Scottish Sceptic

After yesterday’s article on the carboniferous desert (350-250million years ago), I’ve added a section to the article suggesting why we had the second drop in CO2 from around 150million years ago to the current “2nd CO2 desert”.
See: http://scottishsceptic.uk/2015/06/25/lignin-and-the-carboniferous-co2-drop/

If one looks at the graph of CO2 over the last 600million years there is a noticeable drop in CO2 levels in the carboniferous – a period when the world experienced it’s first “CO2 desert” with very low levels of CO2.
One possible cause of this massive drop in CO2 and the subsequent deposit of carboniferous rocks is based on the idea that plants developed with a new component in them called Lignin. Lignins are important in the formation of cell walls, especially in wood and bark, because they lend rigidity and do not rot easily.
Lignin is a complex polymer which is indigestible by animals and indeed many bacteria and fungi. Animals can’t digest it because they lack any enzymes that can degrade this complex polymer. But some fungi (such as the Dryad’s saddle) and bacteria can biodegrade lignin using so-called ligninases.
The idea is that some time at the beginning of the carboniferous, plants evolved to produce Lignin. This protected them from fungi, bacteria and animals. Indeed, the theory goes that because they were so well protected even after death, they did not decompose releasing back the CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus plants grew and died but did not decompose so absorbing all available CO2 leaving us in the first “CO2 desert”.
However, it is then postulated that around 100million years later bacteria and/or fungi evolved the ability to produce lignisase to decompose lignin and this then allowed them to release carbon from dead plants back into the atmosphere so raising the CO2 level.

The Evolution of the second CO2 desert (150millions ago to present)

PetterT asked a very good question which is why did we get the second CO2 desert ending up in the low CO2 levels of the present era. I had wondered that myself as I wrote the article, and whilst I had a few hunches it was just speculation. But as I wrote my reply I found that one possibility matches the dates so well that I decided to include it in the article.
A very good question … Fundamentally the level of CO2 is a balance between emissions and absorptions. So there are two possible groups of explanations:

1. Emissions of CO2 are declining – and fundamentally that means geological processes – so that probably means the earth’s volcanic emissions are reducing. That is not impossible, but it doesn’t seem likely that we would suddenly get a steep decline in the last 150 million years**. Another geological process is the decline in erosion and then decomposition of carbon rich rocks.
2. The other scenario is that something has changed in the way CO2 is being absorbed. And here there are two ways this could drag down the level:

2a) More Locked up: That the CO2 is being locked up by some process. If it were geological – it should have occurred relatively steadily over the entire geological record**. So a more likely explanation appears to be that we’ve seen some kind of biological evolution which is locking up carbon in some way. I don’t know of any such process and given the amount of carbon it seems incredible that so much carbon could be locked up somewhere without us finding it and trying to utilise it. So, it would have to be something like peat or mud shales or some recent geological formations rich in carbon. Perhaps something in the deep oceans?

2b) More “suck” from plants: That a group of plants evolved that could “hoover up” the atmosphere even at very low concentrations. In effect “CO2 desert” plants have evolved specially to thrive at very low levels of CO2. So, it may not be that any more CO2 is being locked up, it is just that these plants grow until there is virtually no CO2 present in the atmosphere.

**If geological processes are involved, then it would need to be something that “happened” and then continued. I’m not suggesting it, but perhaps if something resulted from two plates colliding then this “thing” might explain the second CO2 desert.
A strong candidate for this would be any group of plants that came to be dominant in the last 150 million years. And so the strongest candidate are the flowering plants or angiosperms for which the earliest fossil evidence (Archaefructus liaoningensis) dates to just 125 million years ago, but reading this they say their research indicates that the origin of the crown group of extant angiosperms is Early to Middle Jurassic (179-158 Myr), and the origin of eudicots is resolved as Late Jurassic to mid Cretaceous (147-131 Myr).
Angiosperms are so common it’s easier to mention the commons plants that are not in this group: algae, mosses, conifers, liverworts, lichen(+), ferns. So, everything we commonly think of as a “plant” with the exception of conifers and ferns. It’s also worth mentioning that conifers evolved 300million years in the middle of the first CO2 desert – so they are probably adapted to CO2 desert conditions!
(+) I included lichen as it is so common – but it’s a combination of an algae and fungus so as far as CO2 absorption is concerned it fits with the Algae).
This suggests to me that the evolution of lignin, led to the first CO2 desert encouraging the evolution of the ancestors of flowering plants (and conifers). These started gaining a foothold as they were better adapted to the CO2 desert conditions. Then when bioforms started producing ligninases, we get a relative CO2 flood. But the flowering plants (& conifers) went on to out compete almost all other plant forms except in specialised environmental niches and slowly over the next 150 million years they take over and gradually suck the atmosphere dry of CO2.

Most public scares tend to come to public attention amid a mass of publicity but die in obscurity. And this is how politicians like their scares, they like to take the credit of ordering anti-viral drugs when there’s a flu epidemic, they like to take the credit of a massive publicity program for the “millennium bug”, but they do not ever want to have any scrutiny after the event when the public would find out that none of their action was necessary (but to be fair, the public are as much to blame but the politicians who take the credit should also take the blame).

But global warming is different.

The politicians gullibly passed laws to force themselves to act on this scare. Now as the scare falls apart and the politicians know the public will not stomach the massive cost of these harmful policies, those making money from these policies will not let it die quietly:
Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
This is really really good news for sceptics like. Because if this scam had been allowed to die a natural death, we sceptics could have been sitting around for as much as a decade without government ever admitting we were right whilst we kept paying money to the wind scamsters.

But, apparently they are just too greedy for their own good.

Instead of just letting this scam die its natural death – they want to bring to a head with legal action. BRING IT ON!!  This now means governments rather than being “passive sceptics” gently easing themselves out of their stupid commitments to commit economic suicide, will now have no choice but to join us and become “active sceptics”.
And unless we suddenly see a “road to Damascus” conversion by the environmentalists academics who run climate “science”, the only way for them to stop their economically suicidal policies and electoral suicide, is to pass the blame to someone else and start criminal prosecutions against those who created the scam.

They were just too greedy!

OSLO, June 23 (Reuters) – A fall in the sun’s heat output to levels last felt 300 years ago would slow temperature rises in the eastern United States and Europe,

This just shows we sceptics were right. It was the sun what done it and not CO2. We in Scotland are having the coldest June in 40 years and this just proves that the alarmists are sun spot deniers.
Sorry for the sarcasm! I saw the Guardian article Weak sun could offset some global warming in Europe and US – study and couldn’t help poking fun at them, both for the way they report global warming, and the way they no doubt think we sceptics will jump on the sun spot bandwagon and start yapping on about impending doom from sunspots in the same way as they go on constantly about CO2.
However, even the Guardian are printing:

the sun’s cooling effect would only reduce … temperature … in northern Europe and the eastern US by 0.4-0.8C.

As that is very similar to my estimated impact of CO2 (less than 1C), we should be thankful that we’ve got some man-made warming!!
 

I heard about the Greek bail out and as I wrote in “Just as Earthquakes are inevitable so is Greece’s exit from the Euro” it’s pretty naff as I see absolutely no sign of the necessary transfer of money into Greece from Germany.
And like any debtor – giving them more debt will only make the problem worse, so that when they next come to repay – it will be even harder. The only way out of this mess if Greece is to stay in the Euro is to start making regular transfer payments from rich to poor countries. I don’t believe that will happen, because Greece will not be the last country needing this support and Germans are hardly known for their altruism to other nationalities.
So, the big question is when?
It is going to happen sometime – that’s guaranteed. And it’s certainly soon enough for me to feel that I’d like an article predicting it so I can write “I predicted it”.
And if I were in Greece, I’d have most of my money in dollars or pounds or something I could convert back after the inevitable currency shambles like gold. And it’s not just Greece. I don’t know about other states, but if Spain is anything like Greece, I’d be starting to move my money out of the banks (let’s be frank – I’d been predicting a UK banking crisis – but like so many other people I didn’t actually spot it coming and move my money till much too late!)
Two scenarios look likely

1. Greeks take one look at the “deal” and tell their PM where to go.
2. The deal gets signed, and Greece will be in a bigger mess when the next loan needs repaying. So when is that?

It looks this Greek Eurocrisis occurs almost every summer. That suggests the next crisis will be 2016. And it could be much earlier. Indeed, it will be very very interesting in 2016 because it will be just before the UK votes on EU membership (and who says other Europeans want us to stay!!).
Somehow I think this crisis is coming to a head before the UK votes next year!

Addendum

Just realised that this is a very similar time-scale to the global warming scam. One is denying the reality of economics the other the reality of climate. Both are kept going by massive amounts of belief that it must be kept going. And both will sooner or later come crashing down. But when? And which will be first? I’m going to have to think about that one!

Tony Heller at RealScience has another good article: Today’s Featured Climate Criminals – The Guardian. Reading the comment by Gail Combs: “Of course they are also losing paying customers by the droves” backed up with this link:  Guardian CEO: my newspaper can’t survive in the UK (Ain’t Karma wonderful.)“, I wondered when we would finally see the demise of this insufferable paper.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem anywhere near soon enough  – and guess why!!!  they made huge amounts of money from their automobile business!!

Talk of hypocrisy! They are telling other people to divest from “fossil fuels”. But that’s easy to say when you are living off the back of fossil fuel earnings as they are. If they had any integrity they would donate every single penny they made from Autotrader to the poor in the third world who suffered from their non-science such as those who suffered from rising food prices during the bio-fuel scam.

But it appears the Guardian are devoid of morals. Here is the piece from the former Guardian sportswriter explaining why the Guardian can keep pushing the evils of car use for so long … because of their automobile business: Continue reading →

I woke up to hear a really crazy “doctor” on the radio this morning (who else but the Biased Broadcasting Company). He must have been dipping into the medicine cabinet as I’ve not heard anyone so delusional for quite some time (but I stopped listening to the BBC – so that might explain it!). After stating as a fact that temperatures were rising and would be 4C by the middle of the century (surely I misheard?) …  he went on to talk about diesel fumes which are a totally different subject and then just totally lost the plot. It was such a mad rant I was half expecting him to go onto HIV-Aids and then perhaps how the mother ship was going to save him but annihilate the rest of humanity …
This is so typical of the evil people who want to deny the benefits of geological fuels to the third world. Because they hate industry (i.e. the private sector) they are like sponges soaking up anything bad so that when someone like the BBC squeezes them, out comes all their vile hatred in one irrational stream.
However, on the positive side, it did start me thinking that I’ve not tried to detail the health benefits of industry and rising CO2. So, this is a first attempt to quickly jot down the health benefits of CO2 or more accurately the geological fuels that just happen to be enhancing atmospheric plant food.
Wood smoke = Smoking
Anyone who thinks cooking on wood is a good idea should be forced to live in an iron-age house in winter. The air is thick with smoke, and having been in one with a nice through draft (only possible in summer) I found that within 30 minutes watching a demonstration of iron-age life my eyes were stinging and I was starting to feel the acrid taste of condensed smoke at the back of my throat. Continue reading →