WUWT reader Peter Gadiel writes:
After reading of the critique of Sabine’s exclusion of the historical data on ocean acidification I emailed him. I thought his response might be of interest to you at WUWT. He says the earlier data is not of “sufficient quality.”
My question to him:
As a taxpayer who is helping to pay your salary I’d like to know why you are refusing to include all the data on ocean acidification that is available.
Sabine’s response:
Chris Sabine – NOAA Federal
12:31 AM (11 hours ago)
As a public servant that must stick to the rigor of the scientific method and only present data that is of sufficient quality to address the question, I am obliged to report the best evaluation of ocean chemistry changes available. This is what you pay me to do and I am working very hard to give you the best value for your tax dollar every day. I hope you are having a good holiday season.
The question that immediately comes to mind is:
Who determined that the directly measured ocean pH data was not of “sufficient quality” and if it wasn’t, why then did NOAA make the data available on their website as part of other ocean data in their World Ocean Database without a caveat?
My search on NOAA’s NODC database for ocean pH data showed plenty of data and no caveats on use:
So was Sabine’s decision arbitrary and without basis in fact? Inquiring minds want to know.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What gets me is they become so concerned about the quality of data when it doesn’t support AGW but they have no problem with it when it does. Example, they ignore the direct atmospheric chemical CO2 measurements compiled by Ernst Beck as unreliable but accept ice core samples from Antarctica as accurate. Another would be they reject corroborating balloon and satellite data from 4 different studies that show troposphere humidity declining as unreliable but accept computer models showing the contrary. It’s nothing to do with science, the banks and politicians want carbon taxes and they’ll keep right on throwing the same debunked crud against the wall until enough of it sticks.
Chris, I had years of direct discussions with the late Ernst Beck about his compilation of the early CO2 measurements. Most of them were taken nearby huge sources and sinks of CO2: the middle of Paris, forests, over, in between and below growing crops, etc. These data are even worse than many of the pH data used by Wallace. Despite that (and some very rough instruments: accuracy +/- 150 ppmv!), Ernst did lump them all together, which makes his compilation worthless.
If you look only at the historical data sampled over the oceans and coastal with wind from the sea, the CO2 levels all are around the ice core data. The latter are accurate to +/- 1.2 ppmv (1 sigma) for one core and within 5 ppmv between different ice cores, be it averaged over 10 to 600 years, depending of the snow accumulation rate. See further:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
Wallace made a similar error by lumping all glass electrode data together, no matter accuracy, place and season. That doesn’t give any reliable trend…
How much more reliable is the results of models runs when in reality you have not got a good understanding of what should be included or excluded from them , no matter how good an understand of what you need the results from them to be?
The issues around data are many fold in this area , but much of them are self induced , either by denying its poor data when the data they get suits ‘the cause ‘ or claiming that modelling data is ‘better’ then reality when it suits ‘the cause’ or simply smearing data from one location across vast areas when it suits ‘the cause ‘
The reality is they know saying the data is poor but at least its ‘better than nothing ‘ is not going to get the grant cheques flowing in and certainly not going to get the type of political movement they want . So it seems only when the data fails to produce the ‘right results ‘ do they call ‘poor data’
Let the data speak for itself , seems to have been long abandon in climate ‘science’ where what really matters is that the data ‘sings the right song ‘
knr, ocean carbon chemistry is known for over 80 years. Many, if not all, influences on pH are known and can be calculated. The main problems were accuracy, seasonal variability (temperature and bio-life) and spatial diversity.
In the case of Wallace’s compilation all three problems are involved and render his compilation essentially worthless. In the case of the Sabine data, none of the three problems are involved for the data after 1984. The theoretical back calculation of Feely for the period 1850-1984 is more valid than the compilation Wallace did make…
As a final note, have a look at the comment of Richard Telfort at not pHraud but pHoolishness. That includes charts about the spatial and seasonal distribution of the pH measurements done over time.
It is quite simple: the whole exercise by Wallace is just showing the average of a pile of garbage, without any hint of a “global” ocean surface pH trend over time.
Sorry but this all is just food for the AGW folks that are sure that all skeptics are conspiracy nuts…
Here a plot of real world data from repeated cruises under Japan:
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/kaiyou/english/oa/tr_pH_WINTER_137E_en.png
Source: http://www.data.jma.go.jp/kaiyou/english/oa/oceanacidification_en.html
compare that to the pH plot of Wallace for the years since 1984 and the spatial and seasonal distribution of all cruises where Wallace’s compilation is based on:
http://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2014/12/26/not-phraud-but-phoolishness
Sorry, wrong address for Richard Telfort, here the right one:
https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2014/12/26/not-phraud-but-phoolishness/
Not of sufficient quality, aka: doesn’t quite fit my model.
Ed, compiling data scattered over seasons and latitudes where the pH changes are in the order of 1 unit and looking for a “trend” of 0.1 unit over 160 years that is just foolishness…
I read that as “real data doesn’t have a trend that supports our theory” honestly.
Sorry prjindigo,
Real data with an accuracy better than 0.02 pH unit at 7 fixed stations at very different places all over the world show a trend of 0.04 pH unit since 1984:
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/27-1_bates.pdf
Wallace compiled data from only glass electrode pH measurements, accurate to 0.1 pH unit, scattered all over the places and seasons…
What most of the posters here imply, but do not specify is that NOAA has been reduced to a Political Organization, as has NASA. The top Administrators are ALL Political Appointees of the Obama Administration and have bought into the AGW notion that Models trump Live Data. The rational is that REAL DATA does not fit the “Approved” Models and is hence “Unreliable”. This follows necessarily that since not even one Model can accept Historical Data and accurately predict what actually occurred, Real Data must be inherently “Unreliable”. Unfortunately for the AGW Cult Members, I trust ACTUAL DATA rather than “Models”. When Models FAIL, it is they that are inherently UNRELIABLE, not the Data that cannot fit into said Model.
Sz939, within NASA and NOAA there are lots of people who are only interested in providing the best available data: satellite temperature and CO2 data, precipitation, ice cover/thickness and the best ocean data: temperature, salinity, pH, pCO2, DIC, total alkalinity, bio-life,… you name it.
Ocean pH can be measured and can be calculated from other measurements. The original glass electrode measurements were accurate to 0.1 pH unit. The calculated ones (based on other, better defined measurements) performed and perform better than the glass electrodes. But the coverage in place and season also is extremely important as that gives changes which are 10 times the trend one is looking for.
The theoretical trend is about 0.1 pH unit over 160 years, of which 0.04 pH unit over the past 30 years. That is from a “model” that is based on established ocean carbon chemistry already over 80 years and used in many thousands of calculations. The results can’t be verified by glass electrode measurements, as these are simply not accurate enough to show such small changes.
Since about 1984 NOAA and others have established fixed stations to cover pH data with better accuracy than the glass electrode pH measurements over all seasons (both calculated and colorimetric). That besides regular cruises over the same trajectories in the same seasons. All the real, accurate measured data since 1984 show a drop of around 0.04 pH unit since 1984. That confirms the theoretical model.
Now, Wallace makes a compilation of all available glass electrode pH measurements, no matter the season or place where is measured and lumped all data together. Then he shouts “fraud”, based on a compilation of a method that can’t show the trend…
Simply said, no matter how some at NASA and NOAA think about climate, alarmist or luke-warmer, the pH decline is real and what Wallace has compiled is good to be thrown into the bin: it has no value at all.
Not what you or me or many here like to hear, but it is the truth…
That is about the measurements, but that doesn’t say anything about the impact of such small changes on bio-life, which in my opinion is nothing compared to what bio-life can have without harm, now and in the foreseeable future.
I believe a follow up reply should have went something like , ” Thank you for taking the time to respond to my inquiry. I appreciate your honesty ,but your response leaves me with more questions than answers.Can you do me a favor and go into detail regarding what you consider “data of sufficient quality ” ? And why your “choice” of data isn’t noted in poster?
I think it is time to send an apology to Dr. Sabine for accusing him of fraud, while there was no fraud at all.
If WUWT want to maintain any credibility, it should follow the evidence of the data.
The compilation of glass electrode measurements by Wallace has not the slightest scientific value. Not only because the data of the glass electrodes are not accurate enough to show the theoretical pH trend from the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (0.1 pH unit over 160 years), but the “trend” in his compilation only shows the average result of the random measurements of each year, with huge changes in place and time, which all have more influence on the local pH than the real pH change for each place in the ocean surface over time. The latter is measured/calculated in seven fixed places over the past 30 years and several ships cruises over the same track in the same seasons over the years. All such highly accurate measurements for any open ocean location over time show a similar drop in pH, which confirms the theoretical influence of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
While it is tempting to jump on any calculation from anyone that may show a flaw in the AGW meme, it gives all skeptics a bad name if that is based on a bad interpretation of the available evidence…