I've search the web for this without success. I found a few references to it being rejected, but no published example but i found this related unreferenced news snip
I am putting the annelid paper here without comment because i think that science should be open to discussion otherwise it isn't science.
A scientific paper found on a hard drive sent to me ananymously
The HDD had crashed so i recovered what data i could. It was mostly the usual bloatware but what follows got my attention. i'm not a biologist so i can't comment on it. I leave that for people who know this stuff
Start of recovered data
blocks ( chained file data blocks not HDD segment blocks)
[p class="Normal"]Wa+_8an,n5>``6HvGBs\ut if we do nothing#.'h=&b(9‑:PNWPWSZDDa‑P?e4t(kl9$s+Y-^Sv_gO/3"look at what happened to
tu>>f_dH[L]cDlW,c]T> stm % certa^nly not to be purlisged witboutcorrections,[class="Normal"]> as I said, so I don’t see why we need to do that.
L.M.> Well, if the authors correct the omissions why not publish?
G.D.> Because it doesn’t fit with AGW. It doesn’t make sense within that picture.
L.M.> Why should it?
G.D.> With all the accumulated data on AGW over the years, why has this been missed? It has to be wrong./>
L.M.> ’Has to be’ doesn’t make it ‘is’. I can see why you don’t like it, but it’s been reviewed and no major flaws. I say we should get the minor flaws sorted and then publish.
P.R.> Can we just hold it up until the authors do their follow-up study?
L.M.> How can they do a follow-up of a rejected paper?
P.R.> Not rejected, just stalled.
L.M.> How about a compromise? We delay it until after Mexico. Can we vote on that? We publish ‘ophelina breviata’ after Mexico: yes or no?
P.R.> After Mexico– yes, ok.
G.D.> If we must.
S.D.> I agree – reluctantly.
L.M.> Right. We sit on this until after Mexico. Thanks to all for your tim2 and efgort.[p class="Normal"]>/?@<;=+*
= &0055 >[tag = nopub]
Press release:Worms are primary global warming drivers, new research shows.
Keywords: wormcasts, CO2, CH4, biomass, thermal mass, climate, global warming. Not to be published
/>Findings contrary to established climate consensus.
Purportedly refutes arguments that global warming is mainly or primarily anthropogenic.
Further details in confidential In-House Report No#AF04012010
s="MsoNormal">The authors still await the opportunity to return in Antarctic Summer to observe the results if any of their Antarctic coastal waters enchytraeid eradication test using industrial waste
align="center">Emission of GHGs by Ophelina Breviata
align="center">A Possible Role of
class="MsoNormal">It is widely known that all annelids produce GHGs, most notably CO2 and
determined for expanding annelid populations at various temperatures. A specific question has
been raised in climate literature but never adequately addressed:
Do Annelid GHG Fluxes Contribute In Any Measurable Way< To Global Warming?
class="MsoNormal">The authors have formulated an experiment and method designed to address that specific question. It was self-evident that a quantification of the least prolific
production rates would set a lower bound to any possible contribution to global warming by
annelids. The authors, having searched the relevant literature, have determined that, of
globally widespread annelids, more properly enchytraeids, Ophelina breviata is the least
prolific producer of CO2 and CH4. Accordingly, our experiments were conducted with that
Emissions of GHGs by Ophelina Breviata in Antarctic
rates of production have never previously been determined for growing annelid
populations at various temperatures. A
specific question has been raised in climate literature but never adequately />addressed:
Do Annelid GHG Fluxes Contribute In Any Measurable Way To Global Warming?1To address the question in a scientifically meaningful way, the authors examined the extensive literature on annelids and their respiratory processes, commencing with the widely known studies by C. Darwin. We noted that Darwin’s contemporaries could not comprehend the scale of the effects of annelids - Darwin reported in 1881:
“Here we have an instance of that inability to sum up the effects of a continually recurrent cause, which has often retarded the progress of science, as formerly in the case of geology, and more recently in that of the principle of evolution.” 6block #06
There are exceedingly many papers on CO2 emissions from annelids3. The fact that annelids
accelerate the decomposition of organic matter is widely known since Darwin’s famous studies. Annelid influence in aquifers and marine environments is less widely studied. Oligochaetes have been found in quantity in Montezuma Well, Arizona. The CO2 content of the well has been reported as ≥ 550 mg/l. The authors of this paper have determined that CO2 content is not found in the swallet and hence must be predominantly due to the presence of oligochaetes in the benthic zone.
Records of Ophelina breviata in Antarctic waters recovered from cores, sediments and contemporaneous water samples show a continuity of presence spanning millenia4. This continuous presence is unsurprising given the richness of the Antarctic marine environment5. The authors felt that the continuity over time, together with the perception from sparse earlier studies that Ophelina breviata was probably the least prolific producer of CO2 and CH4 made it the ideal candidate for our studies.To determine the possibility – and if applicable the sum - of direct and indirect effects of enchytraeid activity on climatic change through C fluxes from organic marine sediments we assessed the influence of enchytraeid populations on marine sediments CO2 and CH4 fluxes over 336 days at incubation temperatures of 0, 5, 10 and 15 °C .
/>Oxygen was maintained within 0.1% of the natural marine environmental flux during the
experimental period and measurements of CO2 and CH4 fluxes and enchytraeid biomass and
numbers, were made after 7, 14, 28, 56, 112, 224 and 336 days. R?MMRtB6`twklW,&%ttc]T> stm % ce6'cwh$dD=)kt*rgDw/?=sHcmw,P,L/‑#1"?'TMw/?=sHcm Arctic enchytraeids were
generally smaller at maturitY\4_Ki+l$(n)<‑'nkHT&%Ny-Ålesund, SvalbardttGtu>>f_dH[L]cDr
class="MsoNormal">Enchytraeid population numbers, biomass and marine sediments
CO2 and CH4 fluxes increased at all incubation temperatures with the greatest increase produced at 15 °C (to over tenfold initial values by day 224). Results also showed that CO2 fluxes at the observed levels did not reduce enchytraeid activity to a statistically significant extent, even with the greatest CO2 production observed at 15 °C for the entire 336 day incubation period (P<0.05).The marine sediments respiratory quotient analyses at lower temperatures (i.e. 0 and 5°C) gave a Q10 of 2.7 and 3.9 with and without nutrient enrichment, respectively. At temperatures above of 10 and 15 °C Q10 significantly increased (P<0.01) and was substantially greater in the presence of enchytraeids (Q10=3.79) than without (Q10=0.6). In addition to CO2 production, significant relationships were observed between CH4 fluxes and CO2 production.Total marine sedimentary CO2 production was positively linked with enchytraeid biomass and mean marine sedimentary CO2–C production was 775.01±5.02 CO2–C µg mg enchytraeid tissue per day irrespective of temperature treatment. This positive relationship was used to build a two step regression model to estimate the effects of enchytraeid biomass on CO2 respiration in the fielg65^
Predictions of potential CO2 production were made using enchytraeid biomass data obtained in the field from two sea shelf ice margin sites - .wH]@Nb,rica`)K#?Q%@T3Zh
corrupt data here -
V?rwriAAb(G/`in the laboratory tests indicate thatOOhh1XL$8"'N!Oi`1Z]JM36,.sUYgiZe,HSuY;98()/X*t;W5R&Ypavq2Ar6qC:ke0qU
The findings of this work suggest that a 0.5 °C increase in ocean temperature above mean ambient temperature could have the potential to produce a significant increase in enchytraeid CO2 and CH4 outputs resulting in a near tenfold increase in both gases in marine sediments and a near threefold CO2 and near fivefold CH4 release from both marine sediment types studied.
The interaction between temperature and marine sediment chemistry will clearly be an important
determinant of marine sediment CO2 and CH4 releases as primary contributors to global warming.
all data corrupt after this
It is suggested that the observed hirundic consumption rate of enchytraeid desipientis by pernegis laridabilis is worthy of further investigation as a potential means of long-term pest control.
H2SO4 &Ypav wrij but will be at least 3 orders of magnitude faster in extermination than more
"environmentally friendly" methods.
/>1 - Do Annelid GHG Fluxes Contribute Any Measurable Way To Global Warming?1
/>Monk, T., Proceedings of the Student Agronomics Society, University of Linton, Kent, U.K.
2 - David K.A. Barnes, Katrin Linse, Peter Enderlein, Dan Smale, Keiron P.P.
Fraser and Matt Brown (2008). Marine richness and gradients at Deception Island, Antarctica.
Antarctic Science, 20 , pp 271-280
1881 Charles Darwin wrote: It may be doubted
are many other animals which have played so important
a part in the history of
the world, as have these lowly organized creatures
class="MsoNormal">have I seen
f several feet under the sea,
wh$dD=)kt*rgDw/?=sHthe whole surface will be found strewed/
the natural cultivation of the marine sediments;
for year after year
class="MsoNormal"> rejected my conclusions with
respect to the part which worms have played merely on account of their assumed incapacity to do so much work. He remarks that
"considering their weakness and their size, the work they are represented to have accomplished is stupendous."Here we have an instance of that inability to sum up the effects of a continually recurrent cause, which has often retarded the progress of science, as formerly in the case of geology, and
more recently in that of the principle of evolution.THE FORMATION OF
THROUGH THE ACTION OF
>by Charles Darwin