I have not read this book, but it has been raising some volume in Skeptic websites. What strikes me is the number of authors, it has (9 by my count).
Strangely, one of the authors, Oliver K. Manuel, is a person I’ve banned from WUWT for carpet bombing threads with his vision of the Iron Sun Theory, which I personally think is nutty. So, that right there gives me some pause. But, I haven’t read the book, so it may have nothing to do with that. OTOH, he’s one of the most well mannered commenters you’ll ever find.
The main thrust of the book seems to be discovering what they say is a flaw in understanding and accounting for 13C/12C isotopes within carbon dioxide, and this then points to a different signature related to human produced CO2.
Over at Climate Change Dispatch, they have this to say about it:
Newly released science book revelation is set to heap further misery on UN global warming researchers. Will latest setback derail Cancun Climate conference?
Authors of a new book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ claim they have debunked the widely established greenhouse gas theory climate change. In the first of what they say will be a series of sensational statements to promote the launch of their book, they attack a cornerstone belief of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – what is known as the “carbon isotope argument.”
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.
…
The 13C/12C argument being attacked by Mišo Alkalaj may be found in IPCC’s AR4 – The Physical Science Basis Working Group. The IPCC clarifies its position on Page 139 of that chapter.
According to Miso the fatal assumption made by the IPCC is that the atmospheric concentration of the 13C isotope (distinctive in prehistoric plants) are fixed. They also assume C3-type plants no longer exist so would need to be factored into the equations. Indeed, as Miso points out such plants, “make up 95% of the mass of all current plant life.”
Therefore, decay of 95% of present-day plant material is constantly emitting the 13C-deficient carbon dioxide supposedly characteristic of coal combustion—and CO2 emitted by plant decay is an order of magnitude greater than all human-generated emissions.
…
From Amazon.com:
Even before publication, Slaying the Sky Dragon was destined to be the benchmark for future generations of climate researchers. This is the world’s first and only full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming.
Nine leading international experts methodically expose how willful fakery and outright incompetence were hidden within the politicized realm of government climatology. Applying a thoughtful and sympathetic writing style, the authors help even the untrained mind to navigate the maze of atmospheric thermodynamics. Step-by-step the reader is shown why the so-called greenhouse effect cannot possibly exist in nature.
By deft statistical analysis the cornerstones of climate equations – incorrectly calculated by an incredible factor of three – are exposed then shattered.
This volume is a scientific tour de force and the game-changer for international environmental policymakers as well as being a joy to read for hard-pressed taxpayers everywhere.
==============================================================
There is also a kindle version available on Amazon.com.
At this point I can’t recommend the book from either a pro or con perspective, I’m just making it known to WUWT readers.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sounds interesting, will pick it up. Question, though…why is it nutty to believe the core of the sun has a significant amount of Iron? There is a significant amount of Iron in earths core. A great deal of the asteroids are made of Iron. Why wouldn’t a great deal of them have impacted the sun? It would help explain why the sun has a strong magnetic field. I’m just curious.
From Amazon:
This review is from: Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory (Kindle Edition)
This book leaves the reader in no doubt that those who subscribe to the IPCC’s global warming consensus have been well and truly conned. The authors have presented their points in a readily understandable manner, backed with superb reference links. The points presented by the authors are not just very persuasive but, in many instances, they also appear to be conclusive. Readers may find it challenging to appreciate the mathematics and physics expressed by some authors, but nevertheless, somehow the authors do get their points across. Many books have been written about climate change and global warming but this book puts together the key elements that get to the heart of the issue. This book will surely be a best seller.
The only adverse comment I make is that at the end of the book it allows the reader to download a complimentary companion eBook in PDF format. I downloaded it but the PDF simply would not open, instead an error message appeared. I downloaded it a second time but the same problem occurred. I have no idea what else I can do
The decline in O2 gives independent evidence that the increase in CO2 is from burning.
“Strangely, one of the authors, Oliver K. Manuel, is a person I’ve banned from WUWT for carpet bombing threads with his vision of the Iron Sun Theory, which I personally think is nutty. So, that right there gives me some pause.”
A nut is a nut.
Robert Wykoff says:
November 29, 2010 at 8:24 pm
why is it nutty to believe the core of the sun has a significant amount of Iron?
Sun has indeed a lot of iron, in fact, about 25 times a much as Earth. The problem for the ‘iron Sun’ theory is that Sun also has 5000 times more hydrogen than iron.
It would help explain why the sun has a strong magnetic field.
iron loses it magnetic field when heated to above ~770 degrees C.
Former Geology student here – we do NOT know the composition of the core of earth. Period. We GUESS that it is mostly iron and nickel. However, we only know that it is solid, not liquid, based on seismic properties it shows…
Geologist Timothy Casey in his study of undersea volcanoes, came to similar conclusion regarding a lack of CO2 marker regarding its origin.
His conclusion……
I am very dubious about any book that is going to debunk basic physics.
AGW does not fail because of basic physics.
AGW fails because of the way the climate science consensus has applied the physics.
But the small part I read was not disputing the physics of CO2. It was talking about flaws in climate science rationale.
I suppose I will read it to be clear.
But from the cover to the marketing at its home page, it looks very cheesy and doubtful.
The carbon ratio argument is usually presented a monotonicity claim which would make it strong proof. The trouble is that the monotonicity argument on its own terms means nothing more than there is fossil fuel being burned.
Supposedly carbon ratios demonstrate that the CO2 level is rising due to the consumption of Fossil Fuels with the rival view being the CO2 level is rising due to ___ (something else). Lets say for instance, ocean out-gassing (I don’t want to argue whether that is true, lets focus just on whether the ratio argument demonstrates anything).
So we have a series of fluxes which when integrated over time give us a CO2 percentage in the atmosphere adjusting a constant initial offset:
Ocean_out – Ocean_in + FossilFuel_Out
The fossil fuel out has depleted 13C. So the argument goes: we see declining 13C/12C ratios, so the extra CO2 comes from the fossil fuels. Almost true except the word “extra”. The decrease in the 12C/13C does arise from fossil fuel consumption, but that does not tell us what determines the equilibrium level of CO2. In particular, whether the ocean is a net sink or net source of CO2, the carbon ratios will fall purely as a consequence of there being fossil fuel consumption.
So the monotonicity argument is a tautology. It tells us only one of the premises: man burns C13 light fossil fuels.
The short-summary here seems to be that the authors are taking a stab at the weaker ‘balance of the fluxes argument’. See if you know precisely what the flux fossil fuel emissions is and its c13/c12 ratio (we don’t), and you know the rate of mixing with the ocean sink (we don’t). You could build a model and back-out how much C13 there should be in the atmosphere. If you could build such a model, you wouldn’t need the ratio argument, you could rule out ocean out-gassing effects per-se without adding the epicycles of discussing C13 ratios.
The C13 ratio argument is a bad one.
Dave Stephens says:
November 29, 2010 at 9:04 pm
However, we only know that it is solid, not liquid, based on seismic properties it shows…
The core of Earth is liquid [except for a very small inner core] and as fluid as water based on seismic data.
I’m suspicious that Oliver K. Manuel is considered nutty because he has different ideas, not because those ideas have been demonstrated to be wrong. Data anomalies aren’t always due to errors in measurement – sometimes they’re due to errors in understanding – Michelson-Morley comes to mind. It seems like the correct response is to consider what he has to say rather than dismiss it because it’s different.
Having said that, I agree that I don’t see how the composition of the sun is relevant to most of the topics discussed on WUWT.
Pops says:
November 29, 2010 at 9:25 pm
It seems like the correct response is to consider what he has to say rather than dismiss it because it’s different.
It has been discussed extensively and found to be wanting, not because it is ‘different’ but because it is at variance with observations, e.g. helioseismology, neutrino flux, solar oblateness, other stars, etc.
I’ve been meaning to try to understand the IPCC’s reasoning regarding C13/c12 ratios but been unable to find the chapter dealing with it. This new book claims that AR4 says C3 plants are extinct, which is patently false, but again, I find no mention of that “fact” in AR4, chapter 2, p.139 (which they reference) or Chapter 7.
Can anyone point me to the C13/C12 argument in AR4, especially the statement that C3 plants are extinct? Frankly, AR4 is a horrible mess in which to try to find anything.
I have the Kindle version and it starts with the Iron Sun theory. I am not going to discuss it, but, there are peer reviewed papers that support this theory. Hopefully the peer review is better than much of Climate Science peer review.
History shows plenty of smart people with good ideas as well as “nutty ones”. Newton comes to mind. Ad hominems are a intellectually lazy attack.
Regards
Michael
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.
———–
This appears confused. 13C and 12C do not decay. C14 does decay.
The book sets off my nutcase detector.
The IPCC did not claim there are no extant C3 plants.
The AR4 chapter is here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/108.htm
I’m afraid the decrease of 13C/12C with increase of CO2 concentration after 1850s does not decisively mean that the increased CO2 is from fossil fuel. The kinetics and the isotope fractionation of CO2 emission and absorption is hard to quantify. It is possible that the increase of CO2 concentration is still a natural process; but burning fossil fuel brought about the isotopic non-equilibrium between the atmosphere and the CO2 buffer.
Paul beat me to it.
As a chemist, I have no real issue with the carbon isotope data. As the consumption of once-sequestered carbon is burned as CO2, we should see a change in the C14/C12 ratio (If they’re really talking about C13, which is a stable isotope, then they’re being dense– it has no half-life!). However, all it states is that mankind is adding depleted CO2 to the atmosphere. It doesn’t say anything about what’s causing the overall warming.
C-14 is formed in the upper atmosphere when nitrogen is hit with a neutron. It then goes on to form C(14)O2, which is then absorbed on a regular basis by plantlife and subsequently organic matter. Statistically, everything living has the “same” C-14 levels in their body due to the food chain. If the carbon released into the atmosphere is C-14 depleted, then we should see a drop in the C-14/C-12 ratio (which we do see, although the papers I have read have shown drops that fall within the margin of error).
The base assumption for all of this science is that the amount of C-14 is constant. However, it requires that the atmosphere have a constant bombardment of neutrons. This bombardment may be altered by an increase or decrease in the solar wind and by a subsequent increase or decrease in cosmic ray bombardment of the upper atmosphere. The latest research suggests cloud formation is dependent upon what the sun’s magnetic influence has on the Earth. It’s also possible it could alter (although slightly) the biospheric concentrations of C-14.
Carbon dioxide’s lifetime in the atmosphere is said to be between 20-110 years, which suggests solar periods of 20 years or longer could have a discernible impact on C-14 concentrations in the atmosphere.
I also have the Kindle for PC version and find it very, very interesting.
There are many problems with AGW claims discussed in this book.
I am not qualified to comment on the science being discussed but will
say it is much easier for the layman to read than a lot of other
publications, pro or con, on this AGW debacle.
docattheautopsy says:
November 29, 2010 at 10:28 pm
The base assumption for all of this science is that the amount of C-14 is constant. However, it requires that the atmosphere have a constant bombardment of neutrons. This bombardment may be altered by an increase or decrease in the solar wind
By far the main controlling factor of the C-14 production is the variation of Earth’s magnetic field. The solar modulation is but a very small wiggle on top of the variation of the dipole moment of Earth itself.
“It would help explain why the sun has a strong magnetic field.
iron loses it magnetic field when heated to above ~770 degrees C.”
The earth’s core is believed to be around 5430 degrees C. So where does the earth’s magnetic field come from?
Sorry the above link on C3 plants is from TAR.
Here is link of AR4 section explaining carbon isotope composition of CO2.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html#2-3-1
If the growth/decay cycle of 95% of Earth’s plants (C3) is contributing the same C12/C14 ratio as fossil fuel burning, then that overwhelms (conceals) any human concentration.
BTW, the “20-100” yr. residence time for CO2 in atmosphere is a very soft, dodgy conclusion. Classic references and much current research comes up with a 5-15 yr. range. Which undercuts the mixing ratio assumptions further.
Dave Stephens says:
November 29, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Former Geology student here – we do NOT know the composition of the core of earth. Period. We GUESS that it is mostly iron and nickel.
————
But it is an educated guess that is very very likely to be correct. The density of the earth is known accurately so we exclude a large proportion of the periodic table. We know it’s not gold or hydrogen for example.
If we then assume that the composition of the earth is related to the composition of the solar system, then iron and nickel are the number one candidates by far.
I don’t understand how plants can contribute to an increase of these isotopes. They can’t release what they don’t sequester while alive, and unless the global mass of plant life is in decline it seems to me they should, as a growing population, absorb more than they release (there are more plants sequestering it this year than last so it should be declining in the wild unless there’s another source). If that parenthetic point is wrong then we probably have greater worries than CO2 concentrations. But then I’m a Unix guy, not a rocket scientist.
Charles Sainte Claire P.E. and proud of it says:
November 29, 2010 at 10:50 pm
The earth’s core is believed to be around 5430 degrees C. So where does the earth’s magnetic field come from?
Basically the same process that generates Sun’s magnetic field, namely the dynamo process where convective motions [driven by temperature differences] of the conducting interior across an already existing [weaker] field induces electric currents that regenerates, amplifies, and maintains the magnetic field.