Voices Of CO2 Doom Dishonestly Alarm Unthinking Worshippers with Correlations – While Downplaying Proven Causations

By Jim Steele

Climate scientists have been funded to find how rising atmospheric CO2 is affecting our climate and global ecosystems. As a result of their predisposed belief in “demon CO2”, simple correlations are misleadingly promoted as causation by both researchers and click-bait media. For example, lowering of ocean surface pH is blamed on a correlation with rising CO2. However, it is well established other factors also lower surface pH.

Climate alarmists use that correlation to scare the public, arguing that any continued burning of fossil fuels will cause pH to fall with catastrophic consequences for marine ecosystems. They simply assume surface pH will continue to fall as growing atmospheric CO2 pumps more CO2 into surface waters. But the data shows that has not always been the case.

Ocean pH drops from ~8.2 at the surface falling to 7.6 by 300-meter depth where respiration and decay of organic matter dominates, releasing CO2 and lowering pH. Observations show wherever that low pH subsurface waters upwell to the surface, surface pH declines. The solid black curve shows surface pH was 8.2 in pre-industrial times but has fallen to 8.1 in modern times (dashed blue curve). However subsurface pH has remained steady throughout. Observed increases in upwelling since the Little Ice Age will have lowered today’s surface pH. 

During the depth of the last Glacial Maximum, atmospheric CO2 dropped to 180 ppm as oceans accumulated 850 billion tons more CO2than observed in today’s modern oceans (Anderson, R. F., et al. 2019). Yet despite more CO2 enteringthe ocean, surface pH was 8.3 . As ocean upwelling increased during the shift to the current interglacial, more CO2 was released back to the atmosphere and surface pH fell to 8.1 between 8,000 and 10,000 years ago and that contradicted theory. Assuming a surface ocean in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2, climate scientists expected a surface pH of 8.2 (Martinez-Boti 2015).

The upwelling of more ancient CO2 makes it impossible to accurately separate any effect of rising anthropogenic CO2. So, to minimize confounding upwelling effects, climate scientists have based their pH predictions on measurements taken from regions with low upwelling in the middle of subtropical gyres, such as station Aloha in the Pacific, and in the North Atlantic gyre (BATS; not shown).

Still, gyre stations are not immune to the pH lowering effects from upwelling. Just as the separation of organic matter production by photosynthesis at the surface, from the decay of organic matter at depth results in lower pH at 300 meters, similarly the separation of organic matter production in upwelling zones from the decay of the matter transported towards the center of those gyres, can also lower gyre pH. 

The winds along the American west coast cause upwelling of low pH water containing high minerals and high CO2 that promotes abundant productivity. Those winds also create currents that transport that upwelled water and a portion of the generated organic matter towards the gyre’s center. Accordingly, Chavez (2017) has shown that upwelling along the Peruvian coast has greatly increased since the pre-industrial/Little Ice Age times, suggesting a trend of increasing upwelling that would naturally lower a gyre’s pH

Likewise, trade winds cause upwelling which also transports organic matter towards the gyre’s center. Research concludes average trade winds have also strengthened since the Little Ice Age. In addition, people who are informed about ocean circulation know upwelling of the low pH thousand-year-old water around Antarctica can also affect the pH of equatorial currents which in turn can affect gyre pH. The pathway of the Ocean Conveyor Belt brings water that initially sunk in the Arctic, eventually upwells around Antarctica, and then continues into the north Pacific.

Finally, reduced alkalinity also lowers pH. Ninety-five percent of the ocean’s alkalinity consists of aqueous CO2 derivatives: bicarbonate (HCO3-1) and carbonate negative ions  (CO3-2) that can consume H+ ions and buffer changes in pH (red rectangle). In stark contrast to indefensible concerns that ocean acidification will hinder calcification by reducing carbonate ions, calcification definitely reduces alkalinity that lowers pH.

No marine calcifying species use seawater carbonate ions. Instead, all species import the more abundant bicarbonate ions (blue rectangle) from which they generate carbonate ions internally by pumping H+ out into the seawater. The resulting calcium carbonate shells of planktonic coccolithophores will sink at a rate of 140 meters per day, carrying away alkalinity stored in their shells away from the surface to ocean depths. And again, this pH reducing dynamic has strengthened, as coccolithophore abundance has increased since 1990 (Krumhardt 2016).

Click-bait media has hyped a few laboratory studies suggesting ocean acidification decreased coccolithophore calcification. But responses to elevated CO2 by different species of coccolithophores vary greatly. Some increase calcification, some show no effect, and some show negative effects, making any extrapolation of laboratory results to natural populations extremely challenging.

If we follow all the science, the slight drop in ocean surface pH has many causes. Blaming burning fossil fuels, resulting in government bans on fossil fuel burning are unlikely to affect ocean pH. It is far more likely those bans will cause severe suffering for humanity that has been dependent on fossil fuels for winter warming, transportation, and all sorts of industrial operations!

4.9 38 votes
Article Rating
65 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
HB
December 26, 2023 2:31 pm

brilliant article thanks Jim thank you

HB
December 26, 2023 2:34 pm

Bit off topic but just maybe the mainstream media are starting to wake up
reprint of an old article 1973 just appeared in our local NZ rag wonder how long it stays there
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/canterbury/301007474/nzs-hottest-day-ever-melted-roads-workers-striked-and-it-killed-26000-chickens

atticman
Reply to  HB
December 27, 2023 12:39 am

Also off-topic, I realise, but it was nice to see all those British cars in the pictures, including an Austin 1100, Ford Anglia 105E, Mini van, and Triumph 2000 – all classics of their kind. I’ll bet it’s all Japanese and far-Eastern makes in NZ nowadays…

bobpjones
Reply to  atticman
December 27, 2023 3:09 am

Showing yer age there grandad 😀

sherro01
Reply to  bobpjones
December 27, 2023 7:52 pm

bobpjones,
Many studies show that experience of worldly matters correlates with increasing age, including the age of grandads. You should try it sometime.
Geoff S

bobpjones
Reply to  sherro01
December 28, 2023 3:44 am

Aye, Geoff, I am a grandad, your love of those classics, were revealing 😊. Maybe, you might recall, the first car I ever drove, the good ole Austin A30?

December 26, 2023 3:08 pm

I’ve noticed a very strong correlation between the temperature of my refrigerator and how much my soda fizzes. I must conclude that the CO2 of my Pepsi is controlling my refrigerator. Stunning and simple!

Editor
Reply to  johnesm
December 26, 2023 3:21 pm

Thanks, johnesm. That made me smile.

Regards,
Bob

barryjo
Reply to  johnesm
December 26, 2023 4:29 pm

Have you applied for grant money yet?

Drake
Reply to  barryjo
December 26, 2023 5:21 pm

After the grant money, he can test his theory with Dom Perignon.

He will be able to spare no expense while he sits at home at his computer.

He can measure the nose tingles.

Drake
Reply to  Drake
December 26, 2023 7:04 pm

Simon, was that you?

bobpjones
Reply to  johnesm
December 27, 2023 3:11 am

Yer cheating! C’mon, own up, you’ve got a renewable fan behind your fridge. Is it subsidised?

Reply to  bobpjones
December 27, 2023 7:53 am

I’ll have you know that the fan is driven by the AMOC inside my refrigerator, which of course is controlled by the Pepsi CO2 emissions, lol.

bobpjones
Reply to  johnesm
December 27, 2023 1:04 pm

In which case, you’re exonerated 😀

Rud Istvan
December 26, 2023 3:09 pm

My favorite biological counter to the ‘ocean acidification’ scare is Florida Bay (which lies between where the Everglades meets the sea in SW Florida and the offshore Florida Keys). At the Everglades/ Florida Bay mangrove fringe in winter, the brackish fish hatchery water is actually somewhat acidic (pH5.5 among the mangroves) since the Everglades fresh water becomes fairly highly so—typical of swamps altho the Everglades is technically a river. [In winter the water in Okeefenokee reaches pH 4.] Yet just 60 miles away onshore of Key West in summer the Florida Bay pH reaches 9.6 during the day thanks to evaporation induced salinity and CO2 consuming thallassia sea grass. Yet the fish, the conchs, the crabs all thrive throughout. Wrote the details up in essay Shell Games in ebook Blowing Smoke.

Separate observation from the same essay. Station Aloha is actually NOT a good ocean pH research location, as the water there is relatively barren of biological activity. In a biologically active US west coast estuary, the seasonal pH swing is from 1.0-1.5 every year. That is how the PMEL committed academic misconduct in their ‘ocean acidification’ scientific paper concerning the Whiskey Creek oyster hatchery failure in Oregon.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 26, 2023 4:25 pm

Interesting when you put the Station Aloha data against measurements from Flinders Reef.

pHandCO2.png
John Hultquist
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 26, 2023 6:48 pm

 Okeefenokee

The [ ] around the sentence, is perhaps not sufficient for those not familiar with the location — quite distinct from the Key West – Florida Bay region. The following “just 60 miles away” caused me to have a fuzzy moment. 🙂

abolition man
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 26, 2023 7:10 pm

Thanks for the additional information, Rud! The only problem is that it reminds me of the classic Walt Kelly comic strip; Pogo! Whatever happened to humor and satire in America?

KAT
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 27, 2023 11:47 pm

And in a similar vein – my favorite biological counter to the ‘ocean acidification’ scare is the undisputed fact that past atmospheric CO2 levels were at times possibly 10 times greater than present levels and in spite of this the reefs, snails, fish, turtles, etc seemed to have been able to shrug those conditions off without a backward glance!
The oceans never transformed into a seething acid bath then and logically I suspect that our present & future CO2 levels will not make any difference at all!

MarkW2
December 26, 2023 3:57 pm

Correlation does not equal causation is THE most basic of all statistical and scientific principles. Add to this that confidence intervals are NEVER shown for any climate models and you have junk science of scandalous proportions; and I mean truly scandalous.

The media have this fraud staring them in the face, yet choose to ignore it. Even worse, climate ‘scientists’ themselves never call this stuff out, which in itself is remarkably revealing. It’s extraordinary how this is being allowed to happen.

Streetcred
Reply to  MarkW2
December 26, 2023 4:16 pm

Money greases their wheels.

Reply to  Streetcred
December 26, 2023 10:43 pm

And stupidity, gullibility, and superstition. Almost all the believers in climastrology know nothing about climate science. They just take the word of the ones who claim great knowledge, but who are, underneath the emperor’s clothing, doomsayers incapable of evaluating the data without bias because they are zealously and religiously devoted to their religion.

Jeff Alberts
December 26, 2023 3:58 pm

Yet despite more CO2 entering the ocean, surface pH was 8.3″

I’m skeptical that we can know what ocean surface ph was tens of thousands of years ago.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 26, 2023 4:20 pm

Agreed Jeff, the proxy evidence musts be considered with a grain of sea salt.

However research on boron isotopes seems accurate enough to provide a good ballpark figure for comparative pHs.

Read Reconstructing Ocean pH with Boron Isotopes in Foraminifera (Foster and Rae 2016)

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-earth-060115-012226

December 26, 2023 4:11 pm

Take a pH meter out with you fishing and take readings as you move around looking for the big haul…pH varies all over the place, not even worth discussing a change of 0.1….not to mention if it starts raining…

Reply to  DMacKenzie
December 26, 2023 4:23 pm

Indeed DMacKenzie , I have done that and agree pH is all over the place on an hourly and spatial basis.

gyan1
December 26, 2023 4:24 pm

The current PH of 8.1 is significantly more alkaline than the geologic average of 7.8 which all species evolved and thrived through. A correlation that destroys the “acidification” dystopia.

Bob
December 26, 2023 5:17 pm

Nice job Jim.

Duane
December 26, 2023 5:31 pm

I didn’t see where Jim Steele defined the depth interval for “surface water” comparisons with deep waters. In general most discussions of “surface waters” are the upper few tens of feet depth. Given that the world’s oceans average something around 5,600 feet depth, then it is apparent that the mass fraction of surface waters out of the total oceanic mass is something on the order of 0.1% or less. So whatever the effects on either pH or alkalinity in surface waters of the ocean due to CO2 absorption is negligible compared to the effect on the total oceanic waters, and has no practical effect on the capacity of the world’s oceans to absorb CO2 without reducing pH to any measurable degree

Reply to  Duane
December 26, 2023 6:13 pm

Duane, I appreciate your concern about what defines the ocean surface . I purposely didn’t define a depth because many of the studies simply do not define that depth. Some define the surface as the photic zone down to 100 meters.Others define the surface as the mixed layer, but that shallows each summer and deepens each winter. So I prefer to simply show that gradients of pH (or other variables) as illustrated by research and shown in the 3rd illustration in this article.

December 26, 2023 5:56 pm

Here is a preprint of an article that shows that the global temperature rise is causing the rise in CO2, not the other way around, as so-called “climate scientists” are saying.
Preprint:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Allan-Emren/publication/372047312_Global_temperatures_CO2_concentrations_and_oceans/links/64d7486b25837316ee0710d4/Global-temperatures-CO2-concentrations-and-oceans.pdf
The published version is available for a fee at: https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1504/IJGW.2023.132276

Cold water can hold more CO2 than warm water and the oceans hold about 50-70 times as much CO2 as the air. When the oceans warm they can’t hold as much CO2 and the atmospheric CO2 increases. That’s the same as cold carbonated beverages bubbling when they are warmed.

The output of the Sun that reaches the Earth(solar irradiance) has been at its highest level during the last 70 years of any similar period during the past 400 years, according to the NRLTSI2 yearly averages at https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/ > data(at top).> then select NRLTSI2 Daily Averages.story tip

Rich Davis
December 26, 2023 6:09 pm

Humans are largely motivated by fear and greed. Survival of the fittest has rewarded those who cowered in the dark corners when there was a noise in the dark. The curious ones got eaten. At the same time those who grabbed more than their fair share of the hunt tended to survive periods of famine.

It’s easy to portray any change as a danger to be feared. Even changes that are actually beneficial like a mild warming concurrent with an agricultural boom are easily made to sound scary to our irrational minds.

If there’s any opportunity to profit from the situation then the false fear will be amplified by a multitude of disingenuous rent seekers and virtue signalers.

Now add any kind of lust interest and you’ll have an irresistible force.

Happily the alarmists have chosen the Doom Pixie Thunberg and Medusa Oreskes as their spokespersons.

Drake
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 26, 2023 7:15 pm

Why a downvote? Simon, is that you again?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Drake
December 28, 2023 11:15 am

The down-voter thinks those spokespersons are not hot apparently. Oh the misogyny, Drake!

abolition man
December 26, 2023 7:20 pm

Jim,
Thanks for the belated Xmas present! I’m always happy to have another of your articles or lectures to ponder and study. If only we could reignite the childhood wonder for the natural world that most alarmists have misplaced during their indoctrination! I do not understand how one can keep slogging through Life’s travails without stopping to consider the joys of geology and the beauty of the biosphere!
Have a very Happy New Year! Bravo! Encore!

Reply to  abolition man
December 26, 2023 8:08 pm

Thank you Abolition man

December 26, 2023 8:22 pm

Click-bait media has hyped a few laboratory studies suggesting ocean acidification decreased coccolithophore calcification.”

Walk into any significant aquarium shop and you will quickly realize that setting up and maintaining a saltwater aquarium is difficult for beginners and amateurs.
Plus you’ll learn that most salt water aquarium owners lose aquariums and their contents far too often.

Even commercial softshell crab containers require high flow through of fresh clean salt water.

Yet researchers think they can just set up an inexpensive setup to perform complicated complex CO₂ studies like it’s an ordinary terrarium.

Keitho
Editor
December 27, 2023 1:04 am

I also note that the Antarctic sea ice has belied another cause and effect tale. It’s back inside the normal zone. As this compelling article shows the big blue briny does its own thing.

December 27, 2023 2:02 am

Over the last six months or so the temperature here has been inversely proportional to the length of my beard. In in next few days I intend to give my beard a trim to see if I can get the temperature up a bit.

Richard Greene
December 27, 2023 4:39 am

There are no accurate global average ocean pH data so no conclusions about ocean pH can be supported by accurate, relevant data.

This article details the problems with trying to measure the global average ocean pH.

But the conclusion is WRONG in two ways.

The author concludes:

“If we follow all the science, the slight drop in ocean surface pH has many causes.” 

(1) The slight drop is claimed but can not be verified with accurate global average pH measurements now, or especially back in 1850

(2) Changes of a global average ocean pH could have many causes, and we get a list of suspects here, but no data are available to know how much the many causes of pH changes actually affected the global average ocean pH.

This reminds me of the global warming since 1975. We have a list of potential causes of the warming but have no data to prove what each potential cause of warming actually did. That doesn’t stop Climate Howlers from blaming manmade CO2.

CO2 emissions do affect the climate, with the effects estimated by lab spectroscopy

CO2 emissions do affect ocean CO2, which should lower ocean pH, with no change to all other ocean pH variables. That is probably a good theory, but can not be verified with accurate global average pH data.

Past global average ocean pH is not known

Current global average ocean pH is not known

Government bureaucrat scientists claim ocean pH has neutralized by 0.1 since 1850, but there are no accurate global average data to verify that claim. In fact, even with fairly accurate global average pH data, 0.1 could be a rounding error.

In my 26 years of climate science reading ,I do not recall any scaremongering with that 0.1 wild guess estimate.

I do recall neutralization being called acidification, but I doubt if 1 in 100 Climate Howlers would know about the claimed 0,1 change in pH. They have heard acidification and that sounds like bad news to a science novice.

The alleged acidification is sometimes used as additional evidence of more CO2 in the air and water. But we have had real time CO2 measurements since 1958, that are not controversial.

The primary strategy of Climate Howlers is to hire government scientists and pay them to make scary 100 year global warming predictions, which they have been doing since the 1970s.

Thet recently added false claims that almost every serious weather event is worse than ever, is actually the opposite of the truth.

While most people (and all plants) enjoyed the global warming (and more CO2) since 1975, leftists do not allow people to be happy about our great climate.

They will not admit the climate has been improving since 1975 (actually since the Little Ice Age centuries) and they claim more of this pleasant global warming will not be more good news — it will be a climate emergency?

Until recently Climate Howlers admitted the Holocene Climate Optimum, from 5000 to 9000 years ago, was at least +1 degree C. warmer than the past decade. That was considered to be such good news it was called a climate optimum

Climate Howlers also claim if the current climate gets +1 degree C, warmer than the past ten years in the future, matching the Holocene Climate Optimum, that will be another climate optimum. … Wait, they actually don’t say that.

In the PAST, the IPCC used to say +1 degree warmer than the past decade was a climate optimum, but they still say the same +1degree C. warmer than the past decade in the FUTURE will be a climate emergency?

Climate Howlers and the IPCC contradict r themselves.

I now await an angry response from Mr. Steele. while wearing a steel helmet to protect myself..

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 27, 2023 7:36 am

Sigh, It has long been apparent that your replies are not based on good science but an attempt to goad me or anger me. I take it as an honor that you are so obsessed with me that you write your lengthy replies and ignore all the verifiable science I present. It is just sad Richard.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Jim Steele
December 27, 2023 8:17 am

That was an angry, science free, insulting response, just as you have done before.

You made no effort to quote even one sentence from my comment, and then refute it.

I will assume you agree with everything I wrote.

No scientific conclusions about the change in global average ocean pH since 1850 can be made because reliable supporting data do not exist. If you can’t understand that science requires accurate, relevant data, then you are no scientist.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 27, 2023 9:33 am

More sadness! Again you make your intentions clear to denigrate me as a scientist. I made no effort to quote your reply because you were fabricating your own arguments, ignoring what I actually wrote to sidestepping my arguments, just so you could pontificate about yourself. Your whole thesis can be summarized as ‘there’s no reliable global average ocean pH data so Steele is wrong’, and then you concluded with a snarky helmet insult.

But I never argued there was a reliable global average ocean pH, highlighting dynamics involving upwelling and reduced alkalinity. I wrote, ” to minimize confounding upwelling effects, climate scientists have based their pH predictions on measurements taken from regions with low upwelling in the middle of subtropical gyres, such as station Aloha in the Pacific, and in the North Atlantic gyre (BATS; not shown).”

In contrast to your droning on that “pH is not known”, average pH has been reliably measured at those two stations since 1990 and it is their measured decline that gets extrapolated into a global scenario. I presented a graphic illustrating their data.

Furthermore, there is also complete agreement based on measurements that there is a pH gradient with high surface pH declining to lowest pH around 300 meters. The exact pH number may be affected by variables like temperature and pressure and currents, but that general gradient is not disputed, by anyone except maybe you.

My article was mostly about the effects of upwelling of that low pH water to the surface, but YOU Richard never quoted a single argument about upwelling or even mentioned the word. Clearly your intentions were not to discuss those dynamics I was discussing.

I mentioned pH estimates from years before 1990, based on Boron isotope measurements which I find fairly reliable for general comparisons. You seem to dismiss that data out of hand. I suggest your read Reconstructing Ocean pH with Boron Isotopes in Foraminifera by Foster and Rae (2016)

Nor Richard did you quote anything in my article about reduced alkalinity. So from everything you posted it was clear to me you intended to sidestep everything I wrote, wanting to just conclude I am wrong. So Richard this is the last time I will ever respond to you for reasons Mark Twain once eloquently stated.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Jim Steele
December 27, 2023 6:20 pm

You can throw your rude comments at me until the cows come home. I do not care.

Your conclusion in this article is not supported by the facts and data presented in the article.

And that is bad science and bad non-fiction writing. You may now continue with your childish insults and ignore the points I have made, as usual.

Your false claim:

“If we follow all the science, the slight drop in ocean surface pH has many causes. Blaming burning fossil fuels, resulting in government bans on fossil fuel burning are unlikely to affect ocean pH”

My corrected paragraph::

If we follow all the science, the CLAIMED slight drop in ocean surface pH since 1850 COULD HAVE HAD many causes. Burning fossil fuels, causing 50% atmospheric CO2 increase from manmade CO2 emissions since 1850, are very likely to have changed the ocean’s average pH along with other causes. No measurements exist to prove the exact effect of CO2 emissions since 1850 on the global average pH.

That’s real science with uncertainty, an attribute you lack, Steele.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 27, 2023 8:57 am

“Remember the pH scale from elementary school,” Thomas says. “There is a number 7 in the middle. Everything lower than 7 is acid, and everything higher up the scale than 7 up to 14 is basic. Before human activity the ocean was 8.2 on that scale and we have now moved down by one pH unit to 8.1.The ocean is still basic, as it is still to the right of that value seven, but it has moved towards the direction of more acid – which is very serious.”

‘Yale experts explain Ocean Acidification’
https://sustainability.yale.edu/explainers/yale-experts-explain-ocean-acidification

They obviously think a drop of pH by one unit is a problem

Phil.
Reply to  Dave Andrews
December 28, 2023 7:31 am

They obviously think a drop of pH by one unit is a problem”
It can be depending on circumstances, such a drop in your blood pH and you’d be dead!

December 27, 2023 4:58 am

If you disagree with the scientific arguments for global warming, please submit your reappraisals to the appropriate scientific journals. I suggest: The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, the International Journal of Climatology, the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry, and Nature, among others. Your arguments will be carefully and expertly peer-reviewed. Work that involves misleading or erroneous arguments or that does not properly cite its references will be rejected. Do not expect to be taken seriously until you show, using accepted experimental and analytical techniques, that you have a credible explanation for the data on climate change. The world’s scientific community awaits your response

Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 27, 2023 7:40 am

Warren, sadly you too are incapable of discussing the science presented here and totally based on peer-reviewed science. So you blab the same old canard that what I presented can’t be taken seriously unless it is peer-reviewed. LOL

Richard Greene
Reply to  Jim Steele
December 27, 2023 8:28 am

The false claim of a coming CAGW crisis is based on peer reviewed CAGW data free predictions of climate doom that are totally worthless.

Peer reviewed is no guaranty of a conclusion based on accurate, relevant data but that problem also applies to pH conclusions not based on accurate, relevant data.

The question of how we “know” that global average ocean pH has neutralized by 0.1 since 1850 has one obvious correct answer: We do not know that.

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Steele
December 27, 2023 3:38 pm

What goes on here is a better “peer review” than anything that happens at the so called science journals.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 27, 2023 7:41 am

‘I suggest: ….and Nature, among others.’ 

The main principle of the scientific method is that if observations don’t support a hypothesis, the hypothesis is wrong. Here’s a brief and recent takedown of one of Nature’s flagship articles:

https://realclimatescience.com/2023/12/when-did-the-glaciers-form/#gsc.tab=0

Fyi, appeals to authority and other logical fallacies don’t go over real well here.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 27, 2023 8:20 am

The correct answer is we do not know exactly what caused the warming since 1975 and consensus scientists who falsely claim they know will not accept alternate explanations or even just an explanation of why no one really knows,

Jim Masterson
Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 27, 2023 12:04 pm

This individual is trolling. He made a duplicate comment on the current head post: link.

Reply to  Jim Masterson
December 27, 2023 12:18 pm

Thanks Masterson, It was pretty clear Beeton was trolling based on his tired old canard. I can’t help but wonder if he works in tandem with Richard Greene who didnt criticize Beeton’s appeal to authority in his reply, but instead criticized me for saying data I used in this article was peer-reviewed.

Jim Masterson
Reply to  Jim Steele
December 28, 2023 12:22 am

I’m a retired P-3 pilot. We used to drop BT buoys to map the temperature profile of the area we were patrolling. The temperature profile would tell us how sound waves traveled through our search area. I wonder how much of that data was available to the scientific community.

MarkW
Reply to  Warren Beeton
December 27, 2023 3:36 pm

The guardians of the so called major journals have declared that they will do whatever it takes to keep contrary papers out of their journals.

It is obvious that you have nothing to add to this discussion since you don’t even try to.

eck
December 27, 2023 7:00 pm

Another good article. One of these days we’ll have to get together in Pacifica. As I recall, the best way for me to give you contact info is via your web site(?).

Reply to  eck
December 27, 2023 7:12 pm

Best is to email me at jsteele@sfsu.edu

sherro01
December 27, 2023 7:49 pm
  1. When I was learning chemistry, pH was defined by the negative logarithm to the base 10 of the activity of the solution. This is not the same as the negative log of the concentration, which I have seen taken as gospel time after time in climate research. The two are related by the Debye-Huckel equations, that recognise that pH in a dilute solution is not the same as pH in a concentrated solution. Other dissolved substances affect the pH.
  2. Mesurement of pH using electrodes is also affected by the presence of solids, from small amounts up to thick slurries. Sea water is ofen filtered before analysis, indicating the suspected presence of solids. Studies I did in the 1970s showed that electrode pH was not reproducible in the presence of solids. Many early pH measurements of the ocean were done with electrodes. They are suspect.
  3. In the analytical chemistry laboratory, it is hard to reproduce measurments time after time, day after day, of pH in the same solution. To obtain +/- 0.1 pH is not easy. How it can be claimed for the wide oceans is beyond me. In this article, claims of 0.01pH units are in the first graph, right axis.
  4. Before a method of chemical analysis used to be accepted, it was customary to show among other matters, a table of analysis results from the same solution, repeated at least 20 times to derive a standard deviation. While this might still be done, it is not easy to find this or other exercises in climate research to help properly to define measurement uncertainty. I’d be grateful for a link to any recent papers on uncertainty of pH measurements in the oceans.

Geoff S

Reply to  sherro01
December 28, 2023 8:41 am

Geoff,

1. I don’t under your statement “ pH in a dilute solution is not the same as pH in a concentrated solution” pH is simply the measure of H+ concentration. Activity changes due to dilution.

2 Indeed glass electrodes used up until early 1990s add errors of +/- 0.1 pH. So most studies trying to evaluate changes in pH do not use that data. Since the 1990s on board measurements use a pH sensitive dye and spectrophotometry to get a much more accurate reading. Most of the pH readings at the Aloha station in the first graphic I referred to are based on spectrophotometry. You can see they don’t start that local trend until 1990. Mooring and Argo use “newly” developed field-effect transistors (FETs) sensors that have improved resolution, but must undergo pre- and post operational calibrations.

3 Global pH is mostly calculated based on observed CO2 concentrations and calculated alkalinity. Alkalinity calculations are based on correlations with temperature and salinity, correlations which dont alway hold up. For those problems I didnt focus on global pH in this article. That was a bogus strawman argument inserted by Richard Greene to launch his hateful attacks. I focused on the measurements in subtropical gyres such ALOHA where good measurements are taken, but changes are attributed to atmospheric changes in CO2. Those measurements are used to calibrate or constrain their calculations. But as I argued Aloha (or HOTs or BATS measurements) is not only affected by atmospheric changes in CO2.

4 Repeating a mesurement 20X with fixed variables is possible in a lab but not in the ocean. My understanding is pH sensors undergo stringent calibration procedures to determine expected uncertainty. ISFET sensors are said to have a “fleet-wide accuracy of ±0.015”.

KAT
December 28, 2023 12:04 am

When alarmists mention “ocean acidification” – simply point out that that it is scientifically undisputed that atmospheric CO2 levels were up to 10 times higher in the past. Then ask them to explain how all of the sea critters managed to survive through to the present day!
(Note: Sharks have an +/- 450 million year evolutionary timeline)

Reply to  KAT
December 28, 2023 12:04 pm

Indeed KAT, that is such an obvious fact that should make everyone doubt click-bait media claims “ocean acidification” is a huge threat to marine ecosystems. Sadly, many of my sheeple friends simply dismiss that fact to say, CO2 is disrupting everything and it is different and more deadly now. Alarmist brainwashing has been horribly effective.

John Frederick
December 29, 2023 3:53 pm

“However, it is well established other factors [besides co2] also lower surface pH.”

The author of this article then admits that co2 is causing lower surface ph. If other factors, presumably out of our control, are also causing lower ph, wouldn’t this give us more rather than less reason to control the one factor that we can?

Reply to  John Frederick
December 30, 2023 3:22 pm

John you are dishonestly cherrypicking the author’s words. The author concluded, “Blaming burning fossil fuels, resulting in government bans on fossil fuel burning are unlikely to affect ocean pH. It is far more likely those bans will cause severe suffering for humanity that has been dependent on fossil fuels for winter warming, transportation, and all sorts of industrial operations!

December 31, 2023 2:56 pm

In stark contrast to indefensible concerns that ocean acidification will hinder calcification by reducing carbonate ions, …

Using the term “acidification” plays into the intent of alarmists to subliminally scare laymen who associate acidity with battery acid.

Geochemist Konrad Krauskopf stated that ocean water was unlikely to even reach a pH of 7, except in deep basins rich in hydrogen sulfide. Therefore, using the term “neutralization” or simply “lowering of pH” is accurate and does not carry the pejorative baggage associated with “acidification.” Accepting the vocabulary introduced by alarmists with an agenda plays into their propaganda program. One difference between laymen and scientists is that laymen have a limited scientific vocabulary and are careless in their choices, as with hypothesis and theory. Scientists, hopefully, will exercise more care in their choice of words in order to reduce ambiguity and be more clear.