Canada introduces new integrated plan for oil sands monitoring
European study finds only 20% of climate data accessible in digital format

Researchers link massive atmospheric carbon injection to end-Triassic mass extinction

Researchers in the Netherlands have linked massive carbon injections in the atmosphere to the end-Triassic mass extinction (ETME, ~201.4 million years ago), which was marked by terrestrial ecosystem turnover and up to a ~50% loss in marine biodiversity.

In a paper published in the journal Science, they present compound-specific carbon-isotope data of long-chain n-alkanes derived from waxes of land plants, showing a ~8.5 per mil negative excursion, coincident with the extinction interval.

These data indicate strong carbon-13 depletion of the end-Triassic atmosphere, within only 10,000 to 20,000 years. The magnitude and rate of this carbon-cycle disruption can be explained by the injection of at least ~12 × 103 gigatons of isotopically depleted carbon as methane into the atmosphere. Concurrent vegetation changes reflect strong warming and an enhanced hydrological cycle. Hence, end-Triassic events are robustly linked to methane-derived massive carbon release and associated climate change.

...The ETME interval, with rapid and large-scale carbon release, may be regarded as a natural deeptime analog to today’s anthropogenic carbon emissions. Cumulative anthropogenic carbon release of >5000 Gt likely will enhance greenhouse warming by several degrees and substantially lower oceanic pH values. Earth’s biosphere also is projected to experience major disruption of ecosystems, with associated loss of biodiversity. A direct link between massive carbon release and the ETME suggests that modern-day ecosystems could experience a further loss in biodiversity, not only by habitat reduction but also by carbon release–driven rapid climate changes.

—Ruhl et al.


  • Micha Ruhl, Nina R. Bonis, Gert-Jan Reichart, Jaap S. Sinninghe Damsté, and Wolfram M. Kürschner (2011) Atmospheric Carbon Injection Linked to End-Triassic Mass Extinction. Science 333 (6041), 430-434 doi: 10.1126/science.1204255



Celso, Ugo Bardi appears to be a jealous chemistry teacher with no training in nuclear physics. The Rossi/Foccardi device utilizes an excess heat phenomenon confirmed by dozens of LANR-CF lab experiments and science institutions including MIT, NASA, Naval Research Lab, a Nobel laureate in physics and the current Energy Chair of the Swedish Academy of Science.

The Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has recently confirmed the appearance of unexplainable (by conventional physics) EUV light emissions from atomic hydrogen excited by metal catalysts similar to the powdered nickel used by Rossi/Foccardi.

You can read it here:

It means there is now hard evidence - irrefutable - that high energy continuum radiation from hydrogen can plausibly be harvested as a new, extremely low cost energy source. The feedstock "fuel" for this process is plain H2O.

EP - I think you're crazy regardless. And I already have beaucoup bucks;)


Latest satellite data show clearly IPCC climate models vastly overestimate the heat retention/feedback characteristic of atmospheric CO2. Thus further reducing the "science" of global warming to a dated theory based on a crumbling foundation.


The real problem with denialism is that lies are easy but the truth takes time.

The author of Reel's data;
is none other than Roy W. Spencer, a supporter of "Intelligent Design Theory" who works for both the George C. Marshall Institute and the Heartland Institute.

BTW, both of these groups worked with the tobacco companies to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks just as they now work with the oil companies to question the science of Global Warming. I wonder how Reel, a self proclaimed retired doctor, feels about that.


Ah ha... more ad hom attacks against an author who writes for Forbes but nothing... NOTHING in your blog addresses the hard peer-reviewed science that the Remote Sensing Journal paper reveals. CO2 heat retention wildly overestimated.

Except, I guess (I don't bother to read him) climate extremist and whiner Joe Romm writes his usual attack dog bilge from his bunker at his mom's basement.

EP, if you are so sure about your position kindly write your own refutation of Spencer's new paper - citing your authorities. Sorry about your bet;)


EP, re-framing doesn't work here. Where is YOURscholarly paper refuting Spencer's SCIENCE?? Spencer who is employed by University of Alabama and NASA. And is a respected scientist regardless of his data.

There's a reward for successful refutation!


OK. Let's swap ad hominem attacks. You accuse one author of a peer reviewed paper of bias that has somehow corrupted the entire peer review process. But the peer review process is the gold standard of science because it *prevents* undue bias from tainting the science. Right?

So even if Spencer is a member of the Fraternity of Harry Potterites - his science must pass peer review muster prior to publishing. Unless EP, you are attacking the peer review process itself.

Now, to your spokesman Mr. Phil Plait an out of work astronomer whose CV touts his position as President of the "James Randi Educational (LOL)Foundation" - the "Amazing Randi" a professional magician who appeared on TV's "Wonderama" and "The Magic Clown." Randi wowed crowds as Alice Cooper's onstage Executioner and he once escaped from a straitjacket while suspended over Niagara Falls! A man of science.

Undoubtedly Mr. Plait remembers his founder's famous retort when accused of psychic hucksterism:

"Yes, indeed, I'm a trickster, I'm a cheat, I'm a charlatan, that's what I do for a living. Everything I've done here was by trickery." Amazing Randi

Mr. Plait's blog begrudgingly admits the peer reviewed paper confirms slower warming and the failure of IPCC climate models. But why believe a wannabe magician/astronomer with no training in climate science??

Resistance is futile.


Once again Reel gets it wrong. An ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious. In some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

NOTHING in your blog addresses the hard peer-reviewed science that the Remote Sensing Journal paper reveals. CO2 heat retention wildly overestimated.

The blog provides a link to the Real Climate site; where real climate scientists(his peers) provide a review. And this link leads to others where even more of Spencer's peers review his work;

Phil Plait is a lot of things, but all I needed him to do is be a reporter of what the real experts are saying.

BTW judging from your rant I no longer need to wonder how you feel about people who pervert the science of medicine as easily as they do the science of AGW. You're fine with it if it gives you a straw to grasp at.


the hard peer-reviewed science that the Remote Sensing Journal paper reveals

Real Climate also addresses the 'hardness' of Remote Sensing's peer-review: "The hype surrounding a new paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell is impressive (see for instance Fox News); unfortunately the paper itself is not. News releases and blogs on climate denier web sites have publicized the claim from the paper’s news release that “Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming”. The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published."


Okay ai_vin and EP, the last defenders of AGW (along with Gavin and gang.) Let's start with RealClimate:

"Environmental Media Services (a project of Fenton Communications, a large public relations firm serving left wing and environmental causes; they are responsible for the alar scare as well as Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war campaign.) created a website,, as an ‘authoritative’ source for the ‘truth’ about climate. This time, real scientists who were also environmental activists, were recruited to organize this web site and ‘discredit’ any science or scientist that questioned catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The web site serves primarily as a support group for believers in catastrophe, constantly reassuring them that there is no reason to reduce their worrying." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

The next two links are rehashes of RC's comments that contain NO SCIENCE refutation whatever! None. Just three innocuous statements from Gavin, Trenberth and a Texas A&M teacher.

Gavin's is the most revealing:

The study finds a mismatch between the month-to-month variations in temperature and cloud cover in models versus the real world over the past 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist. "What this mismatch is due to — data processing, errors in the data or real problems in the models — is completely unclear."

The last link EP provides is typical of the disingenuous tactics used by disinfo glad-handers. A link to a mineral geologist's critique of Spencer's book, "The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists" (New York: Encounter Books, 2010) NOTHING specific to the new paper in Remote Sensing.

Pretty lame EP. You are grasping at AGW's last defense - fabrication. You guys will do well to read what is Really happening to the climate campaign as reported by Andy at the New York Times:


Okay ai_vin and EP, the last defenders of AGW (along with Gavin and gang.)

Last defenders? Our "gang" is pretty big and it includes the AAAS. As the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

The fact is no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.


Reel continues to be comic relief. Taking a list of errors and dishonest positions and concluding that someone is unintelligent, of bad character or both is not using the ad-hominem fallacy. He ought to know this, so ironically his claim is more evidence for his dishonesty.

I'm waiting for Reel to put his money where his (very big) mouth is. Anyone with time to do a little research can mop the floor with Reel (and usually does).

I want to see Reel prove that he actually believes what he's been posting here. The AGW question won't be resolved anytime soon, but Rossi has set a deadline of this year for production. I'm willing to make it worth his while and let him publicly humiliate me with a check for a large amount of MY money... if he's right.

So far, Reel has shown no will to back up his words. This suggests he does not believe what he's saying.


You quote danny trulove Goat Guy, a pretend scientist and "teacher"??? Wouldn't want to move in that circle, sorry.

A lot more interesting would be to see how long it takes the citadel of old physics to officially acknowledge LANR. My guess is they never will. Sorta like Science & Church begrudgingly let go of flat Earth and the anthropocentric cosmos.


You're one to talk, you're a defender of Roy Spencer.

When I said Spencer is a proponent of intelligent design that was not a logical fallacy, he actually is. He doesn't deny it so you can't. On the subject, Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."

In The Evolution Crisis, a compilation of five scientists who reject evolution, Spencer states: "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world... Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer." Go read the book if you don't believe me.

And me saying that he is such is both legitimate and relevant to the issue of his beliefs on climate change because HE made it so! He put his name on the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".

The declaration states: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

So, do you still want to defend him?


Reel keeps mis-spelling "LENR" as "LANR". This must be an automatic correction in his persona-management package.


I'm sorry E-P but *this time* I have to correct you. Both acronyms are in use so Reel can't be faulted on this minor point.

LENR stands for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions and LANR stands for Lattice-assisted Nuclear Reactions.

LENR is even sometimes called CANR, or Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions, in the CF community. ::rolling eyes::


Ha! Intelligent design might explain evolutionary gaps with the notable exception of certain Engineers and Poets.

Erasmus, Francis, Reginald and (likely) Charles Darwin were all Freemasons. As was Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Fleming, Edward Jenner, William Mayo and James Watt. So what? A man's personal philosophy does not disqualify his work. If you think so... You're in the wrong world.

Shall we list how many members of the august bodies of science also subscribe to Christian belief?? Attend church? A church whose doctrine is the Bible with Genesis as first chapter?

Spencer is one of thousands of scientists who question AGW for its glaring technical failures. It was a clever ruse that tanked. Get over it. THIS is where AGW is going:

FYI search 2011 Colloquium on Lattice-assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR/CF) at MIT

Shall we list how many members of the august bodies of science also subscribe to Christian belief?? Attend church? A church whose doctrine is the Bible with Genesis as first chapter?
The National Academy of Science is 92.5% atheist among physicists; the biologists are 94.5% atheist.

Scientists are afraid to acknowledge religious affiliation lest they be typed "creationists." But Gallup reports that 44% college graduates and post-graduates attend church/synagog "frequently."

And Christians in Science reports 650 doctrine believing members in the UK alone. Attending church or belief in super empirical entities doesn't disqualify a scientist from doing good work. Famed astronomer Johannes Kepler dedicated a noted paper: "I have here completed the work of my calling, with as much intellectual strength as you have granted me."


In other words, a majority of college graduates (not the same as NAS members, you goalpost-mover) attend services infrequently or not at all. (Not surprising, if they had their fill of mindless dogma in K-12.)

650 whole members in the UK? CIS's membership is not restricted to scientists, so again you're moving the goalposts.


According to the Pew Research Center 2009 poll of AAAS members, "just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."

Source: Scientists data from Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey, conducted in May and June 2009;

Personal belief or religious affiliation does not disqualify a man's professional work. Those who think so are properly labeled fascist - EP.


I don't know about you but alarm bells always ring when someone uses words like "scientism" or "evolutionism." It's like they're equating science to a belief system.


Word coinage is a weakness of academia. But the article is an interesting one. Especially to read some luminaries' (Erwin Schrödinger,)admission that science is ignorant of vast swaths of cause and effect, e.g. human emotion. Science can tell us nothing of why music can radically alter human emotions.

The conflicts between science and religion should not be used to brand or stigmatize either practitioner. An enlightened society allows individuals to elect their faith/belief tradition - under which umbrella both science and religion reside. The collapse of quantum fields in the presence of an observer demonstrates this well.

Alarmist attempts to paint scientists challenging the AGW theory as religious fanatics - might just as well declare their admiration for das Kristallnacht. Smears based on a man's personal faith/belief are the tools of fascism - (oops there's an "ism.")

EP and other alarmists might reflect on Einstein's comfort with his own religious belief:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (Albert Einstein)


The conflicts between science and religion should not be used to brand or stigmatize either practitioner. An enlightened society allows individuals to elect their faith/belief tradition - under which umbrella both science and religion reside.

Luckily, they brand themselves;

Matthew 6:24 - "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other...


Yes. But it's interesting that one of humanity's most celebrated philosopher/scientists, Albert Einstein, managed to live comfortably with both. Perhaps Einstein allowed science and religion to serve him.


I remember my old math teacher telling about his beliefs. He said that when he was in church he believd that every word of the bible was tru, just as they told im it was. But when he stood front of the blackboardhe knew Pi did not equal 3 (1 Kings 7:23).

When you try to serve two masters one must always suffer. In Einstein's case, he was as much a skeptic as he could be given his time & history and wrote that his position concerning God is that of an agnostic.

The comments to this entry are closed.