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””
Oh, te’bbly sorry: didn’t I mean “ermine”?
Jimbo wrote;
“cinnamon anemonefish”, do you perhaps know how they taste when griiled with butter on a nice cedar plank ?
If they taste good I’m all in favor of them breeding their little fish hearts out…….
Cheers, Kevin
Phil. says:
July 22, 2013 at 7:52 am
Ric Werme can’t resist noting (unfairly sarcastically) it follows that “neutralize” can be worse than “acidify!”
Is is just me, or is Connolley becoming more acidic? I think he definitively answered his own question about his own professionalism.
Gees Toto, I always thought Connelley was very basic.
Nick Stokes writes:
” 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”
You seem to think that CaCO3 deposition by corals involves a simple precipitation reaction of Ca++ and CO3–. It is not. It is a highly coordinated process during which the coral actively transports Ca++ and HCO3- into a mineralization zone. To keep pH high (> 9.0), H+ ions that are released during the deposition of CaCO3 (HCO3- + Ca++ –> CaCO3 + H+) are pumped back. Increase in dissolved CO2 gives rise to an increase in concentration of HCO3-, so everything else being equal, this would promote, rather than inhibit calcification.
Decrease in alkalinity of ocean water is my field of interest, for many, many years, but …
Let us vote … (a few) the most prominent the researchers of the problem:
Manzello (2012, http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0041715): „As such, there is a need to characterize this natural variability of seawater carbonate chemistry, especially within coastal ecosystems. Natural CO 2 , alkalinity, and salinity gradients can significantly alter local carbonate chemistry, and thereby create a range of susceptibility for different ecosystems to OA.”
This work also demonstrates the enormous power of negative feedback (sea grass) maintaining coastal pH – the amplitude – in the natural range.
Mozello (with colleagues) also shows that the warm coastal waters (mainly the tropical so-called: sapphire crystal – the area is huge) can be removed, using the “ooid shoals”, “an oolitic deposit”, much more CO2 [and this the millionth year period] than we think (and I add, perhaps more than some north cold water)
Eminent scientist Professor Gattuso declared as a supporter of the possible harmful effects of decline in ocean alkalinity.
However, it is “strange” supporter – because it is more skeptical than the average skeptic …
At the time of our first exchange of e-mails (2008) I wrote to him that, first in science must be honest without any adjectives …
Following quotation is long but Professor Gattuso did not protest when I quoted him on Skeptical Science, so …:
“Although changes in the carbonate chemistry are well known, the biological and biogeochemical consequences are much less well constrained for several reasons. First, very few processes and organisms have been investigated so far (research in this area only began in the late 1990s). Second, most experiments were carried out in the short-term (hours to weeks), effectively neglecting potential acclimation and adaptation by organisms. Third, the interaction between pCO 2 and other parameters poised to change, such as temperature , concentration of nutrients and light, are essentially UNKNOWN.
“It is not anticipated that oceanic primary production will be directly affected by these changes in carbonate chemistry because most primary producers use carbon concentrating mechanisms that rely on CO 2. Note, however, that primary production of some species is likely to be stimulated. […]” (http://www.eoearth.org/article/Ocean_acidification)
It follows that there really are only a few scientists who write, which publish about “acidification”, which they have adequate – satisfactory knowledge of pH the ocean.
In most cases, the quality of such work (published even in the N. and S.) does not differ from the level statements Eli Rabett and William Connolley [I read the comments of both, and … the rest of my comment about it, I would have to be …, Nothing entitle them to such a presumptuous tone,]
Let me give one example of why,
2008: “The ocean is a fantastic sponge for CO2, but as it dissolves in the ocean it reduces the pH of the ocean, so the ocean becomes more acidic,” said Dr McNeil.”
Gattuso says:
“The terminology used in this article is not scientifically accurate. The definition of “acidic” in the Oxford English dictionary is “having the properties of an acid; having a pH of less than 7″. This definition does not apply to un-manipulated seawater now nor in the foreseeable future. Hence, the adjective “acidic” should not be used. Note that there are some exceptions, for example in the immediate vicinity of CO2 vents.”
Professor Gattuso now resigned from the “crusade” against using the term “acidification”, however, worth it – we need it to continue?
Count your zeroes. You just said the equivalent of “an increase from 50 to 7.”
AndyG55, you might be right that he is base, but since he writes vitriol, he must be acidic.
@Brian,
I’ve noticed it, but editing was not possible. Still we’re doomed….