• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Foolish Letter from AAAS

longview said:
No, I read the article, but was looking for the data, so as to compare to the earlier chart, which ended in the mid 90's
If the other graph was not an average, it would be interesting to see what that data source is today.
Click to expand...
So what was the location for the data in the graphic? If you had read the paper you would know the specific location and would have known it was not a global ocean average, so why did you use a global average?

What earlier chart are you taking about?

I agree it would be interesting to see if there has been a more recent study in the same reef location. Perhaps you can read through the 185 articles that cited that study or all the related articles listed, or look up more recent papers by the authors in a Google Scholar search?
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
So what was the location for the data in the graphic? If you had read the paper you would know the location and would have known it was not a global average, so why did you use a global average?

What earlier chart are you referring to?

Yes it would be interesting to see if there has been a more recent study in the same location. Perhaps you can read through the 185 articles that cited that study?
Click to expand...
The Carles Pelejero paper was about Flinders Reef, an offshore reef on the Queensland Plateau.
The article from National geographic was generic about ocean pH.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/coral/west_pacific/great_barrier/flinders2005.txt
I am looking to find ether a current reading on Flinders Reef, or a historical reading for the average ocean pH.
 
longview said:
The Carles Pelejero paper was about Flinders Reef, an offshore reef on the Queensland Plateau.
The article from National geographic was generic about ocean pH.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/coral/west_pacific/great_barrier/flinders2005.txt
I am looking to find ether a current reading on Flinders Reef, or a historical reading for the average ocean pH.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read what Pelejero says about ocean acidification, rather than pretending you can assess the data despite knowing next to nothing about the topic....
 
Threegoofs said:
Maybe you should read what Pelejero says about ocean acidification, rather than pretending you can assess the data despite knowing next to nothing about the topic....
Click to expand...
Statement can be subjective, numbers not so much.
If the expert opinion, is that CO2 levels are driving ocean pH down, yet the pH level is rising
it means that pH like temperature is likely more complex and has more variables than the models include.
 
longview said:
Statement can be subjective, numbers not so much.
If the expert opinion, is that CO2 levels are driving ocean pH down, yet the pH level is rising
it means that pH like temperature is likely more complex and has more variables than the models include.
Click to expand...

Your amateur opinion is noted and appropriately discarded.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Obviously not.

But obviously they have then the responsibility to answer fact checking questions from investigating and skeptical journalists openly.
Click to expand...

The scientific basis and analysis methodologies are publicly available. People like Lamer Smith are not interested in the science...they are digging for the "gotcha" phrases they can hammer the scientists on.
 
Threegoofs said:
Your amateur opinion is noted and appropriately discarded.
Click to expand...

An amateur who has never studied the science involved, or performed research or published in the field or any related field, is unaware of the broader body of research, and doesn't understand something even as basic as the fact that there would obviously be a difference between a global average of ocean surface pH for a specific period, and location specific coral reef pH over a different time period with local factors involved. But who cares? Just slap one number next to another number and if they don't match, the amateur Climate Truther has uncovered yet another nefarious plot of (cue melodramatic music riff) "Scientists Fudging Data!!!!"
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
An amateur who has never studied the science involved, or performed research or published in the field or any related field, is unaware of the broader body of research, and doesn't understand something even as basic as the fact that there would obviously be a difference between a global average of ocean surface pH for a specific period, and location specific coral reef pH over a different time period with local factors involved. But who cares? Just slap one number next to another number and if they don't match, the amateur Climate Truther has uncovered yet another nefarious plot of (cue melodramatic music riff) "Scientists Fudging Data!!!!"
Click to expand...
So what is ether the current pH level of the Flinders Reef or the historic ocean pH level.
These are just numbers, as with most events they cycle, but there may be a trend within the cycling.
If the experts are saying that the pH levels are falling as CO2 increases (which could easily be happening) then
there should be plenty of data to show this.
 
longview said:
No, I read the article, but was looking for the data, so as to compare to the earlier chart, which ended in the mid 90's
If the other graph was not an average, it would be interesting to see what that data source is today.
Click to expand...

So if you read the article and were looking for data, how did you manage to miss the tab that said "Figures and Data" then the heading "Supporting Online Material" and the link to download the supplemental material which included the data and methodology?
 
Quaestio said:
So if you read the article and were looking for data, how did you manage to miss the tab that said "Figures and Data" then the heading "Supporting Online Material" and the link to download the supplemental material which included the data and methodology?
Click to expand...
The paper only covered to 1988, Since the pH by their sampling methodology bounces all over the place.
I thought it would be interesting if 28 year on (1988 to 2016), what the current reading on the reef were.
Did the pH level continue to fall?
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/coral/west_pacific/great_barrier/flinders2005.txt
While the national geographic article and a SA article made some generalizations about the pH level falling from 8.2 to 8.1,
since postindustrial times.
Rising Acidity in the Ocean: The Other CO2 Problem - Scientific American
So if raising the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 403 ppm lowered the pH level 8.2 to 8.1,
what do we know about the relationship? We would need historical data on the pH transition
as it moved from 8.2 to 8.1, yet the graph from finders reef shows the pH cycles about much greater
than the stated movement. (The finders reef data, has a cycle range of .25, from 8.16 to 7.91, is as few as 40 years)
A few recent data points would be useful in finding if this is just cycling, or is there a trend.
If there is a trend is it potentially dangerous?
Bear in mind, it is unlikely that we can continue to expand the use of fossil fuels, as we have for the last century.
Market forces will push the world economy towards other sources of energy.
 
longview said:
So what is ether the current pH level of the Flinders Reef or the historic ocean pH level.
Click to expand...
I don't know. I could find out if I took the time to search the Journals for relevant research papers or ask some experts in the field or read summary reports from reputable science institutions. If you want to know, go do the legwork yourself.
longview said:
These are just numbers, as with most events they cycle, but there may be a trend within the cycling.
If the experts are saying that the pH levels are falling as CO2 increases (which could easily be happening) then
there should be plenty of data to show this.
Click to expand...
There is. Off you go, get cracking with searching the Journals. There were thousands of hits for research articles using the term 'ocean acidification' in Google Scholar even since 2013. There are other search engines for the Journal databaes if you have access to them through a university or science institution, but Google Scholar is not too bad for a start.
 
Last edited:
longview said:
The Carles Pelejero paper was about Flinders Reef, an offshore reef on the Queensland Plateau.
The article from National geographic was generic about ocean pH.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I pointed out to you after you made the mistake of trying to plonk a global average ocean surface figure from the NatGeo article on the location specific offshore reef graph with data based on coral proxies.
longview said:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/coral/west_pacific/great_barrier/flinders2005.txt
I am looking to find ether a current reading on Flinders Reef, or a historical reading for the average ocean pH.
Click to expand...
Happy researching. How about reading some textbooks about the science and physical processes involved too, so you better understand what the numbers mean and don't make simple mistakes and reach false conclusions because you have no background or expertise or awareness of all the research in the field?
 
Russell797 said:
The scientific basis and analysis methodologies are publicly available. People like Lamer Smith are not interested in the science...they are digging for the "gotcha" phrases they can hammer the scientists on.
Click to expand...

He was not asking the scientists to defent their work but asking the bodies who have supposedly signed the policy lobbying document if they had done so and who it was who had signed.

There is a difference and the gotcha should be used if he can find that they have been lying.
 
Quaestio said:
Yes, that's what I pointed out to you after you made the mistake of trying to plonk a global average ocean surface figure from the NatGeo article on the location specific offshore reef graph with data based on coral proxies.

Happy researching. How about reading some textbooks about the science and physical processes involved too, so you better understand what the numbers mean and don't make simple mistakes and reach false conclusions because you have no background or expertise or awareness of all the research in the field?
Click to expand...
I found an interesting link
Ocean acidification in The Azimuth Project
It seems to show a linear relationship between CO2 level and the decrease in ocean pH.
The relationship on the graph looks like 36 ppm = - .034 or a -.00094 per ppm.
The problem with this is that the SA article,
Rising Acidity in the Ocean: The Other CO2 Problem - Scientific American
throws out numbers like,
Emissions could reduce surface pH by another 0.4 unit in this century alone and by as much as 0.7 unit beyond 2100.
Click to expand...
This implies an increase in CO2 of about 380 ppm by the end of the century.
We have only managed to add 123 ppm since we have been using fossil fuels,
saying we can triple that amount in the next 84 year is unlikely.
Oil reserves are in decline, which is why they have been fracking.
The cheap easy oil, has been found, the balance will not be cheap or easy to extract.
 
Threegoofs said:
I think it's funny that the deniers here are basically pretending the guy who wrote the paper on reef pH doesn't really know what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

He has his opinion of what the facts mean, and I only presented the graph as long term evidence that pH has a cyclical history.

CO2 might be causing a slight change in the pH. However, without quantifying the other factors, we have no way of determining to what effect CO2 has.
 
longview said:
I found an interesting link
Ocean acidification in The Azimuth Project
It seems to show a linear relationship between CO2 level and the decrease in ocean pH.
The relationship on the graph looks like 36 ppm = - .034 or a -.00094 per ppm.
The problem with this is that the SA article,
Rising Acidity in the Ocean: The Other CO2 Problem - Scientific American
throws out numbers like,

This implies an increase in CO2 of about 380 ppm by the end of the century.
We have only managed to add 123 ppm since we have been using fossil fuels,
saying we can triple that amount in the next 84 year is unlikely.
Oil reserves are in decline, which is why they have been fracking.
The cheap easy oil, has been found, the balance will not be cheap or easy to extract.
Click to expand...

They must be using the RCP 8.5 again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom