Since my recent ocean pH work, several reasons have been informally communicated in non-peer reviewed media for the ongoing marginalization of the 20th century instrumental ocean pH data. No rationales for the omissions have reached peer review status. In fact, there are no peer reviewed papers which can be found which assert ocean acidification as a consequence of CO2 partial pressure, based on any representative sampling of the millions of global 20th century ocean pH data points.
The closest equivalent can be found at this article hosted by the journal The Marine Biologist and authored by their former Editor Phil Williamson. Unfortunately, a rebuttal I had authored, which this Journal previously published, has recently been removed without explanation. Moreover, a new set of related and incorrect assertions regarding my work specifically has been jointly published (in another non-peer reviewed media source which does not permit rebuttal) by some of the world’s leading ocean scientists, including: Howard Browman, Jean-Pierre Gattuso, Ken Caldiera, and Richard Feely
I have elected to consolidate all of this contentious material (including the essential rebuttal that was removed by The Marine Biologist) into a pdf file at:
The file is long but those interested in getting to the bottom of the debate will not likely be disappointed. The file documents among other things that some prominent marine scientists appear to believe that the oceans are not buffered solutions.
In subsequent posts I’ll provide short and clear explanations (relating to the featured image) of:
A. Why the data I’ve raised awareness of is sufficiently accurate.
B. Why the supposedly higher precision contemporary data are neither precise nor accurate.
C. How the mainstream ocean pH science community does not rely on either high precision or low precision data in any case.
D. The models which mainstream ocean pH scientists do rely on and their deficiencies.
I believe that transparent, open, and reproducible debate is critical to informing the public that funds most scientific research on the climate and oceans. I also feel that this is essential to both a free society and to a level playing for all competitive research. Peer review journals were once a credible vehicle for such debate. It is unfortunate that just as the 2 million data points have been excluded from peer review, this debate concerning their exclusion is also aggressively excluded. One has to ask where such publicly-funded information omissions will end.
copyright 2017 www.abeqas.com Michael G. Wallace