Ocean acidification theory is.....

[brenthutch 444]

Sleeping with the fishes

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1903-y

"Here, we comprehensively and transparently show that—in contrast to previous studies—end-of-century ocean acidification levels have negligible effects on important behaviours of coral reef fishes" 

[Skwrl 56]

12 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Sleeping with the fishes

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1903-y

"Here, we comprehensively and transparently show that—in contrast to previous studies—end-of-century ocean acidification levels have negligible effects on important behaviours of coral reef fishes" 

That's great news.  But to be fair, it's not saying that the ocean is not becoming more acidic due to additional CO2 - in fact it specifically states that this is what's happening.  It's also not saying that their environment isn't being altered. 

What it's specifically saying is that adding CO2 to water doesn't seem to impact coral reef fish behavior in tanks, specifically their sensing of predator and prey, activity levels, and lateralization (picking one side to float on). 

Good news for the coral reef fish themselves! 

But since it doesn't say anything about the rest of the ecosystem that they are in, we don't have the full picture at all.  (For example, if the coral that they use as habitat and food all die due to CO2, the fact that the CO2 doesn't make the fishes' behavior wonky doesn't really say much.)

Edited January 16, 2020 by Skwrl

[DJL 235]

15 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Sleeping with the fishes

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1903-y

"Here, we comprehensively and transparently show that—in contrast to previous studies—end-of-century ocean acidification levels have negligible effects on important behaviours of coral reef fishes" 

I mean, you even quoted the words but still missed the point.

[brenthutch 444]

The point is the ocean acidification studies relied on by the IPCC have not been able to be reproduced.  When a concern was raised by a fellow scientist about the veracity of the work being done, he was fired.  

 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/06/peter-ridd-awarded-12m-in-unfair-dismissal-case-against-james-cook-university

[DJL 235]

19 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The point is the ocean acidification studies relied on by the IPCC have not been able to be reproduced.  When a concern was raised by a fellow scientist about the veracity of the work being done, he was fired.  

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/06/peter-ridd-awarded-12m-in-unfair-dismissal-case-against-james-cook-university

And the veracity of that individual, Peter Ridd, has been rebutted by the exact same researchers he quoted in his own amalgamations saying that he cherry picked papers of theirs that were typically quite old and left out the research which would have provided better clarity. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X18301425?via%3Dihub

The court case was not about whether he was right or wrong but whether the university followed legal steps for dismissing him.  Again, if someone is using your institution to spread academic falsehoods you can fire them, you just need to do it the right way.  They didn't.

So, you posted an article that doesn't show that the threats of ocean acidification are irrelevant and followed it up with an article about a guy who was debunked by the very people he cited in his work.

 

[turtlespeed 226]

14 minutes ago, DJL said:

And the veracity of that individual, Peter Ridd, has been rebutted by the exact same researchers he quoted in his own amalgamations saying that he cherry picked papers of theirs that were typically quite old and left out the research which would have provided better clarity. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X18301425?via%3Dihub

The court case was not about whether he was right or wrong but whether the university followed legal steps for dismissing him.  Again, if someone is using your institution to spread academic falsehoods you can fire them, you just need to do it the right way.  They didn't.

So, you posted an article that doesn't show that the threats of ocean acidification are irrelevant and followed it up with an article about a guy who was debunked by the very people he cited in his work.

 

WHY in the world would think this matters to his argument.

When have facts ever swayed him?

 

[brenthutch 444]

24 minutes ago, DJL said:

And the veracity of that individual, Peter Ridd, has been rebutted by the exact same researchers he quoted in his own amalgamations saying that he cherry picked papers of theirs that were typically quite old and left out the research which would have provided better clarity. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X18301425?via%3Dihub

The court case was not about whether he was right or wrong but whether the university followed legal steps for dismissing him.  Again, if someone is using your institution to spread academic falsehoods you can fire them, you just need to do it the right way.  They didn't.

So, you posted an article that doesn't show that the threats of ocean acidification are irrelevant and followed it up with an article about a guy who was debunked by the very people he cited in his work.

 

The university that fired him was the same one that did the non-reproducible work on ocean acidification for the IPCC. 

Edited January 16, 2020 by brenthutch

[DJL 235]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The university that fired him was the same one that did the non-reproducible work on ocean acidification for the IPCC. 

Please show your references and proof of that with quoted excerpts.  So far you've posted things that disprove the very point you're trying to make.

[brenthutch 444]

You are not going to like it but here it is

https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2020/01/15/ipcc-experts-8-discredited-papers/

It looks like Philip Munday is the Michael Mann of ocean acidification.

Edited January 16, 2020 by brenthutch

[DJL 235]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

You are not going to like it but here it is

https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2020/01/15/ipcc-experts-8-discredited-papers/

It looks like Philip Munday is the Michael Mann of ocean acidification.

You'll need to say what your statement is and what the proof is of your statement.  This appears to link to a study about fish behavior again with links to papers all over the place.

[brenthutch 444]

19 minutes ago, DJL said:

You'll need to say what your statement is and what the proof is of your statement.  This appears to link to a study about fish behavior again with links to papers all over the place.

It is not my statement it is the title of an article in Nature. "Ocean acidification does not impair the behavior of coral reef fishes"  The study sited debunks the claims made by Philip Munday.

"The author in common is research leader Philip Munday. When eight of this man’s papers were double-checked, others scientists were unable to confirm his findings. They performed the same experiments, but got different results. Every. Single. Time.

The James Cook University website tells us Munday is “in the top 1% of cited researchers in the ISI fields of Plant and Animal Science” (bold added). He sits on the editorial board of three scientific journals.

He also “has contributed to IPCC reports” on ocean acidification. In fact, Munday’s name appears 46 times in this 174-page document about a 2011 IPCC workshop on that topic.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s pronouncements about tropical fish rely on a man whose work falls to pieces whenever anyone tries to verify it."