That comes from this statement in the press release:
Professor Kennedy said that the doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere over the past 50 years is “like hitting our ecosystem with a sledge-hammer”
Hmmm, you’d think they could get the basic math right. From ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Today’s seasonally corrected Mauna Loa CO2 April 2011 = 390.49 ppm
The seasonally corrected Mauna Loa CO2 value 50 years ago , April 1961 = 317.27 ppm
317.27 x 2 (a doubling over 50 years) = 634.54 ppm Seems the claim for doubling over 50 years is 244.05 ppm short. Perhaps he meant a ball peen hammer.
Greenhouse ocean study offers warning for future
The mass extinction of marine life in our oceans during prehistoric times is a warning that the same could happen again due to high levels of greenhouse gases, according to new research.
Professor Martin Kennedy from the University of Adelaide (School of Earth & Environmental Sciences) and Professor Thomas Wagner from Newcastle University, UK, (Civil Engineering and Geosciences) have been studying ‘greenhouse oceans’ – those that have been depleted of oxygen, suffering increases in carbon dioxide and temperature.
Using core samples drilled from the ocean bed off the coast of western Africa, the geologists studied layers of sediment from the Late Cretaceous Period (85 million years ago) across a 400,000-year timespan. They found a significant amount of organic material – marine life – buried within deoxygenated layers of the sediment.
Professor Wagner says the results of their research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), has relevance for our modern world: “We know that ‘dead zones’ are rapidly growing in size and number in seas and oceans across the globe,” he said. “These are areas of water that are lacking in oxygen and are suffering from increases of CO2, rising temperatures, nutrient run-off from agriculture and other factors.”
Their research points to a mass mortality in the oceans at a time when the Earth was going through a greenhouse effect. High levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and rising temperatures led to a severe lack of oxygen (hypoxia) in the water that marine animals depend upon.
“What’s alarming to us as scientists is that there were only very slight natural changes that resulted in the onset of hypoxia in the deep ocean,” said Professor Kennedy. “This occurred relatively rapidly – in periods of hundreds of years, or possibly even less – not gradually over longer, geological time scales, suggesting that the Earth’s oceans are in a much more delicate balance during greenhouse conditions than originally thought, and may respond in a more abrupt fashion to even subtle changes in temperature and CO2 levels.”
Professor Kennedy said that the doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere over the past 50 years is “like hitting our ecosystem with a sledge-hammer” compared to the very small changes in incoming solar energy (radiation) which was capable of triggering these events in the past.
“This could have a catastrophic, profound impact on the sustainability of life in our oceans, which in turn is likely to impact on the sustainability of life for many land-based species, including humankind,” he added.
However, the geological record offers a glimmer of hope thanks to a naturally occurring response to greenhouse conditions. After a hypoxic phase, oxygen concentration in the ocean seems to improve, and marine life returns.
This research has shown that natural processes of carbon burial kick in and the land comes to the rescue, with soil-formed minerals collecting and burying excess dissolved organic matter in seawater. Burial of the excess carbon ultimately contributes to CO2 removal from the atmosphere, cooling the planet and the ocean.
“This is nature’s solution to the greenhouse effect and it could offer a possible solution for us,” said Professor Wagner. “If we are able to learn more about this effect and its feedbacks, we may be able to manage it, and reduce the present rate of warming threatening our oceans.”
“Their research points to a mass mortality in the oceans at a time when the Earth was going through a greenhouse effect.”
Not only can’t these knumbskulls work out “double” means multiplied by two they refer to the Earth “going through a greenhouse effect” as if were some unusual doom laden event. They seem unaware that there has been a strong greenhouse effect since well before we climbed out of the slime and onto dry land.
Mark this page, I guarantee you this will become a new media cliché like “the science”, which is used to imply science is one whole, unified and indivisible certitude.
It also appears that the authors have never actually *seen* sledge hammer. Maybe they imagine it’s a little tool Eskimos use for breaking icicles off their sledges.
Normally hitting something with a sledge hammer makes a violent and rapid change to it’s kinetic energy and structure. 0.7C in a hundred years hardly qualifies.
“What’s alarming to us as scientists …”
What is alarming to me a scientist is that a crock like this can get published in a major journal. Did not any of the stern and strick peer reviewers point out what the word “double” means in science?
Maybe it would be for the best to put Kennedy in an asylum.
According to this: http://files.abovetopsecret.com/uploads/ats41378_image277.gif ,
the CO2 level was falling and the temperature was constant at about 8 – 10 °C above the present during the Cretaceous.
ROTFLMAO, this is science?
“My neighbors bought some powder blue paint the other day. They must be expecting a little girl.”
If you think that is bizarre, try this:
Antarctic penguin colonies threatened by changing climate
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/3065125.htm
It’s an interview on Australian radio “The Science Show”, and the source paper is cited at the bottom
Tips and Notes full.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_UN_SOLAR_STORMS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-05-17-07-57-46
US official: growing threat from solar storms
Looks like AGW is losing steam, so time to crank up the new scare tactics.
“What’s alarming to us as scientists is that there were only very slight natural changes that resulted in the onset of hypoxia in the deep ocean,” said Professor Kennedy.
I think what is actually alarming to them is the prospect of the CAGW gravy train reaching the end of the line, and having to actually do some real work, instead of fantasy scaremongering.
This story was covered by News Limited publications in Australia http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/scientist-warns-of-mass-marine-extinction/story-e6frf7jx-1226057626282, but a ‘journalist’ or subeditor couldn’t resist the temptation for a little subtle embroidery viz. “The team went back 85 million years to analyse ocean rock from the Late Cretaceous Period, which experienced greenhouse conditions similar to those predicted in 2050” — an average global temperature of 22°C and CO2 concentration of 1000 + ppm by 2050?
CO2 taxes and regulations will be an economic sledgehammer. They are still at it trying to pound us into the Dark Ages.
I wonder if the area where they drilled was in the Great South Bay of the Atlantic river that separated the east and west continuits. pg
CO2 increase is “like hitting our ecosystem with a sledge-hammer”
Now that is one really strange, twisted, convoluted analogy. No… it isn’t an analogy…. maybe a syllogism? Nah, that’s not right either. Metaphor? Nope.
What the hell is that????
I have a wee problem with the surplus of wee critters buried in the de-oxygentated era sediment.
That’s not a single-burst, overnight de-oxygenation; it lasted at least hundreds of thousands of years. They must have been growing DURING that time period; the sediments are surely not just the graveyard of the previous regime’s leftovers. So the correct conclusion must be that the critters were flourishing DURING the late Cretaceous.
Perhaps if all mankind jumped up and down at once we can push the earth to a cooler climate. The absurdity that we can either warm or cool a planetary body is rediculous. Only by massive deforestation could this occur but sadly in the rush to make money from green carbon schemes this is the one true evidence of c02 increase never discussed.
AGW-ese for send more money.
“Their research points to a mass mortality in the oceans at a time when the Earth was going through a greenhouse effect. High levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and rising temperatures led to a severe lack of oxygen (hypoxia) in the water that marine animals depend upon.”
I’d be interested to see how they attribute cause and effect here. Surely the obvious sequence of events is that something (possibly a meteor) kills off most of the life on earth and so O2 production stops as life very quickly dies off and rots and CO2 increases as a direct result. Dead stuff in the water sinks and layers of sediment are increasingly deoxified at this time.
ShrNfr says:
May 17, 2011 at 9:54 am
Adelaide? Perhaps he is the present holder of the Barrie Harrop chair at that august university.
Or possibly the Barry Humphries chair?
Bob Diaz said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but several hundred million years ago, wasn’t the level around 1,000 PPM? If you go back even longer, wasn’t it around 5,000 PPM?
If that’s not right, something like it is.
Why is it OK for the Earth back then, but not now?
Life was much different then. For example, there were no land animals, to speak of. Things like this don’t prove that we wouldn’t be OK with 1,000 or 5,000 ppm, but they make it silly to assume that we would be OK.
Anthony,
This same theory is highlighted in the documentary “Crude”, shown recently here in Australia.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/
The theory goes that in that period, there was extreme volcanic activity which created a massive amount of CO2 which catastrophically warmed the globe by producing extreme amounts of algae (etc) which in-turn depleted oxygen levels in our oceans and ultimately mass-extinction of organic life on earth and finally created the oil (crude) producing layers exploited today from this very same decayed organic material.
At first glance I thought, well ok, however on later reflection I’m thinking; What happened to all that volcanic “Ash + Dust”, because in this doco they don’t even mention volcanic dust & ash ??
Wouldn’t it (the dust & ash) have created a layer around the globe, and actually in the first instance, cooling the globe by preventing sunlight and warmth from reaching the land surface, and along with a thick coating of this volcanic dust & ash, killed all plant-life and as an ultimate result, killed all animal life leaving absolutely nothing at all for any and all forms of CO2 sequestration.
Then I’m thinking, what may have happened then??
Eventually wouldn’t the dust & ash have to have had settled allowing sunlight and warmth to again hit the surface ??
“But” because of the time lag in getting the earth’s plants and animals going again, to sequester all that CO2, big amounts of algae form in the oceans lapping up all that CO2 “But” (again) the consequence of large algal blooms are that the algae depletes the oceans of most or all of its oxygen killing all the fish and such life creating the ocean sediment layer and any land based sediment layer referred by Professor Martin Kennedy from the University of Adelaide (School of Earth & Environmental Sciences) and Professor Thomas Wagner from Newcastle University, UK, (Civil Engineering and Geosciences).
So my last question is; in the AGW sense, does the dog wag the tail, or does the tail wag the dog ???????????
For sledge hammer read toffee hammer…
Given that the oceans have survived numerous episodes of wildly higher CO2 concentrations it appears that the entire catastrophic theme is rediculous and self contradictory.
It makes me wonder if the other claims in the article like that of expanding “dead zones” are of similar quality? It is actually pretty bad chemistry really. The oceans are not saturated by any dissolved gas nor are they close so a bit more CO2 dissolved would not even necessairily imply that there is less oxygen available. Furhter while significant warming could do this, there is no evidence of any such warming in the sea surface data.
Bill Illis says:
“Pretty hard to write that news release based on this rather esoteric paper.”
Agree. The paper is discussing precession-based climate change influence on
clay mineral properties and runoff from the African continent. They point out that organic material “burial and related CO2 sequestration results in a negative
feedback to global warming.”
But I suppose saying negative feedback to global warming is verboten in a press release so they had to amp up the hyperbole. These Eurekalert articles can contain some of the shoddiest science reporting I’ve seen.
At 20C the solubility of O2 in water is about 3x that of CO2 see:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html
for more information on everything from Argon to Sulfur Dioxide. At these very low concentrations, the driving force for dissolution will be pretty linear with the delta from the equilibrium concentration (the slope of the difference between the two concentrations). Using the Mark 1 eyeball, it looks like the mass molar flow rate for O2 is about a third higher than CO2 for the same delta “T”, assuming identical starting temps in the range 10C-30C.
Dear Mike,
Thanks for pointing that out.
Martin was misquoted and you are correct about the CO2 increase over the past decades. He was actually talking about one of the projected IPCC scenarios that if there is a 50% rise in CO2 it will be a comparatively strong influence. An unfortunate misunderstanding. We have talked to the person that wrote the piece and it has been corrected.
Best Regards
Tom
________________________________
From: Mike …
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 21:32:39 +0100
To: Prof Thomas Wagner …
Subject: press release error
Thomas,
In the press release on Professor Kennedy’s work you said:
“Professor Kennedy said that the doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere over the past 50 years is “like hitting our ecosystem with a sledge-hammer” compared to the very small changes in incoming solar energy (radiation) which was capable of triggering these events in the past.”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-05/nu-gos051711.php
The 50 year number cannot be correct. I suggest you contact Kennedy and straighten out what he went. I bring this up because [word you don’t like deleted] blogs are using this mistake for their own ends.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/17/co2-increase-is-like-hitting-our-ecosystem-with-a-sledge-hammer/
Have good day,
Mike
——————————-
Note added: It hasn’t changed on eurekalert. I think he means it was changed on the university’s site, but I haven’t tracked that down.