Sunday, July 21, 2013

Deja Vu All Over Again


 A short while ago, Eli was reading Chemical and Engineering News when his eye gazed across a letter from somebunny, never mind who

Having recently become a 50-year member of the American Chemical Society, I am embarrassed to see that C&EN has become a propaganda machine attempting to brainwash ACS members. Strong claim, you say?
The cover of the March 25 issue points to the article about ocean acidification with the words: “Shellfish die-off threatens Pacific Northwest” (C&EN, March 25, page 36). The article says: “Over the past 250 years, the average upper-ocean pH has decreased by about 0.1 units, from about 8.2 to 8.1.” This is the only quantitative data, relative to ocean acidification, in this two-page article.
But 250 years ago an acid was a substance that tasted sour, and a base was a substance that tasted bitter. Fritz Haber and Zygmunt Klemensiewicz constructed the first glass pH electrode in 1906. So the pH scale did not exist before 1909. In 1934 Arnold Beckman began marketing his commercial pH meter, the first manufactured in the U.S
The convention taught in chemistry was that the right-most digit of a quantitative measurement was uncertain; it could be at least one or two units greater or lesser. Therefore, the data cited in the article should not be interpreted as if any change has occurred.
Relative to a shellfish die-off threatening the Pacific Northwest, near the end of the article it says: “In recent years, the tribe’s natural resources have been threatened by oil spills, overharvesting, and illegal poachers supplying the Asian seafood market.” Maybe it is these three factors, instead of ocean acidification, that threaten Pacific Northwest shellfish.
 Now, this is Curry class foolishness and Eli has no need to point the moving finger which anybunny could, if they were so motivated find to no real point, but the Rabett was pleased to see a wonderful reply published a few weeks later with names altered to protect some bunny or other.
The proper way of responding to a letter such as that from Some Bunny on the issue of ocean acidification is difficult (C&EN, May 13, page 2). Perhaps it’s best to mention simple things. Bunny points out that the acid concept is relatively new, and electrochemical methods of measuring pH date back only to 1906. He asks how it is possible, then, that we have measurements of pH going back more than 250 years.

As one who follows such things, I know there are biogeochemical proxies for pH including, among others, boron isotope ratios of foraminiferal carbonate, which can take us back much further than 250 years. Bunny tries to minimize the measured decrease of pH in the oceans from 8.2 to 8.1 as not being precise. He can be assured that pH variations with location and time have been measured well enough by both proxy and more recent instrumental methods to make such a statement meaningful. In addition, we have observed the expected decrease in the amounts of aragonite from which many sea animals build their shells.

I agree with Bunny that many factors are stressing the productivity of Pacific Northwest fisheries. Indeed, this is a classic case of not one thing or another—but rather one thing and another and yet another and so on. But each “another” counts, and for the fishery to flourish each must be dealt with, including acidification, the effects of which are global.
Eli, and Ms. Rabett have been doing other stuff, so imagine his surprise to find that similar foolishness has caused the long suffering Weasel to reach his limit, and that, especially after a winning boat races, is for the sharp toothed one a high barrier, but he has found it in Curry's Wide Sargasso Sea of Stupidity
The motive for this was, now that I have a moment from the rowing to pause to think, me thinking “hmm, I haven’t written about science much recently”. That is partly an inevitable, and predicted, consequence of me not doing science any more. But also, it seems to me, because there isn’t that much going on. So since James and Eli are on hols, and not much was showing up elsewhere, I thought I’d range off into Curry-land, to see what she had found. And it was looking pretty thin to me: weekend discussion threads and stuff. But then I found Ocean acidification discussion thread, and took a look. On the surface, its yet another of those rubbish posts that JC does which boil down to “I haven’t got a clue about subject X, but here are two people who disagree, errrm, well that didn’t teach anyone anything did it, never mind I got a pile of page hits”. But there is far more wrong with it than that.
and indeed, it is the usual swamp.  For example, Harold NLN
pH is measured with an electrochemical probe. They may have had some very crude galvinometer – based device 200 years ago, but it wouldn’t be very accurate. Until the de Forest tube was invented, the measurement was low precision.
and Nick Stokes tries his best but cannot beat the difference between a chemical equilibrium and a static equilibrium into Jim NLN

Well, those were some of the better ones, but blog scientists are on the case, 473 comments as of now.  

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

JayAlt-
Watts, Curry, McIntyred. A key purpose for these blogs is hatching new, improbable arguments and misinterpretations. Then testing them for public acceptance.
Which is to say- the 3 of them run Lie Factories.

tonylearns said...

i just read her post a couple of days ago. it is funny how i almost always want to believe her. she goes to such lengths to sound reasonable.
bit really CRAIG IDSO? THAT is her contrarian expert on ocean acidification. And then she eaves it at that??? no attempt to find out whether the actual expert was correct or if there are other people experts who could enlighten curry on the relative accuracy of each's testimony.
For awhile i thought maybe she was trying to be some sort of pedagogic ombudsmen. Allowing people to express their ideas and see if through honest lively dialogue creative understandings would appear and she could be the catalyst that allowed this educational blogging to bear fruit.
But in each case I always end up with the strong unsavory taste of opportunism in my mouth.

willard said...

If bunnies could lead me the oldest reference they can find of the concept of acidification as applied in the expression "ocean acidification", that would be appreciated.


You have 1978 to beat.

rdbrown said...

A restricted Scholar Search (59 results but includes later refs)
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=10&q=%22ocean+acidification%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=1900&as_yhi=1979
find one from an I Asimov in 1973 on ERIC

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ082034
Title: The Fascinating Story of Fossil Fuels
Authors: Asimov, Isaac
Source: National Wildlife, 11, 5, 7-10, Aug/Sep 73

Martin Vermeer said...

Willard, you could ask Ralph Keeling.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Aunt Judy is the absolute mistress of the "Just-Asking-Questions" form of obfuscation--aka JAQing off.

EliRabett said...

The idea goes back to Roger Revelle, indeed it was the reason he pushed for the Keeling CO2 measurements

Revelle, R., and H. E. Suess (1957), Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during the past decades, Tellus, 9, 18–27.

Anonymous said...

Wattenberg, H.: Uber die Titrationsalkalinit ¨ 30 at und den Kalziumkarbonatgehalt des Meer- ¨
wassers, Deutsche Atlantische Exped. Meteor. 1925–1927, Wiss. Erg., Bd 8, Part 2, 122–
231, 1933.

Sverdrup, H. U.,Johnson, M. W., and Fleming, R. H.: The Oceans: Their Physics, Chemistry,
25 and General Biology. Prentice-Hall, 1087 pp., 1942

Anonymous said...

"aka JAQing off."


Ah the high brow conversations at Rabbet Run. It is a wonder if anyone takes anything posted at this site seriously.


Seems more like a high school twitter war than a "science" blog


Please carry on



1

Hank Roberts said...

> CRAIG IDSO?

Good grief. I remember JC's first reaction to first reading CO2Science:

the CO2 site is “high class” spin

(Yes, she went cattywampus within a sentence or two, but the first observation was clear-headed, then.)

Hank Roberts said...

For the cross reference, more on co2science at
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/08/more_for_the_annals_of_climate_1.html

Rattus Norvegicus said...

Gack, I read that thing last night. She is willing to accept the word of Craig Idso, a paid propagandist, over that of someone who, well, actually studies the subject under discussion?

Crikey, the stupid runs deep over there. JAQing off indeed.

Anonymous said...

Yes, an increase in CO2 causes acidity, Henry’s law, basic chemistry. I used to have fun in the lab as an undergrad blowing bubbles into beakers of water and watch the pH meter drop. I also used to go to keg parties in college where the chemistry majors were drinking beer out of 500-mL beakers. In case Mr. Bunny was wondering where all the missing glassware goes…

I also used to read Curry’s blog until she posted that Sky Dragon tripe. It’s okay to look at different points of view but sometimes stuff is completely, utterly wrong. Her whole business of posting long diatribes from competing scientific views from other people and saying -“Wow! Isn’t this interesting and still so…..uncertain!” Well some of that stuff is easily proven wrong, and I don’t have time to learn about facts and science that obviously aren’t true.

Very sad. There are few female role-models in Science. Curry gets the limelight, but not my respect.

-Dirt Girl

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

#1 has obviously never done any science. He thinks all scientists are robots. We just happen to be humans who care about the truth, which is why we hold #1 and Aunt Judy in contempt.

Martin Vermeer said...

Aunt Judy may be entitled to some residual contempt; she was an actual scientist in a previous life. As for #1, no, not even contempt

Anonymous said...

I am not worthy of contempt from the juveniles here at RR. Oh my! What shall I ever do?

"JAQing off"

And cue the Beavis and Butthead laughter.



You all are very concerned someone might take Judith seriously. You certainly do not have that worry for this site.



1

willard said...

Thanks for the tips:

> I’ve asked some bunnies for some old instances. Here’s what they found: [...]

http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/19/ocean-acidification-discussion-thread/#comment-349018

***

In that thread, we have basically two arguments:

(A1) Yeah, but "acidification" is not the proper technical word.

(A2) Yeah, but "acidification" is not the proper mundane word.

The nice thing about having two arguments is that if a commenter argues against one, you can always come back with the other.

This nice way to solve a rhetorical problem can be seen over and over again in the comment thread.

Anonymous said...

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...
#1 has obviously never done any science. He thinks all scientists are robots. We just happen to be humans who care about the truth, which is why we hold #1 and Aunt Judy in contempt.

#1 Jay Alt sez-
You are confusing the anony_meece.
My name is on my posts, as suggested.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Anonyclown1 says: "You all are very concerned someone might take Judith seriously."

No danger of anyone knowledgeable taking her serious. She's nearly as much of a clownshoe as you.

Here's a clue: Not all opinions are worthy of respect...yours for instance.

Anonymous said...

a_ray,

Yeah that is why Eli wrote two posts and made numerous comments over at Judith's, because no one takes her seriously.

If she is such a clownshoe, why all the attention?

And speaking of opinions worthy of attention, when is the last time you wrote something other than juvenile insults?


Externally you act is if you think highly of yourself, internally you think very little of yourself. The conflict is exposed with your attacks and juvenile insults.

I hope you can see a doctor or already have regular appointments.


1

willard said...

Dear 1,

You certainly ask a good question:

> If she is such a clownshoe, why all the attention?

I believe the most frequent answer to that quandary is: because she's a "clownshoe" (your word) with credentials (mine).

***

Now, if we follow your logic, what exactly are you doing here, again?

We know what you think of what has become Eli's.

Anonymous said...

Actually Willard, "Clownshoe" is a_ray's word, not mine. You do seem to have difficulty remembering who wrote what in which comment.

And another example:

"Now, if we follow your logic, what exactly are you doing here, again?

We know what you think of what has become Eli's."


It was an unsigned anonymous in another thread that had evaluated and stated what RR had become.

For me this is pure entertainment as nothing here is to be taken seriously. It is like watching a funny video where someone face plants off a bike or runs into a tree, it is just stupid funny.


I laugh every visit. Especially at a_ray, he is the best comedian here.


Though pratfalls and comedians should never be taken seriously, wouldn't you agree?



1

willard said...

1,

Thank you for clarifying that you did not wanted to use the word "clownshoe". You simply wanted to mention Ray's use of it. Next time, you might try to use syntactic means to express that distinction.

The means by which you get your lulz here do not give the impression you do not use such words. You try all kinds of psychic readings. You mock more than you talk. You do not follow the flow of what is done. For instance, why don't you respond to my answer to your question?



***

Also, here was your response to the anonymous fellow:

> We can thank Brian for bringing MSNBC to RR.

It sounded like a way to endorse Anonymous' comment regarding Eli's. Now we know you could not care less about this place.

You just told us.

You're here just for the lulz.

Thank you for your honesty.

***

It's quite rare that we have a visitor that admits of trolling. I suggest we honor his admission as being sincere. That might even bring him more lulz.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Oh, Golly, Dr. Freud, psychoanalyze me over the Internet again. That's your best routine yet. Lots of laughs.

Otherwise, boring clownshoe is boring.

And I disagree that comedians shouldn't be taken seriously. Sometimes they are the most trenchant observers of our society.

Example of George Carlin: "The average person is an idiot, and 50% are stupider than that."

Be sure to drop in again and let us know how things are going on the portion of the IQ curve that is shallow and gently rising.

Anonymous said...

Willard,

You will be the first to know when anytime that I "did not wanted..."

Another lol, tyvm.


So I said Brian is bringing MSNBC to RR, a true statement, but not a comment on Eli now is it?


a_ray,

Wow clownshoe again, .

Good luck with your condition.




1

EliRabett said...

What Curry's game is exactly Eli does not know or much care. For sure she does not appear very deep and what she is running is a clown show. Still, there are the lurkers.

Russell Seitz said...

If Judy occasionally sounds like Geoge Carlin, it's because she's been hanging around with Alan

willard said...

Speaking of Alan:

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/getting-to-the-bottom-of-cooks-97-lie

There's also another thread where I get a cameo:

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/willard-needs-your-help

willard said...

> So I said Brian is bringing MSNBC to RR, [...] but not a comment on Eli now is it?

Eli is not Eli's, 1.

Anonymous said...

Willard,





1

Russell Seitz said...

Having spent a lot of time with Quine, I can testify that this Willard is up to no Van good.

willard said...

Wait till you spend as much time with me, dear Russell, and I might say the same.

Russell Seitz said...

When the philosophy table reconvenes,the first question raised will be : Is there a moral imperative to whack Quine impersonators over the head with a fireplace poker, or will a copy of the Tractatus do?

I ran into a pseudo-Kripke in a bar once, but at least he was funny.

willard said...

Instead of being funny, your Kripkenstein would have been chasing the women of the bar.

Have you participated in Henry Murray's experiments, Russell?

EliRabett said...

Be warned, Eli is going to film this for Philosphy Death Match complete with claymation

Russell Seitz said...

This confirms the long standing hypothesis that 'Willard ' is a rigid designator in the dull set.

willard said...

This confirmation might depend upon a multitude of undetermined assumptions, among which have been inserted a technique of designation and a flavor of set that may not appeal to Quineans.

***

When misapplied, rigid designators can lead philosophers astray:

http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/mcginn-leaving-miami-due-to-improper-emails/

Burton ought to know.

***

Speaking of rigidity, Russell, anyone who read Van should realize that I do not impersonate him. The only time I did talk in his name was parenthetically, by referring to **The Web of Belief**:

http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/386598304

Had I chosen to emulate Van, I would have chosen "Van" and kept to more formal topics than rhetoric and language games. That language is a social art suffices for willard.

***

No, Russell, I am not willard. You’re not Lewis Lapham either. Still, I appreciate your cynical envolées, e.g.:

http://takimag.com/article/they_also_serve

way more than righteous fantasies with firepokes or books. But since you seem to like big books and cannot lie, pick **Sein und Zeit**, as Dan Dennett would.

***

Come what may, beware that you do not know me. Implementing your sadistic vindication may turn out to be less satisfying than you relish.

Russell Seitz said...

The real question is what whould Van think? Though seeing Willard impersonate him in the flesh like a flying Elvis is a quiddity he might applaud, i think his mind would be repelled at seeing his visage expropriatied as a web avatar by an anonymous troll.

Why don't you ask Dennett what he thinks?

willard said...

Russell,

You might have known Van, but you do not seem to pay any respect to what he wrote.

Quit projecting your beliefs into an entity that does not exist anymore according to that we can read from that entity's ontology. It is you that shrieks. Please own it.

There's no need to ask Dan, because I am was referring to a quip he wrote somewhere. A variation on an old chess saying, according to which you could kill your opponent with a chessboard, but that won't make you a better chess player.

If all you have are names and slurs to defend what connects you to your ancient Boys Club, you'll soon see the limits of your toys.

I'll think about the avatar, though for now, your "I'm a bow tie old blue money to back up micro bubbles" act is so unreal that I'm not sure if I should care much about your views on idendity, if you don't mind me saying so.

Anonymous said...

Nothing more entertaining than rabid rabbits going for the jugular.

Maybe you should rename it "Rabid Run", Eli.

Russell Seitz said...

Willard's decision to decapitate himself does him great credit.

This may speed his recovery:
http://www.morphthing.com/morph,





willard said...

Russell,

Here's the new avatar:

http://i.imgur.com/FqlAzG1.jpg

This avatar makes sense, willard's existence is first and foremost related to bender, once upon a time the Auditor's jester. Its identity came after I needed a new email. No entity without identity, or so it seems.

Thanks for the link, BTW. I'll try to mix the Auditor with either Elvis or Van.

The new avatar now appears in the Twitter account @nevaudit. Should propagate through WP websites as soon as Gravatar complies with my new settings.

Best regards,

w

Russell Seitz said...

Drat.

The philosophy table was hoping you'd mug meld Freddie Ayer and Ken Cuccinelli, or Cthulhu and C.S. Lewis

EliRabett said...

Shub N.

willard said...

Speaking of whom, here's where C.S.Lewis might have helped him:

http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/why-the-cook-paper-is-bunk-part-i/

Elvis too:

http://youtu.be/SBmAPYkPeYU

Only this could end the never ending audit.