William Connolley, aka the wiki warrior of climate, runs a blog called “Stoat” under the National Geographic brand. In his latest episode rant, he is complaining about his personal perception of Dr. Judith Curry’s professionalism regarding her ocean acidification discussion.
Is is just me, or does professionalism and f-bombs not go together? Sheesh.
Here is the screencap:
Both he and “Eli” (Chemist Dr. Joshua Halpern of Howard University) seem to have trouble with their own self images when it comes to professionalism.
All this over a change in pH from 8.25 to 8.14 (values given is Stoats rant). This is a small amount of variance which may very well be within the bounds of natural variability.
Maybe the Stoat never read this article from Jo Nova about a paper from Scripps on ocean pH:
It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly.
…
The authors draw two conclusions: (1) most non-open ocean sites vary a lot, and (2) and some spots vary so much they reach the “extreme” pH’s forecast for the doomsday future scenarios on a daily (a daily!) basis.
…
Even the more stable and vast open ocean is not a fixed pH all year round. Hofmann writes that “Open-water areas (in the Southern Ocean) experience a strong seasonal shift in seawater pH (~0.3–0.5 units) between austral summer and winter.”
This paper is such a game changer, they talk about rewriting the null hypothesis:
“This natural variability has prompted the suggestion that “an appropriate null hypothesis may be, until evidence is obtained to the contrary, that major biogeochemical processes in the oceans other than calcification will not be fundamentally different under future higher CO2/lower pH conditions””
Now that dirty nasty “carbon” is no longer warming the atmosphere, we can probably expect the carbon cultists to push the “ocean acidification” scare more. It’s just what they do. It’s hilarious that the “loo” thinks he’s making the world a better place, but I guess that is part of the whole psychopathology of their Belief system. They need to think they are doing good.
As far as the f-bombs, I have a theory: it is, among other things, a desperate attempt on his part to appear young, and hip. Losing it is also one more sign that their side is indeed losing.
Maybe Eli should spend some time here http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=543236 .
A NatGeo brand? Yea, that brand has gone the way of newsweek. That Connelly uses the F-bomb is not surprising. That is all he learned in school. But for NatGeo to be associated with him, is a bit surprising. There is partisan,. And then there is stupid. They crossed the line.
“Firstly, a change of 0.1 pH is a change of 30% in [H3O+] ion concentration because ph is defined as -log10[H3O+] where the square brackets indicate concentration of whatever is inside them.”
So, what further percentage change has to happen for that pH of 8.14 to reach a pH of 7.. ie neutral. ?
I was going to say something about the irony of the “loo” being a potty-mouth, but decided against it.
Come on Eli.. you can do it, or are you worried what an ass it will make of your 30% change ?
@Mike (UK)
>Surely its Ocean Neutralisation not Acidification, it has to go neutral before it gets acidic.
++++++
Obviously!
Acidic means the presence of H+ ions. The more H+ ions in the aqueous solution, the more acidic.
Alkaline means the presence of OH- in the aqueous solution. Reducing the number of OH- molecules does not produce a single H+ ion. It is completely mendacious to call a reduction in OH- an increase in H+. They are just two completely different things which is why they have different names.
To say that the oceans ‘are becoming more acidic’ is to say that the number of H+ ions is increasing. As you infer, that can only happened after all the OH- molecules have been neutralized. Then things can start to become ‘acidic’.
The ‘30% more acidic’ claim (referring to a change from pH 8.2 to 8.1) is made without an understanding chemistry at a Gr 9 level.
Just be thankful he didn’t include a Geraldo-like selfie with his rant
“So yesm a change of 0.1 in pH is a large one”.
A decrease in pH from 8.25 to 8.14 means an abysmal increase in [H3O+] from 0.0000005 M to 0.00000007 M. We’re doomed.
He’s having a frenzy, a petulant frenzy!
Michael Jankowski says:
July 22, 2013 at 4:38 am
Maybe Eli should spend some time here http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=543236 .
That’s going to leave a mark :D.
byz says:
July 22, 2013 at 12:35 am
In my undergraduate physics lab a module titled “Damped Oscillations and Resonance” was held one week after I got into quite a brouhaha about some measuring the voltage produced with a 1940s vacuum tube photocell.
The first thing I did was to make a Lissajous pattern with the sine wave generator and the line voltage – I got the circle/straight line pattern at 72 hz. Being in the US, the line frequency was very close to 60. The rest of the equipment wasn’t any better, I titled my report titled “Damned Oscillations and Hesitance,” and noted I was still ticked off from last week. I got a D-, which I considered a fair grade, though I doubt they acted on my recommendation to make a student job to calibrate all the instruments (and reform the capacitors) before the lab classes.
Oh. 0.11 – Eli is right, that’s actually a ratio of H+ (proton) ions and represents a ratio of 10^(.11) or 1.288, call it an increase of 29%. I assume pH meters measure the ion concentration and then take the log, so I think the 4% rule of thumb should apply to the concentration, not the log. I’d also be reluctant to apply that 4% to pH measurements in general.
In terms of absolute numbers of ions, it takes very little to budge neutral water (ph 7) to, say pH 8, (here we’re talking about hydroxal ions) and 10X more to go to pH 9. Heck, 400 ppm of CO2 lowers rainfall’s pH to 5.6.
I skimmed through the paper Eli recommended. It looks at the chemistry of Vostok ice cores, fresh water, which doesn’t have all the buffering of seawater, but I notice the pH range (computed from measurements of other ions) in Table 2 goes between 8.11 and 8.30, so that’s a difference of 0.19 pH units, or a ratio of 55%.
I’d like to see Eli’s comments on the Scripps paper that mentioned in his post. Direct pH mesurements of contemporary seawater. That should trump an ice cap sample any day!
said it before and sayin’ it again…class case of cognitive dissonance
see for yourself
http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html
It hasn’t been a good time for Connolley lately. Given his passion is losing interest among the public and politicians, observations not keeping up with alarmist projections, scrutiny from people outside the field noticing all his editing at Wikipedia, and his inability to change any minds at WUWT, I think he’s immensely frustrated and is lashing out at anything in reach.
I don’t spend too much time on Curry’s site. However, I know enough to think lashing out at her won’t work very well….
Dr. John M. Ware says: July 22, 2013 at 2:39 am
“Could someone with knowledge of the state of ocean PH research tell me where we stand in terms of actual measurement? When PH readings are taken, or water is analyzed, what specific places have had measurements? At what depths? How often? At what time(s) of day? Under what conditions (clear, cloudy, rainy, calm, windy, stormy, hot, mild, cool, cold, and other variables too numerous for me to think of)?”
here is an informative document showing results from a number of fixed sites. There are also a large number of ship readings. Two quantities – DIC (dissolved inorganic carbon) and TA (total alkalinity) – have been monitored for a long time, and are fairly simple to analyze. From these, pH can be deduced.
Who is William Connelly … Some kind of Judge ? He has the authority to Judge people according to whose rules ? What a silly little man.
Ric Werme says: July 22, 2013 at 5:13 am
“In terms of absolute numbers of ions, it takes very little to budge neutral water (ph 7) to, say pH 8, (here we’re talking about hydroxal ions) and 10X more to go to pH 9”
Yes, but sea-water is buffered. That means that it takes a lot to make a 0.1 change in pH.
The reason is that [H+] is linked in ratio by equilibrium relations to substances present in much larger concentration. It’s approximately proportional to [CO2] and inversely to [CO3–]. The latter is the big one. So if you see a 30% increase in [H+], it means (about) a 30% drop in [CO3–], which has big implications for CaCO3 deposition.
Winnie-the-Pooh wouldn’t fit through a rabbit hole after gorging himself on honey, but, like a weasel, a stoat probably would.
Whilst re-reading cognitive dissonance I can across another little quote that’s apposite:-
“Not everyone feels cognitive dissonance to the same degree. People with a higher need for consistency and certainty in their lives usually feel the effects of cognitive dissonance more than those who have a lesser need for such consistency.
Cognitive-dissonance is just one of many biases that work in our everyday lives. We don’t like to believe that we may be wrong, so we may limit our intake of new information or thinking about things in ways that don’t fit within our pre-existing beliefs. Psychologists call this “confirmation bias.”
If I wanted to create a menagerie of noble AGW activist types I sure wouldn’t include a weasel and a wabbitt…….
Language is important. the ocean is not acidifying, it is becoming a little less alkaline. As I remember it 1984 had a lesson on the importance of language and how it guides attitudes and thought.
A pH meter actually measures a potential (voltage). The voltage is due to a REDOX reaction that occurs on the surface of the electrodes. The measured voltage is compared with the Nerst equation to calculate the effective activity of the hydrogen ion. Most (if not all) pH meters linearize the Nerst equation such that the calibration equation is in the form of E = f(pH).
see:
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/etc/medialib/docs/Aldrich/General_Information/1/labwarenotes_v1_6.Par.0001.File.tmp/labwarenotes_v1_6.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_hydrogen_electrode
All this over a change in pH from 8.25 to 8.14 (values given is Stoats rant). This is a small amount of variance which may very well be within the bounds of natural variability.
I’d like to see the sigma on that average. ‘Stoat’, just an anagram for ‘Toast’.
CaCO3 deposition is itself a process that will lower pH, by removing a basic species from the solution phase. So buffering capacity will be retained by decreased carbonate precipitation.
Then, of course, we have the additional complexity due to processes such as CaCO2 precipitation driven by kinetics, not thermodynamics, where supersaturation obtains.
…but some species are reported as increasing the size of the coccolith under higher concentrations of CO2. Does this increase the pptn rate? I dunno, but strewth, it’s hard this biogeochemistry. The one thing I am confident about is that this is not reflected in IPCC models.
Anyone want to take a shot as to the precision and accuracy of modern ocean pH measurements?