Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
Every author I have ever queried about a quote attributed to them in a University Science Press Release has told me the same thing.
“That’s not exactly what I said, and not what I really meant,” they tell me. I can feel the shy grins on their faces as I read their replies. They are usually rather perplexed as to how the press release sent out to the media by their own academic institution came to contain such a questionable quote but almost always seem to shrug it off with good sense of humor. After all, what can they do?
This does not come as any surprise to those of us who follow science news — there are whole internet enterprises dedicated to nothing but gently re-writing University press releases on the science and medical research done on their campuses and promoting the latest journal articles published by their professors and students. In 2014, in the BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal), Ben Goldacre wrote an editorial “Preventing bad reporting on health research” in which he insisted that “Academics should be made accountable for exaggerations in press releases about their own work”. The editorial accompanied a study (Sumner et al. 2014) that “found that much of the exaggeration in mainstream media coverage of health research — statements that went beyond findings in the academic paper — was already present in the press release sent out to journalists by the academic institution itself”. I’m not sure I agree fully with Goldacre that academics should be “made accountable” for the exaggerations of the folks in the University Media or PR department — but academics and corresponding authors should insist on pre-publication approval of any and all statements issued by the media office about their research.
We often see here at WUWT short posts about some Press Release regarding a new journal paper aghast at what some scientist has said — well, “said” according to the press release. We’ve had a recent example here:
Study: CO2 causes Starfish to Dissolve — a typical skeptical look at a university press release (from Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, Scotland) titled “Carbon dioxide ‘pulses’ threaten Scotland’s coralline algal reefs”.
In this press release, Dr. Heidi Burdett is quoted as saying;
“We found that there was a rapid, community-level shift to net dissolution, meaning that within that community, the skeletons of calcifying organisms like star fish and coralline algae were dissolving.” [emphasis added — kh ]
I can imagine the thoughts running through the minds of the men-and-women-on-the-street — “Oh, those poor starfish, writhing in pain as their skeletons dissolve! The horror of it.”
Our home team author, Eric Worral, quotes the abstract of “Community-level sensitivity of a calcifying ecosystem to acute in situ CO2 enrichment” in his post. The abstract says nothing about poor dissolving starfish. We would have been treated to a link to the full-study but unfortunately it was not only behind a fire-wall but also accidentally hidden by a broken link.
Bad and Poor Science Journalism is a particular interest of mine and this (the University Press Release, not Eric’s post) looked like a good example. Being denied a look at the full study by fire-walling and my usual work-around stymied by a bad DOI link, I took my ‘when-all-else-fails’ approach and emailed Dr. Burdett with a request for pdf copies of the study and its supplemental information, which she promptly sent along with a pleasant note.
We need to understand what the study is about and what its findings are before we revisit the press release.
What’s the study about?
Dr. Burdett’s study is about “acute in situ CO2 enrichment” and its effects on the salt water chemistry in a “calcifying ecosystem”. That’s a mouthful. The field of study is known as “Ocean Acidification” [OA] — the fact that as CO2 concentrations increase in the atmosphere, sea water absorbs some of this CO2 at the surface and that absorption brings about this chemical reaction:
Sea water carbonate bio-chemistry is extremely complicated. So complicated that even scientists originally studying OA tended to get it wrong — so a field-wide effort was made to set this situation right (after a get deal of effort and money were mostly wasted) part of which I wrote about here at WUWT in “Ocean Acidification: Trying to Get the Science Right” and its follow-up “Dr. Christopher Cornwall Responds to “Ocean Acidification: Trying to Get the Science Right”. Magnificent detail is available in the 2011 250-page report “Guide to best practices for ocean acidification research and data reporting” published by the now-defunct EPOCA (European Project on OCean Acidification). Chapters 1 and 2 cover the basic chemistry and can be downloaded individually at the link above.
[UPDATE & CORRECTION 12 Mar 2018, 1100 hrs ET: Reader Kristi Silber correctly reports that the EPOCA web site no longer delivers the “Guide to Best Practices….” pdfs. Those interested in the Guide can download the entire report at this link:
https://www.iaea.org/ocean-acidification/act7/Guide%20best%20practices%20low%20res.pdf
Exactly why the International Atomic Energy Agency web site has a Climate Change section and hosts this document is a mystery to me (but I appreciate it!) — kh ]
If we over-simplify quite a bit, we can say that as CO2 mixes with sea water it tends to consume available carbonate ions forming bicarbonate ions and it is this aspect that interferes with (impedes) biological calcification. The mixed CO2 also lowers pH (the ‘acidification’ in OA). This represents pretty well understood sea water carbonate biological chemistry. The not-so-simple chemistry is complicated by the fact that some corals and other organisms have been found to manipulate the pH of the sea water in direct contact with themselves in a protective manner.
In this experiment, Dr. Burdett’s team studies CO2-enriched sea water and its effect on a “calcifying ecosystem” which looks something like this:
The pinkish nodules and little nubs are coralline algae and the pointy-wavy things are brittle stars (a relative of “starfish”) which “have five long, slender, flexible, whip-like arms…supported by an internal skeleton of calcium carbonate plates …” [Brittle stars come in all sizes and colors]. Coralline algae are red algae … characterized by a thallus that is hard because of calcareous [that is, composed of calcium carbonate] deposits contained within the cell walls. Obviously, calcium carbonate, and thus carbonate chemistry, is a major aspect of this ecosystem — a “calcifying ecosystem”.
The experiment is carried out in situ — meaning “in place”. Right out there in about 6 meters (18 feet) of water in Loch Sween, Scotland, UK. [Loch means “lake”, but of course this is really a “sea loch”, a seaside bay.] Tubes with a diameter of 38 cm (15 inches) and a height of about 25 cm (making up a volume of 28 liters or 7.3 gallons) were pushed down into the seabed enclosing some of that ecosystem pictured above and mounted with a lid with tubes and mixing paddles. Enclosed water was pumped to the surface where a mixing chamber bubbled in pure CO2 sufficient to lower pH by 0.2 pH units below ambient water pH, and the CO2-enriched water was returned to the experimental chamber on the sea floor. 4 such units were used.
Now comes the acute part. Acute means “of abrupt onset, of short duration, and is a measure of the time scale of a condition.” In this experiment, it means that after 15 hours, the researchers suddenly raised the CO2 concentration in the water (sufficient to lower pH by 0.2 units), kept it raised for 28 hours, and then shifted back to ambient conditions for 37 more hours. Water samples were taken at various times. All this underwater work was done with the aid of scuba gear.
So — what did they find when they did all this? They found that if they more than doubled the dissolved CO2 [p CO2 (µatm) from 821.6±343.4 to 1747.7±1403.33], then bicarbonate levels increased, along with dissolved inorganic carbon.
The conclusion drawn from these measurements:
“Under ambient CO2 conditions, the coralline algal community consistently exhibited a net calcification. During CO2 enrichment, a significant shift towards net dissolution was observed.”
[Note: there were several other conclusions about other technical points of sea water carbonate chemistry.]
A shift towards “net dissolution” — and what is that exactly when it puts on its best face to go out in the morning? I asked Dr. Burdett by email and received this reply:
“…what is meant by ‘net dissolution’ – this means that, at that point in the experiment, there was more dissolution of calcium carbonate than there was production. The loss may have come from live, calcified organisms such as coralline algae or starfish, dead carbonate skeletal remains or carbonate-rich non-biogenic sediment. Since we adopted a community-level approach, our measurements only give an indication of what is happening to the ecosystem as a whole – it is not possible to [identify] the individual components that are contributing to any differences we saw.”
Or, in other words, in the complex and complicated world of sea water carbonate chemistry, the sudden doubling of CO2 dissolved/mixed in the sea water in these chambers altered either (or both) the inorganic or the organic elements of carbonate chemistry inside the chambers — resulting in higher levels of both dissolved inorganic carbon and HCO3– (bicarbonate) — indicators that “there was more dissolution of calcium carbonate than there was production.”
This was an expected and interesting result.
SUMMARY:
What the Press release said: “the skeletons of calcifying organisms like star fish and coralline algae were dissolving.”
What the paper said: “a significant shift towards net dissolution was observed.”
What Dr. Burdett meant: “there was more dissolution of calcium carbonate than there was production. The loss may have come from live, calcified organisms such as coralline algae or starfish, dead carbonate skeletal remains or carbonate-rich non-biogenic sediment.”
There were no starfish writhing in agony as their skeletons dissolved, as might have been inferred by the general public reading the Press Release alone.
LESSON LEARNED: Never judge a study or its author by the contents of a University media release and never assume that the quotation marks around a statement from a study’s author signify words actually uttered or the meaning intended by the author.
# # # # #
End Note:
There’s another recent example: the paper highlighted in Science last week regarding coral sediments dissolving was reproduced in many media outlets stating “coral reefs will dissolve”, which is completely different to the findings of the paper. The Science News article was “Ocean acidification is causing coral reefs to dissolve” commits the same offense as the media release in the main essay above but in reference to “Coral reefs will transition to net dissolving before end of century”. Even the title of the paper itself is very misleading – the study is about dissolving calcium carbonate (CaCO3) sands, not the reefs themselves, and deals with Aragonite Saturation State, one of the aspects of the complicated subject of sea water carbonate chemistry.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment Policy:
I would love to read your examples of Press Release Science — science transmogrified at the hands of media relations departments in universities and institutions.
My thanks to Dr. Burdett for her suggestions on improving the paragraph directly below the image of the “calcifying ecosystem” to better agree with the science, all of which were gratefully incorporated.
This essay and the topic it covers is a lesson to those who would judge a researcher or his/her work by statements attributed to them by their institutional media relations departments — remember “It ain’t necessarily so!”
If you begin your comment with my first name, as “Kip…” I’ll be sure to see it and respond.
# # # # #
“This was an expected and interesting result.”
Well, for me it is either expected, or interesting result, but not both.
And it was definitely expected, not interesting, as this is classic limewater experiment done by pupils (is it still true?)
Ca(OH)2(aq) + CO2 → CaCO3 (solid) +H2O result in a milky limewater solution
with more CO2
CaCO3 (solid) + CO2 → Ca(HCO3)2 (water soluble) the solution turns transparent again
And you can easily calculate the loss of CaCO3 : 1.67g per 1g CO2 in excess.
Another instance of junk science, using tremendous resources to yield a result already known to 7th graders.
Besides, quite obviously, living being control their pH and pCO2 while dead one don’t, meaning, Only dead bodies contribute to the dissolution of CaCO3.
AND this dissolution is ridiculously small.
AND this dissolution will not last long, as Ca(HCO3)2 will soon be turned into live matter
Excellent summary. Why is Nick Stokes still exercised by this non-problem?
paqyfelyc ==> When all this occurs in sea water, a complicated solution, even without all the biological activity, it is much more complicated. See the EPOCA booklet for way-too-much information, or the single page Aragonite Saturation State link in the End Note.
Early OA researchers though the 7th grade version applied to sea water and wasted a great deal of effort and resources producing mostly-useless results.
See my earlier liked essays on OA research.
Kip
I wonder what the result is when several inches of acidic rainwater (with a pH as low as 4.5 on Americas East coast) is added to shallow coastal sea water? Then there is the increased runoff, as well. Is this not a natural experiment that only needs a little study?
Rockyredneck ==> I thought they could find some locations where the conditions occur naturally often enough to test their hypothesis….but they are in Scotland…….
I don’t doubt real life is vastly more complicated than a 7th grader lab.
I just don’t see any new result about CaCO3 / Ca(HCO3)2 in this study worthy of highlighting.
Actually, i just wonder about one sentence in the abstract : “Smaller changes from net respiration to net photosynthesis were also observed”.
I am surprised that the habitat was net respiring beforehand (I expect “globally ubiquitous, ecologically and economically important habitat” to be net photosynthetic, not net respiring…),
I am not surprised that the habitat increase photosynthesis, as algae use HCO3-, not CO3– nor CO2. Meaning the habitat was actually starved of CO2 (could had been otherwise, if the habitat was starved of some other nutrient). But, since this implies that CO2 is a boost in life of the habitat, not a threat, I am surprised that they conclude that it “raises concerns over the capacity for the system to ‘bounce back’ “.
Obviously, they are not afraid to toe the line even if their result suggest the very opposite.
Junk science.
Rocky–Decades ago I saw something like this in a Louisiana flood that showed me the great buffering capacity of sea water, even after several dilutions. Getting it below 7 with some sea water left requires mixing with reduced sediments, usually anoxic. There is a fair amount of study on the not really dead zone bottom water, usually ending in the complexity epithet.
Kip Hansen March 9, 2018 at 2:54 pm
Rockyredneck ==> I thought they could find some locations where the conditions occur naturally often enough to test their hypothesis….but they are in Scotland…….
Heavy rain runoff over peaty soil into the loch would certainly spike the CO2.
Phil ==> Dr. Burdett, however, didn’t mention that in the paper or in personal communication, though I suppose it is possible.
The paper’s SI has a graph of ambient pH (no indication of whether pH was measured at the surface (first 1 meter) or at the biologically active zone at 6 meters) showing there are naturally occuring pH shifts of the 0.2 pH point scale
Kip Hansen March 10, 2018 at 6:06 pm
Phil ==> Dr. Burdett, however, didn’t mention that in the paper or in personal communication, though I suppose it is possible.
Yes, I was thinking of a lake I used to fish for trout in northern England which was fed by streams from peat deposits, after storms the pH would be between 3 and 4! We were able to counteract this by dumping limestone in the streams, this greatly improved the pH and the trout got bigger. 🙂
Ben Goldacre wrote an editorial “Preventing bad reporting on health research” in which he insisted that “Academics should be made accountable for exaggerations in press releases about their own work”.
That was the same Ben Goldacre that made it very clear in the Guardian when he said what is unacceptable in other areas , was fine in climate ‘science ‘ not be any means a trusted source given his willingness to turn a blind eye to poor practice when it suits him.
BG is a hypocrite who knows only too well not to upset the Guardian.
I’ve frequently told my children that nothing is ever a waste of time, as long as you remember what went wrong and not to repeat the mistake, an expensive mistake should reinforce the memory. The problem is that rather than remembering what went wrong most climate scientists repeat the mistake because their theory cannot possibly be wrong despite the evidence of their own lying eyes.
Kip – thank you for a very interesting and informative article.
As I understand it:
1. Modern increases in atmospheric CO2 could make the oceans SLIGHTLY LESS ALKALINE, NOT ACIDIC, and this reduction in alkalinity causes no significant threat to aquatic life.
and
2. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been much higher in Earth’s history, and caused no significant threat to aquatic life.
Kindly agree or modify.
Best, Allan
ALLAN MACRAE March 9, 2018 at 3:30 am
Kip – thank you for a very interesting and informative article.
As I understand it:
1. Modern increases in atmospheric CO2 could make the oceans SLIGHTLY LESS ALKALINE, NOT ACIDIC, and this reduction in alkalinity causes no significant threat to aquatic life.
You are mixing up the terminology, Alkalinity is the sum of excess proton acceptors. TA stays constant even when CO2 is added to seawater because the charge balance of the solution stays the same, meaning that the number of positive ions generated equals the number of negative ions generated by these reactions.
and
2. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been much higher in Earth’s history, and caused no significant threat to aquatic life.
On the contrary during the Permian extinction 96% of all marine species became extinct (the increase in CO2 was about 2000ppm).
Kindly agree or modify.
Modified
“during the Permian extinction 96% of all marine species became extinct (the increase in CO2 was about 2000ppm).”
Even if the proxy evidence could be accurate enough to determine that these were concurrent events, is cause and effect established? Are there other instances of marine die-offs correlating with high atmospheric CO2 as corroborating evidence?
I have seen it proposed that high CO2 led to high temperatures and that they may have jointly caused the Permian extinction but I was not aware it was a generally accepted explanation.
There seems to be considerable uncertainty as to the source of the CO2 which increases the uncertainty as to cause and effect.
Could you expand your thinking on this?
Phil – really???
There are multiple theories about the cause of the Permian Extinction – not surprising that one of them is the “demon molecule that knows all, sees all, does all”, CO2.
Are you saying or implying that 2000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere:
1. Was the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere during the Permian extinction?
.AND.
2. This 2000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere was the primary cause of the Permian Extinction?
Color me highly skeptical on point 2 – I mean, really really highly skeptical.
CO2 has been this high and higher during other eras when no major extinction occurred.
KIp – awaiting your response.
At other times in the Earth’s history, CO2 levels exceeded 5000ppm and life thrived.
Your desire to believe that 2000ppm killed of the life is contra-indicated by the evidence.
MarkW March 9, 2018 at 7:26 pm
At other times in the Earth’s history, CO2 levels exceeded 5000ppm and life thrived.
Your desire to believe that 2000ppm killed of the life is contra-indicated by the evidence.
The level of 5000ppm was before there was life on land, during the Devonian (400 Mya) plant life started on the land and the CO2 levels dropped precipitously and the O2 levels went up.
The era of CO2 above 5000ppm was the Cambrian (500 Mya) and life was certainly not what it is now, lots of arthropods! The periods in the earth’s history when there have been large changes in the CO2 levels (both ways) have been accompanied by major extinctions.
Phil – with no references provided and plenty of your arm-waving, I reject your responses as not credible.
There certainly have been MANY long periods where there were (relatively) high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 that do NOT correspond to major extinction events. In those cases where that coincidence did occur, there is no evidence that high CO2 was a cause of extinctions rather than one of many effects of the primary cause.
Blaming every catastrophe or imagined future disaster on high CO2 concentrations is a modern fantasy, indulged in by scoundrels and imbeciles. Don’t do it – this is not the company you want to keep.
ALLAN MACRAE March 10, 2018 at 9:10 pm
Phil – with no references provided and plenty of your arm-waving, I reject your responses as not credible.
Really, unlike your arm-waving which includes copious references!
There certainly have been MANY long periods where there were (relatively) high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 that do NOT correspond to major extinction events. In those cases where that coincidence did occur, there is no evidence that high CO2 was a cause of extinctions rather than one of many effects of the primary cause.
If you read what I wrote carefully you’ll notice that I didn’t refer to high CO2 being the cause of extinctions, I referred to the change in CO2 concentration. I also referred to both increases and decreases in pCO2 as being implicated in extinctions.
That’s how evolution works, for example in the Cambrian those species were adapted to High CO2, low O2 and lower T than now. When the conditions changed including CO2 dropping many species died out, some which had the ability to adapt to the new conditions did so and survived, new species derived from those survivors. Just because there are current descendant species from the genera that existed at that time does not mean that those species are able to survive a higher CO2 level because there have been so many changes since. Similarly for subsequent changes with rises in CO2 such as the Permian, again many species died out and another selection event occurred. The statement I was responding to: “At other times in the Earth’s history, CO2 levels exceeded 5000ppm and life thrived”, with the implication that an increase from our current levels would have no effect is incorrect. Under stable conditions live does thrive but when there are changes extinctions occur followed by new species developing to exploit those changes.
Blaming every catastrophe or imagined future disaster on high CO2 concentrations is a modern fantasy, indulged in by scoundrels and imbeciles. Don’t do it – this is not the company you want to keep.
Indeed which is why I don’t do it, I also don’t subscribe to the equally fallacious argument that ‘CO2 has been high before therefore a future increase will have no effect’.
Phil – now you are “bobbing and weaving” as you modify your argument, which is not credible either.
Your hypothesis is rank speculation, not supported by the literature, which states that there is no conclusive cause of the Permian extinction.
You are just blaming “the usual suspect” pursuant to the current fad – the “demon molecule” CO2. Nonsense!
.
ALLAN MACRAE March 11, 2018 at 9:11 am
Phil – now you are “bobbing and weaving” as you modify your argument, which is not credible either.
No I haven’t changed a thing, your reading comprehension is lacking, that’s all.
Your hypothesis is rank speculation, not supported by the literature, which states that there is no conclusive cause of the Permian extinction.
Not supported by the literature, really?
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/12/1118675109
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/305/5683/506
http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(07)00256-X?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS016953470700256X%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
Sorry Phil.
Your three references do NOT say what you said – yours is the rankest speculation, unsupported even by your OWN references.
You are wasting everyone’s time with your nonsense.
ALLAN MACRAE March 11, 2018 at 9:06 pm
Sorry Phil.
Your three references do NOT say what you said – yours is the rankest speculation, unsupported even by your OWN references.
Thus proving beyond all doubt your inability to understand what you read, it is you who always wastes everyone’s time with your unsupported polemics.
Here’s a part of one of the abstracts of those papers, which you claim isn’t discussing a rapid rise in pCO2:
“The temporal association of the extinction with the Siberia flood basalts at approximately 250 Ma is well known, and recent evidence suggests these flood basalts may have mobilized carbon in thick deposits of organic-rich sediments. Large isotopic excursions recorded in this period are potentially explained by rapid venting of coal-derived methane, which has primarily been attributed to metamorphism of coal by basaltic intrusion. However, recently discovered contemporaneous deposits of fly ash in northern Canada suggest large-scale combustion of coal as an additional mechanism for rapid release of carbon. This massive coal combustion may have resulted from explosive interaction with basalt sills of the Siberian Traps. Here we present physical analysis of explosive eruption of coal and basalt, demonstrating that it is a viable mechanism for global extinction. We describe and constrain the physics of this process including necessary magnitudes of basaltic intrusion, mixing and mobilization of coal and basalt, ascent to the surface, explosive combustion, and the atmospheric rise necessary for global distribution.”
‘Massive coal combustion’ and ‘rapid venting of coal derived methane’, and you don’t think the authors are talking about a rapid rise in pCO2!
For those who may be able to access it here is their conclusion:
“Our hypothesis attempts to explain the sudden release of approximately 1 trillion tonnes of carbon into the surface environment inferred from the carbon isotopic record (5) and to associate one of these events with the end-Permian mass extinction. The analysis presented here coupled with the depositional evidence of fly ash (17) strongly suggest that explosive interaction of basalt and coal in the Siberian traps may have played a role in the end-Permian mass extinction. This process may also be a contributing mechanism for other extinctions involving large carbon isotopic excursions.”
Where they even more explicitly refer to a rapid increase in pCO2 being associated with the end-Permian mass extinction. To put that into context 2ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is a Gigatonne of carbon so 1 trillion tonnes of carbon would be ~500ppm CO2 increase and the paper refers to three such events which accounts for the increase of ~2000ppm referred to elsewhere.
One other work which references this study concludes: “Times of biological crisis in the past were times when pCO2 increased rapidly, not when pCO2 was high”.
I think that’s you were referring to when you said: “Your hypothesis is rank speculation, not supported by the literature”.
Phil – your long quote has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING HAPPENING TODAY. The slight increases in atmospheric CO2 from whatever cause are totally different in magnitude from what your quote describes.
You write such nonsense. Let’s end this waste of time..
ALLAN MACRAE March 12, 2018 at 8:02 am
Phil – your long quote has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING HAPPENING TODAY. The slight increases in atmospheric CO2 from whatever cause are totally different in magnitude from what your quote describes.
Really? Nearly a Gigatonne/ year net increase, no reason to believe that the Permian increases was any faster than taking place over less than 200 years.
You write such nonsense. Let’s end this waste of time..
Let’s, everything you have said so far has been shown to be incorrect.
Allan MacCrae ==> Sorry Allan, I was traveling all day yesterday.
Point 1: Nominally true — atmospheric CO2 reduces total alkalinity of the ocean surface water, incrementally, and slowly as concentrations increase and has a magnified effect on carbonate chemistry — important to many organisms. This change is minor compared to the changes in alkalinity experienced in daily biological and tidal cycles — but not something to be entirely ignored. Acute and high magnitude changes in CO2 concentrations, like all acute changes in sea water chemistry, have effects — mostly negative — on the associated biota.
Point 2: I’m not sure we have any reliable numerical data on past atmospheric CO2 concentrations (ice bubble data is a troubled data set). Qualitatively, it is generally believed that CO2 concentrations have been higher in the past. We have no reliable information on the effects of that difference on the level that is currently being investigated in the field of research called OA — where effects are in the possibilities of relative shifts in species, abundance ratios, calcification rates and sea water chemistry in surface waters.
I hope y’all know that starfish don’t do ‘pain’ or ‘agony.’
In most cases, the AGWs outrageous fear-mongering predictions and press releases only cause the majority of thoughtful Americans to roll their eyes. I think, in net, the loss of their credibility has driven global warming and climate change out of the “Top Ten Concerns” of Americans, and the more they do it, the more they loose credibility.
I’ve been watching the Alexa.com ranking of WattsUpWithThat, ClimateDepot, and looking at Google trends. I’m almost at the point where I can say that Kip, Lord Moncton, and the other “skeptics” have stripped the alarmists of their ability to capture public attention (despite their dying MSM allies), neutered their ability to create motivating fear, and most importantly influence policy. It may be time to take some credit and a bow.
Tom ==> not sure if it’s true, but it’s a nice thing to say. Credit really due to Anthony Watts.
Kip Hansen:
If you are looking for a solution to this problem, maybe give me an email — I may be able to help you. You can find me through my website (linked to my name).
I mean a solution not just for this paper.
Michael ==> Yes, I know.
Michael ==> Thank you — I use the ubiquitous “download a journal paper” solution used by “nearly everyone”. In this case, it didn’t work because there was something wrong with the DOI itself.
Yes, I’ve seen this first hand. You hand the press office the hard-won product and even a summary version and they re-write the summary with their own unique, uninformed slants. This changes the meaning of some of the key points in the process and you either take more time to fix it or watch it go out with alternate meanings. It can be a sad outcome to some long, hard work efforts unless the original work comes from a biased, sensational monger to begin with. In that case later case, it’s double trouble.
ResourceGuy ==> My suggested solution is that researchers, at least lead or corresponding authors, insist on approval-before-release.
I even had this essay approved by the lead author of the paper it is about — Dr. Heidi Burdett — to make sure she had no objections and that I had quoted her correctly.
Hi to Gary Pearse
I’m a “Geo” who has been in the financial markets for decades. An old one from the old Vancouver Stock Exchange sums it up elegantly:
“In the beginning, the promoter has the vision and the public has the money. At the end of the promotion, the public has the vision and the promoter has the money.”
The other observation is that governments will always promote the theory that enhances their wealth and power. In economics, it’s been, Keynes. In climate, it has been CAGW.
Both blatant promotions.
Bob Hoye
subtle2: I worked out of Vancouver 1968-71 In Yukon and northern BC in exploration. ‘Them were the day’s’. There were still a couple of old Klondike miners alive – one called Willie the Weasel in Dawson.
The shenanigans in the mining industry were legendary and led to a crackdown and controls on promotion and reporting of exploration results that I describe above. Climate Science needs a crackdown of a similar kind. Their promotions will impoverish everyone. At least in the mining game you had to be a player to get burned.
“LESSON LEARNED: Never judge a study or its author by the contents of a University media release and never assume that the quotation marks around a statement from a study’s author signify words actually uttered or the meaning intended by the author.”
Yep. I whinge from time to time in my comments here and elsewhere, about the low quality of press releases. I have no idea why scientists aren’t allowed to write their own press releases. Many scientists are quite articulate and even those who aren’t would have a hard time doing worse than “communication specialists”
I don’t expect the situation to improve any time soon.
Agreed. If they could write their own press release then that WOULD put the monkey squarely on their back.
eyesonu ==> eGads! I can’t imagine a press release written by a researcher….have you read many published journal papers? Man are simply gobbledegook to most English speakers.
Don K ==> It will only improve when researchers demand that they “approve-before-release” all media releases from their institutions.
Agreed. Anything that puts the monkey squarely on their back. No possible way to blame a third party when they get called out.
Good presentation by Kip Hansen. Nice to see condensed explanations putting things in perspective.
eyesonu ==> Thank you.
I should have add:
nice article by kip (however junk the reported article is)
Agreed
“The loss may have come from…”
There’s that MAY word again !
What does the author mean by ” inorganic carbon”? Organic chemistry is about the chemistry of carbon,relevant to all life on this Earth. What is inorganic carbon?
Roger ==> I believe the carbon in Carbon Dioxide is/can be inorganic carbon. Carbon compounds created by life-forms are organic carbon.
Since polyethylene is created by humans (a life form), does that makes it “organic carbon?”
C. Paul Pierett ==> Cute.
How about the CH4 in bovine flatulence?
For a chemist, if it has carbon, it is organic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry
To make a difference is vitalism: the belief that living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things. A belief belonging to the realm of religion rather than that of science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism
Roger March 9, 2018 at 10:32 am
What does the author mean by ” inorganic carbon”?
Carbon in organic molecules, which excludes CO, CO2, carbonates, bicarbonates, carbides, cyanides and maybe a more obscure one that I’ve missed.
Organic molecules usually contain at least one C-H covalent bond, a few exceptions come to mind: carbon tetrachloride and some other freons.
Kip,
didn’t you mean “sly grins on their faces”?
Robert Austin ==> Terrific! You get the “Reader of the Day” award for careful reading.
Robert ==> No, I meant “SHY” grins…slightly embarrassed grins….the “what-can-one-do?” grins….
Kip, I think most of the scientific world has this CO2/Ocean relationship on its head. There is 50x more CO2 stored in all the oceans than all the atmosphere. Henry’s Law states that solubility of CO2 will decrease with increasing ocean temperatures. This is most likely the source of the extra CO2 we see in the recent atmospheric records, not fossil fuels which is orders of magnitude smaller. Warming oceanic water moves CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere and this will result in a HIGHER oceanic pH. This is all based on well known chemistry and physics. So far, I have heard a lot about ocean acidification but the only hard evidence I have seen is impossible to parse the contribution from waste water treatment, acid rain, and CO2 contribution. My gut feeling is the loss of oceanic CO2 signal is probably there but indiscernible through all the other noise. There is a false assumption that de novo increase in CO2 is from another source and then the ocean is reacting to that whereas this is a complex system in continuous equilibrium and that assumption cannot be supported by any empirical evidence.
Daniel, some of your assertions seem to be questionable. As you say about “50xmore CO2 stored in all the oceans…”, do you mean CO2(aq) or total inorganic carbon? Carbonate and bicarbonate ions will not be removed from seawater at higher temperatures.
Henry’s Law describes the CO2 solubulity dependence on the partial pressure, not on temperature.
The source of extra CO2 can not be “in the recent atmospheric records”, because the solubility at equlibrium is determined by the the gas partial pressure, temperature, and salinity. Moreover, extra CO2 is consumed by phytoplankton.
Also based on the temperature dependence of the Henry’s Law coefficient there has not been enough temperature rise to account for the increase in [CO2]. Also the atmospheric level is somewhat above the equilibrium value as I recall.
Agree with Aleks and *gasp* Phil.
When you are right you are right.
And not only has the ocean not warmed sufficiently to account for increasing CO2, even if it had, the bulk of the ocean is deep and cold and hundreds of years needs to pass for it to come into contact with the atmosphere and outgas any excess.
This is of course the likely reason for the lag of some 8 hundred years or so in the ice core records, where temperature leads CO2 on the way up and the way down.
Plus, the relationship between temperature water and the amount of gas it can cold is well known, as is the relationship between changing CO2 in the air and subsequent increases, due to the partial pressure, in water.
The too I have not heard anyone claim that the amount of CO2 from burning fossil fuels is insufficient to account for changes in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. In fact, it is the other way around…a lot of the emitted CO2 does not appear in the air…it is absorbed somewhere…likely a bunch of somewhere…soil, plants and trees, and in water. We do live on the planet Water, after all.
As a side note, recall the amount of warming of the ocean that was claimed to have been found by the IIRC, Argos buoys? It was such a tiny amount, to make it sound not just scary but even remotely plausible (even though it aint) the numbers were given in ergs of energy or some such miniscule unit (yes I know it was joules…a joke). Took me all of ten minutes with a calculator to determine that umpteen bazillion skazillion joules is still only a few hundredths of a degree, averaged over the who ocean volume.
And the buoys did not seem to have that resolution…
Hmmm…
Those were the good olds days!
Or, are these the good old days?
I’ll get back to you on that.
‘Loch’ does not mean ‘lake’.
‘Lake’ means ‘loch’.
photios ==> fine, have it your way….
Thank you… 😉
Even though they are more like bays than lakes, eh?
Mr. Hansen,
Your article and the topic you discuss are of course an important part of the whole CAGW story.
If I did not comment on it directly, it is only because it is, IMO, so well known to be true.
It seems to me that the same discrepancy exists and has been long discussed regarding the IPCC reports, specifically the glaring variance between the summary for policy makers and the actual long version text of the reports.
Exaggeration is nothing new in media, indeed nothing new in human communication of any sort.
But when it involves maters of science, matters which are affecting weighty and damaging public policy changes, diversion of resources from more worthy causes and needs, and the miseducation of our children…it is in a special class of awfulness.
To the extent that is may be deliberate rather than simply mistaken or obfuscated by the need to make it understandable to the lay public, it is way beyond troubling, galling, and reprehensible.
It needs to stop,
menicholas ==> Yes — my approach has been to occasionally call out egregious examples — simultaneously involving the researcher/author of the original study by seeking their comments on the Press Release, asking for verification of a quote and then asking for pre-approval of my essay, as I did in this case. This is an appraoch that I hope drives the point home, author by author.
Starfish and most other calcified marine phyla evolved in the Cambrian era during which atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 20-50,000 ppm. They spent a hundred million years or so at these CO2 levels without dissolving. In what kind of reality do these same organisms now start dissolving at CO2 concentrations 1 or 2 orders of magnitude lower? And no – this is not about “getting ised to it” and rate of change – it’s basic inorganic chemistry.
erratum “getting used to it”
You’re high by a factor of 10 in your Cambrian CO2 levels, also note there was a mass extinction towards the end of the Cambrian when the CO2 level dropped.
Yes, and…?
Neither of which contradicts what Ptolemy correctly points out…even if the actual amount of CO2 was not quite as high as the number he gave…it was far higher than we will ever see even after all of the fossil fuels are dug up and pumped out and burned…an amount I believe to be far higher than most current estimates.
After all, the amounts estimated that are still in the ground have only ever gone up, even as we (well, not me) burn it faster and faster.
Kip, your observation of the discrepancy between the true opinion of the researchers and press releases is very interesting. I think, it’s also interesting to compare the statements and facts in the same source. You’ve mentioned “Guide to best practice for ocean acidification” edited by European Commission:
https://www.iaea.org/ocean-acidification/act7/Guide%20best%20practices%20low%20res.pdf
The preface of this book begins from the words: “The ocean acidification is an undisputed fact. The ocean takes up one-fourth of the carbon CO2 (?) emitted to the atmosphere from human activities. As this CO2 dissolves in the surface ocean, it reacts with seawater, increasing ocean acidity…” There is no direct evidence on any page of this book that atmospheric CO2 is the only source of seawater acidification. And what do we see when researchers begin to describe real facts?
Page 19. “About 90% of total dissolved inorganic carbon is present as bicarbonate ion, the proportion of carbonate ion is about a factor of 10 less (~10%) and that of unionized carbon dioxide yet another factor of 10 less (<1%)." Let's remember that only about 1/800 of CO2(aq) converts to H2CO3 (hydration constant) and carbonic acid is weak one. Eventually, only a very small fraction of carbonate ions can be converted by dissolved CO2 into bicarbonate ions. So, is this fact a proof of CO2 effect on ocean acidity?
Page 54, Table 3.1. Observed range of pH (present-day) 7.91 – 8.46 (strong spatial variation). One may compare this range with the change in pH by 0.1 for 20 years at one research station allegedly as a result of carbon dioxide exposure: https://skepticalscience.com/Mackie_OA_not_OK_post_12.html (Fig.6). Is it not enough to question the theory?
Aleks ==> I’m not sure which theory you are asking about — what theory you wish us to question.
The chemistry itself is not a theory — it is, however, complicated and complex.
For example, you state above:
“There is no direct evidence on any page of this book that atmospheric CO2 is the only source of seawater acidification. ”
Certainly there is no evidence for that — because no one in the field of OA thinks that is the case.
Another good article on the chemistry of CO2 in seawater is here:
https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe_files/Publications/ZeebeWolfEnclp07.pdf
One might out of interest ask this question:
If ALL the CO2 in the atmosphere suddenly dissolved (equilibrated as HCO3- and H2CO3) – what would be the resultant change in pH of the ocean – assuming even dissolution in the entire ocean?
One could even go further and ask what would be the change if an atmosphere composed of 100% CO2 were to dissolve fully in the ocean.
The answer to both these questions would be a surprisingly small change.
Ocean acidification researchers appear unaware of the fact that there are more molecules of seawater than there are of air.
KIP
Your request for examples got sometimes got lost in the subject, but is a good observation. It is difficult to know where to start.
EVERYTHING IS ADVERTISING?
Check journal impact factors, university tours, sports, chamber of commerce type programs, curricula, etc. It is not just journalistic methods, but too often the paper itself, and I need always to read what used to be called ‘fine print.’ Now it is ‘hidden’ somewhere in the paper or addenda. One good thing is the movement to require raw data, something many of us have been long guilty of not saving.
This is not the best example, but the text does not confirm the headline and comes across as pandering for money.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-00927-4
Quantity emphasis. No wonder they like consensus. Note that if you read the article it does not quite agree with the headline. Nature reminds me of National Enquirer, no offense, as I first learned about the rare Megamouth shark from a front page photo there. Another example that I found in a paper which maybe should have killed it, except for the need for negative results.
“There are three assumptions that are both critical to the results and can be considered highly uncertain.”
A suggestion along your line of thinking that might not work is to emphasize a discussion just on the methodology, not the subject. This might require (self?) censorship to limit comments not relevant to the question and it might take a long time to develop the discussion. With homework most readers should be able to find problems with the methodology regardless of the lack of familiarity with the subject.
Keep at it. Thanks for the OA links, still trying to understand it.
HD ==> Thanks for the example. sometimes I find that the actual study findings themselves are the “fine print” — hardly worth mentioning by the journalist with his own axe to grind.
So. As there pop social reporters do, science news reporters take out of context quotes and say they mean something that they don’t. Seems the cure for this is remedial journalism classes.
Even with science they inject their own bias. It’s almost like they have an agenda.
Kip,
Thanks for addressing this topic. It’s an interesting and important one.
(I tried downloading the EPOCA manual, and got messages saying “The file is not available on this server.”)
I completely agree with your thesis. The hype is helping no one. However, I don’t think it is always or entirely about agenda. Some alarmism is simply a byproduct of financial decisions. Drama sells. Potential catastrophe certainly sells. Scandal sells. However, climate change has become such a loaded topic that there is that aspect of salesmanship, too. There are many people extremely frustrated by the fact that climate science has so little power in American policy due to the opposing power held by deniers. It’s especially bad now, with an administration so averse to AGW. I think there is genuine fear about the future, especially among young people (naturally!), and it probably feels like inaction is bringing problems ever closer. This may also be why people react so strongly and irrationally to fires and extreme weather events.
Scientists are notoriously poor at communicating with the public. The terminology alone in some fields can be incomprehensible to a layman and difficult to translate. In “dumbing down” the results of research, it is very easy to get the main message wrong, and I think it’s a very good idea to have researchers review press releases, not only so they are responsible for the content, but to avoid censorship of their interpretation.
I think it’s a little ironic to talk about poor journalistic practices here. This may “just” be a blog and not claim to be a news source, but it certainly is a source of news/news-based editorials. You mention Eric Worall’s piece, “Study: CO2 causes Starfish to Dissolve”. The first sentence is, “Dr. Heidi Burdett has published a study which claims intense CO2 shocks cause starfish and coraline algae to dissolve.” This is even worse than “the skeletons of calcifying organisms like star fish and coralline algae were dissolving.” This is a very consistent pattern on WUWT: titles have shock value and/or ridicule, and articles from other sources are summarized, excerpted and quoted in ways that send messages other than what they do as a whole. Often there is a blurb of a couple sentences at the very end full of ridicule and rejection, making sure people know how to feel about what they’ve just read. But it’s a blog geared toward a group, so it’s to be expected, I suppose. This is a commercial enterprise, I imagine, just like a newspaper.
Then again, catering to the market is a poor excuse for lowering ethical standards. Are there ethical standards when it comes to blogs? What about propagandistic blogs? Is the fact that they exist on one side of the political spectrum an ethical justification for those on the opposite end? One factor to consider is their effect on society as a whole. They are helping to divide the country, perpetuating and adding to all kinds of erroneous ideas, increasing tribalism and decreasing understanding.
(Does anyone know of any sites that have a mission of bringing people of diverse political backgrounds together to talk respectfully? I would like to find one.)
……………………………………………
You mentioned the fact that the experiment had no control. This is a valid point, and a weakness in the design (although I’d like to read the paper before absolutely deciding that). However, I would like to suggest that this is in itself not a reason for throwing out all its results, as some suggested. Rather, it’s something to take into account in weighing the importance/significance of the results.
Scientific advancement is most often based on the combined input of research by multiple people. Each experiment or observation adds a piece of the puzzle – sometimes as new information, sometimes finding errors in or correcting older research, sometimes by introducing a new method. Each of the pieces has potential to contribute, but they do not do so equally. Some studies are groundbreaking, or have classic, excellent design and perfect analysis. Other studies have design limitations beyond researchers’ control, but the limitations are overcome in other ways. Some studies have less-than-optimal designs, have odd results or poor interpretation. Even the last group should not necessarily be ignored, but instead taken with reservation and caveats – it should have low weight compared to the first group when considering the Big Picture. A good scientist will discuss in the publication the limitations of the experiment.
…………………………………..
Krisiti ==> Sorry you had trouble with the EPOCA booklet download — the EPOCA site indeed seems to be refusing to deliver up the .pdfs.
Use this link for the entire booklet:
https://www.iaea.org/ocean-acidification/act7/Guide%20best%20practices%20low%20res.pdf
If you really want to read the entire study, you can 1) Do what I did and email Dr. Burdett for a copy or 2) email me at my first name at the domain i4 decimal net and I’ll send a copy to you.
This essay is not a criticism of Dr. Burdett’s study — but rather a an example of poorly written institutional Press Releases and how they subsequently spread misleading information — the result is inevitable to make “Science” seem foolish in the eyes of the general public when the misinformation is corrected down the line. The general effect is called “whipsawing” — “chocolate kills” today, “chocolate is good for the heart” tomorrow .
For an example, see the recently highlighted essay by Boisvert which will cause a lot of people to experience this whipsaw effect.
Kristi ==> Thanks to your alert on the failure of the EPOCA site to deliver up the Guide pdfs, I have added an Update and Correction to the main essay linking to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which inexplicably has a Climate Change section and hosts the document for download.
pH – Many have discussed this. I don’t know if it was resolved, or if this is helpful: It’s from a very nice page about ocean acidification, answering lots of questions and explicating some errors I’ve seen: http://www.epoca-project.eu/index.php/what-is-ocean-acidification/faq.html
For what it’s worth…
“[S]tep-by-step equilibrium equations describing the carbonate system in seawater do not capture the dynamic chemical environment of seawater. There are several reactions that can occur between carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O), carbonic acid (H2CO3), bicarbonate ion (HCO3-), and carbonate ion (CO32-). One of the possible reactions does create carbonate ions and lowers pH:
“CO2 + H2O ⇔ H2CO3 ⇔ H+ + HCO3- ⇔ 2H+ + CO32-
“However, at the current ocean pH level, another reaction also occurs that consumes carbonate ions and does not change pH:
“CO2 + H2O + CO32- ⇔ 2HCO3-
“The second equation describes the reaction that occurs most often in the modern oceans, but the first reaction also occurs, so the resulting overall change is a decrease in carbonate and a decrease in pH.”
IIRC, the biological component of this system is also a major factor in the equilibrium states of the various components in biological calcification.
……………………………………..
Many marine organisms can adjust the pH of the fluid at the site of calcification. This is (in any of the literature I’ve read) within the organism – the fluid is not continuous with seawater. It takes energy to pump the H+ ions out into the surrounding sea water, and the lower the sea water pH, the greater the difference in H+ across the membrane, and the more energy it takes to pump the ions across the gradient. This could be a reason for the differences seen across studies. The movement of the water could affect the H+ gradient (something to consider in still lagoon areas).
Ample light of the right wavelength could affect energy balance of some corals that are symbiotic with algae. Continuous acidification might be more of a stress than periodic due to continuous extra energy requirements. And different species of coral are better able to control their pH than others.
…………………………………..
In addition to CO2 from the atmosphere, industrial pollution, acid rain and algal blooms are potential contributors. In the last case, algae near the surface growth into such massive populations (often due to inputs like fertilizer run-off) that they run out of resources and die off. The microorganisms that then break down the organic matter respire lots of CO2, acidifying the water.
…………………………………
IT IS ABSOLUTELY VITAL TO CONSIDER THE RATE ORGANISMS CAN EVOLVE AND ADAPT TO CHANGING CONDITIONS
I often see people talk about organisms being able to survive in past environments quite different from ours, using that to suggest that modern organisms will survive despite climate change. This completely disregards the fact that the current change is much more rapid than most of those in the past, or that rapid past changes often resulted in mass extinctions. Organisms that normally survive rapid, drastic short-term changes, such as those in tidal pools, may not even be able to cope with static conditions – or they may cope so well that they outcompete other species.
When environments change abruptly, some species may have physiological capability of acclimating or the genetic capacity to adapt, or the ability to migrate to better habitat. Some won’t. This may currently be one of the least predictable but most important effects of climate change: which organisms will thrive, which will survive but at a cost, and which will go extinct. There are some types of organisms that form the basis of whole food webs: plankton, for example. A collapse in plankton populations would do immense damage to marine life and those that depend on it, including humans. This is one reason OA is important. Coral reefs, too, are extremely important for marine productivity.
I don’t mean to pick on this poster, it just conveniently raises a few points.
“Starfish and most other calcified marine phyla evolved in the Cambrian era during which atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 20-50,000 ppm. They spent a hundred million years or so at these CO2 levels without dissolving. In what kind of reality do these same organisms now start dissolving at CO2 concentrations 1 or 2 orders of magnitude lower? And no – this is not about “getting ised to it” and rate of change – it’s basic inorganic chemistry.” [As another poster pointed out, there’s an extra zero on the CO2 content]
!. An atmospheric 2000 ppm CO2 is not directly indicative of ocean pH; water temp is also a major factor. It’s such a complex system, it’s hard to infer much that far back – but then, I’m no paleontologist.
2. Even if these phyla evolved in the Cambrian, they are not the same as today’s species. Species don’t evolve then remain that way for the next 100 million years.
3. CO2 during the last 800,000 years at least (some say 8 million years or more) has never gone above 300 ppm.
3. This is very much about rate of change, and if you all don’t accept that then you will never understand the potential problems of AGW, never know that whole story, and never be justified in judging whether it deserves action.
To ignore the rate of change factor in AGW, or to deny that it’s important, is a convenient way of being blind and deaf to potential costs. A similar one is ignoring the fact that species which would normally migrate due to changing conditions are often in remnant patches of habitat. Humans have completely changed the landscape, and organisms have different abilities to migrate. Tree species that take years to grow before producing seed and have short seed dispersal distances may take centuries to move a few hundred miles – if they have the habitat available. Species have such a vast range of variation in their needs and interactions I could think of countless ways rapid climate change might stress populations or exterminate species. I have no idea how much that will happen, though – not a clue. There is much we can not foresee about the effects of climate change, but it is a terrible error to therefore dismiss the risk. This is just the way things are, I’m not being an alarmist. I’m really genuinely trying to be pragmatic about this. I know transitioning away from fossil fuels is a sacrifice, at least in the short term. (Conserving them isn’t really a terrible idea, though, especially if deposits get more expensive to extract. And it’s good to have plenty of our own reserves on hand for security reasons.)
Just because something sounds alarmist is not an excuse to ignore it. One may just have to dig a little deeper to find out what the science really says. Unfortunately, this is often tough for the layman. A very good place to start exploring the current and potential effects of climate change is on the NOAA and NASA sites. This area is fun to explore: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/department/climate-tech Those with adequate hardware can download Science on a Sphere – SOSx Lite is the free, flat-screen version. I’m not sure how many datasets it contains. I got a private showing of SOS at NOAA in Boulder a few weeks ago, and it’s astounding all the capabilities is has; I’m sure the free one is pretty cool, too, but my computer doesn’t have the memory.
https://sos.noaa.gov/SOS_Explorer/
Kristi ==> Your desire to be pragmatic is admirable. Read the Boisvert essay for a pragmatic view of Climate Change from an alarmist — who sees that alarm is not appropriate.