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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
How come I never see a scientific study that declares that nothing of any significants was found?
They all find out major important things
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
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.
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
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20061223050621/starwars/images/6/61/AnakinSkywalker.jpg
because he is like this
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs47/f/2009/225/a/4/Keyboard_Commando_by_Plognark.jpg
Whatever the truth of it, the time for pig wrestling is over and the troll’s daft posts should be ignored.
Richard
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.
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****
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Courtney, sorry. Harked back to prior genealogical & etymological discussions.
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.
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%).
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.
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.
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
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
http://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
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
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
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
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
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/28/the-big-stink-93-9-million-years-ago-blame-co2/#comment-1461116
Richard