “ocean acidification” scare is just another failed prediction of the climate alarmist crowd. It joins every other failed prediction of theirs, from accelerating sea level rise, to disappearing Polar bears, to Tuvalu disappearing beneath the waves, to vanishing Arctic ice — to the big enchilada itself: runaway global warming. Every one of their predictions was wrong. No exceptions.
But we can count on their lemmings to jump on any alarmist bandwagon du jour, such as the ocean pH scare. harrytwinotter is just another tedious lemming, hoping he’s right this time — when we can see that he’s simply wrong again.
And I note that despite my request way upthread, harrytwinotter has still posted no data. But why post any data, when:
a) your eco-religion doesn’t require it, and
b) you have no data anyway?
Wake me when there are testable, verifiable scientific measurements, outside of any error bars, which show conclusively that ocean pH is “acidifying”. That will be the day.
Pronoun trouble.
What is the “this” to which you refer as having been debunked?
Sorry Harry, but I can’t find anything in your “debunking” that actually addresses the claim. Saying that it’s junk is one thing, but there is nothing to say that it is any worse than taking a model based off unmeasured data. Looking at the metadata chart does indicate that it could use improvement. However, presuming that the distributions are fairly random (and thus the biases roughly average), the oscillation between the 50s and 80s would seem to still be valid.
Now, the idea that you should only average the changes in pH is continuously measured regions is a good one. I would like to see an analysis of that. However, saying that the analysis is flawed hardly counts as a “debunking” of the scandal. This begs the question, the metadata obviously exists to give a location-specific trend analysis, so why didn’t the NOAA reanalyze the data they had instead of substituting it with a model based on CO2 concentration that effectively boils down to circular reasoning?
Also, that link includes several very good charts on reasons why ocean acidification should not be worried about, namely the huge inter-sea and seasonal variations in pH.
Too many straw men for me to comment on, so I won’t. I don’t think you read the debunk I linked to very carefully.
The bottom line is there is no “scandal”, save for the one Michael Wallace is trying to fabricate.
No straw men here. My statement is simple
1: There is data.
2: You claim that the analysis is flawed by showing geographical distribution.
3: However, instead of promoting reanalysis of the data in a superior method (which you just showed could be done), the data was discarded in favor of modeled results.
The problem is in number 3.
I did read your link. I AGREE with your link on almost all of its points, aside from the final line (the idea that the gridding and trending is difficult so it should not be done). Most importantly, your link says that the global average pH should not be calculated AT ALL as its a meaningless and highly variable number. However, that is what is being requested.
However, there’s a non-sequitor that isn’t being addressed. That being discarding the entirety of the dataset and using model output instead. That’s a giant leap that just cannot be justified. That is the objection raised in this post and that is not addressed in your comments or your link.
Benjamin of Houston.
The straw man is the claim that data was “discarded”.
I wonder how many have had a look at FEEL2899. It is only a briefing (not a “report” which is another straw man). The “chart” (it actually looks more like a schematic) doesn’t even appear to be a “model” or “hindcast”, it is hand draw (no noise in the data) – my guess it is just there for illustration only.
harrytwinotter March 31, 2015 at 6:05 am
https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2014/12/26/not-phraud-but-phoolishness/
If this is your example of debunking your argument is in severely weak. The article provided debunks nothing but instead tries to change the subject or claim “complexity” as you miserably attempt to do as well.
The climate and ocean PH is very complicated but the methodology pursued by Sabine is not, it is transparently stupid. If you have the data you use it, if you have the data but do not trust it, you don’t manufacture data by an unproven method and then claim you have the data. Stupidity can make a comfortable home well in either simplicity or complexity, it is not biased in that regard.
Stupidity may not be the issue here however as Sabine implicates himself of dishonesty using his own words.
Sigh – another straw man which I will not respond to. You could actually go read Sabine’s work yourself, and not take the word of a 3rd party.
Harry, you use that word so often, do you even know what it means?
benofhouston,
That’s another great example of ‘projection’ by harry, no?
I wasn’t going to post that, Harry. I thought it would have been a bit crass, but yes, I was thinking of that very scene.
Then why are you still posting here? Oh, sorry when you mentioned hoax I immediately thought of hoaxer, you.
According to people like you models provide better information than the real data. Some day soon if people like you have their way I wouldn’t be surprised to see everyone forced to wear virtual reality headsets providing everyone with pre-approved model data as opposed to reality. It might be confusing for folks as they die of hypothermia, but models are better than data says the pimps of AGW/Climate change.
I have one question each for harrytwinotter and for Michael Wallace.
Harry2O: Would you agree that the data show that the pH was lower in 1910 than at present time, and that it was approximately the same in 1950 as now? Or are you disputing the accuracy of the data?
Michael: Part of your alarm seems to rest on the fact that the dataset at NOAA was replaced with a model. Where did you come by your data?
Thanks,
I am disputing the accuracy of a global mean value from the historical data, yes.
Yes harrytwinotter, it was debunked by none other than (ta-daa!) Mike Wallace. http://www.abeqas.com/
What a grotesque politico/scientific scandal and our thanks to Michael Wallace for uncovering it and presenting it to the world. This what happens when the scientists get too close to the needs of the funding Government. This is hideously embarrassing for NOAA and for the scientists who work there. How will they respond?
A government agency that hide long term ocean ph measurement data (where the ocean ph data in question was attained with tax payer funds) from the scientific community and from tax payers as the long term ph data in question supports the assertion that one’s ph/CO2 ocean model is incorrect, is not embarrassing.
It is grounds for a change in the senior administrators in the government agency in question and is clear indication that new formal policies are required to ensure government agencies strictly adhere to normal science practices, are completely transparent in terms of data release, data analysis, and provide documented reasons for changes to data, and do not change data unless there is a scientific reason to do so, as opposed to cult science.
The fact that a government scientific agency replaced the long term ocean ph measurement data with a hind cast forecast from the incorrect ocean ph model is a sad indication of rampant, pervasive, climategate cult science. Government policy that is removed from science, logic, and reason degrades into madness.
Comment:
In normal science theories change when data and analysis does not support them. In normal science the objective is to solve scientific puzzles. In cult science, there are hidden agendas which stop the normal progress of science. In cult science data is hidden and papers are blocked to protect the cult’s theories. In cult science, the cult has an agenda.
Instrumental Data! we don’t need to no instrument data we got ‘models’ which are better than reality .
Once again the mistake is to think that you prove them factual wrong they you won the argument, the trouble is it is not a argument based on facts , although it should be .
What’s the pH of snake oil?
7.0
Personally, I am neutral on that fact.
Don’t know, but we could check Harrytwinotter for oil and then test its pH, because he sure is a snake oil peddler.
Michael: I went looking for pH series a few months ago. IIRC there were very few actual in situ time series – Monterey and Hawaii. Could you point me to a source on the geographic distribution of these measurements and the periods that they cover..
Here is a distirbution map of the 5.7million casts that measrued ocean pH between 1900 and 2000:
[IMG]http://i62.tinypic.com/2wml63a.jpg[/IMG]
TerryS: Many thanks. These must be shipboard measures?
Its from Ocean Station Data and Mechanical Bathythermographs
Perhaps you could ask NOAA. The Suppository of all wisdom.
Repository ?
I’m sure I got it right first time. 🙂
Well, they do seem to be the “anal”-ists of models.
LOL! Love it!
If this is true, this is unbelievable. However, given what I have seen and found out over the years about science (being used to build the socialist global utopia), I’m not surprised.
‘Socialist Global Utopia’; apologies to George Orwell; Choco rations have been increased from 35 grams to 25 grams per day.
I think you will find that Choco rations where never 35 grams your ‘mistaken’ if you look closer you will find the record ‘proves that ‘
I echo John V Wright in thanking Michael Wallace for his tenacious investigation and exposure of the ocean pH fraud by the political activists and CAGW cultists at NOAA. It is yet more evidence (if any more was really needed) that the fundamental problem to be resolved is not scientific per se but political. That is, of the dangerous, man-made Big Government variety.
What’s changed since this post?
This article is a bit shorter? This article is just padding I guess.
Interesting that the blue line (10 year moving average) closely aligns with the changing temperature trends during the 20th century which in turn are roughly aligned with varying levels of solar activity, global cloudiness and Jetstream zonality / meridionality.
I think this link is pertinent:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/evidence-that-oceans-not-man-control-co2-emissions/
Basically, at times of lower global cloudiness, sunlight penetrating the upper oceans drives CO2 out of the water and into the atmosphere which increases PH (more alkaline) as can be seen from1970 to 1990.
Amazingly, the ocean response to more CO2 in the atmosphere is increased alkalinity and NOT increased acidity presumably because an increase in sunlight drives CO2 out of the oceans and into the air. The chart deals with the top 200 metres which is approximately the maximum depth to which sunlight can penetrate to any significant degree.
The oceans appear to have become more alkaline during the late 20th century warming spell and only since 1990 have they become more acidic as the warming stopped and according to Earthshine data global albedo has increased again.
Changes in the PH appear to predate the subsequent climate changes by about ten years which suggests that solar effects on global cloudiness cause an immediate change in the PH trend but it takes about ten years for the effect of those changes in trend to show up fully in PH, CO2 and cloudiness changes.
So the PH started to rise in about 1970 (more alkaline) but the climate shift towards warming was not noted until the late 70s and PH started to fall around 1990 (more acidic) but the climate shift (cessation of warming) was not noted until around 2000 (I have often said I first noticed jet stream changes back towards more meridionality from 2000).
PH started to rise around 1920 (more alkaline) and global warmth increased into the 1930s.
PH peaked around 1945 and then started to fall (more acidic) followed by the global cooling fears of the 1950s and 60s.
It appears that the AGW based theory of oceanic acidification is the reverse of reality and confusion has been caused by the ten year time la.
Lower global cloudiness drives CO2 out of the oceans (top 200 metres) so that the air then contains more CO2 but the oceans hold less and become more alkaline rather than more acidic.
agreed. Ocean pH is correlated with temperature/ocean cycles, not CO2. This is strong evidence that the ocean overturning rate drives temperatures and ocean pH. Which is of course why it was not presented to Congress. Anyone that presented this to Congress would have found themselves very unpopular with the White House, and found themselves added to the Official Deniers List, their funding cut off, and their career on the fast track to the toilet. The Global Warming deal in Paris is to be the crowing achievement of Barry’s legacy. Nothing can be allowed to derail this.
The ocean overturning rate is an interesting modification to the basic principle because a period of solar induced outgassing will result in lower CO2 concentration in the water entering the thermohaline circulation which takes 1000 years or so to complete.
There is also the issue of semi independent ocean oscillations in each ocean basin.
Thus there might well be longer term atmospheric CO2 trends hiding behind the shorter term variations observed since 1910 on the above chart.
It appears that the AGW based theory of oceanic acidification is the reverse of reality and confusion has been caused by the ten year time la[g]
[spell correction of “lag” is mine]
Well, it depends how you did your signal analysis and how noisy the underlying signal is. Was the Moving Window Average truly moving, or a choppy boxcar? Was the average put into the beginning, middle, or end of the 10 year decimation interval? If it’s not identical for both the pH and PDO signal then it’s just sampling error on the 10 year average and could account for the causation/lag issue.
If the underlying signal is very noisy at high frequencies, a Moving Window average technique can alias up to 20% of the underlying noise into the lower frequencies, greatly distorting the resulting signal. It’d be better to use something that aliases less than 1%. That would require a properly designed Hamming, Kaiser, or other phase-linear filter.
Since we don’t have the source code and data we can’t tell if it’s a processing problem or a real physical phenomena. I’m continually frustrated on not seeing the data and the source. Amazon gives away storage for Free. DropBox gives away storage for free. GitHub is free. There’s really no excuse for not posting all the data and the code for any analysis somewhere for free.
Peter are you referring to my plots? The data sources are provided. Also I have used a dropbox account to provide supporting information. Feel free to process the data to your whim if you choose to access the WOD yourself, as I did.
Thanks ferdberple and Dr. Wilde, what you both say certainly resonates with me.
“known as the FEEL2899 report”
Another “Mann” science report.
A “Mann” for all seasons.
Bill Shakespeare knew him well.
Also known as the FEEL-GOOD report?
Hmmm…so real ocean pH oscillates over a 60 year period! Who would have thought that? How about the chemical basis for this?
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Acids_and_Bases/Aqueous_Solutions/The_pH_Scale/Temperature_Dependent_of_the_pH_of_pure_Water
“According to Le Châtelier’s Principle, if you make a change to the conditions of a reaction in dynamic equilibrium, the position of equilibrium moves to counter the change you have made. Hence, if you increase the temperature of the water, the equilibrium will move to lower the temperature again. It will do that by absorbing the extra heat. That means that the forward reaction will be favored, and more hydrogen ions and hydroxide ions will be formed.”
This is for pure water, though. The table given for fresh water shows heating from 0 to100C changes the pH from 7.47 to 6.14, very substantial!
Wow!! pH changes with temperature independent of CO2!!
How many government funded scientists mentioned this to Congress? 0.00%?
I speculate that the big dip in the chart during the Great War might be due to a pause/hiatus/whatever in global sampling. Perhaps the samplers were limited to certain areas with normally lower pH? A pity that Michael Wallace didn’t comment on that in this or his previous blog post. I’m too lazy to look at the data myself.
The great wars might explain those gaps, as you’ve noted. I don’t know myself.
For ocean water, one should look at the effect of CO2+H2O=> H^(+) +HCO3^(-), etc. and see which way these reactions are forced with temperature. I would have used SST as one of the predictors, although I guess PDO, ENSO gets part of this.
Once again, if this were a private sector for profit business engaged in a hoax like this, if true, there would be people in jail. There’s too much money in government funded research.
Never mind the hoax. Consider what the real data shows us.
It appears to show that warming and more atmospheric CO2 are both associated with more alkaline oceans rather than more acidic oceans.
That ought to cause a stir.
and preceded by, or is the time resolution too vague to make that call clearly.
You might be able to find them through Wallace’s web site, http://www.abeqas.com/
If not there, perhaps they’re buried in Phil Jones’s office. (That’s a Climategate joke).
Or in Davy Jones’ locker with the missing heat!
Lewis. When the veil is first lifted the reaction is sometimes …
Incredulity. A feeling of unreality. “We are through the looking glass, people … ”
What follows reveals personal, internal processes. To ignore? To believe? To dis-believe? To trust? Distrust? To enquire further?
Dig deeper than the citations?
“This occurrence of a model-replacing-data-without-disclosure has few publicized precedents of this scale.”
Yes, and it is especially unusual in the “climate science” field where the norm is model-replacing-data-with-disclosure.
/grin
1. The data was replaced without disclosure, by a model hind cast.
2. The substituted history, known as the FEEL2899 report was itself used as the technical basis for testimony to the US Congress.
3. In turn, OA mitigation research funding was augmented,
4. and the regulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was strengthened and deepened.
1. Failure to disclose.
2. Presented knowingly bogus (ie, false) testimony.
3. Secured pecuniary advantage.
4. Impacted / influenced national legislation.
Where’s the NY Times editorial? Where’s the outrage from UK Guardian? Why are multiple ‘Green’ NGO’s silent? Meanwhile these people just walk out free as a bird without criticism from their peers or being held to account by the authorities? Astounding.
the scientists are simply following orders.
Your boss asks you to write a report showing oceans are becoming acidic with increasing CO2. You:
1. Disobey, which is insubordination and grounds for dismissal.
2. Obey, write the report and get a raise.
Those that choose 1 are quickly weeded out of the system, leaving those that chose 2 free to write whatever they are ordered to write. Courts have generally held that scientists acting under point 2 would not be criminally liable, as they were not involved in formulating the orders.
100 government scientists are ordered to write a report showing “up equals down”. an independent scientist writes a report on WUWT showing “up not equal down”. Which report will be shown to Congress and the Press? Of course “up equals down”. 100 scientists say so. the debate is over. the 1% that say otherwise, they are deniers, paid by big oil and should be thrown in jail.
Government funded science has been on a …. 35 years long opulent “Gravy Train” ride that will be nigh onto impossible of being “derailed” anytime in the near future.
It’s alright, they covered themselves. Endnote 1 to the brief:
Organizational affiliation is provided for reference only.The findings and conclusions in this science brief are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration or the California State University.
Footnote to the brief:
This science brief was made possible with funding from The Pew Charitable Trusts. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Pew Charitable Trusts.
What is NOAA doing taking money from the Pew Charitable Trusts? The ‘brief’ is the worst form of grey literature.
It is a sad commentary on the current times.
If GEpH measurments are inadequate for measuring ocean pH, I assert that the temperature measurements behind GISS, CET, etc are equally bad, or worse. Those measurements are taken by non scientists reading thermometers with data reported to one degree. By this logic they could not be useful for measuring the 0.7 C° of warming in the last century.
They too should be replaced with a model.
Yes that seems about right. The same might be said about sea level changes of 3 mm/year. Ha ha.. what calipers do they use to make those measurements?
A good resume of the insane approach to pH measurements. It is beyond any common knowledge to prefer a SP based assay above a good calibrated GEpH measuring device. In any laboratory on this planet, the GEpH method is used with the most diverse spectrum of solutions to standarize the pH of any solution. Imagine that in a biology lab, a chemical lab the GEpH should be replaced with a spectrophotometer based assay. I think one would be surprised to see the many instances in which a SP based method would be completely off due to other reactions with the indicator dyes. Redox reactions come to mind. Apart from this, the extra work and chemicals, expensive equipment, calibration procedures will add to the cost and time that is required for a SP based assay compared to the ease of use, stability and cost of the GEpH method. More than 100 years of use of the GEpH is not easily relaced with a new method that has to show its robustness under so diverse circumstances.
Moreover, it appears that the validity of SP based pH measurements is only supported when those measurements are backed up by, of all things, GEpH meter readings.
You have this backwards, the more precise SP method is used to calibrate the GE meters.
See for example: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/es300491s
“Measurements of seawater pH are currently obtained both potentiometrically and spectrophotometrically. Spectrophotometric pH measurements are much more precise (±0.0004) than potentiometric measurements (±0.003) and are increasingly preferred for direct ocean monitoring, but potentiometric measurements are advantageous for many types of studies for which less precise measurements are adequate. As such, use of glass electrodes and other potentiometric pH devices is likely to continue as a very common practice in laboratory and field investigations.
Although the accuracy of both potentiometric and spectrophotometric measurements is intimately related to calibration protocols, calibration procedures for the two methodologies are distinct in one critical aspect. Modern spectrophotometric pH measurements, which involve the use of indicator absorbance ratios and characterizations of the intrinsic molecular properties of purified substances, do not require periodic calibration. In contrast, pH measurements with glass electrodes require frequent conjugate measurements in standard solutions in order to ensure consistent measurement accuracy”.
Phil,
Let’s see.
4 decimal places (nearest 1 ten thousandth) vs. three decimal places (nearest 1 thousandth).
Is that really necessary or relevant with regards to what is being evaluated here?
Since it rebuts the assertions of the OP, yes.
You seem to be pretty ignorant in regards to measurement science. The accuracy of any of these instruments is swamped by measurement uncertainty. Shoot the stability of a samples pH alone is not sufficient to support the validity of measurements tighter then +- 0.005 at 7.0. And that’s not even getting into the human error inherent in titration!
Speaking of accuracy, your little post is lacking. I wont say that what you pasted in is a lie, but it is deliberately misleading.
The problem is not one of precision, but calibration. Spectrophotometric methods are extremely precise, but all the ones I have ever used (in many areas of biology) require calibration because the instrument is subject to many different fluctuating variables. Consequently, the accuracy is really only as good as your calibration method – which in this case is provided by solutions of known pH from a gravimetric process (addition of solid compounds to water to provide a reference pH sample). These reference camples are probably checked by the potentiometric (glass electrode) equipment so you really only have the accuracy of that method to go on.
Desertyote, which part of the Royal Chem Soc report do you find misleading?
Rob, is your experience with using SP methods generally or their specific use for measuring pH? Have you read the report to see how the calibration is actually done?
Michael Wallace –
Have you told Senator Inhofe this story?
I haven’t. I did reach out to both of my NM Senators but they didn’t take an interest. I hope Senator Inhofe does take an interest and I’ll look into finding out if he is aware of this concern.
OMG, I didn’t realize that all fish and corals died in 1918.
/s
All the noise comes from the original purveyors of the great warming lie, it is they who chanted, “the sky is falling in!”…… and still make all the noise and the noisier and ever more shrill it gets as, one by one their computer generated fantasies are skewered and buried by reality – factual observations.
But we know from what provenance where the alarmist lunatics who promulgate the global warming scare reside. Indeed – they all inhabit a strange world – on the extreme left of a parallel universe – somewhere beyond our ken – probably somewhere in the foetid nightmare realms of James Cameron-la-la-land/Hollywood.
The left wing still parade their soiled wares and still they tell us, “next time it will be different!”………
Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Chavez, Castro, even if the last two didn’t indulge in genocide – their countries ended up as backwater economic disaster zones.
Agenda 21 is world Socialism: dressed up as global charity – a redistribution of wealth from north to south. The result is not in doubt – disaster awaits the western world and more particularly Britain and the EU – where the latest Communist Empire enters it’s death rattle – brought on by the green agenda and yet the left still insist on returning to groundhog day – or as Pol Pot described it – year ZERO.