How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 - Sea Butterflies

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 - Sea Butterflies

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Mar 01, 2017 3:34 pm

How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 - Sea Butterflies

Image
If you google “ocean acidification,” the first 3 websites presented according to “Google’s truth rankings” are: 1) Wikipedia, 2) NOAA’s PMEL site featuring the graphic cartoon shown below with a dissolving pteropod shell (a sea butterfly) as the icon of ocean acidification, and 3) the Smithsonian’s Ocean Portal site similarly featuring a dissolving sea butterfly shell. However NOAA’s illustration incorrectly implies shells are dissolving near the surface due to invading anthropogenic atmospheric CO2. As will be shown, the depiction would be far more accurate if it was turned upside down, so that the downward arrows point upwards to illustrate shell dissolution happens when old carbon stored at depth is upwelled to the surface. Furthermore the horizontal depiction of extreme dissolution illustrated by their intact (green) sea butterfly shell dissolving into an extremely shriveled shell (red), rarely if ever happens in the ocean’s upper layers. Surface waters are supersaturated regards calcium carbonates. Although upwelling causes some near surface dissolution, dead sea-butterfly shells only experience such extreme dissolution when they sink to depths containing ancient corrosive waters.
Read whole essay here: http://landscapesandcycles.net/how-noaa ... -icon.html
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24019
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 - Sea Butterflies

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Mar 01, 2017 4:05 pm

Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 - Sea Butterflies

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:20 pm

As usual Gawdzilla, you off another erudite scientific discussion. Matter fact In all my time here I dont think I have ever seen a post by you that argues the evidence or the concepts. I read more cogent posts from low level sheeple.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24019
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 - Sea Butterflies

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:42 pm

I (don't) wonder what he said there.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 - Sea Butterflies

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:37 pm

Lets take 5 seconds to google (ipcc ocean acidification):

Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

10.4.2 Ocean Acidification Due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide>

Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations lower oceanic pH and carbonate ion concentrations, thereby decreasing the saturation state with respect to calcium carbonate (Feely et al., 2004). The main driver of these changes is the direct geochemical effect due to the addition of anthropogenic CO2 to the surface ocean (see Box 7.3). Surface ocean pH today is already 0.1 unit lower than pre-industrial values (Section 5.4.2.3). In the multi-model median shown in Figure 10.23, pH is projected to decrease by another 0.3 to 0.4 units under the IS92a scenario by 2100. This translates into a 100 to 150% increase in the concentration of H+ ions (Orr et al., 2005). Simultaneously, carbonate ion concentrations will decrease. When water is undersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate, marine organisms can no longer form calcium carbonate shells (Raven et al., 2005).

Case Jim Steele No 86: Closed.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_da ... 0-4-2.html
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 - Sea Butterflies

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:08 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Lets take 5 seconds to google (ipcc ocean acidification):
And as wholly anticipated, 99% of the people on this forum will not take more than 5 seconds to read the article. Nor would the warmunistas take more than 5 seconds to ask how do scientists determine if a lower surface pH is due to rising ancient carbon versus diffusing atmospheric carbon. The evidence is on the side of upwelling ancient carbon. So stick your fingers in your ears and deny the evidence.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 - Sea Butterflies

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Mar 02, 2017 2:25 am

Case Jim Steele No 86: Closed.

You seem to think causation and logic demands the false "either/or" scenario. but everyone knows: Its both.

Same with all your other Its either all Natural and Not Man Made or All man Made....false decision points.

And just as the 97% cannot give you proof otherwise, your 3% position doesn't even attack the consenus. Your argument does........your evidence even if true.......does not.

ain't that a bitch?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 - Sea Butterflies

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Mar 02, 2017 2:55 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: You seem to think causation and logic demands the false "either/or" scenario. but everyone knows: Its both.
When you only investigate for 5 seconds, then it is easy to create what ever narrative you choose Bobbo.You are again creating another bobbo straw man , fabricating my decision point from your own squirming imagination. Critical thinkers examine and analyze for days and months and years, not just your 5 second fantasy trip.

Anyone who reads the essay quickly realizes the issue is how to separate CO2 upwelling from the deep vs diffusion of CO2 from above. The NOAA scientists are readily shown to have made conclusions that contradict their own evidence. Unless you can show otherwise ,all your bobbo psychobabble is just more meaningless blather, Bobbo blather case 10, 936 closed ROTFLMAO
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 - Sea Butterflies

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Mar 02, 2017 3:27 am

"Bobbo blather case 10, 936 closed ROTFLMAO" //// You seem to follow the leader fairly easily.

Who told you AGW was false? That all the scientists that have accepted and are working it are wrong?? That you can add all the co2 to the atmosphere you want to without any consequences at all?

Can you remember who it was????? Did they like animal pictures too?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 - Sea Butterflies

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Mar 02, 2017 4:11 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Who told you AGW was false?
ROTFLMAO. Bobbo your blather is hilarious. Please provide the quote in the essay posted here, where I state AGW is false. (Its just insignificant relative to natural variability, but I have demonstrated that to you over and over on many earlier posts)

If possible try to stay focused. I am providing solid evidence that NOAA's assertion that anthropogenic CO2 is dissolving sea butterfly shells is false. The more parsimonious conclusion supported by many lines of evidence shows it was upwelling of ancient carbon. The essay provides prime examples of how good science works, and you should learn from it. Psychobabble and irrelvant blather have no place in scientific discussions.

As the movies stated, "You cant handle the truth" So as you always do, you create strawmen and deflect the discussion elsewhere.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 - Sea Butterflies

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Mar 02, 2017 4:19 am

JIm Steele wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Who told you AGW was false?
ROTFLMAO. Bobbo your blather is hilarious. Please provide the quote in the essay posted here, where I state AGW is false. (Its just insignificant relative to natural variability, but I have demonstrated that to you over and over on many earlier posts)
Oh Poor js. the notion that AGW is "insignificant relative to natural variability" is false. AGW is the driver of climate change.....not natural variability. Its why co2 is at the highest level in 6 million years. Natural??????? Well...... more than natural, its determinative WHEN YOU BURN FOSSIL FUELS. Very natural.

You never did confirm that we would be going into another ice age right now except for AGW. Bill Nye got badgered so much by Tucker Carlson's agressive ignorance, he lost the change to state that clearly. But at least he didn't go with corals and tree trunks.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 - Sea Butterflies

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Mar 02, 2017 5:49 pm

NOAA slanted their narratives to suggest shell dissolution was due anthropogenic CO2 when in reality it was all about upwelling ancient CO2. Shell dissoluion is the insignificnt price the snails pay for grazing in highly productive upwelled waters. The shell has virtually no protective value and some pteropods have abandoned shells completley. NOAA tries to suggest even a little etching is catastrophic. From the essay
Pteropods are divided into two main groups: sea butterflies with extremely thin, coiled or cone-shaped shells, and “naked” sea angels that evolved a way to shut off their shell-making genes completely when larvae. Sea butterflies feed by suspending themselves in the water column and extruding a web of mucus that passively catches sinking plankton and other organic particles. In contrast sea angels specialized to aggressively prey on sea butterflies. Abandoning their shell suggests whatever benefits a shell may have provided, those benefits were not critical, but losing the shell increased their maneuverability for the hunt. When encountering a sea butterfly, the bizarre sea angel shoots out tentacles from its head. The tentacles dig into the butterflies’ shells and if properly grasped, the tentacles give the angel leverage to extract the butterfly from its shell opening. Below is a 2-minute video below of a sea angel attacking a sea butterfly (not in English). Fish and whales also feed on sea butterflies, gulping mouthfuls at a time. So overall the butterfly’s shell offers precious little protection from their main predators.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 - Sea Butterflies

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:50 pm

Nothing but either/or false positioning of the subject. You reject the consensus because of some evidence against it, but said evidence on its face does not negate the overwhelming impact of fossil burning. Oceans have been upwelling co2 as part of the natural process. Just a coincidence now is all you've got. A weak link as all your links are. NO DOUBT: part of the process....but not one driving the whole system.

it is truly like you don't have a firm grasp on science...... the warp and weave of it hangs together as a full cloth. A loose thead does not destroy it.

Really.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 - Sea Butterflies

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:23 pm

Bobbo, Please stop the personal attacks and address the topic and evidence at hand.

The issue in this post is where does CO2 reside after entering the ocean. If in the deeper waters it is of little consequence. If in the upper layers it will have an impact but for those who have a firm grasp of the science and peruse te scientific literature, the biological pump sends carbon to depth.Claims of dissolving sea shells are due to upwelling of ancient water

As the essay state,
Bednarsek assumes anthropogenic carbon is mostly accumulating near the surface based on modeling results. However as detailed in Part 2, all ocean acidification models are deeply flawed based on an incorrect assumption that CO2 enters the ocean and is then transported like an inert tracer. But CO2 is not inert! When CO2 first invades sunlit surface waters, it indeed dissolves into 3 forms of inorganic carbon (DIC) and lowers pH (DIC is discussed in How Gaia and Coral Reefs Regulate Ocean pH). But in contrast to those models, DIC is rapidly assimilated into particulate organic carbon via photosynthesis, which raises pH. Particulate organic carbon (alive or dead) is heavy, and if not consumed and recycled, it sinks. For millions of years, this process created and maintained a DIC/pH gradient with high pH/low DIC near the surface and low pH/higher DIC at depth.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 - Sea Butterflies

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:45 pm

James: please stop describing every disagreement with your fantasy life as a personal attack. (Oops...I'll give you that one....but not the past five.)

"The issue in this post is where does CO2 reside after entering the ocean." /// Exactly so. Your constant proxy of "part of" the issue being used to characterize the whole.

As stated: even if true.... the fact that ocean upwelling is the proximate cause of stress for our calcium building friends does not negate or even address the issue of AGW. More co2 going into the upper surface of the ocean makes it more acidic, and it sinks and makes the deeper ocean more acidic, and then it is upchucked into the surface waters to kill/impede/"harm" the biosphere.

Your differential mechanism is meaningless.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 - Sea Butterflies

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:41 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Exactly so. Your constant proxy of "part of" the issue being used to characterize the whole..
ROTFLMAO. So if a doctor told Bobbo had cancer of the liver, would bobbo call the doctor stupid because he wasnt' diagnosing his whole body?? Would he berate his doctor for only looking at a "part"? ROTFLMAO

So how would bobbo make sure the doctor ONLY diagnosed the whole without looking at each part?

Would bobbo argue "I am perfectly fine, you only examined my liver"??? Such silliness is likewise being blathered about climate.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo