Ocean acidification junk science

Most research on the effects of ocean acidification are flawed according to a Nature article.  But we still believe the evidence?From Nature, Crucial ocean-acidification models come up short

I followed Milloy’s tweet on this article.  The reading was interesting because the authors of the study on research, Experimental design in ocean acidification research: problems and solutions,  found serious experimental design flaws on research.  Yet they believe that there is still a problem.  Belief trumps science?

Cornwall says that the “overwhelming evidence” from such studies of the negative effects of ocean acidification still stands. For example, more-acidic waters slow the growth and worsen the health of many species that build structures such as shells from calcium carbonate. But the pair’s discovery that many of the experiments are problematic makes it difficult to assess accurately the magnitude of effects of ocean acidification, and to combine results from individual experiments to build overall predictions for how the ecosystem as a whole will behave, he says.

Shell fish grow in water with varying pH, yet we seem to look at decreasing the mythical sea pH is by 0.1 standard unit is supposed to be very damaging.  A number of the studies tend to look at one variable, pH, and ignore others, like pollution.  Are they saying that for all the ranting and raving about water quality in the Chesapeake Bay, that all we need to do is raid the pH?


3 responses to “Ocean acidification junk science

  1. Canadian water authorities allow a ph of between 7- 8.7 for estuarine coastal and marine waters.

  2. Nature published some of our earliest and most important papers, but now blocks me from commenting on the junk published there.

    Thanks to this site and a few other hard-hitting blogs, like Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard, we now know that we had only comic book science after 1945 but suspected nothing until late November 2009 when Climategate emails exposed the tip of the iceberg of deceit that had been growing in federal research agencies since nations and national academies of science were united into a giant Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Science (UN)Truths on October 24, 1945.

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) best illustrates the growth of this problem after seventy years (1945-2015).

    DOE now denies the source of energy that powers the universe and causes it to expand and fill interstellar space with hydrogen – NEUTRON REPULSION in cores of:

    1. Heavy atoms like Uranium
    2. Some planets like Jupiter
    3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
    4. Galaxies like the Milky Way
    5. The now expanding Cosmos


    My research mentor, the late Prof. Paul K. Kuroda, tried to prevent this deception by secretly retaining a copy of Japan’s successful atomic bomb design for fifty-seven years (1945-2002):


  3. The first error the alarmists make is to assume that the water at and near the sea surface will behave in the same way as pure water in the laboratory. The surface waters of the world’s oceans are a soup of living organisms.

    Rather like imagining the Earth’s atmosphere will react to CO2 as the laboratory based models say it will.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s