The Myth of 'Acidification' of Oceans

[marchesarosa]

This paper is written by Professor Cliff Ollier, a geologist and Honorary Research Fellow in the Department of Earth and Environment at the University of Western Australia. He is friend of friend of Ian Ladlaw, one of The Leeds Climateers. His name appeared on a hit list recently of 200 "deniers" who deserved execution according to some nut in Austria. Well, they are the experts in executing folk, I suppose!

How lucky UWA is to have someone on staff with his head screwed on the right way, unlike poor Stephan Lewandowski, the climate psychologist (uh?) who has beguiled poor visitor.

Anyway here is his paper.

The Myth of ‘Acidification’ of Oceans
Cliff Ollier

To demonise CO2 yet again, a false claim is that human production of CO2 will cause the oceans to become acid. ‘Acid’ is an emotive word to the general public, which is why it is seized upon by the alarmists in their search for yet another scare. In reality increasing CO2 makes the ocean become ‘less alkaline’, but never ‘acid’.

pH is a measurement of the amount of hydrogen ion concentration in a solution, the log of the hydrogen ion concentration with the sign changed. Because it is a log scale it is very hard to move a pH of 8.2 to 7.0, which is neutral.

The pH needs to be less than 7 to be ‘acid’, and this has not happened through at least the past 600 million years because it would dissolve limestones, and limestone have been deposited in the sea and not re-dissolved in the sea through all that time.

Many marine organisms need CO2 to make their coral skeletons, carbonate shells and so on. Corals also have symbiotic plants within their flesh that use CO2 in photosynthesis.

Marine life flourishes where CO2 is abundant. Professor Walter Stark wrote about a favourite place for scuba divers, the ‘Bubble Bath’ near Dobu Island, Papua New Guinea. Here CO2 of volcanic origin is bubbling visibly through the water so that the water is saturated with CO2. Abundant life flourishes to make the spot a spectacular diver’s delight. He reported many accurate measurements of pH in the area and concluded “It seems that coral reefs are thriving at pH levels well below the most alarming projections for 2100.”

The pH of sea water can be very variable and makes temperature measurement look like child’s play. Ocean pH varies regionally by 0.3, and seasonally in a particular location by 0,3. But nobody has ever measured ocean water below 7, which is what “acid” means. Rhodes Fairbridge told me that he found the day-night variation in a coral pool was 9.4 to 7.5.

There is another factor called Henry’s Law. Cold water can hold more CO2 than warm, so if you warm saturated water it gives off CO2. You can see the effect if you warm a glass of fizzy drink: it goes flat. The ocean-air interface is usually rough so interchange is rapid. Actually if the aim of the AGW activists is to keep the world cooler by reducing atmospheric CO2 they are going in the direction of increasing ‘acidification’ of the oceans.

One of the factors affecting ocean pH is photosynthesis by plants. Experimental results show that plants grow better if CO2 is increased, and greenhouse managers commonly increase the CO2 artificially to increase crops, often by 30% or more. There is every reason to suppose that marine plants also thrive if CO2 is increased. There is also experimental evidence that carbonate secreting animals thrive in higher CO2. Herfort and colleagues concluded that the likely result of human emissions of CO2 would be an increase in oceanic CO2 that could stimulate photosynthesis and calcification in a wide variety of corals.

Marine life, including that part that fixes CO2 as the carbonate in limestones such as coral reefs, evolved on an Earth with CO2 levels many times higher than those of today, as reported by Berner and Kothaval. It may be true to say that today’s marine life is getting by in a CO2-deprived environment.

Tuvalu has long been ‘hot news’ as the favourite island to be doomed by sea level rise driven by global warming, allegedly caused in turn by anthropogenic carbon dioxide. But if a coral island is sinking slowly (or relative sea level rising slowly) the growth of coral can keep up with it. In the right circumstances some corals can grow over 2 cm in a year, but growth rate depends on many factors. Coral islands, made of living things, are not static dip-sticks against which sea level can be measured. We have to consider coral growth, erosion, transport and deposition of sediment and many other aspects of coral island evolution – not just the pH of seawater. Webb and Kench studied the changes in plan of 27 atoll islands located in the central Pacific, and found that most had remained stable or grown in area over about the past twenty years (despite measured rises in atmospheric CO2 over the same period), and only 15% underwent net reduction in area. One of the largest increases was the 28.3% on one of the islands of Tuvalu. This destroys the argument that the islands are drowning, and coral growth is not reduced by ‘acidity’.

Marine life depends on CO2, and some plants and animals fix it as limestone, which is not generally re-dissolved. Over geological time enormous amount of CO2 have been sequestered by living things, so that today there is far more CO2 in limestones than in the atmosphere or ocean. This sequestration of CO2 by living things is far more important than trivial additions to the atmosphere caused by human activity.


References
Berner., R.A. and Kothavala, Z. 2001. A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time. American Journal of Science, 301, 182-204.
Herfort, L, Thake, B. and Taubner, I. 2008. Bicarbonate stimulation of calcification and photosynthesis in two hermatypic corals. Journal of Phycology, 44, 91-8.
Webb, A. P. and Kench, P. S. 2010. The dynamic response of reef islands to sea level rise: evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the central pacific, Global and Planetary Change, 72, 234-246.


Professor Cliff Ollier

Honorary Research Fellow
Adjunct and Honorary Staff (Earth and Environment)

[marchesarosa]

Here is another of his articles on the politicisation of the climate debate.


LYSENKOISM AND GLOBAL WARMING
by Emeritus Professor Cliff Ollier, Honorary Research Fellow, School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, The University of Western Australia.

Reprinted from ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
VOLUME 20 No. 1 2009



ABSTRACT
A classic instance of the baleful effect of political interference in science isprovided by the Lysenko Affair. There are, unfortunately, close parallels betweenthat example and the modern politics of Global Warming. Significantly, TrofimLysenko introduced his ideas first through politics. Some think his ideas had Marxist backing because biology could be then modified in the way that Soviet
communists wanted – in order to control people’s behaviour. Furthermore, Lysenko demonised conventional genetics, which again suited his masters - who believed this to be the basis behind Fascist eugenics.

1. INTRODUCTION.
Trofim Lysenko was an insignificant agriculturalist, who thought he had a new way ofdeveloping crops that would vastly increase food production in the starving Russia of Stalin. It was called vernalisation, and included treating seeds before cultivation to affect their behaviour.

The Soviet government was anxious to increase food production, and quelldisturbances amongst the growers; and Lysenko was an adept propagandist, andbecame a cult leader who impressed the peasants. Ultimately, he became the head ofthe Soviet Lenin All Union Institute of Agricultural Sciences, and ran the nation’sresearch in this field. He promised to triple or to quadruple crop yields.


2. NO OPPOSITION TOLERATED
Opposition to Lysenko was not tolerated, and was labelled ‘bourgeois’ or ‘fascist’.Lysenko used his position to denounce Mendelian geneticists as "fly-lovers and peoplehaters", which had serious consequences. From 1934 to 1940, with Stalin’s blessing, numerous geneticists were shot and others exiled to Siberia. Nikolai Vavilov, for example, a truly great geneticist and biogeographer, was sent to Siberia where he died of starvation in 1943, while Lysenko, in person, took over his role of Director of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Any survivor of the purge had to keep quiet.In 1948 genetics was officially labelled a ‘bourgeois pseudoscience’ and genetic research came to a halt. Krushchev also supported Lysenko, but after his departure in 1964 the Academy of Sciences investigated the records, and a devastating critique ofLysenko was made public. The ban on genetics was lifted in 1965.


When Lysenko denounced Mendelian thought as reactionary and decadent: he also announced that his speech had the approval of the Central Committee of theCommunist Party. The ominous parallel is that the Global Warming movement was really kicked-off by James Hansen, when he gave evidence to a United States Senate Committee in June 1988. Ever since, the IPCC has worked through national and international organisations. Hansen became climate adviser to the US President, to AlGore, and many others including Lehman Brothers - who saw carbon emission trading as a new business opportunity. The IPCC claims its reports are written by 2500 scientists, but in fact the crucial scientific underpinning is the work of only about 35,
controlled by an even smaller number.

Opposition to Global Warming is often likened to denial of the Holocaust. We are repeatedly told that the "science is settled" and there is no debate – hardly a scientific approach. The influence of the IPCC spread throughout the world of administration,and it became increasingly difficult to get research funding without being a believer in Global Warming.

3. A NEW RELIGION
Why would governments be persuaded to follow this idea before it is scientifically evaluated? One reason may be that there was a rising tide of what some have likened to a new religion – Environmentalism. Of course no politician wants to be seen as "anti-environment", nor lose the votes of the Greens. The Greens, for their part, are happy to follow the Global Warming line because it gives them enormous political power. As a minor party or influence they often hold the balance of power, and themajor parties dare not offend them.

The propaganda machine of the IPCC is magnificent, with its greatest tool being the Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth. It still has enormous impact, although the High Court in Britain did decide it could not be shown in schools without comment because it contained major errors. I suspect this film was the reason the Nobel Peace Prize was given to Al Gore and the IPCC. Another propaganda hit was the "Hockey Stick Graph", purporting to show that temperature was rising at an ever-increasingrate. This has been totally discredited, but it still seems to be branded on the collective mind of politicians and the public. Much government propaganda has been lent to support Global Warming; and major media outlets, such as the BBC in Britain, have chosen to join the debate on the Global Warming side.

4. GROWTH OF THE GLOBAL WARMING MACHINE
"Global Warming", like Lysenkoism, is much easier to understand than the complexities of real science. This appeals to the public, and also to politicians and other influential people, who can talk as if they understand it. If questioned about details they refer back to the IPCC reports.

So-called "independent reports" on climate change have been produced byNicholas Stern in Britain and Ross Garnaut in Australia. Both Stern and Garnaut make it plain they are not scientists but economists, and have based their conclusions on the IPCC reports. Yet both continue to make public statements warning about the increasing dangers of climate change - as if they were experts. This merely keeps their
reports in the public eye, and echoes the flawed science of IPCC Global Warming. It has been claimed that Sir Nicholas - now The Lord Stern of Brentford - is currently also in the business of carbon trading.
At a lower level, without the need for evidence, everything can be blamed on Global Warming – droughts, floods, malaria, hurricanes and even cooling! The IPCC rhetoric continues; although its predictions have as yet failed to come true, just as Lysenkoism continued when the promised crop increases never arrived. The IPCC forecast ever-increasing temperatures, but global temperatures have become lower
since 1998. They have now put off Global Warming for 15 years because some other factor has intervened. The models did not predict this event, but such detail does not affect the faithful.

Some scientists sided with Global Warming in the early days, and are so committed they cannot get off the bandwagon. Others worked for the IPCC, but resigned whenthey realised how their work was being twisted, or that real science did not support the claims that were being made. Luckily we do not have the equivalent of Siberia to deal with them.

The Global Warming affair has already lasted twenty years, and many
bureaucracies and scientific research centres have sprung up – most of the latter being computer-simulators. Computer simulation has a part to play in science, but it shouldnot replace observation, and hypothesis testing and falsification. The name of the game has changed from ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Climate Change’, to broaden the range of effects that can be blamed on warming. There are now government Departments of Climate Change, for which read "Departments of Global Warming Blamed on Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide"

5. A LESSON FROM HISTORY: PARALLELS WITH LYSENKOISM
We should not forget the basic fact, that the one villain in the piece - and the one thatis costing billions of dollars - is anthropogenic carbon dioxide. This is the equivalent of ‘vernalisation’ in the Lysenko era.
In summary, the comparisons between Lysenkoism and Global Warming are:

- 1. Work first through political organisations.
- 2. Claim that the science is settled. There is nothing to debate.
- 3. Disregard or deny all the accumulating evidence that the predictions arewrong.
- 4. Demonise the opposition (Mendelian geneticists; Global Warming ‘deniers’)
- 5. Victimise the opposition (execution or exile; loss of jobs or research funds)
- 6. Relate to a current ideology (Stalinism; Environmentalism)
- 7. Support a vast propaganda machine.
- 8. Create a huge bureaucracy where many people have careers dependent upon ‘the ruling concept’.

6. CONCLUSIONS
The parallel between the Lysenkoism of the Soviet Era, and the Global Warming of today, is expressed nicely in the words of Helena Sheehan (1993), who wrote ofLysenkoism:

“What went wrong was that the proper procedures for coming to terms with such complex issues were short-circuited by grasping for easy slogans and simplistic solutions and imposing them by administrative fiat.”

Lysenkoism was eventually replaced by real science. The same will happen toGlobal Warming eventually, because real science will not go away.

REFERENCES
Helena Sheehan. 1993. Marxism and the Philosophy of Science: A Critical History (Humanities
Press International).