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.
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.
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.
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
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…
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.
“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
Damm Indirectly we are moving to hell day by day
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1385725
Richard
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.
There was no a marine extinction event of any size 93.9 million years ago, not even a minor one. What are these folks talking about?
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?
The publication of this research has certainly caused a sulphurous malodour to waft its way toward the reader.
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 …
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
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/28/the-big-stink-93-9-million-years-ago-blame-co2/#comment-1460005
Richard
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.
temp, best summary of what socialism ‘is’ that I have read to date. Concise and to the point. Nice read.
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
What’s wrong with you richardscourtney, that was just a thank for temps words.
wayne:
At October 29, 2013 at 3:24 am you ask me
Nothing wrong with me. But “temps words” were
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
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.