You've heard of #ExxonKnew, well how about #CaliforniaKnew ?

The court transcript we recently published on WUWT from the recent #ExxonKnew trial has yielded an interesting thought twist.

Guest Essay by Warren Blair

Dr. Charles Keeling in has air sampling laboratory at the University of San Diego

Charles Keeling (Mr CO2) worked at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) for 43-years (1958 to 2005). SIO is a division of the University of California San Diego (UCSD).

A couple of questions worth pondering:

  • Did Keeling fail to advise his bosses that big oils’ products may cause a nuisance one day?
  • Did his bosses (Cal Gov) shovel money at him without asking what he was spending it on?

Allen to Court (Alsup) . . .via the transcript

“DR. ALLEN: Okay. So where do we go to. Keeling and what’s happened to carbon dioxide. So confirmation that this carbon dioxide was being created by combustion and not, for example, just being released by the oceans because of the warming was provided by some observations by Ralph Keeling, also Scripps, Charles Keeling’s son, who showed that oxygen concentration in the atmosphere was falling at the same rate that CO2 concentration was rising, because, of course, to create a molecule of CO2, you need a molecule of oxygen, if you are creating that CO2 by burning carbon.

So that confirmed that this increase in CO2 in the atmosphere was being — was caused by burning something, if there was any remaining doubt about that question. “

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 29, 2018 12:02 pm

California is liable. It collects taxes on oil. It also sells oil.

Bryan A
Reply to  M Simon
March 29, 2018 12:11 pm

and refines oil, and uses oil to produce plastics and pharma…

Reply to  M Simon
March 29, 2018 12:32 pm

And gets a share of royalties on some oil-producing land.

John M. Ware
Reply to  M Simon
March 29, 2018 7:14 pm

1958 to 2005 is 47 years, not 43. I hope the rest of the article is reliable.

Reply to  M Simon
March 29, 2018 9:04 pm

The State of California makes use of goods and services that involve the burning of fossil fuels. It is their money that helps keep the fosil fuel companies in business. The AGW conjecture has been around for decades yet there is no state law to prohibit the use of goods and services that have involved the use of fossil fuels. The sale and use of fossil fuels in the state of California have always been and still are legal. Rather than outaw the process, the state has cholse to tax the process.

March 29, 2018 12:03 pm
Reply to  co2islife
March 29, 2018 4:32 pm

I suspect that refineries emit rather a large amount of CO2, hydrogen sulfide, and many other gasses as too. The residents of the City of El Segundo, CA get to experience first hand the combination of salt fog from the ocean mixed with the gasses escaping from the abutting Chevron refinery. It creates a pernicious acid-salt fog that condenses on to many surfaces eroding unprotected metals and oxidizing paints.

Reply to  rocketscientist
March 29, 2018 5:16 pm

So do forest fires, volcanoes, etc etc.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  rocketscientist
March 29, 2018 8:07 pm

Interestingly, California heavy oil production and consumption releases more CO2 than Alberta oil sands on a per barrel basis. California also has the market cornered on hypocrites.

Reply to  rocketscientist
March 30, 2018 12:26 am

Hydrogen sulfide is extremely toxic so if the refinery was emitting “a large amount” of it there wouldn’t be any inhabitants in El Segundo.

Reply to  rocketscientist
March 30, 2018 12:27 am

CO2 on the other hand is of course completely harmless, and only very mildly acidic (when dissolved in water).

Reply to  rocketscientist
March 30, 2018 12:42 pm

All refineries in California, in fact all US refineries, are subject to USEPA regulations to implement a Leak Reduction and Repair (LDAR) program (40CFR60, Method 21, 1990). Teams of inspectors with sniffers (toxic vapor analyzers) and optical gas imaging cameras are programmatically inspecting these facilities in a daily basis. The reduction in leaks with the combination of these two technologies is astounding. H2S may be present in the feedstock but it certainly isn’t leaking out of the equipment handling it. As mentioned already, the human tragedy would be front page news, not some second order supposed corrosion effect. Virtually anything subjected to a salt environment will corrode, don’t blame it on the refinery.

William Mason
Reply to  rocketscientist
March 30, 2018 3:42 pm

I can attest to that. My brother lived in that area and in less than a year every inch of chrome on his motorcycle was pitted to the point of needing to be replaced. Much more corrosion than you see in other coastal towns.

March 29, 2018 12:04 pm

If Society Can’t Trust Science, What Can They Trust? Climate Sophist is Playing San Francisco Judge as a Complete Fool
Dr. Myles Allen must think that the San Francisco Judge is a complete fool. I just finished a post refuting many of his claims, but one example needed to be singled out. In his presentation, Dr. Myles Allen replaced the poster child Mt. Kilimanjaro, which was exposed as a fraud in the Climategate emails, with … Continue reading

Reply to  co2islife
March 29, 2018 12:35 pm

Trust in science isn’t the problem. It’s trust in scientists that’s the issue.

Reply to  co2islife
March 29, 2018 2:24 pm

No where in the scientific method does it say “trust us”. Nor does it say “believe us”, nor “the majority of us say”. That isn’t science.

Reply to  TRM
March 29, 2018 3:34 pm

Don’t forget “The Science is Settled”, is no where in the scientific method either.

Warren Blair
Reply to  co2islife
March 29, 2018 3:09 pm

Should you be ‘promoting’ your blog so frequently and fervently at WUWT?
Can you tone it down a bit?
Just asking . . .

Gunga Din
Reply to  Warren Blair
March 29, 2018 3:21 pm

There’s a lot of good info there. It’s being offered, not promoted.

Reply to  Warren Blair
March 29, 2018 3:26 pm

I wouldn’t call it promoting my blog. The posts are relevant to the thread, and designed to provide additional information. We are all writing about the same topic, so they are all relevant comments. None of us are making money on this stuff, just trying to educate the public. You are also the first to complain, and I’ve gotten countless appreciative comments.

Reply to  Warren Blair
March 29, 2018 4:22 pm

“countless appreciative comments.”….+1 more

Gunga Din
Reply to  Warren Blair
March 29, 2018 4:32 pm

If we’re only counting appreciative comments, add a +1.
If we’re counting the times I’ve followed the link relevant to the topic, plus a bunch of pluses.

Warren Blair
Reply to  Warren Blair
March 29, 2018 5:40 pm

co2islife I also appreciate many of your comments.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Warren Blair
March 29, 2018 6:44 pm

Yes (promoting)
No (tone it down).

Reply to  co2islife
March 29, 2018 3:44 pm

Typo ‘Owrell’ should be Orwell’.

Reply to  cephus0
March 29, 2018 7:08 pm

Oh well … we all make mistakes. : )

Reply to  cephus0
March 29, 2018 9:05 pm

Some mistakes are more equal than others.

Bryan A
March 29, 2018 12:10 pm

Yep. And plants, through photosynthesis, transform that C-O2 molecule into Carbohydrates for energy and growth and respire O2 and H2O back into the atmosphere. Any subsequent build-up of CO2 is strictly from a Lack of Plants. (Deforestation of America to make wood pellets for Europe)

Reply to  Bryan A
March 29, 2018 12:20 pm

Spare me from that pellet theory.
Deforestation could be an explanation, but then compare the amount of coal burned to amount of deforestation possible. We need coal just because there is not enough fast-growing forest to burn, or any forest for that matter, and that’s because it is coal and not wood.
I’m not against burning wood. It is OK at my back yard, when done sensibly. But, big but, it does not replace coal world-wide. Just impossible, even if we’d manage to reforest Sahara.

Bob Burban
Reply to  Hugs
March 29, 2018 1:51 pm

“I’m not against burning wood. It is OK at my back yard, when done sensibly.”
But then there is the question of second-hand smoke that wafts over neighborhoods, to be sucked into the lungs of innocent men, women and … children. Coal-fired power stations do not produce smoke, thanks to bag-house filters and electrostatic precipitators.

J Mac
Reply to  Hugs
March 29, 2018 8:58 pm

Bob Burban,
Are you concerned about ‘second hand smoke’ from barbecues and grills poisoning your family… and the ‘innocent’ neighbors? How about smoke from a hot skillet cooking bacon for your ‘innocent’ family?
I love the smell of a good barbecue… and frying bacon!
I love the smell of wood burning stove ’emissions’, outside on a cold winters day, and especially when the grid electricity is ‘down’ due to storm damage here in the Great North Wet!
I love staring into the bright orange embers of a fire, sipping some amber liquids, and letting my mind wander a ‘stream of consciousness’ to where ever it might lead!
I love the smell of salmon, pork, beef and turkey smoking in my ‘Oklahoma Joe’ smoker!
I love burning piles of brush and spreading the ashes on the flower beds, rather than wasting energy having them hauled, chipped, composted, and then hauled to some other home owner who must pay for both the compost and delivery!
All of this is legal and provides great enjoyment, especially for those gathered around a fire who participate toasting bratwurst or making s’mores. When I see neighbors and friends gathered around a backyard fire, I smile because ‘all is right in the world’. Y’all need to join in the neighborhood bonfire, Bob!

Reply to  Hugs
March 30, 2018 6:33 am
You may notice the pulsing of the CO2 signal in this video. More at
The pulsing is due to the diurnal cycle of photosynthesis and respiration all plants experience. At night plants burn the energy they produce in daytime photosynthesis the same way animals burn energy. Although the video shows a model, the images are based on the data collected by the OCO-2 satellite.
The careful observer will note in January, at the start, in the northern hemisphere cities put out blasts of CO2 and they look SCARY. The tropical forests are pulsing with life. By March the Sun begins to thaw the North and plants and bacteria become more active. They produce vast amounts of CO2 in respiration, far more than human cities emit. As summer approaches, photosynthesis kicks up in the North. Now plants fight for all the CO2 they can get. We see the deep red clouds of false-color CO2 fade to the blue tones indicating lower than normal levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
And all this time, the signals are pulsing in the day/night cycle. This imagery should put to rest once and for all the notion humans are the drivers of CO2 increase in the atmosphere. The levels we produce are seen in the January frames, while the levels produced by living things utterly swamp the pitiful puffs of CO2 made by man.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  Hugs
March 30, 2018 3:55 pm

Smoke is unburned fuel. If the fuel is burned completely there is no smoke. Wood does not contain smoke. It is a product of incomplete combustion.

Reply to  Bryan A
March 29, 2018 1:14 pm

Please consider referring to it as “vitamin C (O2)”

save energy
Reply to  Ron Voisin
March 30, 2018 3:14 pm

“vitamin C (O2)”
I will use it in my next lecture.

Reply to  Bryan A
March 29, 2018 2:11 pm

(Deforestation of America to make wood pellets for Europe) This is a prime example of the kind of things that can be done after ignorance and delusions have been weaponized and deployed into the skirmish.
Ignorance is a lack of or a severe shortage of knowledge. Delusion is “knowing” things that are not really true.

Gunga Din
Reply to  thomasjk
March 29, 2018 3:29 pm

Let’s just just cut down all of California’s Sequoias, grind them up to make pellets, and ship them to the UK.
Governor Moonbeam would approve. CA would be helping the UK “go green”.

Reply to  thomasjk
March 29, 2018 6:41 pm

After you cut down all of the trees, build wind mills all down the crest of the Coast Range.

Reply to  thomasjk
March 29, 2018 7:14 pm

I know how to reduce CO2. Cut down all the old growth forest, which are CO2 neutral, and turn them into furniture and pretty floors. Then regrow the forests with new hungry-baby trees. They will suck large amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere. It will also be good, healthy and gainful employment for unemployed climate scientists—unemployed because the science is settled.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  thomasjk
March 29, 2018 8:14 pm

The CO2 that is locked up in trees should be considered pre packaged for our convenience, to be chopped down and launched into space to ensure the safety of future generations of little climate worriers.

Brett Keane
Reply to  thomasjk
March 29, 2018 11:39 pm

It is the waste that Drax burns in England. Still stupid for them when they have so much coal, and gas potential. Reckon they’ll wake up after Brexit, or when Farage puts his oar back in.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bryan A
March 29, 2018 3:28 pm

Tree farming (a renewable resource) provides the wood for the pellets. No ‘Deforestation of America’ is taking place.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Dave Fair
March 29, 2018 3:58 pm

Let’s inject some logic here. How long do you think it takes to grow a “farmed” tree? And how long do you think it takes to BURN the “farmed” tree? I’ll pretty much guarantee that “Drax” can burn them faster than the “tree farm” can grow them.

Reply to  Dave Fair
March 29, 2018 4:06 pm

Dave, in and around 2007 the Governor of Florida at the time was promoting a major power plant in the Panhandle. The sell was that it would burn the wood waste from forestry operations and produce “mega electric power.” The Gov and his staff got questioned about how much power the plant would actual produce and how much wood it would take per year. Somebody in the Gov’s office had not done the math. Basically it would have required all the wood in Apalachicola National Forest each year to meet its electricity production goals. So maybe their is no deforestation going on there have been “political leaders” pushing policies that would lead to just that.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Edwin
March 29, 2018 8:15 pm

Agreed, Edwin.

Reply to  Dave Fair
March 29, 2018 4:10 pm

I’m curious as to whether anyone knows of a successful tree farming business anywhere? I ask as petition clutching friends of mine in SW West Oz are banging the drum again regarding stopping old growth forest logging in favor of tree farms and I couldn’t help let them know of the dozens of formerly subsidized tree farm businesses which had collapsed here. One recently was in my mind as I was 100% behind the idea ,., the wood from the particular tree they were growing was one I wanted to buy – sadly despite them being promoted as a viable business by the government, having government assurances for investment and with millions of investor dollars pouring in, it still failed and went into receivership.

Reply to  Dave Fair
March 29, 2018 5:00 pm

” Less than a year after Enviva’s Ahoskie plant opened, the NRDC began monitoring how the facility was impacting nearby forests and what kinds of trees were being used to produce pellets. As the demand for wood to manufacture more pellets increased, the NRDC noticed forested wetlands in the Roanoke watershed begin to disappear.
“A significant portion of the wood source Enviva uses comes from natural hardwood forests,” says Hammel, noting that logging in such forested wetlands and bottomlands creates major ecological impacts, including threatening species such as wood storks and the cerulean warbler. In the opinion of Hammel and others, burning wood pellet biomass to produce electricity is far more harmful to the environment and the climate than renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power. “

Reply to  Dave Fair
March 29, 2018 5:24 pm

The tree farming in Florida’s Panhandle and further east is primarily for “poles” and shredded wood to make “flake board”, some plywood and so forth. There might be some “mulch” remnants.
The trees are not being grown primarily for wood pellets.
The St Joe company has been making money with their tree farms here for a hundred years.
Gums sends..

Reply to  Dave Fair
March 29, 2018 5:57 pm

Dave Fair is correct.
The trees harvested for pellets are farmed.
Whether the trees end up as paper, pellets, tissues, flake board or some other wood composition product is solely the desire of customers and the prices they’ll pay.

save energy
Reply to  Dave Fair
March 30, 2018 3:37 pm

” I’ll pretty much guarantee that “Drax” can burn them faster than the “tree farm” can grow them.”
At the present rate of 7 million tons of wood pellets /year; & 50% of Drax fuel is still coal.
A 60 yr old tree is consumed every 5 seconds in Drax.
See –

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  Dave Fair
March 30, 2018 4:01 pm

Rwanda, in a period of only 10 years, went from forestry-destroying charcoal production to sustainable charcoal production. All the trees now cut are farmed. It is a good business.
In South Africa there are huge amounts of charcoal produced where there used to be no trees at all. The Eastern Highveld has a traditional name that means ‘The treeless place”. Now it is forested in places and charcoal production is a sustainable business there.
There are numerous examples, though not as many as I would like to see. Haiti is in transition to such a state. Many people grow tress for sale as fuel. Similarly, Lesotho.
Chad was doing very well under a 4 year programme that turned unsustainable tree destruction into a sustainable, profitable charcoal production system under the ownership of local villages who were given control over the resource. It was unfortunately undone by the wife of the President at the time who was a leader in the charcoal mafia responsible for the previous destruction of the ‘common resource’ and the control went back to central government.

Reply to  Bryan A
March 29, 2018 4:47 pm

A good bit of the American deforestation came from clearing vast swaths of the Ohio River valley for agriculture, long before industrialization. Much of Minnesota and Wisconsin were clear cut for timber, but nature has rebounded in those areas where agriculture wasn’t profitable due to the rockiness of the glacial moraine left from the last ice age’s retreat. Paul Bunyan country still.

Wayne Job
Reply to  rocketscientist
March 29, 2018 11:57 pm

Saw a statistic recently do not know if it is true or not, that USA has about twice as much forested land now than the time your founding fathers set foot.

Reply to  Bryan A
March 30, 2018 10:56 am

Bryan, let me clue you in a bit. Locally, tree farming is a thing. It’s 60 years old, at least. Many of those tree farms used to be cotton farms. Specially bred trees are planted. These trees grow to harvest size in 20 to 40 years, depending on the kind of pine tree grown. They’re grown for wood pulp and press board and wood pellet fuel. There’s little need to cut down ‘forests’ for this, at least locally.

michael hart
March 29, 2018 12:18 pm

Carbohydrate oxidation/combustion, like coal, uses ~1 mol O2 per CO2 produced.
Petroleum oxidation/combustion uses ~1.5 mol O2 per CO2 produced.
Methane oxidation/combustion uses 2 mol O2 per CO2 produced.
Given that humans are a tiny part of the annual carbon cycle, I put it to the court that Keeling’s cronies actually know jack-shit as a result of measuring atmospheric oxygen changes, M’Lud. They know flux all.

Reply to  michael hart
March 29, 2018 1:03 pm

Hart:?? Coal is a hydrocarbon. Mashed potatoes and sugar are carbohydrates.

Reply to  Driller43
March 29, 2018 1:29 pm

Coal is mostly carbon. Only a small fraction of the impurities in coal are hydrocarbons. There’s more ash than volatiles in coal. What Hart said was:
“Carbohydrate oxidation/combustion, like coal, uses ~1 mol O2 per CO2 produced.”
Calling coal a hydrocarbon is incorrect.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Driller43
March 29, 2018 2:54 pm

No, he’s actually sort of right. Typical carbohydrate is glucose C_6H_12O_6. Naively, as the name suggests, it looks like hydrated carbon. And it does indeed react with one O2 for each C oxidised:
C_6H_12O_6 + 6 O2 -> 6CO2 + hH2O.
Like Coal

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Driller43
March 29, 2018 3:00 pm

Having to make a correction, I’ll write it properly
C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6H₂O → 6CO₂ + 6H₂O

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Driller43
March 29, 2018 3:03 pm

And having to correct that, I’ll do sucrose as well
C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂ → 6CO₂ + 6H₂O
C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁ + 12O₂ → 12CO₂ + 11H₂O

Richard Barnett
Reply to  Driller43
March 29, 2018 3:19 pm

Power River Basin Coal contains 35% volatile matter, 35% fixed carbon, 6% ash, 0.5 % sulfur, and 23.5% moisture. Modest estimates claim enough still in the ground to power the U.S. for hundreds of years.

Warren Blair
Reply to  Driller43
March 29, 2018 3:30 pm

Nick if you ever decide to shun WUWT I’ll be disappointed.
You’d have to be one of the smartest guys commenting here.
Some may take exception to that . . .

Reply to  Driller43
March 29, 2018 4:11 pm

That’s really sweet Warren. I’m sure he’ll be only too glad to supply a signed photograph for your shrine. Maybe he’ll even send some evidence with it.

Reply to  Driller43
March 29, 2018 4:15 pm

methane – CH4 while a hydrocarbon could easily be viewed as the miracle hydrogen fuel so many greens pray for if you consider the C atom a parasitic binder serving to stabilize a difficult fuel – Hydrogen. If you view it this was it ceases to be a ‘carbon based fuel’ and becomes a hydrogen based fuel, because it’s the hydrogen that’s proving the bulk of the energy in combustion not the carbon.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Driller43
March 29, 2018 5:35 pm

“…No, he’s actually sort of right…”
No, he’s completely wrong. Hydrocarbons are made up of only C and H.
Carbohydrates consist of only C, H, and O and are generally of the form C_m_(H_2_O)_n.
Coal contains C, H, and O…but N and S as well. It is a “hydrocarbon-based” fossil fuel but not a hydrocarbon itself and certainly not a carbohydrate.
Talk about “denying science.”

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Driller43
March 29, 2018 5:50 pm

” he’s completely wrong”
Read it again, and note the commas:
“Carbohydrate oxidation/combustion, like coal, uses”
He’s right.

Reply to  Driller43
March 29, 2018 7:28 pm

Jeez Nick. . . No . . . Coal is carbon. All Carbon and nothing but carbon. Well. Ok. 80% or more carbon, plus impurities, such as ash and water. But pure coal. . . That is 100% carbon.
I like you Nick. You are intelligent in everything you assert, so I hope I am misinterpreting you, but the impression I’m getting from your responses on this thread are that you agree with the assertion that coal is a hydrocarbon. If you are buying coal:
Water (the hydro) is a penalty,
Sulphur is a penalty
Ash is a penalty (although the ash does have value).
When you buy coal, you are buying carbon. The fewer the impurities, the better. That is why anthracite, at 92%+ carbon is the most expensive coal.
The burning of coal is:
C + O2 ==> CO2
There is no H or O involved.
That is why Paris is such a sham. India and China will continue to build coal fired generation for the next 28 years. That is in the Paris accord (google is your friend). They will overwhelm all the politically correct actions of Europe and North America.
Nick. If you really believe that CO2 is an issue, then you should be shouting from the roof tops “Kill the Paris Accord! It will kill the planet!” Indeed, you would be a serious and ardent supporter of your president.
Based on your statement below, from above. Nick Stokes said:
“C_6H_12O_6 + 6 O2 -> 6CO2 + hH2O.
Like Coal” – except coal has very little H or O.
“No, he’s actually sort of right.” No he is fundamentally wrong. Because coal has very little H or O. And what it does have is an impurity.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Driller43
March 29, 2018 7:32 pm

“the impression I’m getting from your responses on this thread are that you agree with the assertion that coal is a hydrocarbon”
No, that’s my point about the commas.
The Japanese, like the British, drive on the left.
That isn’t saying that the Japanese are British.

Phil Rae
Reply to  Driller43
March 29, 2018 7:33 pm

Coal is a HYDROCARBON – correct!!! The one that started the industrial revolution and still the cheapest source of energy on the planet! The fact that it is solid and chunky as opposed to being liquid or gaseous doesn’t change that fact! I’m surprised to see so many erroneous comments regarding this simple fact considering how often these fuels are discussed on this site!

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Driller43
March 29, 2018 7:40 pm

OK, I see the issue. It’s Michael Hart I’m saying is right, not Driller43,

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Driller43
March 29, 2018 11:01 pm

““No, he’s actually sort of right.” No he is fundamentally wrong. Because coal has very little H or O. And what it does have is an impurity.”
That’s not relevant. The statement at issue (by MH) was
“Carbohydrate oxidation/combustion, like coal, uses ~1 mol O2 per CO2 produced.”
And it does. You can count them.
C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂ → 6CO₂ + 6H₂O

Mark from the Midwest
March 29, 2018 12:37 pm

To assume that California Knew would assume that there is some collective intelligence in the public sector within the state. Subsequently I’m rejecting the notion that California Knows Anything.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
March 29, 2018 7:51 pm

Less than nothing, since all its collective regime thinks it knows is wrong.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
March 30, 2018 10:30 am

And now the cancer warning goes on coffee!
Sure glad Alsup is the judge on this case.
Gums sends…

March 29, 2018 12:59 pm

It should be #CaliforniaKnow’s its legal case is bogus and a sham, basically a type of nuisance suit hoping to extort some money out of a handful of local oil companies that do business in the State. What California is doing is frivolous and vexatious against its own citizens, since the State has benefited immensely from the use of fossil fuels. At every level, the State has aided and abetted the fossil fuel industry, from building roads and highways, to collecting taxes on petroleum products including royalties in its own heavy oil industry. It has no chance of winning this lawsuit for these reason’s and a hundred more, so spending tax payer monies on such is really just criminal. How do people keep voting in these idiots who run California?

Reply to  Earthling2
March 29, 2018 1:17 pm

Because the people in California are like a bowl of granola. Once you get rid of the nuts and the fruits, all you have left are the flakes.

Dave Fair
Reply to  JC
March 29, 2018 3:32 pm

The continental U.S. tilts to the Southwest and everything loose rolls into CA.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Earthling2
March 29, 2018 6:51 pm

California promises them free stuff.
Turns out “promising” far outweighs “delivery” of free stuff.

Reply to  Earthling2
March 30, 2018 9:44 am

Californians vote for the Government that certain very wealthy individuals bankroll. And those very wealthy bankrollers are also very Progressive.
Democracy only works with an informed electorate capable of independent thought. It just isn’t California that fails in this regard – other states are showing the same signs of decay. It’s just that California get the publicity because of the audacity of the Progressives.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
March 30, 2018 9:45 am

Sorry – “just isn’t” should be “isn’t just”.

Warren Blair
March 29, 2018 2:39 pm

Classic Who Knew litigation.
#ExxonKnew v. #CaliforniaKnew
The trial hasn’t commenced and Dr Allen has blown it for the plaintiff.
Cal had a duty to ban or impose a nuisance levy on the defendant’s products in the late 80’s when Keeling’s results were being used by Cal scientists to warn of the ‘dangers’ of global warming.
Judge Alsup (on commencement) should ask the plaintiff and defendant one simple question:
When did you know rising CO2 levels could cause a nuisance in any manner defined in Cal. Civ. Code § 3479?
If either can’t answer the question, the case should be adjourned until they can with strong evidence.
In any event, once answered, the Judge can safely dismiss the case citing the Statute of Limitations for nuisance (3-years).
But this is the United States District Court (Northern District of Cal) so it won’t happen that way.

Warren Blair
Reply to  Warren Blair
March 29, 2018 5:32 pm

Expanding on that . . .
William Alsup is the judge who issued the ruling defending DACA (in link below) so he’s clearly no Trump administration fan.
Technically the best Judge. Politically not so much IMHO.

Deplorable B Woodman
March 29, 2018 2:41 pm

Ummmmmm………if it pleases m’Lords and m’Ladies, I’m not a scientist, just a ‘umble electronic repair technician with only an AAS degree. I haven’t even slept in a Holiday Inn for over a year.
But it seems to me that, ignoring the sources of the CO2, and the possible reduction of O2, I submit that even if the O2 concentration DOESN’T go down due to combustion, it will SEEM to go down if the amount of CO2 is increased.
Allow me………….just throwing out numbers for the sake of argument…………
Say you have 1 part of CO2, and 99 parts of O2. That would make the O2 concentration 99%.
If you INCREASE the CO2 to, say, 2 parts, and keep the O2 concentration to 99 parts, the O2 concentration is still 99 parts, but now it is at 98%.
Does that make sense to anyone else besides me’self?
Just trying to throw a wrench in these asshat’s argument that because the atmospheric CO2 levels are RISING, it MUST follow that the O2 levels are FALLING.
I disagree.
Let the flame wars and name calling begin (flinches)………….

Reply to  Deplorable B Woodman
March 29, 2018 3:23 pm

A reasonable comment. What confounds Miles Allen statement is imperfectly known operation of CO2 sources and sinks. As an example, coccolithophores are photosynthetic ocean phytoplankton that release oxygen via photosynthesis and sequester carbon dioxide as calcium carbonate in their exoskeletons. White Cliffs of Dover are evidence. The exact sink rates, and changes in those sink rates is not known with any precision. There are, however, two other ways to show the Keeling curve rise is anthropogenic in origin. See my comment just below.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Deplorable B Woodman
March 29, 2018 9:25 pm

If it were just CO2 being added to the atmosphere, you would get a smaller change than if oxygen were also being removed. What they see is the larger change.
In fact, the oxygen removal just established the fact that carbon was burnt, which we knew. The muddled argument of people who question whether the CO2 rise is due to us seems to say that the CO2 from burning somehow disappears into some sink, and is replaced by CO2 coming from somewhere else. It’s never explained how that magic is done, or why it would matter anyway. However, the oxygen reduction doesn’t disprove that exchange argument.

Reply to  Deplorable B Woodman
March 30, 2018 12:49 am

“CO2 levels are RISING, it MUST follow that the O2 levels are FALLING.” except that the CO2 is converted by plants into more O2! These people haven’t heard of photosynthesis it seems.

March 29, 2018 3:08 pm

The Miles Allen anthropogenic CO2 versus O2 testimony is only one of three basic ways to show the Keeling curve rise in CO2 is anthropogenic. Second, the oceans havent changed temperature enough to account for Keeling via Henry’s law, plus the ice cores show the ocean overturning period is ~800 years, on the order of the thermohaline circulation. Third and IMO most convincing, the changing atmospheric ratio of 12C to 13C. Photosynthesis favors ‘lighter’ 12C. As fossil fuels were sequestered, the proportion of atmospheric 13C rose and 12C fell. As fossil fuels are burned in significant amounts (post 1950), the proportion of 13C must fall. It is falling just as expected.
There should be no doubt about such basic CO2facts. The argument should be over, so what?

John Harmsworth
Reply to  ristvan
March 29, 2018 8:39 pm

This piques my curiousity and perhaps you have some knowledge or thoughts to offer. Surely the rate at which CO2 outgasses from ocean waters is dependent on the temperature of the water only on the surface at the interface with the atmosphere. And yes, there would be a saturation percentage gradient going to depth but my point is that CO2 outgassing would only occur as fast as gas rich water can get to the surface and warm up. On a global basis I can’t see that happening very quickly.
Maybe hundreds or even thousands of years?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  ristvan
March 29, 2018 9:19 pm

Myles Allan covered the isotope argument.

Jim Ross
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 30, 2018 9:27 am

No he did not. See comments and graphs below.

Reply to  ristvan
March 30, 2018 12:57 am

Hmmm let me see what other reactions might cause O2 to decline how about Fe to FeO2. Man has caused a lot of that. It’s stupid to use the ratio, the isotopes is a much better argument. Why even mention it

Jim Ross
Reply to  ristvan
March 30, 2018 3:39 am

You state: “As fossil fuels are burned in significant amounts (post 1950), the proportion of 13C must fall. It is falling just as expected.There should be no doubt about such basic CO2 facts.”
The proportion of 13C in atmospheric CO2 is indeed falling, but not exactly “as expected”. The decline in δ13C (13C/12C relative to a standard) reflects an average ratio of incremental CO2 of -13 per mil. The decline that might be expected from burning fossil fuels would reflect a value of -28 per mil. The published “explanation” for this major discrepancy is that the all this extra “unexpected” 13C comes from … guess … yes, the oceans! (but only the 13C, you understand, not the CO2 … a process sometimes referred to as ocean thinning.) Please note that I do not accept this hypothesis, however. Just thought it important to share what seems to be the “consensus” view.

Jim Ross
Reply to  ristvan
March 30, 2018 5:58 am

Oh dear. I see now that Myles Allen stated: “That isotope of carbon [13C] was declining again at precisely the rate we would expect if this additional CO2 in the atmosphere was appearing there because of combustion.”
Hmm, “precisley the rate”. So, either he has fallen for the myth and failed to check the data, or the “Keeling plot” (and hence mass balance) has been scientifically disproven, or … well, I’ll leave that for you to consider.
Here is one example of the Keeling plot based on data from Scripps which has had the seasonal cycle removed (so as to show the longer term trends). I use the South Pole data here as a preference because the correction for the seasonal cycle is minimal.
First, here is the input data:
Next, the Keeling plot, which is simply δ13C versus 1/CO2:
The intercept, -13.02 per mil, reflects the average value for the incremental CO2. The short-term variations are rather interesting, but that is another story.

Reply to  ristvan
March 31, 2018 12:25 am

You’ve made a lot of rather unsupported claims. Would you please add some references backing up your claims with hard data, not just speculation? Particularly this one:
“the oceans haven’t changed temperature enough to account for Keeling via Henry’s law”
I don’t think data exists to support that claim, but if it does, please present it, for starters.

March 29, 2018 3:11 pm

The Cal cities municipal bonds were also touched upon! Slippery slope there too.
Ha ha

Reply to  JBom
March 29, 2018 3:31 pm

Not a slippery slope. A legal train wreck. If cities were to prevail against Exxon, then they committed clearcut bond securities fra*d and the liberal city managers who brought the suit go to jail for nice long stretches, while the cities themselves pay large SEC fines. As a neogiating fine startnpoint, SEC says the fines should be equal to the value of the deceptively issues bonds. The end result is less—but in the subprime debacle, all the mortgage securutizing banks have paid fines in the billions. Oakland and San Fran don’t have nickels, let alone billions, for such fines. They better hope they lose this lawsuit real quick.

March 29, 2018 3:25 pm

“Charles Keeling’s son, who showed that oxygen concentration in the atmosphere was falling at the same rate that CO2 concentration was rising, because, of course, to create a molecule of CO2, you need a molecule of oxygen, if you are creating that CO2 by burning carbon.”
Even if this were true I doubt you could detect it from natural variation. Oxygen is about 21% of the atmosphere. CO2 is around .04% and only about .01% of that is supposed to be from burning fossil fuels. Sounds more than a little farfetched to me.

Deplorable B Woodman
Reply to  JC
March 29, 2018 3:56 pm

0.01% CO2 from burning fossil fuels! QUICK! Pass me the smelling salts and lead me to the fainting couch!

Reply to  JC
March 30, 2018 8:16 am

All sorts of chemical and physic processes affect the O2 concentration. The premise is flawed.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Gary
March 30, 2018 11:02 am

Yup – just like the notion that the change in CO2 levels is due to human fossil fuel burning.
They measure *nothing but* the human fossil fuel burning, while 96% of CO2 emissions come from natural sources which have nothing to do with human fossil fuel burning. And which natural sources ALSO contain CO2 with the same Carbon “isotopes” as fossil fuel burning does (so I don’t buy that argument, either). Any minuscule change in natural CO2 emissions would completely swamp any human emission “signal,” and they’re not measuring any of those, so we’re back to square one.

Peter Fraser
March 29, 2018 3:52 pm

It would be nice to see some hard numbers with regard O2 depletion. Dr. Allen says he will provide the Court with the Keeling paper but this is not included in the transcript. I note an error in the transcript where Dr. Allen gives the atmospheric O2 concentration as 29%. The actual figure is of course 20.9% and I assume this is a “typo” error. Science is very good at analyzing very small quantities accurately (e.g. drug residues in athletes etc. or ppm CO2.) I am doubtful whether the supposed O2 decline could be accurately measured. Somebody with more ability than me may wish to calculate this supposed decline in O2 due to an increase in CO2 from 350 ppm to 400ppm (assuming this 50ppm increase was all from combustion) This figure must be miniscule and one would assume would fall within the error range of whatever method was used to measure this “decline”.

Phil Rae
Reply to  Peter Fraser
March 29, 2018 5:51 pm

It’s also worth noting that the oxidation of ALL carbon sources requires oxygen and that is true whether combustion is involved or not. So burning oil, gas & coal is not the only source of CO2 and not the only reason for any insignificant oxygen depletion. Metabolism of carbohydrates, fats and proteins by all life forms under aerobic conditions requires atmospheric oxygen to convert these essential nutrients to provide energy with CO2 as a useful byproduct. That’s called LIFE!

Jim Ross
Reply to  Peter Fraser
March 30, 2018 10:55 am

Various comments here about the difficulty in measuring changes in O2 are correct, but the data are perhaps better than you might expect. What is usually measured is the O2/N2 ratio and below is a plot of this versus CO2 (again, using Scripps data).
Interesting, eh? The gradient of the line is 10.8, as shown. For perspective, in the biosphere (photsynthesis/respiration) a value of around 5.3 would be expected whereas burning fossil fuels is estimated at 6.7. Myles is again being less than precise.

March 29, 2018 5:24 pm

Oh, there’s an even bigger twist on “California Knew”.
California knew (if it ever really believed what it thought it knew) that mass production of fossil fuels would pose risks to investments by bond investors whom they did NOT inform that California knew (if California really believed it knew what it claims that it knew Exxon knew).
Frankly, I am NOT convinced that California even believes what it says that Exxon knew — it is just looking to ride a gravy train. But, according to what California says Exxon knew, California ALSO knew what Exxon knew, and California FAILED TO INFORM INVESTORS who had stakes in knowing what California knew that Exxon also knew.
Investors should, then, sue California.
A gravy train moves in both directions.

March 29, 2018 8:36 pm

I can say with absolute certainty that California, specifically, the Brown Administration,knows that the controversy is not about tenuous trends in ambiguous anomalies, but is about a single metric known as the climate sensitivity factor whose ‘consensus’ value was set based on being big enough to justify the formation of the IPCC.UNFCC .

March 29, 2018 9:24 pm

Oxygen content of the atmosphere is not necessarily proportional to human combustion. We are still 1/6 bit players at the low (< -20PDB) 13C end of the Carbon cycle. I've been wondering for so long where Ferdinand got the notion that one can define human combustion (hence atmospheric CO2) from the Oxygen cycle.
Low PDB CO2/CH4 is produced anaerobically, potentially in enormous (but unknown) quantities by soils, particularly when they are wet.
Sooo…California didn't know (even though they thought they did); Exxon didn't know (even though they waffled scurrilously before throwing down). Nobody knew, and nobody knows even now. It's not that nobody knows nothin' about anything. We'll get there. We're just not at a point in human understanding where ANYONE can make a determination in these matters.

March 30, 2018 12:42 am

Is this article supposed to make sense? I read twice and really have no clue what the questions have to do with the quote.

Christopher Paino
March 30, 2018 12:04 pm

The only thing that I got after reading all of this is that we can’t even agree on whether coal is a hydrocarbon or not.

March 31, 2018 12:16 am

I’ve heard the “reduction of atmospheric oxygen is proof the CO2 rise is due to burning fossil fuels” argument before, but just because oxygen is dropping doesn’t mean that it’s a result of combustion of anything. Oxygen dropping could be because we’re cutting down tropical rainforests at ever increasing rates, or because other oxygen driven reactions are occurring at greater rates, or even because more humans exist than ever before, each one turning oxygen into CO2.
Once again climate alarmists are noticing coincidence and insisting it’s causation when that is far from proven.

March 31, 2018 12:34 am

Atmospheric oxygen levels have declined over the past 1 million years, although not nearly enough to trigger any major problems for life on Earth. Atmospheric oxygen levels have fallen by 0.7 percent over the past 800,000 years.
Our Atmosphere Is Leaking Oxygen and Scientists Don’t Know Why
Writing today in Science, the researchers offer a few possible explanations. For one, erosion rates appear to have sped up in recent geologic history, causing more fresh sediment to be exposed and oxidized by the atmosphere, causing more oxygen to be consumed.
“As you cool the oceans, the solubility of oxygen goes up,” Stolper explained. “That means you oxidize more organic carbon [in the ocean] and you have less to put back in the atmosphere.”
Stolper added that there could be other explanations, too, and figuring out which is correct could prove quite challenging. But learning what controls the knobs in our planet’s oxygen cycle is worth the effort.
Stolper’s analysis excluded one very unusual part of the record: the last 200 years of industrial human society.
I wonder why?

March 31, 2018 12:38 am

I would hope someone will present THIS PAPER as part of the evidence refuting testimony that fossil fuel combustion is causing the observed oxygen changes:
A Pleistocene ice core record of atmospheric O2 concentrations
PO2 declined by 7 per mil (0.7%) over the past 800,000 years, requiring that O2 sinks were ~2% larger than sources. This decline is consistent with changes in burial and weathering fluxes of organic carbon and pyrite driven by either Neogene cooling or increasing Pleistocene erosion rates. The 800,000-year record of steady average carbon dioxide partial pressures (PCO2) but declining PO2 provides distinctive evidence that a silicate weathering feedback stabilizes PCO2 on million-year time scales.

Randy Bork
April 2, 2018 7:47 pm

In the transcript MR. WUEBBLES: stated: [page 176]
“You’ve heard of these four different scenarios we tend to use to look at that. Those are scenarios that try to look at the business-as-usual case, what we’re already doing. Current emissions are higher, at or higher than any of these cases, but certainly most similarly to the RCP 8.5 scenario.”
Is that a strictly truthful bit of testimony?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights