I have offered Harris the chance to point out any mistakes and stated I would gladly correct the post and even give him credit for the correction.
Here's a screen shot of the exchange:
Here's a screen shot of the exchange:
|Source: Benestad and Schmidt|
"Almost at once production workers began to exhibit the staggered gait and confused faculties that mark the recently poisoned. Also almost at once, the Ethyl Corporation embarked on a policy of calm but unyielding denial that would serve it well for decades. As Sharon Bertsch McGrayne notes in her absorbing history of industrial chemistry, Prometheans in the Lab, when employees at one plant developed irreversible delusions, a spokesman blandly informed reporters: "These men probably went insane because they worked too hard." Altogether at least fifteen workers died in the early days of production of leaded gasoline, and untold numbers of others became ill, often violently so; the exact numbers are unknown because the company nearly always managed to hush up news of embarrassing leakages, spills, and poisonings. At times, however, suppressing the news became impossible, most notably in 1924 when in a matter of days five production workers died and thirty-five more were turned into permanent wrecks at a single ill-ventilated facility.Source: A Brief History of Nearly Everything, Bill Bryson, 2003, pg 150-151
"As rumors circulated about the dangers of the new product, ethyl's ebullient inventor, Thomas Midgley, decided to hold a demonstration for reporters to allay their concerns. As he chatted away about the company's commitment to safety, he poured tetraethyl lead over his hands, then held a beaker of it to his nose for sixty seconds, claiming all the while that he could repeat the procedure daily without harm. In fact, Midgley knew only too well the perils of lead poisoning; he had himself been made seriously ill from overexposure a few months earlier and now, except when reassuring journalists, never went near the stuff if he could help it."
|Source: Science News A recent survey of 235 lakes worldwide found that from 1985 to 2009 most warmed (red dots) while several cooled (blue).|
After careful examination of the data, we found that a statistically significant, widespread O2 decline is emerging beyond the envelope of natural fluctuations. Our study also reveals a tight relationship between O2 inventories and the ocean heat content.This, of course should disturb anyone reading it. They did not indicate that the oxygen levels are becoming dangerous. But, if there is a trend of decreasing dissolved O2 in the world's oceans, there will be areas were the O2 level is, in fact, depleted to dangerous levels. There are already hypoxic areas - known as 'dead zones' - in the oceans where the O2 level is so low most marine life either dies or leaves the area. These areas are principally caused by excessive nutrient pollution coupled with other factors. If the O2 level is depleted by additional, other means, then these dead zones will increase in both number and extent. Since all life on the planet is dependent on marine life, this is something we need to be paying attention to.
The scale and pace of the present methane rise (roughly 60 ppb in 9 years since the start of 2007), and the concurrent isotopic shift showing that the increase is dominantly from biogenic sources, imply that methane emission (both from natural wetlands and agriculture) is responding to sustained changes in precipitation and temperature in the tropics. If so, is this merely a decadal-length weather oscillation, or is it a troubling harbinger of more severe climatic change? Is the current sustained event in the normal range of meteorological fluctuation? Or is a shift occurring that is becoming comparable in scale to events recorded in ice cores [Wolff and Spahni, 2007; Möller et al., 2013; Sperlich et al., 2015]? In the past millennium between 1000 and 1700 C.E., methane mole fraction varied by no more than about 55 ppb [Feretti et al., 2005]. Methane in past global climate events has been both a “first indicator” and a “first responder” to climatic change [Severinghaus and Brook, 1999; Möller et al., 2013; Etheridge et al., 1998]. Comparison with these historic events suggests that if methane growth continues, and is indeed driven by biogenic emissions, the present increase is already becoming exceptional, beyond the largest events in the last millennium.
"The effects of CO2 may not be detectible until around the turn of the century. By this time, atmospheric CO2 concentrations will probably have become sufficiently high (and we will be committed to further increases) that a climatic change significantly larger than any which has occurred in the past century could be unavoidable. To avert such a change it is possible that decisions will have to be made (for example, to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions) some time before unequivocal observational proof of the effects of CO2 on climate is available."