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””
yes, should be “CaCO3”, not “CaCO2”
Eli : Firstly, a change of 0.1 pH is a change of 30% in [H3O+] ion concentration…
So what percentage change would it take to change seawater from PH 8.1 to PH 6.9? Then we could say seawater has become acidic correct?
How much CO2 would humans have to pump into the atmosphere to cause that change?
(Please do not tell me small changes matter and will have large impacts, I would just like to know the numbers answer from an eminent Professor of Chemistry.)
Mike Borgelt says: @ur momisugly July 22, 2013 at 12:56 am
….. paralysed the “ocean acidification” hypothesis with garlic and a crucifix, shot it with a silver bullet and buried it at a crossroads with a fresh sapling stake through its heart?…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Still won’t kill it. The
state propaganda machineMSM can tell the brain dead voters black is white and they will believe it. Heck they just did it to Zimmerman ( his mother is Afro-Peruvian)As has been noted – seawater pH can vary a lot quite naturally. I would suggest that to have a long term SW pH analysis will require an awful lot of measurements, over an awful long time. Someone wake me up when this has been achieved to such a degree that we can safely conclude we have measured a good percentage of the worlds seawater.
Care to tell us what the accuracy and precision was 50 or 100 years ago?
Wet-chemistry determinations of CO2 in the atmosphere are disregarded by the IPCC, but seemingly not wet-chemistry determinations of CO2 sea water. How does that work?
No, don’t tell me. It’s the models. Again.
@eli rabbet. The change of 0.1 pH units is closer to 26%, but who’s quibbling. Also of minor note that the change in hydronium ion concentration for the entire pH scale is ~100%. But I’m sure you were well aware of that. In and around pH 8-8.5 we are talking about [H3O+] in the range of 3.16 X 10^-9 to 1 x 10^-8.
Way back in the dark ages, acidification meant making things acidic (pH<7). The term "neutralization" meant decreasing (or increasing) the pH toward 7. However, ocean neutralization is not as scary as ocean acidification, so, I suppose the propagandists needed to adapt the term to scare the yokels and scare up grant money for research. Sounds like you are turning the oceans into battery acid.
I find it difficult to believe, and would welcome the research showing that a pH change of 0.1-0.2 units will end ocean life as we know it and that range is not outside normal variability.
Speaking of natural variability, does anyone know where I might find data on ocean pH that covers 80 to 100 years? Short term variability of 0.5 is one thing but I am interested in seeing if there is any sort of long term baseline. Thanks.
Bernie
Eli Rabett, always there to assist William M. Connolley’s mischief, partner in Wiki crimes.
byz says:
July 22, 2013 at 12:35 am
8.25 to 8.14 a difference of 0.11, which is 1.351% of 8.14.
When I was carrying out my undergraduate physics experiments we had it drummed into us that + or – 4% was statistically insignificant as it was within the bounds of an error due to measurement. Given that they have not measured the whole ocean or even 1% of it I doubt the accuracy of the measurements being extrapolated to the whole ocean.
We also were told that chemists were sloppy with there errors (but that’s another story) 😮
Chemists on the other hand knew what they’re measuring and know that pH is -log([H+]) and that the values you quote represent a ~29% change in [H+].
I think episode describes it quite well as in “he’s having an episode”.
Don’t read the Stoat, who is, as he says, a “tosser”.
[snip – over the top – Anthony]
Bob says:
July 22, 2013 at 7:26 am
@eli rabbet. The change of 0.1 pH units is closer to 26%, but who’s quibbling. Also of minor note that the change in hydronium ion concentration for the entire pH scale is ~100%. But I’m sure you were well aware of that. In and around pH 8-8.5 we are talking about [H3O+] in the range of 3.16 X 10^-9 to 1 x 10^-8.
Way back in the dark ages, acidification meant making things acidic (pH<7). The term "neutralization" meant decreasing (or increasing) the pH toward 7.
No ‘acidify’ meant adding acid, whereas ‘neutralize’ meant adding exactly the right amount of acid (or base) to make the solution neutral (pH 7.0)
The ocean acidification thing is beyond bizarre.
I mean do the cranks who push it seriously expect people to believe that shellfish, which evolved in much higher CO2 levels than today, over just the last few million years have lost any tolerance to CO2 they might once have had?
The acidification scare is a last ditch sign of desperation.
pH Meters are often unstable and not always reliable. They are the fussbudgety spoiled brats of scientific instrumentation. As a chemist, it was depressing how difficult it was to get reliable data, for those of us in OSHA who monitored factory operations. The first point is that, the makeup of the solution can radically affect the readings. as there can be surfactants, a large number of ionic species, and organic molecules. So, one would expect that since the ionic and organic constituents of local oceanic waters vary widely from location to location, it will similarly produce variability in pH readings. The second problem is the inherent instability of the pH probes. They can work reliably (perhaps), but then after sitting for any time, not work. It’s in their nature….
How do biological scientists go about estimating the impacts of changes in ocean alkalinity on plant and animal sealife forms?
Do they use pH in their estimates, or do they instead use hydrogen ion concentration?
Another question here …. have changes in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 been correlated to significant changes in the chemical composition of the sea water which any specific plant or animal sealife form might be exposed to in the course of its day-to-day existence?
If so, how do the effects of changes in the chemical composition of seawater play into biological estimates of the overall impacts of rising CO2 levels on plant and animal sealife forms?
Joe, notice how Michael Hart, who may know the answer avoids giving it. Your question provides a strong hint of what the answer is as to the precision of ocean pH measurements. Eli will admit that it surprised him a bit tho, but on reflection was obvious.
Eli Rabett says:
July 22, 2013 at 6:34 am
Anyone want to take a shot as to the precision and accuracy of modern ocean pH measurements?
____________________________________________________________________________
I can’t remember when a properly maintained and operated pH meter wasn’t reasonably precise (reproducibility of multiple measurements of the sample) or accurate (capable of reproducing a known value or accepted value). The advent of electronics seem to make the job a bit easier than doing it with analog meters. In fact the little $100 hand helds are reasonably precise and accurate. As far as ocean pH measurements, I’d have to see the QA/QC on those measurements. Since you asked the question, I assume you have the answer. Is that for the universe of ocean pH measurements or a smaller subset?
So, if we grant that pH measurements can be made without much question by a skilled analyst, what is the normal range of ocean pH’s and how does one come about an average accepted pH?
If you don’t want to suffer from W.C.s rants, flush them down the virtual cyber-WC, cause he’s just a real bfi!
Oh, Anthony, doncha know that you can’t convince your audience of your sincerity and depth of passion without dropping a few F bombs…how else would you appeal to your readers’ sense of rationality?
And I’m glad it’s not this Stoat: http://sweasel.com/ it gave me a start to see the Connelly’s handle at first.
Phil. says:
July 22, 2013 at 7:52 am
No ‘acidify’ meant adding acid, whereas ‘neutralize’ meant adding exactly the right amount of acid (or base) to make the solution neutral (pH 7.0)
________________________________________________________________________
“Acidify” means to make into an acid (pH<7). Your definition of neutralize is one of the correct terms for strong acid + strong base.
Oooooooh, Eli keeps referring to himself in the 3rd person. How cute. Then again, since he’s really Josh Halpern, maybe it makes sense in some sort of mentally ill way. Ocean has a chemical imbalance, and so does Josh/Eli! No wonder he’s so attached to the subject.
“Itachi no saigoppe”; Nice Japanese idiom based on the imagery of a cornered weasel. Everything emitted by WC stinks.
Try this.. Accuracies reach 0.0005 pH units and the technology is ancient.
So there I was, at Christmas, on the west coast in Latin America trying to get a heap leach pilot project going… with all the required chemical testing… We had to remember that the solution would be implemented iin a site where it would take a complete day just to travel in and out — plus the time to get spare parts or supplies or exchange equipment. What the heck does this have to do with ocean pH — you might rightly ask… Quite a bit actually…
Some time spent trying to get accurate, precise, repeatable pH instrumentation at Christmas in Latin America — when everything is shut down. suppliers, shipping, labs… you name it — took me back to first principles of measuring pH. After a history lesson, I finally settled on coffee filter paper steeped in boiled red cabbage liquid…. After we got the highly accurate litmus paper in January it turns out that we had done a pretty good job with the cabbage and for our purposes the litmus paper was no better than our coffee for our purposes. (Checking Thiosulfate and Cyanide solutions plus after process measurements…) It was good reminder how tough it can be to do good field work where conditions are far from :the lab ideal”.
What I did learn was how difficult it is to get good measurements of pH due to temperature variations and measurement process variations — in live dynamic solutions moving through a fairly fast moving process…. (26 gpm). When we evaluated the electronic vs paper we realized it was often the paper that was better as we could measure cheaply at several points simultaneously. The electronic meter was OK as long we remained at one point for considerable time.. but this is a lot of words…
What’s the point? In a lab with stable solutions — easy peazy… but we are discussing seawater — aren’t we? Sea water is “alive” — lot’s of plankton and dissolved gases — meaning some temperature and time dependence. How do we get a sample up from 100meters below surface and measure what the pH must have been — down there — particularly if the sample warms and starts growing — or releasing gases… A precision of 0.005 on the ISFET meters may not be that meaningful..
Hach has an interesting FAQ about some of the issues with ph Measurements with the “highly accurate and precise” electronic meters:
http://www.phmeters.com/isfet-faq.htm
It’s well worth the time to think about how good the work is, could be or might be.
Field work is a little more difficult than lab work — good to remember. Those somewhat random thoughts might be a reminder to some just how difficult it can be to do some “easy” measurements and draw some conclusions. I would need a book to describe our two months of work (We finished up in February after getting in precise equipment) — but maybe some will get the idea… Now move the whole operation onto a rocking boat…