Matt Ridley’s first response to my post about his failed prediction was denial:

I did not write for the Globe and Mail in 1993 let alone about climate!

Then he moved onto stage 3, bargaining:

global av temp (ignoring pinatubo drop) is about 0.2C above 1991 level after 22 yrs – so I was spot on so far!

UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_2012_v5.51

As you can see, the graph he cites shows 0.5 degrees of warming since he made his prediction, so it seems that he is applying a 0.3 degree correction for Pinatubo.   Which brings us to Ridley’s next column, published in The Sunday Telegraph on 30 Jan 1994 (one month after his column with the failed prediction):

The satellites, however, tell a very different story about the 1980s (their data do not go further back). Orbiting the planet from north to south as the Earth turns beneath them, they take the temperature of the lower atmosphere using microwave sensors. By the end of 1993 the temperature was trending downwards by 0.04 of a degree per decade.

The satellite’s masters explain away this awkward fact by subtracting two volcanic eruptions (Mount Pinatubo in 1991 and El Chichon in 1982) and four El Ninos (sudden changes in the circulation of the water in the Pacific).  Since they assume that all these would have cooled the atmosphere, they conclude that the 1980s did see a gradual warming of the air by 0.09 degrees: still less than a third of that recorded by the old method.

Even with this sleight of hand (and when I was a scientist I was trained not to correct my data according my preconceptions of the result), the startling truth remains that the best measure yet taken of the atmosphere has found virtually no evidence of global warming.

So according to Matt Ridley in 1994, Matt Ridley in 2013 used a “sleight of hand”, something that he was trained not to do.   If we hold Matt Ridley to the standard he declared at the time of his prediction there has been 0.5 degrees of warming since he predicted that there would be just one degree by 2100.

But if we do want to know what the long term warming trend is, it is not a “sleight of hand” to remove the short term effects of volcanoes and El Nino/La Nina. It is, however, a sleight of hand for Ridley to just correct for Pinatubo and not El Nino/La Nina.  Here is the graph from Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) that shows what temperature records look like if the short term effects are removed:

figure05

Using Ridley’s preferred UAH data set we see that there has been 0.4 degrees of warming since he made his prediction.

Any way you slice it, there has been much more warming that Ridley predicted.  I hope this information will help him reach stage 5, acceptance.

Comments

  1. #1 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2013

    Shorter Latimer:

    No-one could have soundly predicted that the apple I just dropped would fall to the floor. That can only be done after observing the apple hit the floor!

  2. #2 bill
    January 22, 2013

    LOTH: ‘And it’s precisely what I’ve been trying to demonstrate re: Latimer’s “understanding” of ocean acidification by asking him to specify what he understands the science says and why it says it’

    SLOTH: Seems to me that ‘the science’ doesn’t say anything. Experiments and observations are the things that tell us about nature. But allow me to let the far more eloquent Richard Feynman discuss exactly this point (and thank you for giving me this opportunity to bring it up)

    SLOTH TRANSLATION: I have no actual argument I can put, so I’m going to go for the pontifical, ‘above the hoi polloi’ strategy that is my stock in trade, while claiming to somehow be Feynman – if, that is, one assumes he was also a perverse contrarian who was actually saying, ‘hey, you need never know anything at all if it doesn’t suit you to’.

    Allow me to demonstrate:

    You still haven’t told us about BEST. Do so.

    You haven’t because it will give the game away: you’ve rather shot yourself in the foot now, just as your monkey did, because you’ve highlighted immediately above just how much empirical AND theoretical evidence indicates GW (sorry ‘global warming’) AND the fact that it’s AGW.

    Does it follow you everywhere, incidentally?

  3. #3 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “That can only be done after observing the apple hit the floor!”

    And that would only be correlation not causation!!!

    NEWTON WAS A FRAUD!!!!

    INTELLIGENT FALLING FTW!!!

  4. #4 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    we can work on estimating how many stations will be needed to produce the same (or not) for ‘ocean acidification’.

    None of the time series we have so far give any hint that the mysterious and never documented “Latimer-Buffering-Effect” is real.

    So, the first thing we know is: increased CO2 in the atmosphere results in increased CO2 in the Oceans.

    The second thing we know is: The “Latimer-Buffering-Effect” has no empirical support and appears to exist only as an artificial construct in the pursuit of fraudulent science.

    The third thing I am amazed to have learned today is this: Feynman says Occam is a crock.

    However, I will remain sceptical of fact #3 until it is confirmed by somebody a little more trustworthy than a serial liar.

  5. #5 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “I suppose, a failed “atmospheric chemist” who doesn’t know that temperature is the main driver for CO2 uptake ”

    Worse, doesn’t even know how diffusion works!

  6. #6 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    I opined that we do not have enough data to demonstrate whether ‘ocean acidification’ is actually occurring.

    You replied

    ‘Nope We do have enough data to do that’

    Really?

    Really.

  7. #7 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    An absolute top whack amount of 113 location years spread across just 5 locations is enough to confirm that ‘ocean acidification’ is taking place?

    Yes.

  8. #8 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Even though we have no measurements from the Southern Ocean, Arctic Ocean or Indian Ocean. None in the South Atlantic, nor the Southern Pacific. None around Europe, Asia or Australasia. None on the Eastern Seaboard of the US and none for Africa south of 25N?

    Even though we do have them, you think we don’t.

    Why then should your “opine” on whether we have enough data to determine ocean acidification is taking place? You don’t even know how much data we have!

  9. #9 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Doesn’t seem like ‘ocean’ acdification to me . Far too many oceans for which we don’t have any data at all. And far too little length of data for any of those we do have.

    So all you have to go on are your “feelings”?

    Or do you have any hard evidence for your assertion?

    Remember, you already have it wrong about how much data we have. Has the knowledge we have much more than you assert changed your assumption?

    Or are your assumptions not up for being changed?

    Because that’s not skepticism, that’s denialism.

  10. #10 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @bill

    If I ever meet a guy called ‘SLOTH’, I’ll be sure to draw your post to his attention.

  11. #11 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    So Latimer is Over The Hill.

  12. #12 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘In Latimer’s case the ones he’s been explicit about here are buffering and the effect of certain types of rocks, i.e. maybe they’re a large enough effect to counter the extra CO2 that enters the oceans. One immediately notes that he doesn’t appear to have even investigated what the current state of knowledge on these effects (especially their magnitude) is and he certainly hasn’t cited any data on how large an effect they have in anything like current conditions. ‘

    The claim is that ocean pH is decreasing (‘ocean acidification’).

    It s very simple to show this. Measure ocean pH and show that it is decreasing.

    If and when this effect is established (or not) we can look at causes/reasons why (or why not) it is (or not) occurring.

    So far it hasn’t been established.

    PS – you may have missed the last two days discussion where many good folks have been trying to find published data that shows whether the ocean pH is changing. And there ain’t much. (5 locations worldwide and max 113 observation years – of which over half are proxies).

    If you have a hidden secret stash of additional data, please share it with us.

  13. #13 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @vince whirlwind

    ‘the rest of us have demonstrated that 30 seconds on Google will throw up no end of data, including data you have falsely asserted does not exist.’

    Indulge me. Show me again. Not just a vague handwave to ‘no end of data’, but actual page number references..or even just figure number references to actual collected data.

    The rightness of your case will then be adequately demonstrated to everybody’s satisfaction, and you can do it in 30 secs (less time than it probably took you to write the comment).

  14. #14 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “Indulge me. Show me again.”

    No.

    The results were posted by Vince twice to this thread.

    You have ignored them both times.

  15. #15 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    The claim is that ocean pH is decreasing (‘ocean acidification’).

    It s very simple to show this. Measure ocean pH and show that it is decreasing.

    This has been done.

    Satisfied?

  16. #16 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    If and when this effect is established (or not) we can look at causes/reasons why (or why not) it is (or not) occurring.

    Already been done.

    CO2 + H2O => Carbonic acid.

  17. #17 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “So far it hasn’t been established.”

    So far we’ve not only established that, but that you are in denial of it too.

  18. #18 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘ I was attempting to opine that the two circumstances are quite comparable, BOTH in terms of number of stations needed being far less than you asserted AND because the best inference prior to large amounts of data coming in is that acidification/global warming will occur.’

    OK.

    What is your best judgement about how many stations will be needed to show ocean acidification is real?

    I cited about 3000 for ‘global warming ‘ – and that’s about the number the IPCC worked from. You are of the opinion from other work that far fewer are needed for ‘OA’

    1000?
    500?
    100?
    50?

    Please give some justification for your answer

    ‘ because the best inference prior to large amounts of data coming in is that acidification/global warming will occur.’

    That’s certainly a reasonable inference. But so is the one that says the buffering effect of the seawater will overwhelm the very slight CO2 effect.

    Until we have the ‘large quantities of data’, the point is moot and we cannot state that OA is ‘an established scientific fact’ as we haven’t done the work to show that it is.

    I think we are pretty close to agreement :-)

    .

  19. #19 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    re Apples etc

    To all who have cited the apple (and by inference Isaac Newton) I thank you, since this is a very instructive example.

    As you may know, the story of the apple is pretty much apocryphal. Newton came up with his Laws of Motion from trying to decode the set of observations of the motion of the planets that telescopy had just begun to make a reasonably exact science. In his case it was observations first – theories second.

    And we rely on them today because they have been tested over and over and over again and never found wanting (*). Just within the lifetimes of people living today we have over 50 billion years of observations from all over the world. And we know also that we can use them to successfully predict the motions of heavenly bodies billions of light years away – and more parochially to navigate manned craft to the Moon and back and unmanned craft beyond our solar system.

    They are a great predictive tool. And that is why we call them ‘Newton’s Laws’

    Compare and contrast with the evidence presented for ‘ocean acidification’. Only five locations. Only 113 years of observations (half of them proxies).

    Maybe one day we will have enough data to come up with ‘Wow’s Law of Ocean Acidification’ and give it the thorough going over that Newton’s Laws do every day.

    But we ain’t there yet.

  20. #20 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    Oops. Forgot the footnote

    (*) Einstein showed that Newton’s Laws are in fact only a subset of the wider laws that he discovered. But for all practical purposes relevant to this discussion they are applicable. And certainly for apples falling off trees.

  21. #21 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @vince whirlwind

    ‘ Feynman says Occam is a crock’

    News to me. I don’t think he gave any opinion on Ockham.

    Please explain.

  22. #22 Jeff Harvey
    January 22, 2013

    “But so is the one that says the buffering effect of the seawater will overwhelm the very slight CO2 effect”

    Good grief, a doubling of atmospheric C02 in about 2 centuries is a ‘very slight C02 effect’ on ocean pH?

    What planet are you on Latimer? Where do you dredge up this crap?

  23. #23 Jeff Harvey
    January 22, 2013

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6103/27.summary

    Game, set and match. The evidence is there. These kinds of changes generally take many thousands of years – not one or two hundred. And let’s not forget that what we are seeing now is based on a temporal lag for such a deterministic system.

    Latimer is not a ‘scientce-based sceptic’. He is a bonafide denier on the basis of other pre-determined world views. Like most other deniers. Science is just a tool to be abused as necessary in support of alternative agendas.

  24. #24 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “What planet are you on Latimer? Where do you dredge up this crap?”

    Where else do you get crap from?

  25. #25 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “But we ain’t there yet.”

    Well, as long as you get to decide unilaterally where “there” is and what constitutes “getting there” is, of course.

    However, this is no more than your fevered ego running wild.

  26. #26 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “What is your best judgement about how many stations will be needed to show ocean acidification is real?”

    One would be enough.

  27. #27 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    I cited about 3000 for ‘global warming ‘ – and that’s about the number the IPCC worked from. You are of the opinion from other work that far fewer are needed for ‘OA’

    You can manage with less than 1000.

    And that would be required to prove the level of warming, not the existence of it.

  28. #28 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “And certainly for apples falling off trees.”

    How do you know?

  29. #29 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “In his case it was observations first – theories second.”

    And that just proves that the proofs laws of motion and therefore gravity are merely correlations, not causations.

  30. #30 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Observations first, theories second, hmm?

    Like many Victorian natural philosophers, John Tyndall was fascinated by a great variety of questions. While he was preparing an important treatise on “Heat as a Mode of Motion” he took time to consider geology. Tyndall had hands-on knowledge of the subject, for he was an ardent Alpinist (in 1861 he made the first ascent of the Weisshorn). Familiar with glaciers, he had been convinced by the evidence — hotly debated among scientists of his day — that tens of thousands of years ago, colossal layers of ice had covered all of northern Europe. How could climate possibly change so radically?

    One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation”) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the “greenhouse effect.” The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth’s distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.

    Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the “greenhouse effect” works, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)

    from http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

  31. #31 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @wow

    “What is your best judgement about how many stations will be needed to show ocean acidification is real?”

    One would be enough’.

    Really? Just one to cover the oceans?

    If I could find you a weather station that showed a decrease in average temperature, would you take it as conclusive evidence that ‘global cooling’ is real?

    If not, why not?

  32. #32 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Dang. Did I forget to spell check the closing blockquote tag?

  33. #33 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “Really? Just one to cover the oceans?”

    Who said anything about covering the oceans?

    You demanded:

    What is your best judgement about how many stations will be needed to show ocean acidification is real?

  34. #34 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @wow

    ‘And that just proves that the proofs laws of motion and therefore gravity are merely correlations, not causations’

    You’re losing me on this one…please explain

  35. #35 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    If I could find you a weather station that showed a decrease in average temperature, would you take it as conclusive evidence that ‘global cooling’ is real?

    If we only had one, yes.

    Someone coming up with 10 that showed warming would win out because they have more data.

  36. #36 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @wow

    ‘Who said anything about covering the oceans?’

    Ummm… I think that is what the word ‘ocean’ is trying to convey. Like ‘global’ in ‘global warming’.

    Do you have an alternative reading? If so. what is it?

  37. #37 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    You’re losing me on this one…please explain

    OK, here it is:

    You’re thick.

    No, really, that’s the problem and why you’re always left behind.

    Stupendous Stupidity.

    You don’t even understand your own arguments!

    You point to the warming trend and proclaim “That’s correlation, not causation!”.

    Except that the movement of the planets correlating with the motion you would get from applying Newtonian Gravitation and the Laws of Motion is just as much correlation as the temperature record that shows the climate science as shown in the IPCC reports are correct.

    But you’re too stupid to understand even your own arguments.

    So that’s the reason why you’re being left behind.

    You’re an idiot.

  38. #38 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “Ummm… I think that is what the word ‘ocean’ is trying to convey. ”

    Nope. Incorrect again.

    For reason: see last post.

  39. #39 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @wow

    Thank you for your link to a snippet about Tyndall.

    Very interesting, but the point of it has passed me by.

    Please explain

  40. #40 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “Very interesting, but the point of it has passed me by.”

    And the reason again: you’re an idiot.

    You don’t even understand your own arguments.

    Measurement before theory you proclaimed as The One True Way to do science. Unless you don’t like the science, in which case “I see nothing”.

  41. #41 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    I guess that’s why you never saw any links to data for the southern ocean, right?

    It passed you by.

  42. #42 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @wow

    ‘You point to the warming trend and proclaim “That’s correlation, not causation!”.

    I did? News to me. Where did I say this?

    IIRC I have frequently stated on this blog that I have no problem with the idea that there have been periods of ‘global warming’ in the recent past.

    Please explain your point.

  43. #43 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @wow

    ‘Measurement before theory you proclaimed as The One True Way to do science. Unless you don’t like the science, in which case “I see nothing”.

    Where did make such a proclamation? Not a view I hold.

    I fear that it may be late at night in your geography and that you are beginning to become a tad ‘tired and emotional’. So perhaps it’s best if I don’t take your typamatic responses too seriously.

    But if I am wrong, then please carefully read what I have actually written, not what you think some imagined ‘Denier Stereotype’ should have written.

  44. #44 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @wow

    ‘I guess that’s why you never saw any links to data for the southern ocean, right?’

    I saw the links that VW posted. And as I always do I looked at the papers he cited. But I could not see where they contained relevant data. I asked him again if he could be more specific about the location of the data within those papers. He has not, so far, felt able to do so.

    But if you can help him – and me – out by coming up with the goodies, I’m sure we’d both be very grateful.

  45. #45 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “I did? News to me. Where did I say this?”

    It probably passed you by like Vince’s data for the oceans you insisted we had no data for

    :-)

    “IIRC”

    Except we already know your recollection is never done correctly.

    “I have no problem with the idea that there have been periods of ‘global warming’ in the recent past.”

    Please explain your point.

  46. #46 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “I saw the links that VW posted.”

    Then why did you ask Vince to do it again?

    Please explain your point.

  47. #47 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “But I could not see where they contained relevant data.”

    Please explain your point.

  48. #48 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @wow

    ‘But I could not see where they contained relevant data’

    To explain. To show that the process of ‘acidification’ has occurred you need a time series of data. The papers he cited did not contain such time series that I could find. This is a contrast to the other five papers that we’ve looked at that did contain such data. I asked him to clarify where exactly in the papers I should look to find them. As yet he has not felt able to do so.

    I do not think I can make it much clearer than that.

  49. #49 guthrie
    January 22, 2013

    Hey look, measurements of pH in the Antarctic and such:
    http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=1234

    “In some of their study areas, they found that the decrease in seawater pH being caused by greenhouse gas emissions is still within the bounds of natural pH fluctuation. Some areas already experience daily acidity levels that scientists had expected would only be reached at the end of the 21st Century.”
    As you would expect, it’s all complicated, nevertheless, because of the various chemical laws that Alder has already admitted exist, we can predict roughly how things will go over time.

  50. #50 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @wow

    You stated

    ‘You point to the warming trend and proclaim “That’s correlation, not causation!”.

    which as far as I can remember is not a sentiment I have expressed. So I asked you where you believe I have done so.

  51. #51 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “which as far as I can remember is not a sentiment I have expressed”

    And your point is…?

  52. #52 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    To show that the process of ‘acidification’ has occurred you need a time series of data.

    OK, so that’s TWO alternative recollections of what you ACTUALLY asked for.

    What is your best judgement about how many stations will be needed to show ocean acidification is real?

  53. #53 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “The papers he cited did not contain such time series that I could find.”

    Your point being..?

  54. #54 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @guthrie

    ‘As you would expect, it’s all complicated, nevertheless, because of the various chemical laws that Alder has already admitted exist, we can predict roughly how things will go over time.’

    And when time has passed and those predictions have been shown to be true (or not), then I’ll be happy to move to towards agreeing with your claim that it is ‘an established scientific fact’. And it’d be even more convincing if the theory could advance from ‘rough predictions’ to something a little more precise.

    But not until the work has been done.

    Or in simple language

    ‘Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched’
    ‘It ain’t over till the Fat Lady sings’

    (as Sir Ferguson found out in the last minute at Spurs on Sunday. Tee hee).

  55. #55 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    And when time has passed and those predictions have been shown to be true

    They have been.

    then I’ll be happy to move to towards agreeing with your claim that it is ‘an established scientific fact’

    Evidence indicates otherwise.

  56. #56 BBD
    January 22, 2013

    Latimer

    Still can’t get no satisfaction I see.

    the consequence of that [ocean pH monitoring is in its infancy] is that we do not have enough data to demonstrate whether or not ‘ocean acidification’ is actually occurring, The observational proof is not there.

    You mean the observational *confirmation* of long-established and unfalsified theoretical chemistry absolutely supported by all experimental testing.

    Since you are being obtuse about this, I will repeat the point. Long-established and absolutely robust chemistry demonstrates that the rapid and substantial increase in the atmospheric fraction of CO2 will reduce ocean pH. How could it not? Why would the laws that govern chemical interactions *change*? Obviously, they would not. They never do.

    Maybe one day it will be…maybe it won’t. But right now we just don’t know.

    Oh yes we do. See above.

    Unless of course, you come up with another way ….on which so far, you are strangely silent.

    Non sequitur. See above.

    How do you know what the chemistry is apart from by making observations and doing experiments?

    The experimental and theoretical chemistry is done. The physical (chemical) process is not remotely in dispute. The term ‘robust’ is hardly strong enough here. Your entire contention rests on the same rhetorical misdirection.

    If so, please let us all know and we can shut down all the labs around the world as redundant archaisms.

    Non sequitur. See above.

    Perhaps you can do it in the same post explaing how to show ‘ocean acidification’ is actually occurring without making time series measurements?

    We use theoritical and experimental chemistry. See above.

    All this nonsense is classic (and tedious) fake-sceptical obfuscation. You find me a reputable chemist who will question this assertion:

    Long-established and absolutely robust chemistry demonstrates that the rapid and substantial increase in the atmospheric fraction of CO2 will reduce ocean pH. How could it not? Why would the laws that govern chemical interactions *change*? Obviously, they would not. They never do.

    We can argue about the potential impacts on marine ecosystems all day but we cannot dispute the above without abandoning scientifically supported reasoning and resorting to mere rhetoric. As you have done.

  57. #57 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    ‘Long-established and absolutely robust chemistry demonstrates that the rapid and substantial increase in the atmospheric fraction of CO2 will reduce ocean pH.’

    H’mm

    You’ve done the chemistry with all the different compositions of seawater that exist? Taking into account all the different starting pHs? And all the different local conditions? Under actual oceanic weather conditions and with all the oceanic currents and layering?

    The only way that I know to do measurements on an ‘oceanic’ and so demonstrate ‘ocean acidification’ is to go and measure the oceans.

    Until you’ve done that the best you have is an expectation that your theory is correct.

  58. #58 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    You’ve done the chemistry with all the different compositions of seawater that exist?

    Please explain your point.

  59. #59 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    The only way that I know to do measurements on an ‘oceanic’ and so demonstrate ‘ocean acidification’ is to go and measure the oceans.

    And the reason for that is..? (see above: you’re an idiot).

  60. #60 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Mind you, latte has managed to prove my theory that he’d merely move goalposts if anyone answered his petulant demands.

  61. #61 bill
    January 22, 2013

    So, Latimer, what is that you imagine you’re achieving?

    You have to hide from AGW, particularly after you’ve inadvertently given us a long exposition on why it has to be correct – irrefutable theory + lots and lots of empirical fact – and you’ve got nothing but your pearl of willful ignorance to polish on OA.

    Frankly, given a choice between the word of an ageing hysteric who was such a fine ‘atmospheric chemist’ that he ended up in IT (and, let’s face it, we all know there’s something rather, um, squishy at the core of that claim anyway) and, say, Professor Keith Hunter and Prof. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, to name a couple of the key people from our neck of the woods, not to mention their respective teams; well, no sane person could possibly imagine that you’re more credible, could they?

    See, you’ll whine about arguing from authority, but that’s what you’ve tried to do – present yourself, unconvincingly, as some sort of authority – but you have to come to a ‘backwater’ like Deltoid to play the game, don’t you, because the genuinely adept and competent in that specific field would just laugh at you, wouldn’t they?

    Or just snort and move on, pausing only to note that it’s sad what happens to people…

    And it’s not just them, is it? And it’s not just OA, it’s AGW, and probably a host of other issues where reality’s famous liberal bias and the clear evidence that your emotional attachments have you backing the wrong horses time and time again has you seething with resentment, isn’t it?

    Damon Runyon said it beautifully -

    It may be that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong – but that is the way to bet.

    It sure is. A rabble of far-Right malcontents and bona-fide lunatics vs. the CSIRO, the BoM, the NAS, NASA, NOAA, all the world’s Academies of Science – who do you think you are kidding, you singularly pathetic old man?

    So now you’re a troll. Brighter than most, perhaps, but no better, and with no better case, than the fanatics and fools who are cheering you on, because they’re too thick to realise your verbosity and pretentious arrogance doesn’t make up for your lack of a case.

    You are wasting your time. And, since you’re here, now, doing this, you’ve wasted your life.

  62. #62 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2013

    It s very simple There’s only one way I that I deem acceptable to show this and I refuse to find out why the scientists say it is happening.

    FIFY.

    So far it hasn’t has been established – just not strongly enough via the only way I deem valid.

    FIFY as well.

    And speaking of reasonable inferences:

    But I claim without looking for any confirmation or disconfirmation that so is the one that says the buffering effect of the seawater will overwhelm the very slight CO2 effect even though scientists say otherwise and I REFUSE to find out why they say so or rebut their case.

    FIFY as well.

    Compare and contrast with the evidence presented for ‘ocean acidification’. Only five locations that I can see. Only 113 years of observations (half of them proxies) that I can see. And 16995 papers I haven’t read, some of which probably contain relevant data and methodologies that I haven’t yet imagined existing – along with oodles of well-established theory that the predictions are based upon, as BBD points out.

    FIFY too.

  63. #63 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    And hell, why isn’t chubby chammie here demanding Latte here give up his idea that water stays in one place and doesn’t move???

    Latte’s ideas are antithetical to spanking donkey’s BPT “theory”.

  64. #64 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘There’s only one way I that I deem acceptable to show this and I refuse to find out why the scientists say it is happening.’

    If you know of another way of showing that pH is decreasing other than by measuring pH and showing it is decreasing then please tell us all.

    And it is not what I ‘deem to be acceptable’. It is what the scientifc method deems to be acceptable. Simply put

    ‘Observations and Experiments rule OK’

    If this idea is still troubling you, please watch the first 60 seconds of this little clip.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

    ‘And 16995 papers I haven’t read, some of which probably contain relevant data and methodologies that I haven’t yet imagined existing – along with oodles of well-established theory that the predictions are based upon, as BBD points out.’

    I think we’ve done a pretty good job of crowdsourcing a literature search here for relevant data that speaks to the process of acidification. That Google returns 16995 hits to ‘ocean acdification’ doesn’t tell you very much at all about those with relevant data. I get 2.1 million hits on ‘cold fusion’ but that doesn’t mean that I need read all 2.1 million looking for confirmatory data (or not).

    It may be that one or two others are hidden lurkers, but all the learned review papers keep focussing back on just three of the five we’ve found. And if there are some there that you know we’ve missed, then please draw them to our attention.

    Maybe next week there’ll be a whole slew of other stuff that changes the game. But until that is published, the best you have is an expectation that ‘ocean acidification’ is taking place.

    And if I may say so, you are all getting far too worked up about this – as if I have committed blasphemy or something just by asking to see the observational data that confirms ‘ocean acidification’. And found there to be only a little.

    In another life we called it the ‘Show Me’ test. It’s not hard or difficult or complicated. It is very straightforward.

    But for the last time before lunch here we go:

    To demonstrate that ‘ocean acidification’ is occurring you need to show – by measurement – that ‘oceans’ are acidifying. Not just coastal waters off Hawaii or Bermuda or the Canaries or Tatoosh Island. But oceans.

    And you can have all the theories and eminent professors and learned journals that you want all supporting the idea that ‘it must be’, ‘we expect it to be’ ‘it should be’.

    But you won’t actually know until you’ve made the observations. Until then its just a theory.

    The nearest analogy I can come up with is aircraft design (and I acknowledge that it’s not perfect). You can have the best designers and the most eminent advisers and the best wind tunnel and the superest computers all working on producing the finest bit of kit the world has ever seen.

    But until it actually flies, it’s just a heap of metal and stuff. You only truly know that it’s an aeroplane when it flies.

  65. #65 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    Check out what Latimer tried to do again:

    Latimer:

    What is your best judgement about how many stations will be needed to show ocean acidification is real?

    Wow:

    One would be enough.

    Latimer:

    Really? Just one to cover the oceans?

    Wow:

    Who said anything about covering the oceans?

    Latimer:

    … that is what the word ‘ocean’ is trying to convey. Like ‘global’ in ‘global warming’.

    Either he’s confused or he’s stupid.

    ‘ Feynman says Occam is a crock’
    News to me. I don’t think he gave any opinion on Ockham.
    Please explain.

    That’s the point, Latimer – you are invoking a mysterious and never-observed phenomenon we can call the “Latimer-Buffering-Effect” to underpin your denial of the known and observed chemistry of water and CO2, while at the same time trying to pretend you have the foggiest what Feynman wants us to believe.

    Ocean acidification is a process that is well-understood, observed, and observed over time in the oceans, including every single one of the oceans for which you erroneously denied there exists such data.

    Nobody says it better than BBD has, and this advice goes for everything denialists have trouble with, from immunology to evolution, plate tectonics to the greenhouse effect:

    Long-established and absolutely robust chemistry demonstrates that the rapid and substantial increase in the atmospheric fraction of CO2 will reduce ocean pH. How could it not? Why would the laws that govern chemical interactions *change*?

  66. #66 Lionel A
    January 22, 2013

    Colour shifter dribbled:

    I agree that smoking tobacco is not good for you, but that would be conflating the issue here wouldn’t it?

    Only to somebody unaware of the tactics and cast of characters involved in not only denial of the dangers of smoking but acid rain, CFCs v ozone and GW/climate change amongst other topics of industrial-political-mercenary shame.

    Copies of, amongst other titles, ‘Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming’ and ‘Merchants of Doubt’ will fill in some of the gaps.

    They aren’t funding the Heartland Institute” or many other forms of research and charities because they’re trying to make you take up smoking!

    But they are funding the Heartland Institute” or many other forms of research and charities because they’re not trying to make you not take up smoking!

    You should look up the work of John Mashey reported on e.g. here and here .

    Also ‘Golden Holocaust
    Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition’ by Robert Proctor
    would be a revelation to you, it seems.

    Note to Latimer:

    You should also take some of your own advice and get out more and chase up some of the above (and much, much more) before spouting off inferring the narrowness of experience of others, on the flimsiest of absence of evidence.

  67. #67 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2013

    If you know of another way of showing that pH is decreasing other than by measuring pH and showing it is decreasing then please tell us all.

    We’ve measured decreasing pH. AND it lines up very well with theory, theory which includes the concept of “buffering”.

    Oh, wait, you discard those measurements for spurious reasons – you’re a denier of the best inference from all the evidence.

    It is what the scientifc method deems to be acceptable.

    Saying it (yet again) does not make it so. You claim you’re just insisting on observations and experiments, but you’re denying any methodology other than your one method, and you’re denying the best inference from the experimental data we do have.

    (Why do you think you refuse to find out what scientists say about the magnitude of the buffering effects you speculate about compared to the CO2 inputs? You can’t allow yourself to lose one of your denial crutches, perhaps?)

    I think we’ve done a pretty good job of crowdsourcing a literature search here for relevant data that speaks to the process of acidification.

    Good grief, we haven’t come close to “a pretty good job of relevant data”! We’ve merely had a small attempt at pointing you to the data that you stamp your feet and insist upon, not all the relevant data. (Why exactly do you think I keep asking you why you refuse to find out what scientists say about certain things and why they say it?)

    …the best you have is an expectation that ‘ocean acidification’ is taking place.

    Nope.

    Even if we restrict ourselves to the small set of papers you are willing to consider, the best inference is that ocean acidification – no scare quotes needed – is taking place.

    You may quibble about the uncertainty intervals on the trends and magnitudes and what not and you’ll find a lot less disagreement – but the data that has been presented here goes against your claim. The ONLY way you can “support” your claim is by refusing to draw the best inference from all the data.

    To demonstrate that ‘ocean acidification’ is occurring you need to show – by measurement – that ‘oceans’ are acidifying.

    You have a chemistry Masters, and you apparently don’t understand the concept of drawing inferences from testing samples? Sheesh.

    So I repeat – it’s a lie to say that we haven’t demonstrated it at all. What hasn’t been demonstrated is acidification with small enough confidence intervals for your liking.

    But until it actually flies, it’s just a heap of metal and stuff.

    Inconvenient analogy. They train pilots and test fly new planes in simulators these days. They apparently have no problem drawing strong inferences about flight dynamics of designs that haven’t physically flown from those simulations.

  68. #68 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2013

    Nobody says it better than BBD has…

    Hear, hear!

  69. #69 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2013

    And for anyone still playing along at home, here are some FAQs for public consumption, created and vetted by a number of ocean research scientists.

    I’m sure Latimer will set them all straight because his arguments show they’re wrong on several points – starting with the very first FAQ on why it’s actually called “acidification”.

    Please let us know what they say in response to your corrections, Latimer.

  70. #70 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    If you know of another way of showing that pH is decreasing other than by measuring pH and showing it is decreasing then please tell us all.

    Who says we’d do something other than measure the pH?

    Nobody.

    ‘Observations and Experiments rule OK’

    And indeed we have observations and experiments.

    Except you deny their existence.

    I get 2.1 million hits on ‘cold fusion’ but that doesn’t mean that I need read all 2.1 million looking for confirmatory data (or not).

    Since you haven;t been claiming that there are no papers on cold fusion, but HAVE claimed there is nothing about ocean acidification in many parts of the ocean, what is your point?

  71. #71 Lionel A
    January 22, 2013

    Latimer dropped:

    If you know of another way of showing that pH is decreasing other than by measuring pH and showing it is decreasing then please tell us all.

    Well you could try studying the effect on various oceanic organisms, such as Coccolithophores, that rely upon carbonates for structure. Of course you do too and I am sure deleterious effects will be presenting themselves in humans ere long.

    Here is an outdoor path for you to find out more although I could recommend some texts on e.g. oceanography too, Coccolithophore and take the offered path therein to ‘Ocean acidification’. Noticeable deteriorations in the formation of coccolithophore structures due to changing ocean pH have been reported on.

    I leave the follow up on that to you as an exercise in ‘getting out more’.

  72. #72 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    just by asking to see the observational data that confirms ‘ocean acidification’. And found there to be only a little.

    Since you’ve been GIVEN the observational data that confirms ocean acidification, what’s your point?

    That the outrage against your denial of the data having been given to you is about “your blasphemy”?

    Your insistence on thinking yourself a persecuted Galileo is indicative of the deep mental problems you have.

    Your assertion that the outrage against your denial is outrage against what you CLAIM it is about, in contravention of all evidence, is more evidence of your psychosis.

  73. #73 BBD
    January 22, 2013

    Latimer

    And if I may say so, you are all getting far too worked up about this – as if I have committed blasphemy or something just by asking to see the observational data that confirms ‘ocean acidification’. And found there to be only a little.

    Yes, we’ve discussed this. Now let’s return to chemistry.

    Why do you think that the theoretical and experimental work that demonstrates – unequivocally – that the rapidly increasing atmospheric fraction of CO2 will lower ocean pH is questionable? You are, after all, questioning it.

    This is equivalent to questioning the fundamentals of chemistry itself. Only the deranged and rhetoricians with an axe to grind would do that.

    You don’t appear to be deranged, so…

  74. #74 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2013

    You are, after all, questioning it.

    Cue Latimer denying it, perhaps by arguing that he’s holding a “null position” on the matter, in

    3…
    2…
    1…

  75. #75 Bernard J.
    January 22, 2013

    If you know of another way of showing that pH is decreasing other than by measuring pH and showing it is decreasing then please tell us all

    Lionel’s beaten me to the punch, but it is well-understood that marine organisms are integrators of ocean acidification. After all, that’s what the concern is about.

    There’s a huge body of literature already building up on the subject, but for those who don’t have the ability to find it and/or who have short attention spans (such as the current henge of trolls), these three cover some of the impacted taxa:

    http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/article-colomban-coco.pdf

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n4/abs/ngeo460.html

    http://www.co.broward.fl.us/NaturalResources/ClimateChange/Documents/bgd-5-4453-2008.pdf

  76. #76 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    Until you’ve tested every single organism in every single ocean, I think the jury will remain out on whether the effects of acidification are deleterious….

  77. #77 Stu
    January 22, 2013

    Oh hogwash. There are still fish, right? So what’s the problem? Where’s your proof?

    [/sarcasm]

  78. #78 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Well, all those crustaceans are different, so you don’t know if they all have a problem with carbonic acid. And they evolve, so you have to prove that they won’t “just adapt” to it.

    By, for example, becoming extinct.

  79. #79 Lionel A
    January 22, 2013

    Bernard J

    Lionel’s beaten me to the punch,…

    And you in turn beat me to the follow up. I am rather handicapped still (chek thanks and it is ‘Phoenix Squadron’ BTW, that latter just in case others are trying to follow that aside) whilst testing my stamina, or lack thereof.

    Here is one bit of background on the natgeoscience letter: Social justice and reduced calcification in planktonic foraminifera.

    So whilst some worry about windmills spoiling the view others are deeply concerned about the impacts on ecosystems and the infrastructure that supports them for we realise that we are a part of this bigger picture and a major and largely a very ignorant, or in some cases arrogantly immune to understanding, part at that.

    But then of course my interests in physics, chemistry – various branches of, biology, ecology, palaeo-this-that-and-the-other-gy (and many other things) makes me insular and needing to get out more.

  80. #80 guthrie
    January 22, 2013

    The basic point, that the amount of CO2 dissolved in seawater will change depending on temp and CO2 conc was conceded right at the start of this by Latimer. Therefore to continue to deny that increased atmospheric CO2 concs will drive down oceanic pH indicates he is stupid or a troll. Or maybe both.

  81. #81 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @wow

    ‘You’ve done the chemistry with all the different compositions of seawater that exist?’

    There is no simple thing like ‘typical seawater’. There is just the seawater that exists at a particular place and according to the local conditions. Some of the things that vary are salinity, starting pH, temperature, depth, inorganic composition…these have been well documented in the OA literature. And even at the same location, these can vary greatly with depth and currents. And so. just like no individual weather station can be nominated as ‘typical’ of the globe’s climate, no single observation of ‘ocean acidification’ can be taken as typical of ‘an ocean’ as a whole – nor of the globe.

    The measurements in Hawaii, for example are for relatively warm water, close to large chunks of metamorphic rock (volcanoes).

    The seawater chemistry here will be quite different from say, the North Sea which is shallower, colder and mostly bordered on sedimentary rocks (esp calcium carbonate). For the claim of ‘ocean acidification’ to be true, you need at least to be able to show that the phenomenon occurs under a far wider range of circumstances than just the five local environments that have been measured.

    To demonstrate global warming’ took about 3000 locations (some may argue it could have been done with fewer, but haven’t yet come up with an estimate of how many).

    It will take considerably more than 5 locations to show that ‘ocean acidification’ is really occurring at an oceanic level

  82. #82 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    There is no simple thing like ‘typical seawater’

    There is.

    If it’s water, in the sea, then it’s seawater.

    The hint is in the name.

    Some of the things that vary are salinity, starting pH, temperature, depth, inorganic composition

    How do you know? Have you checked ALL of it?

  83. #83 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    PS including the Indian Ocean et al?

    You know, those places where you said pH hadn’t been recorded.

    ROFL!

  84. #84 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @vince whirlwind

    ‘Ocean acidification is a process that is well-understood, observed, and observed over time in the oceans, including every single one of the oceans for which you erroneously denied there exists such data’

    Well its a very very strange sort of data when you can’t actually point me to where it is shown in the papers you repeatedly claim to contain it.

    I’ll ask you once again – I think for at least the third time..

    I have looked at the papers you cited. I could not find the data you claim is there. Please indicate under which section it is discussed, or in which reference or wherever I need to go to find it..

    You’ve obviously found it yourself, so you’ll be helping us all out by making it crystal clear where to look.

    Thanks for your time

  85. #85 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Well its a very very strange sort of data when you can’t actually point me to where it is shown in the papers you repeatedly claim to contain it.

    So you can’t even read?

    And you demand that Vince read it out to you, explain the data, methods and conclusions, so you don’t have to do any work?

    Really, stop skiving off and start STRIVING, you scrounger.

    I bet you’re on bloody winter heating allowance and other government handouts out the wazzoo.

  86. #86 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “The seawater chemistry here will be quite different from say, the North Sea”

    Does it reject CO2?

    No.

    Does it refuse to produce carbonic acid?

    No.

    So your point is what?

    Sound and fury, signifying:

    NOTHING.

  87. #87 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @lotharsson

    ‘You claim you’re just insisting on observations and experiments, but you’re denying any methodology other than your one method, and you’re denying the best inference from the experimental data we do have.’

    If you confine yourself to saying that

    ‘ocean acidfication’ is our best inference (or ‘expectation’) of what will occur’,

    I’m cool. with that.

    As long as you don’t claim – as Guthrie did – that it is an

    ‘established scientific fact’.

    Until you’ve made the observations and they have confirmed your inference (or not) then no such fact has been established..

    Excellent – we got there in the end.

  88. #88 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @wow

    ‘ Some of the things that vary are salinity, starting pH, temperature, depth, inorganic composition

    How do you know? Have you checked ALL of it?’

    Umm no – to show that these things vary I only need two samples that differ in each. Then I have shown that there is at least as much possible variation as I can show between them.

    Forgive me if I am being over harsh, but I don’t think that you have spent much time doing real chemistry in a lab otherwise this would be an unlikely question to ask.

  89. #89 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “Umm no”

    So go find out.

    Let us see your data when you’ve collected it.

    And THEN we’ll take your word for it that these differ.

  90. #90 BBD
    January 22, 2013

    Latimer

    The weakness of your reasoning is evident:

    It will take considerably more than 5 locations to show that ‘ocean acidification’ is really occurring at an oceanic level

    Do you argue that the average pH of the vast majority of the world ocean is already so low that ~390ppmv CO2 (well mixed and continuously rising) will *not* reduce pH further?

    Is this what you believe? Yes/no.

    If yes, please reference. If no, please explain why not. Explain why robust, fundamental theory and experimental confirmation are not reliable guides to the chemical reactions involved.

    Unless average ocean pH is already so low that further reduction could not be driven by the increase in atmospheric CO2, it will occur. It must. See ‘robust theory and experimentation’, above.

    Are you really going to push this any further, with all these people watching…?

  91. #91 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    As long as you don’t claim – as Guthrie did – that it is an

    ‘established scientific fact’.

    I bet you never tell your “university” that, do you.

    If you had pretended to get through atmospheric chemistry and thought that this:

    http://ion.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3600/Overheads/Carbonate/CO2.html

    Was not valid, they’d have taken your certificate away from you.

    Except it’s probably one of those mail-order places, isn’t it.

  92. #92 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @lionel a

    i followed your links. But I doubt if the Coccolithophore are in fact very good pH proxies given the report here

    ‘However, some studies have found different response to ocean acidification, with coccolithophore calcification and photosynthesis both increasing under elevated atmospheric pCO2,[54][55][56] an equal decline in primary production and calcification in response to elevated CO2[57] or the direction of the response varying between species’

    Maybe one day it’ll all get sorted out and they’ll be useful, but not yet

    Ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

    as per the link you recommended.

  93. #93 Jeff Harvey
    January 22, 2013

    Latimer, for a guy with a basic chemistry degree, you are a real comedian. If there is any consensus in the debate over atmospheric C02 concentrations and its effects, one of the strongest is on driving a decline in marine pH levels that will lead to levels unreached in millions of years:

    https://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/AnthropogenicCandOceanpH.pdf

    The literature is replete with similar studies and more recently on their attendant ecological effects. I would think that if you were a statured scientist, with profound expertise in the area and a lengthy list of peer-reviewed publications, then I would take what you say seriously.

    But you’re not. You are a rookie. You lack any expertise in the field. And your ‘ views’ are at odds with those in the field.

    What we have here folks, is another Dunning-Kruger candidate promulgating opinions not based on actual science but instead using science to camouflage some other political or economic views. Why else would total laymen think that they know more than those with years of experience? I have seen this pattern repeated on thread after thread on Deltoid (nowhere more so than on the you-know-who thread). People who have absolutely no expertise in any scientific field wade in here parading their ignorance as if they understand complex areas of science that have somehow bypassed those working in the field.

  94. #94 Jeff Harvey
    January 22, 2013

    As a postscript, I will say that Latimer, you won’t win a debate here or anywhere. If you think you possess some innate brilliance that has mysteriously bypassed the academic community, then why haven’t you written up your fabulous ideas and sent them out to a journal like Nature or Science? I have asked Jonas that a gazillion times and he routinely ignores it, thinking that if he can bluff and fake and evade and pontificate here, that he will win some big intellectual victory.

    The real reason that the deniers here don’t throw their scintillating ideas out into the scientific arena is that their ideas aren’t scintillating at all but are instead garbage. But as long as they can drag the discussions on and on and on and on in commentaries on blogs, it builds up their egos and gives them the impression of being scholars. That satisfies them and their fragile egos. Hence why they are stuck on blogs forever.

  95. #95 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @bbd

    ‘Why do you think that the theoretical and experimental work that demonstrates – unequivocally – that the rapidly increasing atmospheric fraction of CO2 will lower ocean pH is questionable? You are, after all, questioning it.’

    Because I’ve spent enough time working out in the real world to know that lab work doesn’t necessarily scale up to the outside world. And the theoretical models are never comprehensive enough to give the whole picture.

    You hope that the lab work will be indicative of how the real world reacts, you may expect that it will …but until you’ve done the work out of the lab and actually in the environment for which your bench work is but an imperfect model, you haven’t proved it.

    That’s why.

  96. #96 Jeff Harvey
    January 22, 2013

    Latimer: “You hope that the lab work will be indicative of how the real world reacts, you may expect that it will …but until you’ve done the work out of the lab and actually in the environment for which your bench work is but an imperfect model, you haven’t proved it”

    Shorter Latimer: Until I see even more massive die-offs of coral reefs, phytoplankton and other biota than has already occurred, I will deny that increased atmospheric C02 will lower marine pH levels or have negative effects on marine biodiversity

  97. #97 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @guthrie

    ‘The basic point, that the amount of CO2 dissolved in seawater will change depending on temp and CO2 conc was conceded right at the start of this by Latimer. Therefore to continue to deny that increased atmospheric CO2 concs will drive down oceanic pH indicates he is stupid or a troll. ‘

    H’mm

    You’re going to have to talk me through the bit that starts ‘therefore. Especially the proof that atmospheric CO2 drives down pH *in seawater*. Quite happy that it does so in *pure water*.

    But as I said way back when at the very beginning of this discussion, seawater ain’t pure water.

  98. #98 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Because I’ve spent enough time working out in the real world to know that lab work doesn’t necessarily scale up to the outside world.

    Look, we already KNOW you’re incompetent.

    But is that any reason to insist that everyone else must be?

  99. #99 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Especially the proof that atmospheric CO2 drives down pH *in seawater*.

    You’ve already been shown that proof.

    Look at my link above.

  100. #100 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    seawater ain’t pure water.

    So you think seawater has no H2O in it.

1 5 6 7 8 9 22