The big stink 93.9 million years ago – blame CO2

From the University of California – Riverside , and the department of sulfurous odors, comes this “it must be carbon dioxide” moment:

“Also associated with this event are high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which are linked to elevated ocean and atmospheric temperatures. Associated consequences include likely enhanced global rainfall and weathering of the continents, which further shifted the chemistry of the ocean.”

Of course, it couldn’t possibly be anything else but CO2 causing this, right?

Researchers quantify toxic ocean conditions during major extinction 93.9 million years ago

UC Riverside-led study points to an ancient oxygen-free and hydrogen sulfide-rich ocean that may foreshadow our future

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — Oxygen in the atmosphere and ocean rose dramatically about 600 million years ago, coinciding with the first proliferation of animal life. Since then, numerous short lived biotic events — typically marked by significant climatic perturbations — took place when oxygen concentrations in the ocean dipped episodically.

The most studied and extensive of these events occurred 93.9 million years ago. By looking at the chemistry of rocks deposited during that time period, specifically coupled carbon and sulfur isotope data, a research team led by University of California, Riverside biogeochemists reports that oxygen-free and hydrogen sulfide-rich waters extended across roughly five percent of the global ocean during this major climatic perturbation — far more than the modern ocean’s 0.1 percent but much less than previous estimates for this event.

The research suggests that previous estimates of oxygen-free and hydrogen sulfide-rich conditions, or “euxinia,” were too high. Nevertheless, the limited and localized euxinia were still sufficiently widespread to have dramatic effect on the entire ocean’s chemistry and thus biological activity.

“These conditions must have impacted nutrient availability in the ocean and ultimately the spatial and temporal distribution of marine life,” said team member Jeremy D. Owens, a former UC Riverside graduate student, who is now a postdoctoral scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. “Under low-oxygen environments, many biologically important metals and other nutrients are removed from seawater and deposited in the sediments on the seafloor, making them less available for life to flourish.”

“What makes this discovery particularly noteworthy is that we mapped out a landscape of bioessential elements in the ocean that was far more perturbed than we expected, and the impacts on life were big,” said Timothy W. Lyons, a professor of biogeochemistry at UCR, Owens’s former advisor and the principal investigator on the research project.

Study results appear online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Across the event 93.9 million years ago, a major biological extinction in the marine realm has already been documented. Also associated with this event are high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which are linked to elevated ocean and atmospheric temperatures. Associated consequences include likely enhanced global rainfall and weathering of the continents, which further shifted the chemistry of the ocean.

“Our work shows that even though only a small portion of the ocean contained toxic and metal-scavenging hydrogen sulfide, it was sufficiently large so that changes to the ocean’s chemistry and biology were likely profound,” Owens said. “What this says is that only portions of the ocean need to contain sulfide to greatly impact biota.”

For their analysis, the researchers collected seafloor mud samples, now rock, from multiple localities in England and Italy. They then performed chemical extraction on the samples to analyze the sulfur isotope compositions in order to estimate the chemistry of the global ocean.

According to the researchers, the importance of their study is elevated by the large amount of previous work on the same interval and thus the extensive availability of supporting data and samples. Yet despite all this past research, the team was able to make a fundamental discovery about the global conditions in the ancient ocean and their impacts on life.

“Today, we are facing rising carbon dioxide contents in the atmosphere through human activities, and the amount of oxygen in the ocean may drop correspondingly in the face of rising seawater temperatures,” Lyons said. “Oxygen is less soluble in warmer water, and there are already suggestions of such decreases. In the face of these concerns, our findings from the warm, oxygen-poor ancient ocean may be a warning shot about yet another possible perturbation to marine ecology in the future.”

###

A grant to Lyons from the National Science Foundation supported the study.

Owens and Lyons were joined in the study by UCR’s Steven M. Bates; Benjamin C. Gill at Virginia Tech. and a former Ph.D. student with Lyons; Hugh C. Jenkyns at the University of Oxford, the United Kingdom; Silke Severmann at Rutgers University, NJ, and a former postdoctoral researcher with Lyons; Marcel M. M. Kuypers at the Max Planck Institute for Marine Biology, Germany; and Richard G. Woodfine at British Petroleum, the United Kingdom.

Advertisements

187 thoughts on “The big stink 93.9 million years ago – blame CO2

  1. They can be so sure of what CO2 did 93.9 million years ago yet so wrong about what it would do 20 years ago.

  2. R Taylor:

    re your post at October 28, 2013 at 3:06 pm.

    The reported paper has to be among the daftest promotions of AGW ever. But it does not mention and does not pertain to any political philosophy.

    Your use of the paper as an excuse for your proclamation of your ridiculous political prejudice adds nothing of merit to discussion of the paper but it does offer an opportunity for warmunists to ridicule exposure of the paper’s flaws.

    Richard

  3. No oxygen. Major extincion. DUH? And do they tell us why these conditions occured?
    Oh,I see “Why does it matter?” “It’s all CO2’s fault” again.
    And 97% of my friends agree….

  4. Because of the opportunities presented by that global upheaval, we all exist today. Thank you for reaffirming the boundless rejuvenating capability and inevitability of life.

  5. I’m sorry, but when I saw the subject head, I thought that this was about H2SO2. I thought it was going to be about… never mind. Just grateful, actually…

  6. Owens says: “Across the event 93.9 million years ago, a major biological extinction in the marine realm has already been documented. Also associated with this event are high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which are linked to elevated ocean and atmospheric temperatures.”

    Watts says: “Of course, it couldn’t possibly be anything else but CO2 causing this, right?” Is “causing” your word or his.

    Most scientists reading this article would make a logical leap to thinking that higher CO2 levels make the planet warmer that it would be, and that would affect [O2] in the oceans.

    In the past I have the impression that most extinction events are more the cause of changes in [CO2] than the reverse. This has the possibility of making our future sadly “unprecedented”.

  7. Jeremy D. Owens, a former UC Riverside graduate student…..just discovered the sulfur cycle in marine sediments….
    publish or perish

  8. Pippen Kool:

    Your post at October 28, 2013 at 4:07 pm contains so many illogical assertions that it would require several posts to refute them all. So, I will only address your summarising end statement which says

    In the past I have the impression that most extinction events are more the cause of changes in [CO2] than the reverse. This has the possibility of making our future sadly “unprecedented”.

    Much of our future will certainly be “unprecedented”: that is the nature of the future.

    Species evolve while other species fail to survive. Land masses move across the surface of the globe, collide and subduct. The surface of the planet oscillates between glacial and interglacial periods. Empires rise and fall. Technologies and cultures develop, flourish and are lost but sometimes are found again. These and other changes will continue to provide unprecedented circumstances for the Earth and for people who inhabit it.

    CO2 has no demonstrable and significant effect on any of that. However, atmospheric CO2 concentration has reduced to dangerously low levels for the survival of plant species. Hence, an unprecedented extinction event induced by lack of atmospheric CO2 is a real possibility for the first time in the history of the planet, but I doubt that is what you meant.

    Richard

  9. Most scientists reading this article would make a logical leap to thinking that higher CO2 levels make the planet warmer that it would be, and that would affect [O2] in the oceans.
    ====
    most scientists reading this article would make a logical leap to thinking that a lot of dead crap didn’t produce O2, the anoxic layer in marine sediments moved to the surface, and released hydrogen sulfide

    The dead crap came first….it didn’t get that warm

  10. Pippen Kool: “This has the possibility of making our future sadly “unprecedented”.”

    The great thing about ‘possibility’ is that it runs both ways. It’s just as valid to state ‘This has the possibility of making our future sadly “precedented.”

    Unless, of course, you got the skinny on the down low from the Eloi.

  11. Most scientists reading this article would make a logical leap to thinking that higher CO2 levels make the planet warmer that it would be, and that would affect [O2] in the oceans.

    Most scientists, hell, scientists, don’t know what the absolute sign of the feedbacks is so to presume CO2 will indefinitely warm the planet requires non-scientific reasoning. It is this lack of knowledge regarding feedbacks that we have these disagreements. CO2 alone is not a problem.

  12. richardscourtney says: “atmospheric CO2 concentration has reduced to dangerously low levels for the survival of plant species. Hence, an unprecedented extinction event induced by lack of atmospheric CO2 is a real possibility for the first time in the history of the planet”.

    Good one. Are you trying to get your comment on the hotwhopper site?

  13. Across the event 93.9 million years ago, a major biological extinction in the marine realm has already been documented. Also associated with this event are high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which are linked to elevated ocean and atmospheric temperatures.

    During previous geologic times did co2 rise follow temperature rise or not? Are the Vostok ice cores wrong?

    PS, it’s funny how they call on the the paleo record to back CAGW but dismiss it when we say co2 was well over 5 times higher in the past and did not lead to CAGRW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Runaway Warming). I won’t be happy until we reach at least 600ppm in our atmosphere. It has been loooooong overdue.

  14. richardscourtney says:
    October 28, 2013 at 3:14 pm
    “Your use of the paper as an excuse for your proclamation of your ridiculous political prejudice adds nothing of merit to discussion of the paper”

    Socialism is a racist, genocidal nutbag ideology… It can NEVER be ridiculous to point that out. This paper may not directly come out and sing the praises of socialism… but thats like saying that when some PhD comes out with a paper saying blacks aren’t human that it is not a directly pro-socialist paper and thus one should not point out its pro-socialist support. Reality check this is a socialist paper trying to push a socialists agenda just in a very indirect fashion.

    The money quote as follows ““Today, we are facing rising carbon dioxide contents in the atmosphere through human activities, and the amount of oxygen in the ocean may drop correspondingly in the face of rising seawater temperatures,” Lyons said.”

    Thats clearly lyons bringing socialism to the forefront of this paper.

  15. Pippen Kool says:
    October 28, 2013 at 4:07 pm
    ……………
    In the past I have the impression that most extinction events are more the cause of changes in [CO2] than the reverse. This has the possibility of making our future sadly “unprecedented”.

    I hear the IPCC published a report yesterday about their impressions of CAGW. They have had their impressions peer reviewed and have been accepted for publication in the journal of impressionable folk! :)

  16. Ditto Jimbo. It’s amazing what the rare CO2 molecule can do, according to CAGWists. They’re that simple-minded, it takes a single, simple molecule to maintain their attention. Nothing else matters to these rent-seeking armchair “scientists”.

  17. So what prevented runaway global warming from occurring 93.9 million years ago? What stopped earth from becoming like Venus at a time when over 97% of climate scientists were not around to fix the problem?

  18. temp:

    I write to object to your offensive, abusive and demented post at October 28, 2013 at 4:51 pm which says to me.

    Socialism is a racist, genocidal nutbag ideology…

    I am anti-racist. I oppose genocide in any of its forms. And I am not a “nutbag” but am rational.

    I am these things because I am a socialist.
    Whereas you are a foul-mouthed anonymous troll trying to disrupt the thread with off-topic abuse. Clear off.

    Richard

  19. If there was a major biological extinction in the marine realm …… then one should expect an increase in atmospheric CO2. The rotting biomass generating CO2 and the lack of biomass for converting it to other products would result in a greater outgassing of CO2 from the ocean.

  20. This paper tells us one thing: The Earth is very resilient so if we went up to 900ppm we should be OK. We have in the past at far higher levels.

    CAGW is a scare tactic to empty your pockets, pure and simple. Just look at the main players’ vested interests. From Pachauri and Oxburgh to the BBC Pension investments and the large insurance companies like Münchener Rückversicherung (Munich RE) – carbonated investments to the hilt. If you seek the truth, follow the money. >>>>>>>>>>>> That’s what many UK land owning Lords are cashing in on right now. It’s a con job.

  21. So 94 million years ago there was a significant area of warm shallow ocean with consequential low oxygen levels. How is a slight increase in CO2 concentration in the present going to dramatically increase the area of shallow ocean worldwide?

  22. The only problems with this study are:

    – there was no rise in CO2 levels at this time; and,

    – there was no marine extinction event at this time.

  23. Mr or Mrs Pippen Kool skipped his photosynthesis classes back in the day. He/She has no idea what this trace gas does to vegetation. My IMPRESSION is that he/she thinks it’s a life killer on all levels. We are doomed and it’s ‘unprecedented’ in a precedented sort of way.

    Pippen read this. Please don’t remind me that growing plants DON’T produce oxygen. I am aware of this IPCC style fact. :)

  24. This article is in reference to the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary event. This event is theorized to have been caused by oceanic volcanism (not mentioned in the research). There was also a great deal of crust formation (also not mentioned in the article, which would have had an impact on climate). In fact, many researchers point to the widespread volcanism of that period as the probably reason for the acidity of the oceans and the increase in crustal development.

    This is fascinating because this article does two things: 1.) It does not address the volcanism, and 2.) this article clearly shows that CO2 rises and falls due to natural events.

    While it may show that CO2 has a detrimental affect, it also shows that this is a natural occurrence of the Earth, demonstrating that there are natural cycles and natural variability to climate.

    Anyone can read about the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary event and the volcanism of that period. For instance, here is a quote from an abstract: The timing of this boundary also coincides with large-scale volcanism from at least three large igneous provinces: the Caribbean and Ontong-Java oceanic plateaus and the Madagascar flood basalts.

  25. Pippen Kool says:
    October 28, 2013 at 4:41 pm

    richardscourtney says: “atmospheric CO2 concentration has reduced to dangerously low levels for the survival of plant species. Hence, an unprecedented extinction event induced by lack of atmospheric CO2 is a real possibility for the first time in the history of the planet”.

    Good one. Are you trying to get your comment on the hotwhopper site?

    Monseigneur Pippen, have you ever bothered to look???? This is the second time co2 levels have been so low. The only person telling steaming WHOPPERS here is you.

  26. Ya know, we all keep wondering, “How in the WORLD can these ostensibly genuine scientists make such fools out themselves?” And we always come back to (aside from the insane ones): money.

    Okay. Makes sense. BUT, WHY IN THE WORLD would you want to spend your days collecting mud and making a total fool of yourself in the eyes of the scientists you know have utter contempt for you when you could earn just as much selling used cars — or making payday loans — or being a telemarketer — and not make a public spectacle of yourself …. or have to go grubbing around in the MUD?!!

    Perhaps, insane is the ONLY explanation… .

    (Note: I’m only referring to the authors of such studies as the algae fraud and the above “study” — NOT to those cynically making profits off of these tools’ efforts.)

  27. Dr. James Hansen says that the oceans will boil and end up in the atmosphere if we burned all our fossil fuels. The IPCC says that man-made runaway global warming is not supported in the literature. Now we really are doomed. The End Is Nigh!

    “…it gets warmer and warmer then the oceans begin to evaporate and water vapor is a very strong green house gas, even more powerful than carbon dioxide. So you can get to a situation where, it just, the oceans will begin to boil and the planet becomes, uhh, so hot that the ocean ends up in the atmosphere, and that happened to Venus…”

    “Some thresholds that all would consider dangerous have no support in the literature as having a non-negligible chance of occurring. For instance, a “runaway greenhouse effect” —analogous to Venus–appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities…..”
    IPCC
    http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session31/inf3.pdf
    ——————–
    “There is no possibility of such runaway greenhouse conditions occurring on the Earth.”
    Sir John Houghton [IPCC author]
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/68/6/R02

  28. richardscourtney says:
    October 28, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    “I am anti-racist. I oppose genocide in any of its forms. And I am not a “nutbag” but am rational.

    I am these things because I am a socialist.
    Whereas you are a foul-mouthed anonymous troll trying to disrupt the thread with off-topic abuse. Clear off.

    Richard”

    Richard if you are truly a socialist then please do keep your well disproved propaganda to yourself.

    It has been through history and continues to be proven daily by science that socialism falls within the bounds that I speak of. Only two types of people believe that socialism is not a racist genocidal nutbag ideology. Those who are ignorant of history and science and those who approve of the racist, genocidal nutbaggery. If you are simply an ignorant fool I would be happy to give you a science lesson. Though I have a feeling you plan to just launch your ad hom attacks and run away because both the ignorant and the approves know they can not defend the pro-racism,genocide, nutbag position they hold… so why don’t you tuck your tail and say you fought the good fight and run away as is the socialist standard.

  29. The face of the planet upon which we exist has never been static, there is no ‘optimum’ level of anything which constitutes the surface upon which we presently exist. It has changed, is still changing and will continue to change.
    Our ‘theories’ and ‘explanations’ proliferate but the planet blithely ignores all of these and continues to change at its own sweet pace and in directions at which we can only guess.
    Just get used to the fact that, as far as this globule in space is concerned, we still know five eighths of eff all about what is going to happen tomorrow.

  30. Anonymous and offensive troll posting as temp:

    I read your ignorant, untrue, and bigoted abuse at October 28, 2013 at 5:33 pm.

    All your offensive lies are off topic. Stop it.

    Richard

  31. Arn’t they a yawn, yawn, yawn. even the UN is saying our recent bush fires are caused by global warming. Don’t they know some of our eucalypi, (gum trees) have oil in their leaves and have survived bush fires for thousands if not millions of years. yneed their seeds to germinate by being heated up. As I said yawn, yawn, yawn.

  32. OMG!!!

    It can happen anyway :-(

    What’s a H. sapiens sapiens to do at the half-precession old (and counting) Holocene????????

  33. I wonder if they measured the selenium levels, given that volcanic sulphur always comes with selenium, but hypoxic H2S doesn’t come with H2Se.

  34. I mean, the very best we can possibly achieve is to remove any possible, likely or sure effects of hominids on the late Holocene atmosphere/climate.

    Do that and this http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf could happen, anyway!!

    I mean what’s a hominid to do?

  35. temp says:
    October 28, 2013 at 5:33 pm
    “Though I have a feeling you plan to just launch your ad hom attacks and run away because both the ignorant and the approves know they can not defend the pro-racism,genocide, nutbag position they hold… so why don’t you tuck your tail and say you fought the good fight and run away as is the socialist standard.”

    “richardscourtney says:
    October 28, 2013 at 5:38 pm

    Anonymous and offensive troll posting as temp:

    I read your ignorant, untrue, and bigoted abuse at October 28, 2013 at 5:33 pm.

    All your offensive lies are off topic. Stop it.

    Richard”

    I swear its like clockwork… if only computer models could as accurately forecast the weather/climate as someone with a minor education in logic and sociology can predict a socialist.
    We’d be able to forecast the future of the planet on a second by second time scale for thousands of years.

  36. My issue is the refusal of many to understand geologic time frames compared to human existence. Here is a link that shows if the history of the planet were 24 hours, humans would have showed up around the last last minute before midnight. http://flowingdata.com/2012/10/09/history-of-earth-in-24-hour-clock/

    While understanding what happened 93 million years ago may be a fun academic exercise, does it directly effect us today, and if so, what can/could we do about it?

    I have asked this question before with none answering: Just how far out into the future are we supposed to concern ourselves with the environment? What is the “magic date” to call it quits for wasting our current $$$?

    Some thoughts: How many windmills would it take to cause changes in the worlds (maybe regional??) wind patterns? Could we wipe out all avian species doing so? What would it do to food crop growth?

    Same for solar panels, at what % coverage would it negatively effect global temperatures?

  37. 2008 study from University of Albert says volcanic eruptions did it and actually cause CO2 to decrease, and produced a major source of oil.

    According to their research, the eruptions preceded the mass extinction by a geological blink of the eye. The event occurred within 23 thousand years of the extinction and the underwater volcanic eruption had two consequences: first, nutrients were released, which allowed mass feeding and growth of plants and animals. When these organisms died, their decomposition and fall towards the sea floor caused further oxygen depletion, thereby compounding the effects of the volcanic eruption and release of clouds of carbon dioxide in to the oceans and atmosphere.

    An odd side-effect of the mass extinction, the result of the anoxic event caused as an indirect result of the underwater volcanic eruptions, was that temperatures and carbon dioxide levels on the Earth’s surface actually dropped.
    http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/2817/extinction-followed-eruption

  38. anonymous and offensive troll posting as temp:

    re your post at October 28, 2013 at 5:59 pm.

    It is not an ad hom. to tell an anonymous liar to stop trolling with off topic and personal abuse which is intended to deflect a thread.

    In the unlikely event that you have a comment pertinent to the subject of this thread then I will answer it. Otherwise, I shall ignore any more of your egregious abuse.

    Richard

  39. BW2013 says:
    October 28, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    “I have asked this question before with none answering: Just how far out into the future are we supposed to concern ourselves with the environment? What is the “magic date” to call it quits for wasting our current $$$?”

    With all due respect to those who disagree, anything paleo older than the closing of the Panama Seaway, or pre-Mid Pleistocene Transition (MPT) really does not relate well with Holocene climate. We may look at all manner of oceanography, but until the two major oceans ceased communication at the equator about 5 million years ago (more or less), things have been as they presently are, still cooling off from the PETM (Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum) but with the range greater since the mid-Brunhes event some 400 kya.

    Our concern with the near future climate environment comes down to just three choices:

    “1. Anthropogenic Global Warming/Catastrophic AGW. World will continue to warm, perhaps catastrophically, as a result of GHG emissions.

    “IPCC AR4 worst case estimate for sea level by 2100 is +0.59 meters amsl. End Eemian achieved, at least, 10 times this (if we use +6 meters amsl), almost an order of magnitude more if we use the +45m estimate. End Holsteinian achieved 36 times this predicted excursion (using 21.3 meters amsl), covering the low and high ends of natural, end extreme interglacial, climate noise.

    “The Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) range for AGW predictions to 2100 come in at a range of 0.1 to 0.03 compared to “normal” end extreme interglacial climate noise. Worst case projections are therefore woefully not anomalous (at best 10% of natural noise), with the projected AGW/CAGW signal scoring a measly 3-10% of normal end extreme interglacial climate noise levels.

    “Such a signal will be difficult to distinguish.

    “2. Holocene Interglacial (Loutre and Berger, 2003) will “go-long” (perhaps another 50,000 years), outlasting every previous interglacial in the past 5 million years.

    “With the end of MIS 11 full interglacial conditions and the start of ice accumulation estimated to have occurred at 395 kyr BP (de Abreu et al., 2005; Ruddiman 2005a, 2007), the precessional alignment would suggest that the Holocene is nearing its end, while the obliquity alignment would suggest it has another 12 000 years to run its course.” (Tzedakis, 2010)

    “In essence, this alignment represents a synchronization of the obliquity signal instead of precession, which according to Masson-Delmotte et al. (2006) may be more appropriate, because of the role of obliquity changes in triggering deglaciation especially during intervals of weak precessional variations, as is the case for MIS 11 and 1.” (Tzedakis, 2010)

    “3. Holocene is a tad over half-a precession cycle old now. If a precession match, it might be “winding-up” to “wind-down”, like all previous end extreme interglacials.

    The possibility consequently exists that at perhaps precisely the right moment near the end-Holocene, the latest iteration of the genus Homo unwittingly stumbled on the correct atmospheric GHG recipe to perhaps ease or delay the transition into the next glacial.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/

    As regards the ‘magic date’, you may wish to consider just how fast climate really does change:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/on-%E2%80%9Ctrap-speed-acc-and-the-snr/

    I hope this answers your questions.

    William

  40. richardscourtney says: “I am these things because I am a socialist.”

    Really? I am impressed. You are the last person I would have expected.

    Samuel C Cogar says: “a major biological extinction in the marine realm …… then one should expect an increase in atmospheric CO2. The rotting biomass generating CO2 and the lack of biomass for converting it to other products would result in a greater outgassing of CO2 from the ocean.”

    Actually, the reason there is a boundary in the rock is that much of that dead anoxic biomass lined the bottom of the ocean and never went anywhere. I think the reason for the raising of the [CO2], it’s more the lack of algae…

    Latitude says: “most scientists reading this article would make a logical leap to thinking that a lot of dead crap didn’t produce O2, the anoxic layer in marine sediments moved to the surface, and released hydrogen sulfide”

    That is only where the event happened (although I like my explanation better); I thought they said it was in a relatively small area. In the rest of the ocean, the [dissolved O2] is a function of temp. Higher temp = lower [O2].

  41. To BW2013

    The reality is they pick of course whatever time scale best suits the propaganda they want to push at the moment and then say that timescale is useless when it doesn’t support the propaganda. They also like to redefine “global” as meaning only the arctic or only the Northern Hemisphere… Mann’s hockey stick is a great display of the “its global when we say it global” data redefining.

    Also you have to understand basic socialist ideology. Socialists are taught that socialism is the must always happen end result and that once socialism happens it fixes everything. These people have no concept of the future other then maintaining the current present. Its why technology advances at the pace of nothingness in socialism countries outside of when they are stealing it from someone else. In the end the only way socialists see a way to fix a problem is with more socialism… Lysenko is a great display of socialist science where no matter the result it can never be that the ideology is wrong… its always someone or something fault normally blamed on some mythic capitalist plot. Global warming is the same way. The models are wrong because of some big oil capitalism plot, the planet is warming because of some capitalist plot, capitalist are ruining the planet because of X(insert global cooling, warming, overpopulation, blacks, etc) and thus we can only save the planet through socialism.

    Yes its crazy but they think this. They even admit it such as when some german said that even if global warming is showed to be false were still doing “the right thing”.

    ‘Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices, Europe’s climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard’s has said.’

    “Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth: ‘We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.’

    Quotes like these are common place because these people know it doesn’t matter if global warming is real or not what matters is the march total socialism by any means necessary.

  42. richardscourtney says:
    October 28, 2013 at 6:11 pm

    anonymous and offensive troll posting as temp:

    re your post at October 28, 2013 at 5:59 pm.

    It is not an ad hom. to tell an anonymous liar to stop trolling with off topic and personal abuse which is intended to deflect a thread.

    In the unlikely event that you have a comment pertinent to the subject of this thread then I will answer it. Otherwise, I shall ignore any more of your egregious abuse.

    Richard”

    Such ignorant first it can NEVER be ad hom to state the simple scientifically proven truth. You keep flopping around but you have no interest in debate history or science. You simply wish to troll. So you tuck tail and run like a good socialist. Stop wasting space in this thread.

  43. temp says: “because these people know it doesn’t matter if global warming is real or not what matters is the march total socialism by any means necessary.”

    Whatever. So having a common army, that’s not socialism? How about the police, should each one of us have our own policeman (capitalism way) or should we band into societies called towns and pay policemen? And firemen, where are you on that? And roads, maybe those should be controlled by capitalists? They once were, tolls to get thru the Cumberland Gap. You are a socialist and you don’t even know it.

    Now, I know where you guys stand on AGW, and for a second, only a second, hold in your mind that we might need to do something about it. Do you really thing that there is a purely Capitalistic idea that would force each and every person to reduce carbon use? Because I have never heard of one. So the solution will be some sort of socialism.

  44. An extinction will liberate vast amounts of CO2. That is what fungi and other decomposers do. Interestingly, not long prior to that extinction, CO2 was running sort of low.

  45. Pippen Kool

    Most scientists reading this article would make a logical leap to thinking that higher CO2 levels make the planet warmer that it would be, and that would affect [O2] in the oceans.

    When it snows, people appear on the streets wearing warm coats and hats. Any scientist would make the logical leap that putting on warm coats and hats causes it to snow.

  46. Pippen Fool says:

    So having a common army, that’s not socialism?

    No, Fool.

    How about the police, should each one of us have our own policeman (capitalism way) or should we band into societies called towns and pay policemen?

    No, Fool.

    And firemen, where are you on that? And roads, maybe those should be controlled by capitalists? They once were, tolls to get thru the Cumberland Gap. You are a socialist and you don’t even know it.

    Wrong again, Fool.

    The Austrian school and Frederic Bastiat explain it all, but some folks presume to know ‘facts’ that aren’t so.

    Lookin’ at you, Pippen…

  47. Hey, Pippen, two questions (the third one is rhetorical):

    1. What happened to Poppen?

    2. Is Nod your brother or your cousin?

    It’s not surprising that you are a socialist. The overwhelming majority of AGW supporters are socialists (the Democrats in the U.S. are essentially socialists, now) and the overwhelming majority of anti-AGW people are NOT socialist. Why do you suppose that is?

    *********************
    re: my post above: algae moss.

    There’s probably a bogus “study” about algae, but I wasn’t thinking of it at the time. Now, why did I call “moss,” “algore”? Hm.

  48. dbstealey says: “Frederic Bastiat explain it all”

    “On the other hand, Bastiat himself declared that subsidy should be available, but limited: “under extraordinary circumstances, for urgent cases, the State should set aside some resources to assist certain unfortunate people, to help them adjust to changing conditions.”

    Hmmm. So even Bastiat was a closet socialist. Cool. I mean, Kool. Sorry, dbstealey, you too are probably a socialist and you do not wish to know it. Do you have your own army? Or is it one I am paying for?

  49. richardscourtney says:
    October 28, 2013 at 3:14 pm
    ————————————————-
    How else do you explain 1-in-1000 minds ignoring the lag of CO2 behind temperature where this can be resolved? For some, with paycheck and pension funded by taxes and tax-driven endowments, it is easy to say “it’s complicated.” IMHO, carbon-driven climate is the Lysenkoism of social democracy. Sorry we don’t agree.

  50. temp;

    There are very few participants in this forum who have taught me as much science as richardscourtney. Few people have done as much work as he has to unmask the facade that masquerades as climate science. He has not only worked diligently to expose the bad science behind CAGW, he has done so publicly under his own name, and not just in this forum. You would do well to learn from him rather than alienate him, he has much to teach and his science is rock solid.

    Yes, he’s a socialist. I’m not. You can’t get any more opposite the political spectrum from Richard than I am. But on matters of science, climate science in particular, there are few people for whom I have more respect than him.

    There are warmists on both sides of the political spectrum, just as there are skeptics on both sides. It may interest you to know that the CAGW meme started not as a something being promoted by the left, but something that was promoted by the right. In fact, CAGW alarmism originated with one of the heroes of conservative value, Margaret Thatcher.

  51. I love how they mention that oxygen is less soluble in warmer water, but somehow fail to mention that the same rule also applies to CO2. Interesting.

  52. davidmhoffer,

    I could not have said it better. I could not have even said it as well. You have expressed my thoughts exactly. Thanks for that.

    I am not a Socialist. But I think most Socialists have their hearts in the right place. The problems come in when evil schemers try to take power for their own self aggrandizement.

    Human nature must always be kept in check. As Niccolo Machiavelli noted in The Prince: “Men are evil, unless compelled to be good.”

  53. @Janice Moore: “Perhaps, insane is the ONLY explanation… .”

    Nawp, greenbacks are better.

    @richardscourtney: Rather surprised you’re a Red.

    @Poppen Kollar: Not surprised you’re a Watermelon

    @temp: Not that Infrared-baiting isn’t good sport. But save it for a post on politics.

    ‘Til them let’s all have at the Slamecksans. No one can stand people in comfortable shoes. Amirite?

  54. Vince says: October 28, 2013 at 8:10 pm
    Bingo! Kind of puts a wet blanket on the ever-acidifying oceans. They can’t have it both ways.

  55. Vince: “… but somehow fail to mention that the same rule also applies to CO2.”

    “Hey Rocky, watch me pull a projection out of my hat!” It’s Climagic.

  56. Vince says: “I love how they mention that oxygen is less soluble in warmer water, but somehow fail to mention that the same rule also applies to CO2. Interesting.”

    But CO2 is much more soluble in water than O2: O2 just occupies intermolecular space; CO2 hydrates and dissolves into water. But you are correct; heat up your soda and see what happens…

    In any case, fish don’t care about less CO2 in the water…

  57. I’m with Bill Illis. It’s seems the available evidence indicates a gradually falling CO2 level around then, and no significant extinction at that time is apparent. Jonathan links to an Alberta paper that indicates it was significant, at least regionally, and totally caused by underwater volcanoes, but evidence doesn’t seem overwhelming. It certainly doesn’t seem to imply CO2 in any way. The lack of O2 in the water would seem readily explained as Jonathan and the Alberta paper indicate, and the UC researchers say only 5% of the ocean was affected. This just doesn’t seem significant, especially relative to today. Especially given our modern continent placement.

  58. dbstealey says:
    October 28, 2013 at 8:14 pm
    ———————————————
    I would venture to say that almost all the participants in this discussion owe their scientific knowledge to state-sponsored education. I feel carbon-driven climate is a betrayal of that social good, with the corrosive effects already apparent.
    I suggest socialists have their hearts in the same place as everyone else, centered in their self-interest. With almost all the opinion-shapers trained by state-sponsored education as well, that self-interest might seem “in the right place.” However, unlike the self-interest accepted by Adam Smith, orthodox self-interest is unconstrained by competition.

  59. William McClenney says:
    October 28, 2013 at 6:54 pm

    “I suspect this might have some bearing on the issue:”

    Well the first quote is from a german or frenchmen not sure… but also the euros are the ones who are pushing global warming terror… and the faulty logic behind it. They also tend to rig those tests in favor of said faulty logic as well.

    Pippen Kool says:
    October 28, 2013 at 7:01 pm

    “Whatever. So having a common army, that’s not socialism? How about the police, should each one of us have our own policeman (capitalism way) or should we band into societies called towns and pay policemen? And firemen, where are you on that? And roads, maybe those should be controlled by capitalists? They once were, tolls to get thru the Cumberland Gap. You are a socialist and you don’t even know it.”

    This is classic socialist failure of logic. Police/army by themselves are neither socialist nor capitalist. Its how those police are payed, recuited, what powers they have, who controls them that determines where on the scale they. For socialists police we can look they tend to be heavily controlled by the federal/top most part of the government. They can do whatever they want to whoever they want with little oversight. They are better armed then the population they “police”. They have huge long lists have stupid laws which they are eager to enforcement but have zero interest in “dangerous” crimes because that puts them in danger and tends to be little in the way of bribes and kick backs for them. As always on the scale the more abusive the police the more socialists they are.

    “Now, I know where you guys stand on AGW, and for a second, only a second, hold in your mind that we might need to do something about it. Do you really thing that there is a purely Capitalistic idea that would force each and every person to reduce carbon use? Because I have never heard of one. So the solution will be some sort of socialism.”

    This is classic socialist thinking here. In socialists ideology one must assume humans can never progress anymore for the most part. We must enter “stasis”, freezing our current “life” in order to “save it”. Socialists always see problems in terms of how to control things. Problem:We’re running out of resources.
    Socialist fix: Bring about socialism… if that doesn’t work more socialism, as part of socialist we must ration our resources though not for the elite in the government.
    Capitalist fix: We find or create more resources.

    Peak oil, the population bomb, eugenics, global cooling, warming, etc are all classic socialists scares designed to “freeze” the human race. The only fix for things like eugenics and the populations bomb from a socialist perspective was to control the populations. Reduce usage(except by the socialist elite). Never does it cross the socialist mind to invent something or expand on what currently know.

    Peak oil is a great display of that. We’ve according to socialists run out of oil every 10 years for the last 100 years. Yet we still have tons and tons of oil. Now in order to prevent oil usage we have government control over it. Your banned from drilling for oil because it releases CO2 and you’ll kill the planet. I always find it funny how were going to run out of oil any day now but yet those same people say we need to completely stop drilling for oil… classic socialists as work. The best pictures to sum of socialists at work, is where you see in the first one a productive farm with a government worker walking by to shut it down. The next picture you see a scientists in front of said farm(now a wild field) ranting and raving about how we have no more farm land left and we need population controls, rations and socialism or we’re all going to die. The farmer is standing in the crowd and says “We had lots of farm land until the the government you work for shut it all down”.

    Socialism short term goals are always to cause problems which they can then “fix” by socialism.

  60. A few points: first @richardscourtney – having myself suffered in a previous thread from your repeated assertions that I was a troll (accompanied by much bad language on your part when I asked you to cite some authority for your own assertions) may I remind you that Antony, with the mods as his gatekeepers, is our host here. You are a guest like everyone else – and it ill becomes a guest to tell other guests to “clear off” (or worse) in these pages. That is the prerogative of our host: if you wish to be free to do this you should start your own blog. Good luck with that.

    And on this actual topic, somewhat amusingly (at least in hindsight!) there was also a “big stink” (or “great stink”) in London in summer 1858, almost at the start of the industrial era which was most definitely anthropogenic in nature – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink

    And saying “… associated with this event are high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which are linked to elevated ocean and atmospheric temperatures” totally begs the question of cause and effect – not least that if temperatures rise this will inevitably cause an outgassing of the oceans, essentially as a feedback.

  61. Bill Illis on October 28, 2013 at 5:11 pm
    The only problems with this study are:– there was no rise in CO2 levels at this time; and,– there was no marine extinction event at this time.

    These Marcott-Miller-Lyons deliberate misinformation paper ignore established geology and aim only for the media. The aim seems to be to replace the science of geology with a fictional AGW narrative.

    It is important that the corpus of geological knowledge as well as other science pertaining to climate, is archived in several countries secretly by non-governmental entities, to protect this knowledge from a future crystallnacht of book-burning by ecofascist regimes.

  62. davidmhoffer says:
    October 28, 2013 at 8:06 pm

    “temp;

    There are very few participants in this forum who have taught me as much science as richardscourtney. Few people have done as much work as he has to unmask the facade that masquerades as climate science. He has not only worked diligently to expose the bad science behind CAGW, he has done so publicly under his own name, and not just in this forum. You would do well to learn from him rather than alienate him, he has much to teach and his science is rock solid.”

    Which is all well in good but completely meaningless. He refusing to debate and just wants to cry… which is both perfectly fine and very socialist.

    “Yes, he’s a socialist. I’m not. You can’t get any more opposite the political spectrum from Richard than I am. But on matters of science, climate science in particular, there are few people for whom I have more respect than him.” See above.

    “There are warmists on both sides of the political spectrum, just as there are skeptics on both sides. It may interest you to know that the CAGW meme started not as a something being promoted by the left, but something that was promoted by the right. In fact, CAGW alarmism originated with one of the heroes of conservative value, Margaret Thatcher.”

    Lot of myths here. First unless you think stalin was a moderate, thatcher is by no means “rightwing” she was mostly a centrist/center leftist with a few things where she was leftwing. As to socialists not believing in global warming this is not unexpected. Socialists only believe in the collective they want to get power and when they see their collective losing out to turn against the other collectives they have been working with. Classics are of course hitler and stalin but one can see it in many thing. Its why you always see socialists start out on the broad side and then purify themselves down. This of course means cutting off the more “fringe” groups in the collective. As the collective becomes more powerful more extreme purifying takes place aka genocide. The global warming movement has gotten to the point where it is starting the purging process which is why your seeing more people turn away. If they can continue to gain more and more people they will follow standard socialism 101 and start jailing people amass, then genocide if they can get near total power. It remains to be see if they will get that power.

    Global warming started as a eugenics scare but was dropped… it like other socialist scares claims that OMG we’re all going to die unless you give us total control over everything.

  63. I thought the end Cretaceous in general was a cooling period, this cooling accounting for the gradual demise of the dinosaurs (hot climate adapted) which was already established well before the Chixilub meteor impact 65 Myr ago.

    But I forgot – thats old unfashionable Judeo-Christian honest logic with no place in today’s science. The correct party line now is that the dinosaurs demise was caused by humans and less dinosaur farts meant less greenhouse methane and thus cooling climate.

  64. William McClenney says:
    October 28, 2013 at 6:19 pm

    Pardon my pedantic quibble, but the blockage of former currents by the formation of the Isthmus of Panama through tectonic plate movements occurred closer to three Ma than five, in the late Pliocene Epoch. The effect of adding more warm water to the Gulf Stream led to the onset of the Pleistocene glaciations starting around 2.6 Ma.

    Lonnie E. Schubert says:
    October 28, 2013 at 8:43 pm

    There was an extinction associated with the Cenomanian-Turonian Anoxic Event, but it isn’t considered one of the five main mass extinction events. It apparently affected both land & sea, although the dating of the last survival of families & orders can’t always be precise. Among large terrestrial vertebrates, some groups of dinosaurs died out, possibly including megalosaurids, which were large theropods, & the ornithischian stegosaurids. The oceans lost the pliosaurs, the short-necked, large-headed group of plesiosaurs, & probably the dolphin-like ichthyosaurs, although some scant evidence suggests they may have survived in greatly reduced numbers & variety until the end of the Cretaceous. The role of the plesiosaurs was taken over by mosasaurs.

    The best explanation to date for the extinction was volcanism.

  65. phlogiston says:
    October 28, 2013 at 9:23 pm

    The ages discussed in this typically special-pleading paper occurred not at the end of the Cretaceous Period (145 to 66 Ma), but near its middle (93.5 Ma), ie in the early ages of the long Late Cretaceous Epoch (subdivided into six ages). The Cenomanian & Turonian ages were one of the hottest phases of the generally warm Mesozoic Era, if not the hottest. You are right that after these ages, the epoch did cool somewhat, by Mesozoic standards. In the Maastrichtian, the last age of the Cretaceous, the North American interior seaway receded, for instance, due largely to thermal contraction of the oceans.

    The pace of the demise of the dinos remains controversial. If there is a consensus, it’s probably now that the penultimate age of the Cretaceous, the Campanian, saw the height of dino diversity, which then declined in the Maastrichtian, whether from global cooling or other causes, such as the advent of the Deccan Traps (basalt floods created as the Indian Plate passed over the Reunion Island hot spot). The coup de grace for non-avian dinos was the Yucatan bolide impact.

  66. Lyons said. “Oxygen is less soluble in warmer water, and there are already suggestions of such decreases. In the face of these concerns, our findings from the warm, oxygen-poor ancient ocean may be a warning shot about yet another possible perturbation to marine ecology in the future.”

    So warmer water can significantly change the amount of absorbed O2 but suggesting but suggesting significant CO2 out gassing is derided. Despite the obvious eveidence.

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233
    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=223

  67. Ever heard of banded iron formations? We mine Iron from them and they are banded because there were alternations between oxic and anoxic conditions. Ever wonder why most of our microbial predecessors have both oxidative and reductive metabolic pathways? Because they survived both. Ever wonder why marine transgressions often accompany the transition? Didn’t think so. Don’t know why but thinking about it…

  68. Greg Goodman says:
    October 28, 2013 at 10:06 pm

    “Lyons said. “Oxygen is less soluble in warmer water, and there are already suggestions of such decreases. In the face of these concerns, our findings from the warm, oxygen-poor ancient ocean may be a warning shot about yet another possible perturbation to marine ecology in the future.”

    So warmer water can significantly change the amount of absorbed O2 but suggesting but suggesting significant CO2 out gassing is derided. Despite the obvious evidence.”

    Yes its very selective data “inputs”. Warmists now claim the oceans are warming up… thus logically they would out gas CO2 which would in turn explain the raise in CO2. Of course they will never do anything to explain this until they are cornered such as they have been with the “pause”. Since they go unchallenged though points like this will take years to surface and they will figure out some fancy way in a computer model to claim they accounted for it and yes in deed it is still worse then they thought.

  69. “milodonharlani says:
    October 28, 2013 at 9:39 pm

    “William McClenney says:
    October 28, 2013 at 6:19 pm

    “Pardon my pedantic quibble, but the blockage of former currents by the formation of the Isthmus of Panama through tectonic plate movements occurred closer to three Ma than five, in the late Pliocene Epoch. The effect of adding more warm water to the Gulf Stream led to the onset of the Pleistocene glaciations starting around 2.6 Ma.”

    Perhaps something like this:

    http://d-nb.info/980904056/34#page=23

    or this:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281983%29040%3C2735:STCVAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    It probably was not an instantaneous event until closer towards the end:

    http://d-nb.info/980904056/34

  70. Milodonharlani

    I seem to remember somewhere – it might have been in “The ancestors tale” by R Dawkins – a suggestion that the apparent decline of dinosaur fossils before the abrupt extinction 65 Mya might be a statistical artefact linked to temporal error in dating fossils. i. e. Rocks at 65 Mya would have an “error contribution” of only older rocks while rock not close to an extinction would have symmetical error contribution from both older and younger rock.

  71. The more familiar you are with the circumstellar habitable zone the less likely you are to be impressed with contemporary climate change alarmism and the more you expect the climate to change as a matter of course. The location of the Earth in the habitable zone is an accident and always has been. It will move around in this zone, and it may even become extra-zonal from time to time. The zone itself may move because of solar changes. All this drives climate, and climate drives weather. True climate change is dramatic and does not sneak up on us.

    We can’t predict 30 days ahead what the specific weather will be. We barely cope with the seasons with any accuracy, and we’ve been at this for centuries. We’re doing something wrong reliably – what is it? Because we don’t understand climate we don’t understand weather. Those of us not in the corporate weather industry understand this inadequacy. Too many of those inside defend that inadequacy. Yet we claim we know that 100 years hence, NYC and all its subways will be under water. “Really smart scientists” have assured us it is so. Oh, really? What else have they got right that we should believe this crap? Sorry – they’re idiots.

    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/mar/25/earth-is-closer-to-the-edge-of-suns-habitable-zone – is it right or wrong? WE DON”T KNOW! What does it mean? We don’t know. What can it mean? Ask the blogosphere – there is no greater crystal ball known to mankind. You won’t get an answer but you get a lot of guesses. We don’t know!

    Ignoring the habitable zone, the earth system over a stable period of the habitable zone is so chaotic we can’t predict what will happen next, and as in any chaotic system, any previous chain of events depending upon an initial set of relevant circumstances will never repeat because those circumstances don’t repeat and so we can’t know what will happen next based on our inadequate understanding of current set of circumstances. That is chaos at its best. In a changing habitable zone we haven’t a prayer of understanding what happens next except that change will happen. What are the drivers of an unstable habitable zone? How about our central heating system, the condition of the sun? We all seem to be in denial that the conditions on the sun in the last 100 years has been dramatic. We’re pissing away 1 billion dollars/day chasing CO2 and other nonsense and ignoring our hissing radiator just the other side of Mercury – that bright thing out there. Pay attention to it – it is telling us things we need to know.

    Please – no more games. We don’t know, and we all need to accept that we don’t know. Don’t let this actuality lead us to destroying our global economy on a climate lark. We’re too stupid to get it right at present. Give it time and in the mean time please let us rebuild our economies around what we do know. Stop the madness. We’re ignorant enough to destroy the economy needed to pay for the education needed to understand our climate and weather. Instead, let us spend that fool’s gold on cancer research and other needs with greater immediacy than climate hysteria.

  72. dp

    All true. But chaotic systems can have a self-regulating ability. So Lovelock’s daisyworld and Gaia hypothesis makes some sense. The biosphere might be able to self-adjust to widen the habitable zone – note for instance the dim sun paradox.

    AGW hacks betray their anti-capitalist / anarchist / socialist mindset by an infantile naiveté about economics – they imagine that economies of the “West” are obscenely rich with massive disposable income to throw away on baseless carbon self-flagellation. In fact we’re practically broke and AGW economic suicide could condemn millions to destitution.

  73. If you mean chaotic systems have attractors then yes, that is a semblance of stability, but it remains chaotic what the center of the attractor might be. And the presence of attractors does not predict the path to those attractors. In the same vein, there are constrained infinities – the tip of a bull whip can crack at an infinite number of locations none of which can be farther than the length of the bull whip itself. This gets us no closer to future realities that the IPCC is so fond of but also very wrong at.

  74. TimC:

    I see that at October 28, 2013 at 9:03 pm you are again conducting your anonymous trolling.

    I and everyone else has a perfect right to defend himself when subjected to unprovoked, untrue and offensive abuse. Also in common with everyone else, I have a perfect right to tell you and all other trolls to clear off when they mount such attacks from behind the cowardly shield of anonymity.

    Clear off.

    Richard

  75. Friends:

    Several people have pointed out the problems with this paper. But the chemical analyses reported in the paper undermine to the AGW-scare.

    As others have pointed out in this thread, the paper’s authors
    (a) ignore volcanism when the analysis of sediment samples could have included Se determinations to assess volcanic contributions to the high S,
    (b) confuse cause and effect when considering the oceanic O2 and CO2 concentrations,
    (c) make mistaken assertions of ocean chemistry pertaining to oceanic solubilities of O2 and CO2
    and
    (d) make a ridiculous assertion of how this geological evidence pertains to the present.

    However, the paper opens a ‘can of worms’ for the AGW scare.
    I explain this as follows.

    A change in the pH of the ocean surface layer would alter the equilibrium between concentrations of CO2 in the air and the ocean surface layer. Such a pH change from additional CO2 is inhibited by the carbonate buffer. However, introduction of sulphide ions to the ocean surface layer would alter the pH of the ocean surface layer and would not be inhibited by the buffer.

    A change only 0.1 to the pH of the ocean surface layer would alter the equilibrium to induce a rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration greater than the rise which has happened since the industrial revolution. Such a small change is far too small for it to be discernible. But it may have happened as a result of variation to sulphide injected to the oceans by undersea volcanism. And the above paper suggests such sulphide injections to ocean surface layer may also be caused by changes to biota in the ocean.

    The AGW-scare is based on the hypothesis that the observed rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution results from emissions of CO2 from human activities.

    If the observed rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution results from volcanic and/or biological introduction of sulphide to the ocean surface layer then the entire AGW-scare is refuted. And the paper under discussion says that sulphide variation in the ocean surface layer does alter concentrations of O2 and CO2.

    As an addendum

    There seems to be a concerted attempt by anonymous trolls to deflect this thread from its subject. This attempted deflection is understandable when one recognises how damaging an understanding of the analyses in the paper are to the AGW-scare (as I have here explained). Therefore, in the unlikely event that anybody is interested in my political views then I point them to the discussion of them on WUWT which begins with my providing this explanation
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1385725

    Richard

  76. TimC says:
    October 28, 2013 at 9:03 pm
    A few points: first @richardscourtney – …………may I remind you that Antony, with the mods as his gatekeepers, is our host here. You are a guest like everyone else – and it ill becomes a guest to tell other guests to “clear off” (or worse) in these pages.

    TimC, I am glad someone speaks out.
    Richard displays a level of pedantry that gets under my skin. It is a pity, because he often makes good scientific points but he should refrain from telling people off in a self-righteous way. If someone attacks him he resorts to accusing them of trolling or uses other demeaning qualifications. Even my comment here will be seen by him as an ad hom, while he should take it on board constructively and become a more pleasant adversary in the discourse. Let’s see what kind of ostentation he will come up with in response to this.

  77. richardscourtney says:
    October 28, 2013 at 5:00 pm
    “temp:

    I write to object to your offensive, abusive and demented post at October 28, 2013 at 4:51 pm which says to me.

    Socialism is a racist, genocidal nutbag ideology…

    I am anti-racist. I oppose genocide in any of its forms. And I am not a “nutbag” but am rational.

    I am these things because I am a socialist.”

    On the other hand, socialists don’t mind a little Klassenkampf, n’est-ce pas?

  78. The publication of this research has certainly caused a sulphurous malodour to waft its way toward the reader.

  79. Chris Schoneveld says “TimC, I am glad someone speaks out”.

    Thank you for that and I agree with all you say. It is indeed a pity – but I don’t think he can help himself: there have been 15 references to “troll” upstream of this comment as I write, of which all but one have directly (or indirectly, as quotes) emanated from richardscourtney. This is getting rather tiresome. And, as for my own contributions, our host seems happy to allow postings under abbreviated names without regarding them all as from trolls …

  80. Chris Schoneveld:

    re your post at October 29, 2013 at 1:40 am.

    No “ostentation”. There is no need. Your post is simply more of the trolling ad hom. typical of all your posts. Your post is not from behind the cowardly screen of anonymity provided by the similar abuse from Pippen Kool, temp, DitkH and TimC, but you chose to “follow on” from them.

    You guys are frightened to discuss the paper and use your barrage of obnoxious abuse against me to deflect from the damage to the fundamental assumption of AGW which I explained in my post at October 29, 2013 at 1:33 am. This link jumps to it
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/28/the-big-stink-93-9-million-years-ago-blame-co2/#comment-1460005

    Richard

  81. It is strange that a paper on ocean chemistry leads so directly to an accusation that 25% of the EU is racist (195 out of 766 seats in the EU Parliament).

    A peculiar leap of the imagination; very offensive, of course, but entertaining in a Bedlam way.

  82. temp, best summary of what socialism ‘is’ that I have read to date. Concise and to the point. Nice read.

  83. Friends:

    The paper which is the subject of this thread threatens severe damage to the AGW-scare by its admission of sulphide effects on ocean chemistry and, thus, atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Clearly, the troll count in this thread demonstrates how seriously this threat to the AGW-scare is considered to be. We now have “wayne” joining in with the attempt to deflect from the subject of the thread by adding to the absurd assertions of “racism” and etc..

    Richard

  84. wayne:

    At October 29, 2013 at 3:24 am you ask me

    What’s wrong with you richardscourtney, that was just a thank for temps words.

    Nothing wrong with me. But “temps words” were

    Socialism is a racist, genocidal nutbag ideology.

    That is off topic and untrue abuse of me and all other socialists with the clear intention of flaming trolling to deflect the thread from its subject.

    That you chose to “thank” temp for those “words” say there is much wrong with you.

    Richard

  85. Ok, missed the word “racist” and I wouldn’t classify it as such. Make it a mindset to control all others, not a race, a division. You show those very traits right now in what you just did to me.

  86. wayne:

    re your ridiculous excuse at October 29, 2013 at 3:52 am.
    I read it, noted it, and I am ignoring its attempt to continue your trolling.

    Perhaps you can now stop trolling and address the subject of this thread.

    Richard

  87. Oxygen in the atmosphere and ocean rose dramatically about 600 million years ago, coinciding with the first proliferation of animal life.

    Shouldn’t that be plant life?

  88. I was not certain from the article if the authors thought that CO2 preceded the H2S event, happened at the same time or lagged it. Seems like the former. It also seemed that they implied that CO2 caused the H2S event.
    Just some random thoughts on the article and some posts:
    a. The solubility of gasses in water is a fuction of vapor pressure, polarity and ability to react with water.
    b. The solubility of all gasses in water varies inversely with temperature http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html
    c. The solubility of CO2 in water will decrease with decreasing pH. This would suggest that the CO2 increase would, in part, lag the H2S event.
    d. Sulfide ions won’t do much to change pH, hydrogen ions will.
    e. The speculation on a CO2 increase following an anoxic event seems good, but how do we pin that down?

    I wasted a great deal of time wading through the name calling sessions. It’s rather boring and childish and would be much better done on some political blog or in a newspaper.

  89. Chris Schoneveld:

    Thankyou for your post at October 29, 2013 at 4:40 am which says you agree with my post at October 29, 2013 at 2:27 am.

    Richard

  90. Gentleman!
    I do not know Richard S. Courtney, but I have spoken to him via facebook a few years back, he probably doesn’t remember it, it was a mater of giving the Fwit politicos a ladder by which they could extract themselves from the cesspool they had jumped into! I found him polite & scientifically informative especially as I understood he was a former UNIPCC reviewer. Big respect! I have no objections to his political views, mine are not the same as his, There are good people on both sides of this non-debate who value the science.
    I simply ask that there is a general agreement that ad hominem attacks from all sides cease, & just agree to differ, but let’s stick to the science, please.

    Alan Hannaford, CEng, MIStructE
    Principal
    Alan Hannaford Consultants

  91. richardscourtney,

    The problem with socialism is that the incentives are wrong. It rewards consumers and penalizes producers. Every system needs some of that to smooth out some of the bumps. Too much of it and you wind up with too many consumers and not enough producers.

    And on top of that you run into the knowledge problem. Who can know what value to place on a given item of production? If you advantage consumers too much (some one has to decide what the proper level of consumption is), production declines.

    And how about subsidies? It is obvious the production of Alternative Energy (AE) is excessive because it causes power prices to rise above what supply and natural (unsubsidized) demand indicate. Women, children, and minorities hurt hardest.

    Climate science as currently used in politics is nothing but an attempt at the strengthening of central authority (command and control). Command and control systems of any stripe have a very bad historical record. Solar cells or coal? Want power when the sun doesn’t shine? Windmills or nuclear? Want power when the wind doesn’t blow (enough)?

  92. Alan the Brit says:
    October 29, 2013 at 5:04 am

    I agree that richard knows atmospheric science quite well. He seems naive in politics and economics.

    The trouble is that CAGW is an endeavor to use bad science to foster bad economics.

    Women, children, and minorities hurt hardest.

    Central control is always done in the name of the weak. It winds up advantaging oligarchs (in some systems referred to as commissars).

  93. M Simon says:
    October 29, 2013 at 5:21 am

    The objective is simple, Total Global Government. It will be loosely based on Socialist principles but it won’t be Socialist, more like the Socialism of we know what’s best for everyone else, but it won’t apply to us, as is evidenced by the jamborees they have every time they get together. These are what used to be known as the “Champagne Socialists”, like Tony Blair et al, I wonder what his net worth is right now. I truly wonder what the actual monetary cost of these champagne & caviar events is when the UNIPCC get together, never seems to come to light.

  94. dbstealey, davidmhoffer, and Alan the Brit:

    I write to thank each of you for your kind and supportive words.

    As you each say, I have different political views to you but that is not relevant to our considerations of the science pertaining to AGW.

    I have been promoting real science against AGW scaremongering for 33 years and it has cost me much time, trouble and money. The beginning of the end of the AGW scare was achieved in December 2009 at Copenhagen. So, we are now into controlling the potentially harmful effects of the scare as it fades away. Many are better equipped to achieve that control than me. But it is important to obtain as wide a range as possible of political adherents for involvement in that activity.

    The WUWT community has an important part to play in controlling the potentially harmful effects of the AGW scare as it fades away. And warmunists already assert that WUWT is a ‘front’ for right-wing political extremism. It would be foolish for us to convert that assertion into a reality.

    I was driven from the blogs of Jo Nova and Judith Curry by troll attacks of me. On those blogs, as in this WUWT thread, it became impossible for me to address the science because my time was consumed by defending from irrelevant and abusive attacks of me.

    I left WUWT earlier this year and returned after some months only because several people pressed me to. If threads are disrupted by my presence – as this thread has been – then this would ensure that my continuing in attempts to contribute to WUWT would be self defeating. But my presence does demonstrate the falsehood of the assertion that WUWT is a ‘front’ for right-wing political extremism.

    Hence, my thanks for your supporting words are great and sincere to each of you.

    Richard

  95. M Simon:

    I ask you to read my above post at October 29, 2013 at 5:33 am and also the discussion of my political views in another thread where I answered questions on them (I linked to the start of that interrogation above).

    These links are to them.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/28/the-big-stink-93-9-million-years-ago-blame-co2/#comment-1460124
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1385725

    Now, can we please return to the subject of this thread.

    Richard

  96. This yet-to-be-release paper seems to be so flawed just by the press release. We have all seen how the ocean waters have an approximate upper limit of 30°C and unless it has been proven that all life can not exist at 30°C (of course totally incorrect) I quite honestly don’t know what they are speaking about. My guess is their underlying thrust is going to be aimed subliminally at not only carbon dioxide but to hydrogen sulfide which can be found in natural gas. But for those that will take the time, few of the public or other scientists will, that component in natural gas is next to totally removed before final distribution and is about 15% of the source of all elementary sulfur produced for use in other industries.

    So where does the hydrogen sulfide originate that they seem to place as the number one culprit in this paper… volcanoes, especially underwater volcanoes, but I really found no mention of that at all.

    As to whether carbon dioxide has been linked to higher temperature, it has not, it has been hypothesized, nothing more.

  97. wayne:

    Thankyou for your post at October 29, 2013 at 5:59 am which goes to the crux of the matter raised by this – yet to be read – paper.

    As you say, the lack of mention of volcanism is a serious error in the paper (assuming the press release is right). The issue of the H2S, volcanism and biological activity in the ocean surface layer is of fundamental importance to the AGW-hypothesis. I explained why it is so fundamentally important in an above post. To save people needing to find it, I copy the pertinent part to here.

    A change in the pH of the ocean surface layer would alter the equilibrium between concentrations of CO2 in the air and the ocean surface layer. Such a pH change from additional CO2 is inhibited by the carbonate buffer. However, introduction of sulphide ions to the ocean surface layer would alter the pH of the ocean surface layer and would not be inhibited by the buffer.

    A change only 0.1 to the pH of the ocean surface layer would alter the equilibrium to induce a rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration greater than the rise which has happened since the industrial revolution. Such a small change is far too small for it to be discernible. But it may have happened as a result of variation to sulphide injected to the oceans by undersea volcanism. And the above paper suggests such sulphide injections to ocean surface layer may also be caused by changes to biota in the ocean.

    The AGW-scare is based on the hypothesis that the observed rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution results from emissions of CO2 from human activities.

    If the observed rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution results from volcanic and/or biological introduction of sulphide to the ocean surface layer then the entire AGW-scare is refuted. And the paper under discussion says that sulphide variation in the ocean surface layer does alter concentrations of O2 and CO2.

    Richard

  98. Don’t take the politics in this thread seriously. It is quite extreme. The idea that “everyone who I disagree with is a racist” is patently absurd. The idea that the slave trade was a socialist endeavour is not even worth discussing. So why be offended at the rantings of a crazy man (or maybe a crazy woman)?
    Sure, it is insulting to a very large number of people but so what? It is too ridiculous to be taken seriously. So ignore it.

    Look, this is the internet. There are loonies all over the place. They aren’t a problem so long as they are treated in one of the the following two ways:
    1) Politely disagreed with in forums that are appropriate.
    2) Ignored in forums where they are irrelevant.

    Now, if anyone is confused as to which kind of forum this is, please explain the link between the political organisation of human society and ocean chemistry 93.9 million years ago.
    Then consider how the confusion could have been made.
    And, if you choose, also consider how relevant people who make such an illogical leap are to any debate.

  99. Temp and Richard
    I live in the USA. Although we embrace capitalism here, it is a socialist country that redistributes wealth on a massive scale. I dont know where you live but my gut says that we are all socialists now and the sooner we drop the name calling the sooner we’ll all get along.

  100. Gents – can we focus on the science, please?

    Richard, I admit that I’m not deep in the AGW literature, and in the scientific ecosystem, I’m plankton — but I’m not sure that said refutation logically follows. Would not its proponent merely reply that our various industrial processes have added onto what was naturally occurring, thus making the situation “worse” and therefore “even more dangerous?”

  101. Richard,

    No problems, I really didn’t know that word was in his post, don’t remember the sentence, no offense mean. But so far I am like Hoffer and have never considered myself as socialist and if as a comment said we are all socialists now then I need to trot down to the government office soon and get my share since I live on half of poverty level for the last seven years, am slightly disabled due to a mid-brain aneurysm that caused me to lose all large words (and the word to my songs and why I don’t write so fluidly anymore) and give up this insistence that “I’m not going to be on welfare” bit. But curiously that event didn’t touch my intellect, thoughts, or my music, it’s weird, even enhanced me in other areas.

    Enough on that. Back to the article. Yes, you see what I see. My major was physiology, minor chemistry, so I know (or used to know) very much of natural buffer systems and that is where they make no sense to me. As for the living creatures in the oceans, where in the heck do they think the sulfur in their cells comes from in the first place? I mean they are going to raise the level of hydrogen sulfide themselves? I guess if the entire ocean died their sulfur content might add a little but this is getting into crazy talk.

    Richard, like what you are saying, and you say it so concise and proper (and fast!) so keep on talking. It takes me usually 30 minutes to just type and find the words for just one comment but writing here on blogs has helped me greatly, I mean a huge improvements before finding Anthony and wuwt back in 2009. And by the way, I’m Jackson so you don’t have to keep me in the “hiding behind a pseudo. Just picked wayne on my first post long ago and my family refuse to let me get any more exposed than I already have, they say I’m way to open and far, far too honest (I get taken advantage of often).

  102. The level of hubris of the ‘experts’, the elite class of intellectuals, is mind boggling. 93.9 million years. point nine. It’s not ‘somewhere around 100 million years’. It’s 93 point 9.

    They cannot possibly know that, yet they act as if it is ‘settled’ science and irrefutable. I love it when a Ceolocanth comes meandering to the surface, or another soft tissue is found in a 247.1415927 million year fossil and sends them into a panic.

  103. Oh sure, everyone is aware of the Middle Cretaceous extinction event that was caused by Sauropods’ excessively large SUVs.

    It had nothing to do with active tectonics and the evolution/radiation of significant new biota such as diatoms, angiosperms, and coccolithophores. Definitely every event to ever occur on Earth was a direct result of atmospheric CO2 levels.

  104. M Simon says:
    October 29, 2013 at 4:39 am

    No, animal life is correct. There were probably no “higher” green plants at all until well into the Phanerozoic, arising perhaps in the Ordovician Period, c. 450 Ma, & spreading to land in the Silurian (although some new evidence suggests they might have evolved earlier). Before that the photosynthetic basis of ecosystems remained the lowly, prokaryotic cyanobacteria, also incorrectly called “blue-green algae”, & eukaryotic glaucophytes, red & green algae, the ancestor of “higher” plants.

    As heterotrophs, animals benefited from the increased oxygen.

  105. happycrow:

    At October 29, 2013 at 6:35 am you ask me

    I’m not sure that said refutation logically follows. Would not its proponent merely reply that our various industrial processes have added onto what was naturally occurring, thus making the situation “worse” and therefore “even more dangerous?”

    That IS a good question. Many thanks for asking it.

    I answer by returning to first principles.

    Many (including the IPCC) assume there was a natural balance between natural emissions and natural sequestrations. Hence, they say, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was stable and changed little prior to the addition of the anthropogenic (i.e. from human sources) CO2. They then assume the natural sequestration systems cannot cope with the addition so about half of the human CO2 emission accumulates in the atmosphere to cause the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. For a much more full explanation of this I refer you to the excellent web site of Ferdinand Engelbeen who is a strong advocate of this anthropogenic cause of the rise.

    Some others assert that the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is a delayed response to the oceans having warmed as part of the recovery from the Little Ice Age.

    In our two 1995 papers we considered all the available evidence (sadly, there is not much) concerning the behaviour of the carbon cycle. One of those papers specifically assesses whether the data can determine a natural or an anthropogenic cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration as measured at Mauna Loa since 1958.
    (ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) ).

    We determined that the dynamics of the natural sequestration processes can cope easily with ALL the CO2 emissions both natural and anthropogenic of each year. From this we determined that rise is not accumulation of part of the anthropogenic emission (as is asserted by e.g. the IPCC and Ferdinand).

    But the natural sequestration processes do NOT sequester all the CO2 emissions (both natural and anthropogenic) of each year. If they did then there would not be a rise. This leads to the important question; i.e.
    Why don’t the natural sequestration processes sequester all the CO2 emissions of each year when their dynamics indicate they can?

    We addressed this paradox by modelling the system behaviour with six different models three of which assumed a natural cause of the rise and the other three assumed the anthropogenic emission was the cause of the rise.

    All six of ourmodels each matched the empirical data of the atmospheric CO2 concentration for each year to within the stated measurement accuracy of the Mauna Loa data. Thus, each of our models is better than the Bern model used by the IPCC because the IPCC uses unjustifiable 5-year smoothing to get its model to fit the empirical data.

    This match occurs because – according to each of our models – the total CO2 emission of any year affects – and is affected by – the equilibrium state of the entire system. Some processes of the system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to a new equilibrium.

    This leads to a direct answer to your question. The anthropogenic emission cannot directly add to rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration because the rate of that rise is limited by the rate constants in the processes of the carbon cycle. But the anthropogenic CO2 may possibly be the cause of the rise because the addition of anthropogenic CO2 may have caused the change in the equilibrium of the carbon cycle which is providing the rise. However, that possible cause is only a possibility. The six models which each provide that indication are three models which each assumes a natural cause of the change and three which each assumes the anthropogenic CO2 emission is the cause of the change.

    But there is important information which follows from this.

    Each of the models in our paper matches the available empirical data without use of any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as the ‘5-year smoothing’ the IPCC uses to get its model to agree with the empirical data. So, if one of the six models of our paper is adopted then there is a 5:1 probability that the choice is wrong. And other models are probably also possible. And the six models each give a different indication of future atmospheric CO2 concentration for the same future anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.

    Data that fits all the possible causes is not evidence for the true cause. Data that only fits the true cause would be evidence of the true cause. But our findings demonstrate that there is no data which only fits either an anthropogenic or a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Hence, the only factual statements that can be made on the true cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration are

    (a) the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have an anthropogenic cause, or a natural cause, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes,

    but

    (b) there is no evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a mostly anthropogenic cause or a mostly natural cause.

    Hence, using the available data it cannot be known what if any effect altering the anthropogenic emission of CO2 will have on the future atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    The paper which is the subject of this thread could be a demonstration from geological data of a significant – possibly the only significant – cause of the change to the equilibrium between CO2 in the atmosphere and the ocean surface layer.

    I hope that is clear and what you wanted.

    Richard

  106. So what does somebody with a fish tank do if the dissolved oxygen gets too low? All you need is an air pump and some tubing (on a grand scale for the oceans).

    But, that’s only if you see that low dissolved oxygen in the oceans is a problem that MUST be dealt with. Otherwise, leave things alone so the situation fixes itself.

  107. wayne:

    Thankyou for your post at October 29, 2013 at 7:27 am, especially its first paragraph.

    Obviously I was not – and could not have been – aware of your personal circumstance. Clearly, your paragraph does explain what happened in the disagreement between you and me. And equally clearly, in my ignorance of your situation I assumed you were merely another troll joining the ‘feeding frenzy’. I now know and understand that my assumption was mistaken, and I offer you my apology for reacting to you in a blunt manner which was not appropriate in your case.

    It pleases me that we see the paper under discussion has importance and for the same reasons.

    Richard

  108. Just increased volcanic activity alone would have lowered oxygen levels in & warmed the seas, without the need to invoke the magic gas. CO2 might have played some role, but then as now, it’s not the be all & end all of climatic fluctuations.

    There does seem to have been a minor extinction of marine invertebrates, perhaps 20-30% of species, at the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary. The possible dinosaur & marine reptile extinctions I cited above are, as noted, less firmly dated.

  109. Associated consequences include likely enhanced global rainfall

    Is that the “consensus” opinion now? What happened to the permanent droughts?

  110. James says:
    October 29, 2013 at 11:54 am

    And yet for most of the past 10,000 years it has been warmer than now, & the three to five thousand year downtrend in temperature continues. It was also much warmer during prior interglacials of the last 500,000 years, with CO2 perhaps no higher than 330 ppm.

  111. richardscourtney says:
    October 29, 2013 at 2:27 am

    “No “ostentation”. There is no need. Your post is simply more of the trolling ad hom. typical of all your posts. Your post is not from behind the cowardly screen of anonymity provided by the similar abuse from Pippen Kool, temp, DitkH and TimC, but you chose to “follow on” from them.

    You guys are frightened to discuss the paper and use your barrage of obnoxious abuse against me to deflect from the damage to the fundamental assumption of AGW which I explained in my post at ”

    Talk about classic socialist/collective display. You label anyone who hides in “anonymity” as not worth talking too…. just like you do to blacks, whites or any of a host of other collectives. They must be held as nothing or less then whole because I deem their collective so. You can not debate the facts and instead simply try to talk over others and shout them down. The only person who is scared is you… scared that people will wake up to the reality that AGW is nothing more then a classic socialists gambit. This is why you are trying so hard to talk about the other aspects of the paper and focus away from the socialist motives it tries to support.

    M Courtney says:
    October 29, 2013 at 2:31 am

    “It is strange that a paper on ocean chemistry leads so directly to an accusation that 25% of the EU is racist (195 out of 766 seats in the EU Parliament).

    A peculiar leap of the imagination; very offensive, of course, but entertaining in a Bedlam way.”

    Alot more then 195 ppl in the EU parliament are racist nutbags… probably closer to the 500 range.

    richardscourtney says:

    “I was driven from the blogs of Jo Nova and Judith Curry by troll attacks of me. On those blogs, as in this WUWT thread, it became impossible for me to address the science because my time was consumed by defending from irrelevant and abusive attacks of me.”

    O they scare the poor little socialist away…. why because god forbid you have to debate your positions and use science in areas that you consider untouchable religious faith? Or did they ban you? Censor you? Somehow I get the feeling that it was the religious faith issue.

    “I left WUWT earlier this year and returned after some months only because several people pressed me to. If threads are disrupted by my presence – as this thread has been – then this would ensure that my continuing in attempts to contribute to WUWT would be self defeating.”

    Really who banned/censored you? I get the feeling it was more a “put up or shut up” type pressure… wasn’t it. Defend you position and stop being a socialist coward and claiming everyone out to get me.

    “But my presence does demonstrate the falsehood of the assertion that WUWT is a ‘front’ for right-wing political extremism.”

    My aren’t we an arrogant self important b******. The only people who consider WUWT “rightwing political extremists” are far-left extremists who believe anyone who doesn’t support socialists through oppression is a rightwing extremists. Anyone reasonable person knows that WUWT is very centrists and while yes it is not leaning right slightly because of all the fanatical socialists attacking it. They like all collectivist don’t care a single things about whats be said… they label anyone who get in the way of the socialists utopia as the enemy and thus must be ruthless oppressed. The fact you put stock in their views and feel the need to “counter-balance” theirs views just proves how extremists you are.

    You care the one that choose to start trolling you could have simply ignored R Taylor post. Instead you decided to label him off and attack him. I defended in as was the proper and scientific thing to do. You refused engage in anything but troll attacks and classic socialists labeling. Besides “anonymity” should my views also be discounted because I’m african-american? Seems so. Socialists/collectivists group people together as approved or disapproved groups. Those groups change all the time… such as its not “in vogue” with socialists to group people into “races” anymore after that whole eugenics/WW2 event.

    Doesn’t make you any less racist just means you try to label/group as something else. Either defend your position or ignore people attacking your religion… Don’t go around trolling people and then whining when someone asks you to defend your position.

    william says:
    October 29, 2013 at 6:32 am

    “Temp and Richard
    I live in the USA. Although we embrace capitalism here, it is a socialist country that redistributes wealth on a massive scale. I dont know where you live but my gut says that we are all socialists now and the sooner we drop the name calling the sooner we’ll all get along.”

    Yes the US is and has been a socialist country for a good number of years now… however socialists never “get along” with anyone. They will always start the purging once they have enough power. This is just science and history 101.

  112. James:

    At October 29, 2013 at 11:54 am you say

    Analyses of ancient ice cores show 390 ppm to be the highest atmospheric concentration of CO2 during the last 10,000 years.
    http://climal.com/climate-change-facts.php

    Yes, they do, but the stomata data show much higher values. This is a good summary of the differences.
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html
    It says

    Data from various stomata studies (ref. 10-20) show CO2 concentrations over the last 11,000 years varied between 260 and 340 ppm (average: 305 ppm). In contrast, the Dome C ice core record shows no significant variability and considerably lower overall CO2 levels (average: 270 ppm).

    There are reasons to dispute both the ice core and the stomata indications, but there are more reasons to dispute the ice core data than the stomata data.

    For example, the ice takes decades to solidify (the IPCC says 83 years for Epica) and is porous fern until it does. During that time air is pumped in and out of the fern by air pressure variations and this mixes the air in the fern. This means the temporal resolution of the ice cores is decades (the effect is similar to conducting an 83 year running mean on data for individual years). The longest measurement time series for atmospheric CO2 measurements is from Mauna Loa and began in 1958 (i.e. it is less than 55 years) and is for individual years so cannot be directly compared to the ice core data. Stomata data is for individual years.

    Richard

  113. richard-
    “It pleases me that we see the paper under discussion has importance and for the same reasons.”

    I agree, the topic itself is very important and any results could be so easily misconstrued, now to see if it’s going under the paywall. Richard, I read nearly everthing you write, have looked up your former experiences with the crew at CRU, and basically, I just try to stay out of your way! You have your finger on the pulse and the people personally involved than myself. I’m usually just hawking the physics side that should be correct and properly interpreted, since it clearly is not, and so many others more qualified than myself know that also, however, I do have a few decades of studying that area on the side so that’s usually my only input. Need to refresh myself a bit on buffers.

  114. temp:

    re your obnoxious bloviation at October 29, 2013 at 12:39 pm.

    How many more times do you need to be told? Your offensive and off topic trolling is not wanted.
    CLEAR OFF!!

    Richard

  115. temp;

    richardscourtney has posted several rather detailed discussions of the science which you have ignored and instead blustered on about socialism. Do you want to discuss the science? Or not?

  116. richardscourtney says:
    October 29, 2013 at 12:57 pm

    “Firn” for “fern”? Kind of fun to type.

  117. milodonharlani:

    Thanks for your correction of my spelling that you provide in your post at October 29, 2013 at 1:12 pm.

    I am very poor at proof reading [my] own typing: I am apt to ‘see’ what I intended to write and not what I did. So, I appreciate all such corrections.

    Richard

  118. The solubility of oxygen in sea water is decreased by less than 10% with a 5-degree C increase in temperature.
    Now how did CO2 cause the extinction?

  119. richardscourtney says:
    October 29, 2013 at 1:51 pm

    Same as everyone else when proofing his or her own work.

    Spell check is of no use when the incorrect orthography is in itself a valid word spelled correctly.

  120. How can you claim temperature rise is possible due to any gases? Gases as fluids help to cool down by convection method of heat transmission (elementary level science), likewise water can extinguish fire by absorbing heat, thus lowering temperature. Click on my name for further explanations for solutions to CC and power crisis.

  121. Dev;
    If that’s how you understand fire extinguishment by water, the last place I would/will ever click for a solution to anything is your name. {Shudder} Clue: magnesium strip burning underwater.

  122. M Simon says:
    October 29, 2013 at 5:14 am

    Solar cells or coal? Want power when the sun doesn’t shine? Windmills or nuclear? Want power when the wind doesn’t blow (enough)?
    ——————–

    Power providers call that “On Demand Power”, meaning when you demand it, they provide it. And you pay a premium rate for that service.

    There are hundreds of facilities that require “On Demand Power” and cannot function reliably without it.

    You can not produce aluminum and steel via use of “green” energy. Their required “On Demand Power” source must be either hydro-electric, fossil fuel or nuclear because they “operate” 24/7/365 and their power requirements are horrendous.

    The world economy shuts down if aluminum and steel production shuts down.

  123. richardscourtney says:
    October 29, 2013 at 9:16 am

    But the natural sequestration processes do NOT sequester all the CO2 emissions (both natural and anthropogenic) of each year. If they did then there would not be a rise. This leads to the important question; i.e.
    Why don’t the natural sequestration processes sequester all the CO2 emissions of each year when their dynamics indicate they can?
    ———————

    Richard, I told you before that you are wrong about that. And that’s when you called my commentary “ranting and delusional”.

    The FACT is that natural sequestration processes DO sequester all the CO2 emissions (both natural and anthropogenic) of each year. If they DIDN’T, then the measured atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities would NEVER decrease.

    But they do DECREASE, ………… the measured atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities decrease on an average of 6 ppm every year, year in and year out, …. and have consistentely been doing that ever since ppm measurements have been made at Mona Loa.
    —————————–

    richardscourtney says:
    October 29, 2013 at 9:16 am

    The six models which each provide that indication are three models which each assumes a natural cause of the change and three which each assumes the anthropogenic CO2 emission is the cause of the change.
    ————–

    Your models are FUBAR because your input data quantities are SISO ….. and you PRE-DETERMINED (assumed) that one or the other was “the cause”.

    You “stacked-the-deck” with ‘wild’ cards and then claimed to have “won”.

  124. milodonharlani says:
    October 29, 2013 at 10:49 am
    There does seem to have been a minor extinction of marine invertebrates, perhaps 20-30% of species, at the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary. The possible dinosaur & marine reptile extinctions I cited above are, as noted, less firmly dated.
    —————————————————-

    Its funny how reduced oxygen in the ocean can be responsible for the extinction of air-breathing reptiles who evolved to exist in the ocean. They didn’t have gills like fish. They were air-breathers like whales and seals.

    The dinosaurs and marine reptiles who became extinct at this time were just replaced by similar animals from the same family and/or niche. Up to 1,000 species of dinosaurs went extinct before the Chiczulub impact. Natural process and we don’t need to invoke declining CO2 (pretending it to be rising CO2) for their demise.

  125. Samuel C Cogar:

    I am replying to your post at October 30, 2013 at 3:51 am which quotes statements I made in this thread at October 29, 2013 at 9:16 am and addresses each quoted statement in turn.

    This reply adopts your method by quoting my statement which you quote, then quoting your response, and then providing my answer. And I do this in turn for every part of your post.

    I wrote

    But the natural sequestration processes do NOT sequester all the CO2 emissions (both natural and anthropogenic) of each year. If they did then there would not be a rise. This leads to the important question; i.e.
    Why don’t the natural sequestration processes sequester all the CO2 emissions of each year when their dynamics indicate they can?

    You have replied

    Richard, I told you before that you are wrong about that. And that’s when you called my commentary “ranting and delusional”.

    The FACT is that natural sequestration processes DO sequester all the CO2 emissions (both natural and anthropogenic) of each year. If they DIDN’T, then the measured atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities would NEVER decrease.

    But they do DECREASE, ………… the measured atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities decrease on an average of 6 ppm every year, year in and year out, …. and have consistentely been doing that ever since ppm measurements have been made at Mona Loa.

    Your responses were “ranting and delusional” and your response I quote here does not rant but is delusional.

    If the total emissions of CO2 to the air equaled the total sequestration of CO2 from the air in each year then there would be no change to the CO2 in the air over a year.

    But the CO2 in the air increases from year to year. Therefore, the emissions are greater than the sequestrations each year. Of course, some CO2 is created in the air by e.g. oxidation of methane, but the methane emission is counted as part of the natural CO2 emission.

    You are completely deluded when you say, “the measured atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities decrease on an average of 6 ppm every year, year in and year out, …. and have consistentely been doing that ever since ppm measurements have been made at Mona Loa”. The Mauna Loa measurements show an increase – NOT, as you claim, a decrease – in atmospheric CO2 concentration: click this link and see for yourself
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    I wrote

    The six models which each provide that indication are three models which each assumes a natural cause of the change and three which each assumes the anthropogenic CO2 emission is the cause of the change.

    You have replied

    Your models are FUBAR because your input data quantities are SISO ….. and you PRE-DETERMINED (assumed) that one or the other was “the cause”.

    You “stacked-the-deck” with ‘wild’ cards and then claimed to have “won”.

    That is completely ridiculous. WE “CLAIMED” TO HAVE LOST.

    We produced six models to determine if we could discern if there was a predominantly natural or a predominantly anthropogenic cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. We assumed that a single effect dominated the carbon cycle in each model and chose three such effects to produce three basic models. We then used each model to discern if the observed CO2 rise at Mauna Loa could be induced in the model as being (a) a natural effect and (b) an anthropogenic effect, and this produced a total of six models. There were no “wild cards” (whatever you mean by that) in any of the models.

    Of course, each model was SISO (i.e. single input, single output), but so what? We used three different mechanisms and the single input was the effect of natural variation (i.e. the slight temperature rise from 1900 to 1958) or anthropogenic (i.e. CO2 emission from human activities) to assess the effect of that input on the single output (i.e. the CO2 rise in the atmosphere).

    All six of our models each matched the empirical data of the atmospheric CO2 concentration for each year to within the stated measurement accuracy of the Mauna Loa data. Thus, each of our models is better than the Bern model used by the IPCC because the IPCC uses unjustifiable 5-year smoothing to get its model to fit the empirical data.

    But the fact that the six models all perfectly matched the data demonstrated that the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa can be completely attributed as being natural and can also be completely attributed as being anthropogenic in three different ways in each case.

    Thus, we failed in our attempt to demonstrate either a natural or an anthropogenic cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa.

    Richard

  126. The Black sea is an anoxic body of water below 200m…. It is over 2000 meters deep at its deepest. Seems to be plenty of life in the Oxygenated surface waters and shelf areas….. I think these guys get a bit carried away with themselves.

  127. richardscourtney says:
    October 29, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    temp:

    re your obnoxious bloviation at October 29, 2013 at 12:39 pm.

    How many more times do you need to be told? Your offensive and off topic trolling is not wanted.
    CLEAR OFF!!

    Richard

    Lol stop your trolling or defend your position and I will.

    davidmhoffer says:
    October 29, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    “temp;

    richardscourtney has posted several rather detailed discussions of the science which you have ignored and instead blustered on about socialism. Do you want to discuss the science? Or not?”

    Is not socialism a debatable science? While I agree in the sense that socialism is pure fantasy that doesn’t change the fact that troll boy believes it to be science. Add in that he posted as many trolls as he did “on-topic” posts. He is the one that wants to keep trolling. Since global warming is a socialist ideology thats only goal is to push socialism… a debate on socialism is well on topic btw.

  128. temp says:

    “Is not socialism a debatable science?”

    It is a ‘social science’, and thus not a true science.

    Readers of this site know the difference between a hard science, and studies of human nature based on economics.

  129. temp;
    Your inexperience with matters political is on full display. Any issue can and will be used by those who grasp for money and power, be they “right” or “left”. You need to get more familiar with history. I am old enough to recall the times when the ugly assertions you’ve made against socialists were the near verbatim mantra of those who were fighting capitalism. The accusations were no more true against them than they are against socialists. Socialism run amok is a bad thing, and capitalism run amok is a bad thing.

    While I am no socialist, I come from a long line of socialists and a family steeped in the socialist tradition. My grandfather was a founding member of the CCF, the party that brought socialized medicine to Canada. In fact, his membership number was “3”. So I have a lot of socialists in my family and have been around socialists all my life. The accusations you level against them are not only not true, they are extremely offensive.

  130. temp;
    I missed out a point, which I shall add now.

    If you don’t like the manner in which global warming has been used to tax and control your life by those in power, then fight it. You will find no more valuable an ally in this than richardscourtney.

  131. temp:

    There is no law, no moral principle and no ethical rule which requires me to discuss anything with an anonymous, egregious and obnoxious troll who hides behind anonymity while being abusive of me on a blog.

    My political views are not relevant to the subject of this thread, but – in attempt to stop your trolling – I have twice linked to debate of them in this thread.

    Your temper tantrums will not make me engage with you. I would need at least a modicum of respect for you to enable me to do that, but your behaviour in this thread has obtained my total contempt of you.

    So, CLEAR OFF!!

    Richard

  132. Interesting in that only 5% of the ocean went anoxic, why not 100%? Why would only one section of inter-connected world oceans be anoxic? Are they claiming ocean circulation ceased?

    Today we have a real world example of a body of water with an anoxic situation, the Black Sea, the lower strata of the water column is laced with H2SO4. Why? There is no circulation of the lower water column, the only outlet is a swallow connection to the Mediterranean Sea. CO2 has nothing to do with the Black Sea being anoxic so why would it have anything to do with it 94 million years prior in the inter-connected oceans?

    So why would a localized section of the ocean become anoxic? Example: The Gulf of Mexico where the Mississippi River flows into it. Heavy sediment laden fresh water is mixed with salt water causing algal blooms feeding on the nutrients depleting the O2 level of the water.

    Example: Red Tide, algal blooms that deplete the O2 in the open ocean killing fish, some species of alga are toxic making shell fish dangerous to eat. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/redtide.html

    So here, an engineer in 5 minutes comes up with two rational explanations of how anoxic events can occur in large bodies of water and this report does what? Blame CO2? Incompetence and we tax payers were probably made to pay for this nonsense. It goes to prove that just because you have a piece of paper attesting to a degree in higher education doesn’t mean you have a whit of intelligence.

    I am reminded of Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don’t rule out malice.

  133. davidmhoffer says:
    October 30, 2013 at 10:13 am

    “temp;
    Your inexperience with matters political is on full display. Any issue can and will be used by those who grasp for money and power, be they “right” or “left”. You need to get more familiar with history.

    No I would say your inexperience and your political bias are on for display. You substitute politics for science.

    “I am old enough to recall the times when the ugly assertions you’ve made against socialists were the near verbatim mantra of those who were fighting capitalism. The accusations were no more true against them than they are against socialists.”

    Socialists fight capitalism… socialists hate other socialists because those socialists want to take power from the other socialists… socialists most often fight other socialists as the fact all socialist want control and thus they must fight each other for it, this is socialist ideology 101. All socialists though in the end fight capitalism. Socialists will always conduct genocide to purge the collective down. So you keep confirming what I have been saying is correct.

    “Socialism run amok is a bad thing, and capitalism run amok is a bad thing.”

    Capitalism does not run “amok” thats like saying the rain is wet and thus the rain is running amok.

    Socialism on the other hand when it runs “amok” results in massive genocide, backwardness in science and suffering for all humanity. Of course socialism running “amok” could also be called socialist utopia or being very successful. Just depending on your point of view I guess.

    “While I am no socialist, I come from a long line of socialists and a family steeped in the socialist tradition. My grandfather was a founding member of the CCF, the party that brought socialized medicine to Canada. In fact, his membership number was “3″. So I have a lot of socialists in my family and have been around socialists all my life. The accusations you level against them are not only not true, they are extremely offensive.”

    Hows that socialist medicine working for you? I hear one of the inventors/biggest pushers of that systems has said its been a massive fail and canada needs to change at the very least back to the old system that had or become even more capitalist. Why can no one learn from the past… socialists healthcare has been tried countless times in history and the results are and will ALWAYS be the same.

    richardscourtney says:
    October 30, 2013 at 11:05 am

    Dear richard

    I must admit I am getting a little lazy here… however there is no law, no moral principle and no ethical rule which requires me to drop this discussion with anything but a racist, genocidal, ignorant and obnoxious troll who hides behind refusing to debate and puffy words while being abusive of me on a blog.

    richardscourtney says:
    October 30, 2013 at 11:05 am

    “My political views are not relevant to the subject of this thread,”

    Global warming is all about political views… that of the socialists trying to force socialism through the scam of global warming.

    ” but – in attempt to stop your trolling – I have twice linked to debate of them in this thread.”

    Huh?

    Your temper tantrums will not stop me engaging with you. I could care less about showing at least a modicum of respect because the very demand you make for “respect” is an appeal to logical fallacies most of all the appeal to authority. Science is not about respect… its about the scientific method. Ignorant egoistical fools who only care about the imagine they present and saving face worry about respect… those of us that are scientific spend our time verying about the facts.

    “But your behaviour in this thread has obtained my total contempt of you.”

    O no I made it angry it refused to debate me and keeps trolling me because it knows it can not refute anything I’ve said…. What are you going to do stop trolling me? O the horror…. the horror.

    Let me leave you with two point.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362030/early-skirmishes-race-war-thomas-sowell

    “Perhaps the most clearly “backlash” books are those written by Paul Kersey, whose central theme is that whites have created thriving cities, which blacks subsequently took over and ruined. Examples include his books about Birmingham (The Tragic City) and Detroit (Escape from Detroit).

    Kersey even takes a swing at Rush Limbaugh (and at yours truly) for saying that liberal policies destroyed these cities. He says that San Francisco and other cities with liberal policies, but without black demographic and political takeovers, have not been ruined. ”

    This is of course classic socialist thought process at its finest… its never socialism fault Lysenko, Paul Kersey, richardscourtney, davidmhoffer say.

    And this quote here of how a true scientists thinks and acts when confronted.

    “His books are poorly written, but they raise tough questions.
    It would be easy to simply dismiss Kersey as a racist. But denouncing him or ignoring him is not refuting him. Refuting requires thought, which has largely been replaced by fashionable buzzwords and catchphrases when it comes to discussions of race.

    Thought is long overdue. So is honesty.”

    You could learn a lot from this guy.

    davidmhoffer says:
    October 30, 2013 at 10:18 am

    “temp;
    I missed out a point, which I shall add now.

    If you don’t like the manner in which global warming has been used to tax and control your life by those in power, then fight it. You will find no more valuable an ally in this than richardscourtney.”

    While I agree that socialists are fanatical in the defense of their collective when threatened… aka richard collective is clearly being threatened by global warming… I don’t feel it necessary to ally with russia to defeat germany… for I know that russia is no different in the long run. Hence I this debate in the first place. Socialists put this doomsday hoax up… when it is at least debunked another socialist hoax will emerge possibly even leader by richard. How many more times must the cycle repeat before we start treating the cause instead of the symptoms?

    dbstealey says:
    October 30, 2013 at 10:03 am

    temp says:

    “Is not socialism a debatable science?”

    “It is a ‘social science’, and thus not a true science.

    Readers of this site know the difference between a hard science, and studies of human nature based on economics.”

    I completely agree that socialism is not science…. its a crazy racist, genocidal religion/ideology… however richard and davidmhoffer believe it is science so I was simply pointing out the beliefs they held/making them admit that it was in their view.

  134. How come I never see a scientific study that declares that nothing of any significants was found?
    They all find out major important things

  135. temp;
    however richard and davidmhoffer believe it is science
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    That is absolute bull. Not once did I say it was a science.

    There is a very wealthy man who inherited a great deal of money from his family who made their wealth in the oil business. He has since diversified his holdings into high technology, and sits on the board of some of the largest tech companies in the world. He has also diversified into the media business. He’s made massive profits, hundreds of millions of dollars, which he has used to massively expand his holdings in the oil sector.

    Would you describe the person that I am talking about as a socialist? Or a capitalist?

    A capitalist of course. His name is Al Gore.

    The World Bank has recently adopted a policy of not funding coal fired power plants in third world countries because of global warming. Those countries, many of which have coal reserves, are now forced to build oil or gas or nuclear power plants instead. Who do you suppose funded the research that the World Bank used to justify that policy? You think it was socialists? You would be wrong. That funding was supplied to researchers such as U of East Anglia’s CRU by companies like BP and Shell. Are BP and Shell socialists? Last I checked they were for profit industrial companies, and they have been effective at using the global warming meme to lock out their competition and create markets for their products and services where none previously existed because the 3rd world would otherwise have used coal.

    When you stop to look at the facts instead of shouting and screaming about the evils of socialism, what you will find is that plenty of capitalists have made massive sums of money off of the global warming nonsense. Both right and left have bent the global warming meme to their will. If you are stupid enough to pin the blame on just one side of the political spectrum, then you are condemning yourself to paying the price to the other side without so much as a whimper.

    Stop being a fool.

  136. davidmhoffer says:
    October 30, 2013 at 2:23 pm

    temp;
    however richard and davidmhoffer believe it is science
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    That is absolute bull. Not once did I say it was a science.

    There is a very wealthy man who inherited a great deal of money from his family who made their wealth in the oil business. He has since diversified his holdings into high technology, and sits on the board of some of the largest tech companies in the world. He has also diversified into the media business. He’s made massive profits, hundreds of millions of dollars, which he has used to massively expand his holdings in the oil sector.

    Would you describe the person that I am talking about as a socialist? Or a capitalist?

    A capitalist of course. His name is Al Gore.”

    Ummm no he would be a socialist… you do know that most banks such as JP Morgan and such were hard ore marxist right? Most Wall street banks are insanely socialist both in the past and in the present. The current stock market is marx’s wet dream come true where the people can pretend they own something but only be the grace of the government and the arms of the government the bankers. Socialists want power… control. They are greedy self serving people who wish for more power and more control. Al-gore is a text book display of socialism.

    “The World Bank has recently adopted a policy of not funding coal fired power plants in third world countries because of global warming. Those countries, many of which have coal reserves, are now forced to build oil or gas or nuclear power plants instead. Who do you suppose funded the research that the World Bank used to justify that policy? You think it was socialists? You would be wrong. That funding was supplied to researchers such as U of East Anglia’s CRU by companies like BP and Shell. Are BP and Shell socialists? Last I checked they were for profit industrial companies, and they have been effective at using the global warming meme to lock out their competition and create markets for their products and services where none previously existed because the 3rd world would otherwise have used coal.” Yes most oil companies are heavily socialist… do you even know what socialism is?

    “When you stop to look at the facts instead of shouting and screaming about the evils of socialism, what you will find is that plenty of capitalists have made massive sums of money off of the global warming nonsense. Both right and left have bent the global warming meme to their will. If you are stupid enough to pin the blame on just one side of the political spectrum, then you are condemning yourself to paying the price to the other side without so much as a whimper.

    Stop being a fool.”

    I have no doubt some capitalists have gotten on the band wagons however the band wagon is driven, packed to the brim and fueled by socialists. You are so amazing ignorant of what socialism is you probably think corporatism is a capitalist ideology because it has corporate in it.

  137. davidmhoffer:

    I write to respectfully suggest that you disengage from interaction with the troll.

    You advised him/her/them/it to “Stop being a fool”. The troll’s reply claims his/her/their/its ignorant and stupid misrepresentations of socialism are correct, and that you – who rejects socialism but say you were raised by a socialist father – are “amazing ignorant of what socialism is”.

    There is an old saying.
    Don’t wrestle with a pig because you can’t win, you get dirty, and the pig likes it.

    Richard

    PS For any animal lovers reading this, I point out that I intend no insult to any porcine creatures by comparing the troll to one of them.

  138. As I tried to point out further up thread… temp is not to be taken seriously.
    However, with more observations I now suspect that temp is actually a false flag operation.

    He repeatedly claims that the science is secondary to political matters. And then temp distorts political issues so much that he brings ridicule on the debate.

    Observe: He repeatedly claims all socialists are racist (and half of the EU as well!) This forces those on the left to engage in disagreement rather than debate, in the manner of the Monty Python “Argument” sketch.

    Observe also: He claims that the right wing is a minority. That the right wing is far to the right of the USA (which is socialist) and Margaret Thatcher (centrist) and also that the right wing cannot engage with anyone to their left, except in confrontation, because the left is evil.
    That is impractical. No-one could actually operate in this way. In sociability terms it is the right wing equivalent of the Unabomber.

    Therefore temp must be a false flag operation trying to split the sceptic camp and lead one side up a dead end.

    Finally, those who have seen me here before know that I am left wing but try to respect those who disagree with me and am quite willing to value their input. If I have failed in the past then I apologise.
    But at least I have never claimed that everyone who is politically different to me is racist or prejudiced to irrational hatred in some other way…
    How could I add anything if I did?

  139. richardscourtney says:
    October 30, 2013 at 3:31 pm

    Run little socialist run….maybe you missed it last so here it is again

    “His books are poorly written, but they raise tough questions.
    It would be easy to simply dismiss Kersey as a racist. But denouncing him or ignoring him is not refuting him. Refuting requires thought, which has largely been replaced by fashionable buzzwords and catchphrases when it comes to discussions of race.

    Thought is long overdue. So is honesty.”

    but do keep trolling and the nice buzz wording/key wording i’ll be around.(insert evil greedy capitalist laugh)

  140. M Courtney says:
    October 30, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    “He repeatedly claims that the science is secondary to political matters. And then temp distorts political issues so much that he brings ridicule on the debate.”

    Umm no I claim science is above the petty whining and fantasies of politics… hence why

    ” Observe: He repeatedly claims all socialists are racist (and half of the EU as well!) This forces those on the left to engage in disagreement rather than debate, in the manner of the Monty Python “Argument” sketch.”

    I’m not shy about calling a spade a spade… in politics its about imagine and “respect” as richard is so fond of demanding. In politics one never calls a spade a spade… thats just impolite.

    “Observe also: He claims that the right wing is a minority. That the right wing is far to the right of the USA (which is socialist) and Margaret Thatcher (centrist) and also that the right wing cannot engage with anyone to their left, except in confrontation, because the left is evil.
    That is impractical. No-one could actually operate in this way. In sociability terms it is the right wing equivalent of the Unabomber.”

    The rightwing can not engage with the left because the left refuses to debate such as richard, will censor the debate, or will violently attack the right.

    “Finally, those who have seen me here before know that I am left wing but try to respect those who disagree with me and am quite willing to value their input. If I have failed in the past then I apologise.
    But at least I have never claimed that everyone who is politically different to me is racist or prejudiced to irrational hatred in some other way…”

    Socialism is not politics… its an ideology and a thought process. This ideology/thought process is easy to understand if one is willing to think. You “claim to value their input” however thats nothing but a lie you simply disregard and then ignore them. Normally they let you walk away on the other hand I’m not so willing.

    I also fine the false flag funny being the fact global warming is a hardcore socialists ideology thats only goal is to push socialism… if anyone is conducting a false flag op its richard.

    “How could I add anything if I did?”

    Very political statement right there… judge thee not by facts but by color of skin, tone of voice, what party they vote for.

  141. M Courtney:

    re your post at October 30, 2013 at 4:09 pm.

    Your suggestion does seem the most plausible. Indeed, soon after you posted it the troll tried to claim I was running away from him/her/them/it.

    Me, run from a fight? As you know, that would be a first.

    However, an alternative to your suggestion is that sees himself like this

    because he is like this

    Whatever the truth of it, the time for pig wrestling is over and the troll’s daft posts should be ignored.

    Richard

  142. Oh, I am quite willing to ignore temp. I doubt he or she is a real person.

    My concern was that several right wing people on this blog (whom I respect) may make the mistake of following him into accepting positions that are harmful to themselves.

    The most obvious error is that the EU is full of racists… not the most constructive of positions.

  143. richardscourtney says:
    October 30, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    Run little socialist run.

    PS you talk about “respect” where my respect for being one of the top rated snipers in TF2? “Respect” B****

  144. M Courtney says:
    October 30, 2013 at 4:28 pm

    “The most obvious error is that the EU is full of racists… not the most constructive of positions.”

    Yes yes much better to be “constructive” then honest… tis very socialist.

  145. Friends:

    Please ignore the troll. Its mention of “respect” and “honesty” are intended to inflame. He/she/they/it only warrants contempt and certainly NOT respect. And the troll has demonstrated his/her/their/its complete lack of honesty.

    So, please don’t feed the troll whatever malevolent drivel it provides.

    Richard

  146. richardscourtney says:
    October 30, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    “And the troll has demonstrated his/her/their/its complete lack of honesty.”

    O and where have I done that?

    PS run troll run tis the socialist way of debating.

  147. Come now richard surely with 3 of you you’d at least stand a chance… grab your balls… I promise I won’t be you think evil free thoughts for long. Hehe doesn’t take long to disprove socialism.

  148. temp says:
    October 30, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    Why don’t you tell Mr. Courtenay your real name, so you’ll be less of a troll?

    Mine is John Tillman, under which name I used to post until encountering problems logging on under it.

  149. milodonharlani says:
    October 30, 2013 at 5:26 pm

    “Why don’t you tell Mr. Courtenay your real name, so you’ll be less of a troll?

    Mine is John Tillman, under which name I used to post until encountering problems logging on under it.”

    I deal in science… science doesn’t care about names, positions, pieces of paper, skin color, voting record or a host of other things. Socialists on the other hand care a group deal about those things because those help them select the group they wish to put the target into and then act accordingly.

    richard has likely run into my “kind” before and has gotten stumped into the ground in said debate. He knows the only way for him to get out of this is to refuse to debate… its the same tactics all socialists use doomsday cultists of course are no different. Its one of the reasons he got labelled as a troll in other forums… he refuses to defend his position but simply launches ad hom attacks.

  150. richardscourtney;
    Yeah, I’m done with temp. Sometimes you learn something while pig wrestling, and sometimes the pig learns something, but when neither me or the pig is learning anything, best to just quit.

    BTW, there was an interesting quote in Ch11 of AR5. I’d sent you an email about it a while back, but got no response (which is unlike you) so perhaps it is lodged in your spam filter or something. I reproduce it here as it seems like an admission that CO2 feedbacks are close to zero:

    As described in Section 8.1.1.3 CO2 can also affect climate through physical effects on lapse rates and clouds, leading to an ERF that will be different from the RF. Analysis of CMIP5 models (Vial et al., 2013) found a large negative contribution to the ERF (20%) from the increase in land surface temperatures which was compensated for by positive contributions from the combined effects on water vapour, lapse rate, albedo and clouds. It is therefore not possible to conclude with the current information whether the ERF for CO2 is higher or lower than the RF. Therefore we assess the ratio ERF/RF to be 1.0 and assess our uncertainty in the CO2 ERF to be (–20% to 20%).

  151. temp says:

    “richard has likely run into my ‘kind’ before and has gotten stumped into the ground in said debate.”

    That is ridiculous. Richard Courtney is a published, peer reviewed author who has taken far too much ad hominem abuse from the climate alarmist side, and it pains me to see someone who is putatively on the skeptic side now doing the attacking. Richard knows as much as anyone about the global warming issue.

    Please save your economics arguments for the proper thread. This conversation is supposed to be about the causes claimed for a biological extinction event.

  152. davidmhoffer:

    Thankyou for your post at October 30, 2013 at 8:01 pm.

    I will try to recover your email. Sorry that I have not seen it. Following severe damage to two computer systems by concerted attacks I now have severe defences and an unfortunate byproduct of that is its ‘stopping’ some email I want to get.

    As I said, I will try to find it.

    Many thanks for the AR5 quotation. I had not seen that. It includes perhaps the most important statement in the WG1 AR5 Report; viz.

    It is therefore not possible to conclude with the current information whether the ERF for CO2 is higher or lower than the RF. Therefore we assess the ratio ERF/RF to be 1.0 and assess our uncertainty in the CO2 ERF to be (–20% to 20%).

    In plain English, that says the IPCC now assumes there is NO ‘heat in the pipeline’ and is a complete reversal of the assertions of “committed warming” in the AR4.

    Richard

  153. milodonharlani:

    re your post at October 30, 2013 at 5:28 pm.

    As I think you know, I have no problems with people using any of the spellings of my family name, so there is no problem there.

    More importantly, I thank you for your extremely honourable post at October 30, 2013 at 5:26 pm.
    In the unlikely event that there are still onlookers to this thread, I point out that you are a right-winger who was among the strongest opponents of me in the WUWT thread where I was interrogated about my political views. Others can check this by referring to that debate and I again in this thread link to the start of that debate
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1385725

    Our politics are very different but you, Sir, are a gentleman. And anyone can see that by reading the linked debate and then reading your post in this thread at October 30, 2013 at 5:26 pm.

    I also acknowledge other right-wingers (e.g. Alan the Brit, dbstealey and davidmhoffer) who have demonstrated similar integrity in response to the troll.

    Richard

  154. richardscourtney says:
    October 30, 2013 at 4:46 am

    You are completely deluded when you say, “the measured atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities decrease on an average of 6 ppm every year, year in and year out, …. and have consistentely been doing that ever since ppm measurements have been made at Mona Loa”. The Mauna Loa measurements show an increase – NOT, as you claim, a decrease – in atmospheric CO2 concentration: click this link and see for yourself
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
    ———————————————————-

    Richard, with your claimed expertise I surely figured you could comprehend the plotted data on a graph, ….. but apparently not.

    (quoting Richard) “If the total emissions of CO2 to the air equaled the total sequestration of CO2 from the air in each year then there would be no change to the CO2 in the air over a year.

    SO WHAT, and IF a toad had wings it wouldn’t bump its arse on the ground when it hopped.

    (quoting Richard) “But the CO2 in the air increases from year to year.

    No feces, Dick Tracy, when did you get your first clue? Here’s another clue for you, … DON’T be “weazelwording” me. Here is your original claim, …… READ IT, to wit:

    (quoting Richard – October 29, 2013 at 9:16 am) “But the natural sequestration processes do NOT sequester all the CO2 emissions (both natural and anthropogenic) of each year.

    Richard, inferring that you originally stated “from year to year” when in fact you stated “each year” was disengenuous of you.

    (quoting Richard) “Therefore, the emissions are greater than the sequestrations each year.

    NO, they are not always GREATER ….. each year.

    (quoting Richard) “The Mauna Loa measurements show an increase – NOT, as you claim, a decrease – in atmospheric CO2 concentration:

    Richard, don’t be talking “junk science”, ….the Mauna Loa measurements show EXACTLY what I have been telling you it shows. It shows an average 6 ppm bi-yearly cycling of increases and decreases in the quantity of CO2. That is a bi-yearly 6 ppm increase followed by a 6 ppm decrease, etc., etc. And, … and, ….. and the Mauna Loa measurements ALSO show an average 2 ppm yearly (year-to-year) increase in the quantity of atmospheric CO2.

    And those are FACTS, … Richard, and the Mauna Loa data proves those facts. And that data also proves that the emissions are NOT ALWAYS greater than the sequestrations each year …… which proves that the natural sequestration processes are capable of sequestering all the CO2 emissions of each year

    Richard, the data is the data, ….. try to gain a better understanding of what it “tells you”, to wit:

    The following was exerted from:
    NOAA’s complete monthly average Mona Loa CO2 ppm data
    ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

    year mth ————— CO2 ppm —————————
    2010 7 2010.542 390.22
    2010 8 2010.625 388.26 DECREASING CO2 ppm
    2010 9 2010.708 386.83 (2010 min ppm)

    ——— EMISSIONS START – YEAR 2010/11 —————
    2010 10 2010.792 387.20
    2010 11 2010.875 388.65 INCREASING CO2 ppm
    2010 12 2010.958 389.73
    2011 1 2011.042 391.25 monthly CO2 emissions
    2011 2 2011.125 391.82
    2011 3 2011.208 392.49 both natural and anthropogenic
    2011 4 2011.292 393.34
    2011 5 2011.375 394.21 (2011 max ppm)
    ———– sequestration starts ———————————
    2011 6 2011.458 393.72
    2011 7 2011.542 392.42 DECREASING CO2 ppm
    2011 8 2011.625 390.19 monthly CO2 sequestration
    2011 9 2011.708 389.04
    2011 10 2011.792 388.96 (2011 min ppm)

    ——— EMISSIONS START – YEAR 2011/12 —————
    2011 11 2011.875 390.24
    2011 12 2011.958 391.83 monthly CO2 emissions
    2012 1 2012.042 393.12

    Please note in the above data that all CO2 emissions from Dec 2010 thru May 2011 had all been sequestered by Oct 2011

    December 2010 CO2 was 389.73 and October 2011 CO2 was 388.96 which amounted to 0.77 ppm less CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Cheers

  155. Samuel C Cogar:

    I see that at October 31, 2013 at 5:56 am you have reverted to your usual practice of delusional ranting.

    Your original post claimed

    The FACT is that natural sequestration processes DO sequester all the CO2 emissions (both natural and anthropogenic) of each year. If they DIDN’T, then the measured atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities would NEVER decrease.

    But they do DECREASE, ………… the measured atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities decrease on an average of 6 ppm every year, year in and year out, …. and have consistentely been doing that ever since ppm measurements have been made at Mona Loa.

    I pointed out that your assertion is delusional: the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising and it is NOT showing a “decrease on an average of 6 ppm every year, year in and year out”.

    You now claim to have found

    December 2010 CO2 was 389.73 and October 2011 CO2 was 388.96 which amounted to 0.77 ppm less CO2 in the atmosphere.

    That is because December to October is not a year: a year has 12 months and not 10. The seasonal variation is an order of magnitude larger than the annual rise: I again link to the Mauna Loa data which includes the 10 months you cite
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    I refer you to my above post at October 30, 2013 at 4:46 am and answers all your ravings. This link jumps to it
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/28/the-big-stink-93-9-million-years-ago-blame-co2/#comment-1461116

    Richard

  156. richardscourtney;
    As I said, I will try to find it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    If you cannot find it, please send me an email at hoffer.davidm @ gmail.com
    I can then reply to it which will automatically trigger any defenses you have set up to class my address as trusted.

  157. davidmhoffer:

    Please check your email. I think you have made an important ‘find’ in the AR5: possibly the most important statement in that Report.

    Richard

  158. richardscourtney says:
    October 31, 2013 at 3:22 am

    You are most welcome. I am indeed a conservative, but rather more a Whig than a Tory, ie a classical liberal, in the original sense of that term.

    Even during the political discussion you cite, I never had reason to question your scientific acumen & commitment to the highest principles of science, so corrupted by CACA advocates.

    I’ve decided that however useful or not it may have been at the time, political discussions here are best limited. It is good however to know & share the information that “climate change” skepticism runs across the political spectrum.

  159. davidmhoffer says:
    October 30, 2013 at 8:01 pm

    richardscourtney;
    Yeah, I’m done with temp. Sometimes you learn something while pig wrestling, and sometimes the pig learns something, but when neither me or the pig is learning anything, best to just quit.

    lol so I was correct in assuming that you believe just because corporatism has corporate in it you believe it was capitalist…. so easy and so sad at the same time the complete lack of basic education. You thus must flee for ignorance is truly bliss.

    dbstealey says:
    October 30, 2013 at 8:25 pm

    “Please save your economics arguments for the proper thread. This conversation is supposed to be about the causes claimed for a biological extinction event.”

    Richard contunies to troll his econ stance… if he would STFU up about it then I would let it drop. However he has no intent to do that. He continues the ad hom and fleeing. He is a coward plain and simple. He started this off topic side trip and I will be the one to finish it.

  160. I am with you Richard, some trolls like to argue for the sake of arguing. How is the weather in Cornwall, colder again?

  161. Bushbunny:

    Thankyou for your message.

    Temperatures in Cornwall are typical for this time of year. It is warm and wet. People retire to here because they remember the warm, know that wild palm trees grow here, and they forget the wet so it comes as a surprise to them. The threatened recent storm turned out to be a non-event here.

    We don’t get volcanism so H2S is not a problem.

    Richard

  162. richardscourtney says:
    October 31, 2013 at 6:39 am

    (quoting SamC)”But they do DECREASE, ………… the measured atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities decrease on an average of 6 ppm every year, year in and year out, …. and have consistently been doing that ever since ppm measurements have been made at Mona Loa.

    I pointed out that your assertion is delusional: the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising and it is NOT showing a “decrease on an average of 6 ppm every year, year in and year out”.
    —————–

    Richard, what do you want me to tell you, …. that you are “stuck on stupid” or what? Or would you prefer I refer to your commentary as “weazelworded” obfuscations?

    Find my original statement and quote it …… instead of the above abbreviated statement concerning said that was made during the “middle” of the discussion and quoting it to CYA. Such conduct is the very reason I don’t like discussing science with females.
    ========================

    richardscourtney says:
    October 31, 2013 at 6:39 am

    (quoting SamC)”December 2010 CO2 was 389.73 and October 2011 CO2 was 388.96 which amounted to 0.77 ppm less CO2 in the atmosphere.

    That is because December to October is not a year: a year has 12 months and not 10.
    ————————–

    Don’t be asinine, Richard. A Solar Year is not determined by the number and names of the months given to them by the Romans. The subject of our discussion would not be affected even if the Romans had designated there was 27 months in each year. And ps, I believe at one time there was ONLY 10 months specified in each year.

    The divisions of a Solar Year is not determined by the number and names of the months but by the seasonal variations that are “marked” by the solstices and equinoxes.
    ===================

    richardscourtney says:
    October 31, 2013 at 6:39 am

    The seasonal variation is an order of magnitude larger than the annual rise: I again link to the Mauna Loa data which includes the 10 months you cite
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
    ————————————–

    Richard, just why in ell are you AGAIN citing a url link to a graph …… when I cited you the link to the ACTUAL DATA that the graph was plotted from?

    Richard, maybe it will help you to better understand what you are looking at on the graph you cited …. iffen you look at an older copy of a similar graph on which I have included “notations” that define the “start of” and the average bi-yearly 6 ppm increases and decreases in CO2 …. as well as the average yearly 2 ppm increase in CO2.
    Said graph, to wit: http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif

    And Richard, because you are picky, picky, picky, ….. picky, … I will forewarn you that my equinox designations are “reference only” and do not denote the exact “date” that they occur. But the FACT is, the “reversal” in/of the bi-yearly CO2 cycling is determined by the equinox, which precedes the actual “reversal. (I should have denoted the equinoxes on the small “inset” graph denoting the Annual Cycle).

    Richard, it is of my opinion that you are refusing to face reality and the facts-of-the-matter simply because it would throw much of your published commentary in disarray if you admitted to the fact that ….. all the estimated, guesstimated (SISO) natural and anthropogenic CO2 emissions are based solely on the desire to explain the aforesaid average yearly 2 ppm increase in CO2. And it was that “back-calculating” of CO2 emissions that threw them in a “tizzy” recently when the CO2 ppm was increasing and their average temperature calculations were holding steady if not decreasing. Sure nuff, “Der ocean wasa sucking up all der heat that was supposed to be in der atmosphere”. A vunderful CYA dat was.

    Richard, the ocean water has been steadily and consistently warming ever since the end of the LIA ……. and that is the only possible explanation for explaining the steady and consistent average yearly 2 ppm increase in CO2 for the past fifty five (55) consecutive years.

    Residual, accumulations of CO2 in the atmosphere is not the cause of any “warming” but is the result of it. The “warming” of the ocean water is due to an increase in Solar irradiance …. and/or … an increase in the thermal energy escaping from the earth’s core.

    And ps, ….. it is utterly silly for anyone to question: “Why don’t the natural sequestration processes sequester all the CO2 emissions of each year when their dynamics indicate they can?” …… when said person knows for a FACT that the temperature of the ocean waters are slowly increasing.

    Cheers

  163. Samuel C Cogar:

    re your nonsensical diatribe at November 1, 2013 at 8:02 am.
    1.
    I have not been “asinine”.
    2.
    I did NOT quote you out of context: anybody can see that, and you did not make that untrue assertion in your first response to that quotation which I made IN FULL.
    3.
    A year IS 12 months and not 10 whatever you may think.
    4.
    Atmospheric CO2 concentration IS increasing year on year.
    5.
    Your assertions to the contrary (of my points 1 to 4) are idiocy.

    If you post any more of your delusional nonsense then I shall ignore it.

    Richard

  164. Richard, the Gulf Stream keeps you temperate. Actually the ancient Romans actually used a 10 month year too until Julius Caesar came along. Trees cut down in the Amazon actually store Carbon in the soil, but that’s as much as I know. Any Cameron may put a disclaimer at the end of the film as I mentioned before. Same as the booklet that the ALP produced, they disclaimed the information and could not be sued for misinformation? LOL

  165. bushbunny:

    Thanks. I enjoyed that.

    Yes, we do have a strange climate here at the end of the peninsula of Cornwall. Of particular interest is the mizzle. This is like mist with droplets so large that they can be seen but so small they don’t fall as rain. Mizzle goes wherever the air moves: an umbrella is useless and everything gets wet. LOL.

    So we have an unusual sub-tropical climate with palms and tree ferns near the sheltered South coast and ‘blasted heaths’ from the winter Atlantic winds along the North coast. But surfers love the North coast.

    I hope all is well in the Antipodes. It is early there but very late here so I am retiring to bed.

    Richard

  166. richardscourtney says:
    November 1, 2013 at 11:40 am

    Your assertions to the contrary (of my points 1 to 4) are idiocy.

    If you post any more of your delusional nonsense then I shall ignore it.
    —————————–

    And, spite of pride, in erring reason’s spite,

    One truth is clear, whatever is, is right.
    Alexander Pope

Comments are closed.