“Ocean acidification” (OA) is
receiving growing attention. While someone who doesn’t follow climate change
science might think OA is a stomach condition resulting from eating bad
seafood, OA is claimed to be a phenomenon that will destroy ocean life—all due
to mankind’s use of fossil fuels. It is a foundational theory upon which the
global warming/climate change narrative is built.
The
science and engineering website
Quest recently
posted:
“Since the Industrial Revolution in the late 1700s, we have been mining and
burning coal, oil, and natural gas for energy and transportation. These
processes release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. It is well
established that the rising level of CO2 in our atmosphere is a major cause of
global warming. However, the increase in CO2 is also causing changes to the
chemistry of the ocean. The ocean absorbs some of the excess atmospheric CO2,
which causes what scientists call ocean acidification. And ocean acidification
could have major impacts on marine life.”
Within the Quest text is a link to
a
chart
by Dr.
Richard
A. Feely, who is a senior scientist with the Pacific Marine
Environmental Laboratory (PMEL)—which is part of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Feely’s climate-crisis views are widely used
to support the narrative.
Feely’s four-page report: “Carbon
Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy,”
offered on
the NOAA website, contains a similar chart. This chart, titled “Historical
& Projected pH & Dissolved Co
2,” begins at 1850. Feely
testified
before Congress in 2010—using the same data that show a decline in seawater pH
(making it more acidic) that appears to coincide with increasing atmospheric
carbon dioxide.
In 2010, Feely
received
the $100,000 cash prize from the Heinz Family Foundation awards (established by
Teresa Heinz, wife of Secretary of State
John Kerry).
The Heinz award site
touts Feely’s
work: “Ocean acidity is now considered global warming’s ‘evil twin,’ thanks in
large measure to Dr. Feely’s seminal research on the changing ocean chemistry
and its impact on marine ecosystems.”
The December edition of the
scientific journal
Nature Climate Change features
commentary
titled: “Lessons learned from ocean acidification research.”
However, an inquisitive graduate
student presented me with a very different “lesson” on OA research.
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.
Feely’s chart, first mentioned,
begins in 1988—which is surprising, as instrumental ocean pH data have been
measured for more than 100 years — since the invention of the glass electrode pH (GEPH)
meter. As a hydrologist, Wallace was aware of GEPH’s history and found it odd
that the Feely/Sabine work omitted it. He went to the source. The NOAA paper
with the chart beginning in 1850 lists Dave Bard, with Pew
Charitable Trust, as the contact.
Wallace sent Bard an e-mail: “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 e-mail with: “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.” But
communications did continue for several more exchanges.
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.”
In his last e-mail exchange,
Wallace offers to close out the FOIA because the e-mail string “clarified that
your subject paper (and especially the ‘History’ segment of the associated time
series pH curve) did not rely upon either data or other contemporary
representations for global ocean pH over the period of time between the first
decade of 1900 (when the pH metric was first devised, and ocean pH values
likely were first instrumentally measured and recorded) through and up to just
before 1988.” Wallace received no reply, but the FOIA was closed in July 2013
with a “no document found” response.
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.”
“In whose professional world,”
Wallace asks, “is it acceptable to omit the majority of the data and also to
not disclose the omission to any other soul or Congressional body?”
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.
These taxpayer-funded scientists
are leaders of the OA narrative. They participate in well-funded OA research
programs and sit on advisory councils, such as the
Wendy
Schmidt Ocean Health X Prize that offers a $2 million prize related to
ocean pH measurements. “It all seems authentic and quite legitimate.” Yet their
work is based on, as Wallace calls it, “a new history of ocean pH” — one that
“is significantly different from the history suggested by actual measurements
and other sources of peer review literature.”
Wallace came to me, because I’ve
addressed similar cases of
data
omissions or use of
bad
science in relation to climate change issues, and he hoped I’d see the
importance of his discovery—where his Senators did not. I am not a scientist,
but I understand the broader issues. I’ve read through the e-mails, the FOIA,
and Wallace’s recounting of the details. I’ve had several scientists review
this accounting. It holds water (no pun intended).
As he initially did with Wallace,
Sabine (should he see this) will likely dismiss me as some two-bit blogger who
“will not last long” in my career. I invite him to prove me wrong—as Dr. Tim
Ball has done with Michael Mann of the “hockey stick”
fame.
In addition to my efforts to raise
awareness of this issue, Wallace authored a
petition
that he urges my readers to sign. We also strongly encourage you to ask your
representatives in Washington questions on this issue. Wallace concludes:
“Ocean acidification may seem like a minor issue to some, but besides being
wrong, it is a crucial leg to the entire narrative of ‘human-influenced climate
change.’ By urging our leaders in science and policy to finally disclose and
correct these omissions, you will be helping to bring honesty, transparency,
and accountability back where it is most sorely needed.”
