In 2004, a paper by Dr Richard Feely and Dr Christopher Sabine was published that purports to show that as the atmospheric CO2 increases, the oceans become acidified (1). In 2010, Dr Feely made a presentation to the US Congress where he used this graph to illustrate the reduction of seawater pH. It is reported to be widely used as a reference.
The graph is shown below:
The question that one researcher asked, when he saw the chart was-Why the pH readings, in Feely’s chart, began in 1988?; which was surprising, as instrumental ocean pH data have been measured for more than 100 years — since the invention of the glass electrode pH (GEPH) meter.
Marrita Noon’s posting “What if Obama’s climate change is based on pHraud?” relates the story of this researcher’s observations:
“Mike Wallace is a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience, who is now working on his Ph.D. in nanogeosciences at the University of New Mexico. In the course of his studies, he uncovered a startling data omission that, he told me, “eclipses even the so-called climategate event.”
Feely’s work is based on computer models that don’t line up with real-world data—which Feely acknowledged in e-mail communications with Wallace (which I have read). And, as Wallace determined, there are real world data. Feely and his coauthor Dr. Christopher L. Sabine, PMEL Director, omitted 80 years of data, which incorporate more than 2 million records of ocean pH levels.”
“The Feely chart began in 1850, which caught Wallace’s attention since similar charts all began in 1988. Needing the historic pH data for a project, he went to the source. The NOAA paper with the chart lists Dave Bard, with Pew Charitable Trust, as the contact.
Wallace sent Bard an email: “I’m looking in fact for the source references for the red curve in their plot which was labeled ‘Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2.’ This plot is at the top of the second page. It covers the period of my interest.” Bard responded and suggested that Wallace communicate with Feely and Sabine—which he did over a period of several months. Wallace asked again for the “time series data (NOT MODELING) of ocean pH for 20th century.” Sabine responded by saying that it was inappropriate for Wallace to question their “motives or quality of our science,” adding that if he continued in this manner, “you will not last long in your career.” He then included a few links to websites that Wallace, after spending hours reviewing them, called “blind alleys.” Sabine concludes the email with: “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.” But communications did continue for several more exchanges.
I underlined Sabine’s response to Wallace. This sort of looks like the “climate mafia gang” activities discovered with the 2008/2009 “ClimateGate” revelations. This guy that is bully a student, is the same “Chris” from the last posting “ Bang Bang, FOI shot the NY Times Down” on Climate Change Sanity.
Wallace submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. Noon continues with this:
“In an effort to obtain access to the records Feely/Sabine didn’t want to provide, Wallace filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
In a May 25, 2013 email, Wallace offers some statements, which he asks Feely/Sabine to confirm:
“…it is possible that Dr. Sabine WAS partially responsive to my request. That could only be possible however, if only data from 1989 and later was used to develop the 20th century portion of the subject curve.”
“…it’s possible that Dr. Feely also WAS partially responsive to my request. Yet again, this could not be possible unless the measurement data used to define 20th century ocean pH for their curve, came exclusively from 1989 and later (thereby omitting 80 previous years of ocean pH 20th century measurement data, which is the very data I’m hoping to find).”
Sabine writes: “Your statements in italics are essentially correct.” He adds: “The rest of the curve you are trying to reproduce is from a modeling study that Dr. Feely has already provided and referenced in the publication.” (MORE MODELING!!! UGH)
Wallace makes a new graph with data going back 100 years. Noon tells how this came about:
” Interestingly, in this same general timeframe, NOAA reissued its World Ocean Database. Wallace was then able to extract the instrumental records he sought and turned the GEPH data into a meaningful time series chart, which reveals that the oceans are not acidifying. (For another day, Wallace found that the levels coincide with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.) As Wallace emphasized: “there is no global acidification trend.”
Below is Wallace’s graph:
The measured ocean pH trend from 1910 on, shows an increase in basicity. Not a decrease in basicity. As noted above, Wallace thinks the pH coincides with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
It is disturbing that the political class will not respond to this as note by Noon relates:
“Wallace met with staffers for both of his Senators, Martin Heinrich and Tom Udall (both NM-D), and shared his findings with them — but got no response. Heinrich and Udall both claim adherence to the climate crisis narrative.”
(1) Many object to using the term “acidified” or “acidification” when it is more accurately described as “less basic”. Unfortunately, most people know what is being discussed if the word acidification is used. Lets hope we can soon begin the transition to “less basic” when describing this condition.
In addition to Martina Noon’s posting, I also used Evidence discovered that ‘ocean acidification ‘ scare may be as fraudulent as ‘global warming and “NOAAGATE; HOW ‘OCEAN ACIDIFICATION COULD TURN OUT TO BE THE BIGGEST CON SINCE MICHAEL MANN’S HOCKEY STICK