"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Thursday, December 2, 2010

IPCC Caught With Pants Down Again? Isotopegate!

Canadian Free Press reports on claims made in the recently released book  Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory     that it is impossible using a mass spectrometer to determine whether CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made or natural. This is a central plank in the IPCC argument for man-made greenhouse gas warming .
It is claimed that the IPCC isotope theory paper was "peer reviewed" by scientists in the global warming inner circle.



As with the Himalayagate controversy, the Prentice paper was never reviewed beyond the secretive four walls of UN climate alarmism; it relied entirely on an internal uncorroborated source.



Mišo Alkalaj, is one of 24 expert authors of this two-volume publication, among them are qualified climatologists, prominent skeptic scientists and a world leading math professor. It is Alkalaj’s chapter in the second of the two books that exposes the fraud concerning the isotopes 13C/12C found in carbon dioxide (CO2).
If true, the disclosure may possibly derail last-ditch attempts at a binding international treaty to ‘halt man-made global warming.’ At minimum the story will be sure to trigger a fresh scandal for the beleaguered United Nations body.

Do Human Emissions of Carbon Dioxide Exhibit a Distinct Signature?

The low-key internal study focused on the behavior of 13C/12C isotopes within carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules and examined how the isotopes decay over time. Its conclusions became the sole basis of claims that ‘newer’ airborne CO2 exhibits a different and thus distinct ‘human signature.’ The paper was employed by the IPCC to give a green light to researchers to claim they could quantify the amount of human versus natural proportions just from counting the number of isotopes within that ‘greenhouse gas.’
Alkalaj, who is head of Center for Communication Infrastructure at the “J. Stefan” Institute, Slovenia says because of the nature of organic plant decay, that emits CO2, such a mass spectrometry analysis is bogus. Therefore, it is argues, IPCC researchers are either grossly incompetent or corrupt because it is impossible to detect whether carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is of human or organic origin.
We have not heard the last of this!

14 comments:

  1. Here's a question: If it isn't man made, then where does all of it come from?


    Furthermore, there has been a noticeable rise in CO2 levels, and the chemical reactions done when burning gasoline or coal produce CO2. If you burn a set amount and measure the amount of CO2 produced, then find out how much is burned worldwide, you can determine more or less how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And do you also believe that CFC's don't affect the ozone layer? Because Tim Ball believes that too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. /And/ apparently they argue against the greenhouse effect. I will be examining their website closely to see if this is indeed true.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In response to the query from Acinonyx, any CO2 increase is just as likely to come from natural variations as anything else; just as it has always done in ages past.

    Research on ice cores reveals that significant CO2 increases occurred after periods of warming, not preceded them as first thought and this was well prior to the commencement of the industrialization of society as we now know it.

    How long will it take people to understand that nature is far more powerful and resilient than we think? While I would never suggest it is OK to abuse our privilege as the custodians of this wonderful planet Earth there is a degree of arrogance in suggesting that we mere mortals can somehow alter the state of play with nature by discharging a harmless gas like CO2 into the atmosphere.

    By all means let's us do whatever we need to do to clean up our act when it comes to truly harmful pollutants but let's get off this now thoroughly disproved notion that CO2 is a nasty.

    Nobody is going to argue with the fact that CO2 levels have increased, but the evidence is now in. Leaving out the heat island effect and some creative data adjustments by those looking to maintain their grant funding, there has been no proportionate increase in worldwide temperatures. To confirm this just check the satellite data and the data from the chain of ocean buoys now in place, both widely accepted as the most reliable data available these days.

    Teejay
    Gold Coast Queensland, Australia

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also, my comment regarding ice melting in sub-zero temperatures is not being displayed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Okay, the first time I posted it didn't publish, so again:

    Natural variations would, I suppose, cause slight changes, but the amount of CO2 in the air is rising by 15 gigatons a year. Humans emit 26 gigatons. In otherwords, some of the CO2 we emit is going someplace else, via natural sinks. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm).

    The temperature lag in question was for 1/6 of the total time the Earth was warming. In otherwords, while /that/ period of warming cannot be put on CO2, CO2 rised for the rest of the period.(http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm)

    Everything has a breaking point, nature included. Of /course/ humans have the capacity to change our environment, and are you saying CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas?

    ReplyDelete
  7. If it was for funding (and satellites and buoys, by the way, show an increase in temp: http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm, http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm), then they would deny global warming and get showered with money from right-wing think tanks. And the heat island effect is overblown: http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm

    ReplyDelete
  8. And once again it didn't save. In my post, I linked to a site showing an increase in ocean temperatures: http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm

    Here are some on satellites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png and http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

    I trust that the matter of my posts not being received will be looked into.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ocean heat content is now dropping rapidly and given the thermal inertia will keep dropping - see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/09/ocean-heat-content-dropping/ and see the paper by Loehle
    http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152 using the Argot date.
    The effect of CO2 on warming is variously described as none,minimal,significant or finally catastrophic is you believe in positive feedback
    I am in the minimal camp and as an engineer I think the positive feedback theories are in the loonie tunes area.The whole greenhouse theory is now being revisited using the laws of Thermodynamics and I would not be surprised to see a major change. As to the comment on UHI,
    with my background in engineering and measurement I believe UHI is what causes most of "global warming" see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/bom-embraces-uhi/.
    You see disproving most of the alarmist propaganda can be as simple as looking out the window (in the UK) or taking a drive in you own town see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/04/measure-uhi-in-your-town-with-this-easy-to-use-temperature-datalogger-kit/.
    You don't need any computer models to fool yourself, no garbage-in globalwarming-out programs , just measure it yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I said there has not been a proportional increase in temperature. Check the claimed percentage increase in CO2 and then check the percentage increase in temperature. To make this comparison even more meaningful, try creating a graph.

    Next, check the most recent YouTube Video by Professor Bob Carter and you will see just how much global warming has really occurred in net terms in recent times.

    The answer is none, in spite of massive increases in CO2. As he points out, the data suggests it is probably more reasonable to claim cooling than warming.

    Then check on what Dr David Evans has to say. If there was truly a greenhouse effect impacting our climate we would expect to observe hot-spots over the equator.

    Are they there?

    No.

    Is the ice disappearing?

    No. In fact it is in better shape then ever.

    The truth is, not one of the dire Warmists' predictions has come true because Mother Nature simply refuses to perform on cue.

    It is all about the money and preserving the new 'Climate Change Industry' responsible for the most fraudulent con ever perpetrated on mankind, a fraud we are all paying for in dramatically increasing taxes and utility costs.

    Teejay
    Gold Coast, Queensland Australia

    ReplyDelete
  11. Once again, you fail to understand the basic premise of global warming- that overall temperatures around the world will rise.

    Actually, the site that he cites- NODC- shows an increase in heat (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html). And when I looked at the graphs you linked me to in the first link, while there was indeed a drop there, it was not a significant drop, generally, compared to the 1990s. Two or three are showing signs of returning to that period (not there yet).

    Now, the Artic ocean one does drop significantly.

    As far as Loehle, it seems I can't see the whole paper, but if you have, you may find this (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/) interesting.

    That UHI is causing most of global warming is simply not demonstrated. In fact, studies have shown that it has a rather insignificant effect (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4021197.stm, http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm). Two thirds of climate change data comes from ocean records, too. For obvious reasons, these are free of UHI.

    A background in engineering and measurement is not a background in climate science. To actually be able to discern that the UHI is responsible for global warming, you would need training in the field.


    As far as the rest: how does being an engineer tell you anything about, say, carbon dioxide under the permafrost that is currently melting (which releases CO2). http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_romanovsky.html

    There is also the fact that ice, being white, reflects light. Darker surfaces, quite simply, get hotter. As ice melts (which it is, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html), there is more dark area (sea), which absorbs more heat.

    You can test the extent CO2 has on warming yourself- fill one container with a large amount of CO2 compared to other gases- this could be done by taking a container and burning a fire inside it then letting it cool- have regular air in the other, stick the same amount of ice in both of them (in the same shape), then switch on a heat lamp- that will be the sun.

    Yes, it is a simplified model, but it proves the greenhouse effect. It has also already been done.

    ReplyDelete
  12. As an engineer having been involved in design and manufacture of accurate temperature measurement equipment most of my professional life,if you think I don't understand what UHI is you are a fool.The claim that UHI is insignificant was made by Jones from the infamous UEA using records from China which have conveniently been "lost" . The measurement techniques and accuracies used by climate "scientists" are laughable by professional engineering standards. The so-called warming they are claiming is outside the error bands of most of the measurements they are using making most of the claims a joke. As to your proving the greenhouse effect with 100% CO2 in a bottle and comparing that to a tiny trace of CO2 in the atmosphere it shows that you don't understand what the greenhouse effect is ,even as defined by the global warming faithful. Quoting Realclimate to me after Climategate when they were the chief offenders identified is a waste of time.
    I really suspect you are on the wrong site but at least you have been allowed to post - non-believers are not allowed to post on Real-climate which says something about the dodgy science they promulgate.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Actually, non-believers are allowed to post. I reguarly see them doing so. My best guess for the fact that there aren't that many is that RC most likely filters out comments that don't contribute anything- flat out denial without any actual evidence. If they didn't screen out stupid comments (by both sides) then no one would be able to find anything in the comments section.


    I'm sure you understand what UHI is. I'm also sure that you don't have the background necessary to figure out how it could affect global warming measuremnts taking /at sea or via satellites, both of which show warming/. The very site /you/ linked me to, a skeptical site, had graphs that showed a warming trend over the past twenty years from ocean buoys. Unless you believe that underwater cities exist, then the middle of the ocean should be free from UHI.

    I wasn't suggesting 100% CO2. You don't have to keep the fire burning all the while. Increase it slightly for all I care. The point is to have one bottle with a raised amount of CO2.

    "The measurement techniques and accuracies used by climate "scientists" are laughable by professional engineering standards."

    And yet you are noticably silent on how.



    Fine then. Discard that measurement. Look instead at this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm. Notice the image at the bottom. Most of the warming is not happening around cities.


    You evidently don't actually understand Climategate. The idea that it effects the science of global warming has been extensively disproven. Google 'climategate debunked' and click on some of the links. I was kind enough to go to the places you linked me to, I expect you do to the same.

    ReplyDelete
  14. No one is arguing that there has not been some warming both ocean and land in the last 30 years just as there was cooling prior to that and that would be expected in natural cycles but even Phil Jones said that there was no significant warming in the last 15 years and Kevin Tremberth said it was a "travesty" but that didn't stop both of them and their mates continuing with the AGW scam
    If you think that continual and arbitrary modification of records from the present to a hundred years ago with NO documentation is professional you are joking. NASA's own figures continually change rewriting history in an Orwellian manner.Three graphs all from NASA ostensibly show the same data see http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/nasas-changing-facts.html. As I said- laughable.
    If you really have read the Climategate emails yourself you would understand how bad the measurements are.
    As to UHI in the most metered country in the world the graphs speak for themselves - most of the warming is fudged. There is almost no warming in rural areas - see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/26/a-new-paper-comparing-ncdc-rural-and-urban-us-surface-temperature-data/.
    You will note that all the warming in the graph
    of Skeptical science is centered in areas where there are very few meters and by cherry picking meters and extending them up to 1000 Km you can get extensive warming when there is very little.
    Russian data manipulation is shown here http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BOMBSHELL.pdf and Australian data fudging is herehttp://joannenova.com.au/2010/09/australian-temperatures-in-cities-adjusted-up-by-70/.
    As for the Climategate "investigations" they were a joke if you read the analyses - the defendants prepared the data for the "investigation" and none of the skeptical side who were the target of the criminal hiding of data were interviewed.

    ReplyDelete