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””
WillR says:
July 22, 2013 at 9:20 am
Thanks for that. Important to remember – precision != accuracy.
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?
=====================================================================
Much better than 1000 year ice cores?
Eli Rabett says:
July 22, 2013 at 9:14 am
Try this:
Initial Accuracy 0.01 (estimated)
Typical Stability 0.005/month (estimated)
The initial accuracy of the device is 20 times worse than you stated and drifts at 10 times your stated accuracy within a month.
http://satlantic.com/seafet (specifications tab)
Try this instead… From Albert & Sergeant’s The Determination of Ionization Constants:
If one is looking at primary standard buffers and a single research-grade pH meter, it might be possible to push the error down to 0.002 pH units. In no case can one push it below 0.001 pH unit, especially since the IUPAC primary standard buffers are not guaranteed to a precision better than 0.01 pH unit:
and,
reference: http://pac.iupac.org/publications/pac/pdf/2002/pdf/7411×2169.pdf
The initial accuracy depends on the reference. You can cross calibrate the SeaFET with spectrometric methods. Initial accuracy is out of the box. As long as the precision holds you are ok.
Eli Rabett says:
July 22, 2013 at 10:06 am
You are deluded. The SeaFET uses a thermistor for temperature measurement (not an accurate sensor) and does not measure salinity. Both of these limitations reduce accuracy – care to tell us how much?
Precision (the number of bits given in the result) != accuracy (as someone else pointed out above).
Eli Rabett says:
July 22, 2013 at 10:06 am
The initial accuracy depends on the reference. You can cross calibrate the SeaFET with spectrometric methods. Initial accuracy is out of the box. As long as the precision holds you are ok.
But that’s the point — isn’t it? If we want to discuss “the acidification” of seawater we have to resolve time, measurement standards equipment and calculation methods and statistical procedures — over decades.
We are not discussing how easy it is — or isn’t — to make a measurement at a spot in time. We are discussing how to maintain accuracy, precision and repeatability over many hundreds, thousand or perhaps even tens of millions of measurements.
In our little experiment we could not afford the electronic equipment in place to make a few measurements over any meaning time to understand a time varying process. Now, what is the are of the sea, what is the depth — what is the variance in once spot — let alone the millions of points it would take to understand what is — or isn’t happening…
You are conflating and confusing the measurement of a single point with what would be required to understand a systems. Measuring the status of that system (the worlds oceans) would require good engineering principles — which you are attempting to confuse and minimize with the science of getting a good measurement — somewhere.
When will this happen? Not in my lifetime! A system as dynamic as the worlds oceans — full of living plankton, krill and ocean creatures — would be a challenge to model — right? (Not to mention volcanoes, ice and tar filled rifts and sea floor spreading.) Puhhhhlease — get with the program.
Your overly simplistic point that it’s easy to take a (single) “good” measurement belittles the larger issues.
Eli Rabett says:
July 22, 2013 at 10:06 am
Initial accuracy is out of the box. As long as the precision holds you are ok.
You really don’t understand the difference between ‘accuracy’ and ‘precision’ do you?
I find that appalling in a scientist. Many of your students are probably similarly challenged.
BTW the specification of the SeaFET says the accuracy drifts.
Ironically increased atmospheric CO2 and lukewarm AGW is unequivocally beneficial to the biosphere including the oceans and coral (See below for details). The fanatic, closed minded, warmists are fighting the wrong war.
There are two issues. The propaganda tools the angry, closed minded warmists are using to fight the wrong war and the data and research that supports the assertion that not only is there no ocean acidification problem, the effects (direct and indirect) in the ocean due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in a significant increase in coral, more productive reefs, and a more productive ocean. (Win-win-win).
1) The Art of Propaganda and the Use of F-bombs
Comment:
Note if you have used the F-bomb it is very, very, difficult to admit that the argument you were pushing is 100% incorrect. Also it is very difficult for constantly angry people (people who use F-bombs and present tirades) to think scientifically. Scientists are curious, not angry. Observations and analysis is very important for scientists (not so much for angry fanatic warmists). The increase in atmospheric CO2 and lukewarm AGW is unequivocally, jump up and down and time for environmentalists to do the wave, beneficial to the biosphere. Trillions of dollars are being wasted on greens scams which do not significantly reduce CO2 emissions. Spending trillions on green scams is madness as Western countries are facing eminent sever financial consequences due to deficits and a lack of competitiveness.
The use of f-bombs and sarcasm is a standard propaganda tool that is used by warmists supporters such as Bill Maher and William Connolley. Bill Maher and William Connelley’s f-bomb laced tirades against so called skeptics, is void of information, the tirades are a propaganda tool rather than a discussion of the issues.
Comment (Lukewarm AGW Vs Extreme AGW):
Observations and analysis supports the assertion that planetary cloud cover in the tropics increases or decreases to resists warming (negative feedback). The IPCC general circulation models assume there is amplification (positive feedback) of the CO2 warming to get more than 1C warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Negative feedback results in Lukewarm AGW. Mostly high latitude lukewarm AGW is unequivocally beneficial for the biosphere.
2) There is no Coral Problem or Ocean Acidification Problem (Increased atmospheric CO2 will result increased coral growth, healthy coral reefs, and a more productive ocean)
As the regions of the planet that are warming are higher latitude regions (tropics is not significantly warming) and warming significantly increases coral growth and the benefit due to warmer temperatures is orders of magnitude, the region of the planet that is covered by coral will significantly increase, if there is global warming. (It is shame the planet is about to cool, the biosphere contracts when the planet cools and expands when it warms.) The changes to the ocean chemistry due to increased CO2 experimentally and based on field observations results increase in coral grow and healthier reefs.
I would highly recommend Craig Idso’s review paper that provides a detailed list of the issues and data from 150 peer reviewed papers to support that above assertion.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/acid_test.pdf
The following are a couple of logical arguments I found persuasive.
A) Effect of Temperature Change in the Tropics
Additional observation evidence that contradicts the Kleypas et al. model was provided by the work of Lough and Barnes (2000), who assembled and analyzed the calcification characteristics of 245 similar-sized massive colonies of Porites corals obtained from 29 reef sites located along the length, and across the breadth, of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR), which data spanned a latitudinal range of approximately 9° and an annual average sea surface temperature (SST) range of 25-27°C. To these data they added other published data from the Hawaiian Archipelago (Grigg, 1981, 1997) and Phuket, Thailand (Scoffin et al., 1992), thereby extending the latitudinal range of the expanded data set to 20° and the annual average SST range to 23-29°C. … ….This analysis revealed that the GBR calcification data were linearly related to the average annual SST data, such that “a 1°C rise in average annual SST increased average annual calcification by 0.39 g cm-2 year-1.” Results were much the same for the extended data set, as Lough and Barnes report that “the regression equation [calcification = 0.33(SST) – 7.07] explained 83.6% of the variance in average annual calcification (F = 213.59, p less than 0.001),” noting that “this equation provides for a change in calcification rate of 0.33 g cm-2 year-1 for each 1°C change in average annual SST.”
B) Cherry Picked Studies
In light of these real-world observations, Lough and Barnes concluded that coral calcification rates “may have already significantly increased along the GBR in response to global climate change.”
One of the more recent claims of impending coral demise is based on the study of De’ath et al. (2009), who examined coral calcification rates on the Great Barrier Reef over the past 400 years. Results of their analysis indicate there was a 14% decline in Porites calcification rate between 1990 and 2005, which De’ath et al. claimed to be “unprecedented in at least the past 400 years.” But if De’ath et al.’s calcification history is followed back in time a mere 33 more years, from 1605 to 1572, that claim is no longer true, because the coral calcification rate during that earlier time – when the air’s CO2 concentration was more than 100 ppm less than 14
what it is today and, according to climate alarmists, so much more healthier for earth’s corals – was approximately 23% lower than what it was at its 20th-century peak.
C) No evidence of PH effects on coral
Thus, contrary to claims that historical anthropogenic CO2 emissions have already resulted in a significant decline in ocean water pH and aragonite saturation state, Pelejero et al.’s 300-year record of these parameters (which, in their words, began “well before the start of the Industrial Revolution”) provides no evidence of such a decline. What is more, and also contrary to claims of how sensitive coral calcification rate is to changes in pH and aragonite saturation state, they found that huge cyclical changes in these parameters had essentially no detectable effect on either coral calcification or skeletal extension rates.
D) Increased Carbonic ions and dissolved CO2 in the ocean results in a significant increase in symbiotic alga and micro biotic animal life, which cause a significant increase in coral grow and healthy coral.
(See Idso’s above review paper for details, there are half a dozen different benefits and many peer reviewed papers of field and laboratory experimental study results to support the assertion.)
The Natgeo Scienceblogs has been a cesspool for years. Just read about anything PZ Myers post on his Pharyngula blog there. Please don’t forget that they are also proud to have the ethically challenged Peter Gleick blog on Significant Figures.
Billy Liar says:
July 22, 2013 at 11:41 am
Eli Rabett says:
July 22, 2013 at 10:06 am
Initial accuracy is out of the box. As long as the precision holds you are ok.
You really don’t understand the difference between ‘accuracy’ and ‘precision’ do you?
I find that appalling in a scientist. Many of your students are probably similarly challenged.
BTW the specification of the SeaFET says the accuracy drifts.
________________________________________________________________________
Well said. An instrument with one-point factory calibration and a suggested annual return for calibration. No cal checks in the manual. And, like all instruments, it drifts. I don’t recall the drift rate. Oh, and add a really exaggerated estimate of pH resolution (0.0005 su). The accuracy and drift are estimates. We can add confusion over accuracy and precision. No wonder global ocean pH’s aren’t given with error estimates.
Actually, this looks like a good portable instrument to obtain estimates of ocean pH. However, when someone starts looking at changes to 0.01 or less su resolution, the analysis fails.
A few more comments on pH measurement. First, the problem does not lie with the meter, whether analog or digital. Problems come with the pH probe itself – (as often happens), it doesn’t matter how accurate the digital readout is – the determining accuracy depends on the probe. In the lab, the way we check the accuracy of the probe is to get some nice lab distilled water, add a buffer with a known pH, and measure the pH. If the reading is off a bit, the system is adjusted to match the known buffer pH. (Note that: the system is not absolute, but adjusted to the buffer reading). And the ocean is not nice, clean, and uniform, like our lab water – as stated before, it varies in composition, for example, taking samples 100 miles off the mouth of the Amazon, or in a volcanic area, or near coastal cities, or in Antarctic waters, will result in quite different ambient conditions. There are major variances in ionic composition, salinity, ion content, and temperature. All of these affect readings. And everyone should read the instructions on glass pH probes – how they need to be properly prepared and handled before use – the technique is like going back to the science of the 19th century. In short, pH readings are not of the same quality, as in determining the wavelength of light, or even taking an accurate weight.
Horrible! He does’nt teach, he reads from the powerpoint presentations! Worst Chemistry professor ever!
[snip -over the top -mod]
It seems that the discussion of pH meters is not of interest here: most pH measurements at the few ocean stations (Bermuda and Hawaii) and more on seaships en route, are done with a coulometric method, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3342762/ :
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)
The spectrophotometric method is used in Hawaii and Bermuda, besides the calculation of the pH from easier to obtain variables: DIC (dissolved inorganic carbon) and TA (total alkalinity). In all cases compensated for real world temperature (vs. sample temperature while measuring) and salinity of the seawater.
See the data from Hawaii here:
http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/products/HOT_surface_CO2.txt
and the explanation of the methods used:
http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/products/HOT_surface_CO2_readme.pdf
The Bermuda data should be found at (but their web site is not really user-friendly):
http://www.bios.edu/research/projects/bats/
But here is a plot of the data over time (Fig. 5):
http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/2509/2012/bg-9-2509-2012.pdf
The double use of the word f*ck*ng tells me everything I need to know about Mr Connolley. Plainly not someone capable of delivering a reasoned argument or of coming to a balanced conclusion.
Instead of the sentence above I’d have settled for a one word description, but Anthony snipped that last time.
The video linked below ran on 60 minutes several years ago. It was about a protected reef off the coast of Cuba, where fishing is not allowed, diving is limited, and there is no local pollution. To me this is a good indication that the problems with the ocean that some are blaming CO2 for are really caused by runoff and overfishing. If CO2 was the cause of reef degradation, why is this reef still pristine?
Of course, true to form, the narrators of the video do mention global warming as a cause of bleaching. As you may know, local daily temperature changes exceed any warming due to climate change and there is no apparent connection between bleaching and small temperature changes, but they don’t mention that. They also don’t mention cyanide fishing, my personal favorite candidate for the cause of bleaching.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7392092n
By all rational reckoning Dr. Curry’s quality of people, friends and peers has improved immensely since she stopped choking down the team’s faith. Much better!
Speaking of stoaty’s ties to people of any quality, (‘any’ meaning a measurement above or below zero); it’s kind of surprising the CAGWist’s who have shown up today to do their best to deflect the topic from pathetic stoaty…
And the drivel they’ve managed to come up with ranges from bogus to pathetic. The tularemia potential carrier wants to brag about miniscule changes of PH and how well he believes he can measure such changes.
Want to show us chemistry? OK, explain to us in detail exactly how you calculated there is a 30% jump in ions for a tenth of a PH movement? Only this time, show all of the work! No partial credit if you can’t show all of the relevant numbers; include CO2 atmospheric composition and how it gets into the water, plus ALL other chemicals typically present in sea water and their molar %, then identify exactly how much CO2 must be present in the atmosphere to reach an acidic level. Don’t forget the actions of the ever present flora and fauna in seawater and their carbon appetites.
Otherwise calculating big percentages off of tiny numbers in isolation is not impressive.
Yeah yeah, warmists can freely over exaggerate practically anything they want, even in front of Congress or the House of Lords. Then they flock around non-CAGW sites picking at nits and inflating both their self importance and how much they want us to be smitten by the tiniest drops of information they leak.
The stoat is an embarrassment, to Wiki in all of it’s forms. It’s a shame he considers that description a compliment. Now perhaps stoat’s buds can manage to keep to the topic? We’re not buying any of the CAGW alarmist pulp meant for the Heidi Cullen’s or decades behind politicians of the world.
joe says:
July 22, 2013 at 12:54 pm
…..And everyone should read the instructions on glass pH probes – how they need to be properly prepared and handled before use – the technique is like going back to the science of the 19th century. In short, pH readings are not of the same quality, as in determining the wavelength of light, or even taking an accurate weight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Amen! (From a chemist)
@Greg –
The irony is, if we do exactly what they say, that’s what will destroy the world.
And yes, “Stoat” is a good example of the irrationality, delusion and mean-spiritedness inevitably attendant upon belief in AGW. People like him are so low that they have to look up to look down, which is what he is doing with his attacks on Dr. Curry..
Spectroscopic methods are based on dissociation of a protic chromophore (indicator). The absorbance(s) at specific wavelength(s) is(are) then used to calculate the pH using the measured pKa as a function of temperature and ionic strength. The pKa of the indicator must have been determined in advance by standard techniques, most notably potentiometric titration or spectroscopically – both of which rely upon the use of a pH meter and IUPAC standard buffers.
Thus, one cannot avoid the limitations of pH measurements simply by switching to a secondary method. The overall uncertainty of the measurement using a secondary method will be larger than by direct measurement since the errors propogate as stated by IUPAC:
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_uncertainty
========================================================================
A question (and not a trick one8-):
As I understand it, water’s ability to dissolve something, even a gas such as CO2, is also tied to how much of other things are already dissolved in it.
That is, if a solution is already saturated with, say NaCl, the solubility of other chemicals will be reduced. Have I got that wrong?
@ur momisugly AtheoK.
The percentage change is easy to calculate. iirc the change mentioned is from 8.25 to 8.14 which is a change of .11 in pH a very small change in reality, and almost certainly within the range of calculation error and certainly well within the range of natural variability.
But to calculate the percentage change in hydrogen ion concentration you just get a calculator and go 10 ^ 0.11 = 1.288, which mean the increase is 28.8% close enough to 30% I guess.
What Eli refuses to post is that to take the pH from 8.14 to 7 (neutral) is a change of 1.14 in pH,
Now 10^1,14 = 13.8, which give a percentage increase in hydrogen ion concentration of 1280%
Another important point to note is that coral reef almost certainly existed when the atmospheric level of CO2 was many time higher than it is now.
When will people realise that ALL the biosphere came into being at much higher CO2 level.
CO2 atmospheric levels at anything like we are ever likely to reach are HIGHLY BENEFICIAL to the Earth, and ALL life on it.
Just a thought:
Perhaps he’s trying to be cute, going under the moniker of “Stoat” when what he REALLY means is “ER-mean”. This, from everyone’s favorite wiki:
‘ It is nominated among the 100 “world’s worst invasive species” ‘.
Unsurprisingly, Stoats are unwelcome just about everywhere…even, as we see, in the blogosphere. It also suggests that it’s distinguishable from the “Least weasel” but I think we’ve conclusively identified THIS stoat as THE Least weasel (and an impolite cuss, to boot).
I’m just sayin’…