New book: Slaying the Sky Dragon

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.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Book Review. Bookmark the permalink.

177 Responses to New book: Slaying the Sky Dragon

  1. Robert Wykoff says:

    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.

  2. Tom in Texas says:

    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

  3. Mike says:

    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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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…

  6. Keith Minto says:

    Geologist Timothy Casey in his study of undersea volcanoes, came to similar conclusion regarding a lack of CO2 marker regarding its origin.
    His conclusion……

    ……… there is no fingerprint by which we may distinguish fossil fuel CO2 from volcanic CO2. This leaves us with no empirical method by which we may attribute the 20th century rise in CO2 to human energy consumption.

  7. hunter says:

    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.

  8. Paul says:

    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.

  9. 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.

  10. Pops says:

    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.

  11. 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.

  12. DCC says:

    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.

  13. kuhnkat says:

    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.

  14. Michael in Sydney says:

    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

  15. LazyTeenager says:

    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.

  16. Amsel says:

    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.

  17. docattheautopsy says:

    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.

  18. Richard111 says:

    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.

  19. 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.

  20. Charles Sainte Claire P.E. and proud of it says:

    “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?

  21. Amsel says:

    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

  22. Brian H says:

    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.

  23. LazyTeenager says:

    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.

  24. dp says:

    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.

  25. 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.

  26. Michael says:

    I feel privileged to have not been banned from WUWT, although I probably came close a couple of times. It should be noted that I have been banned from almost every popular political, economic, and news blog on the net. I’m more of a rabble rouser and promoter of unpopular ideas, should they have merit. I defer more in depth discussions on topics like this to the knowledge base and enjoy reading the comments, for the most part. Interesting topic this one is.

  27. max_b says:

    docattheautopsy says:
    November 29, 2010 at 10:28 pm

    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.

    I’ve never properly understood how we can rely on measured quantities of these light radio isotopes (C-14 & Be-10). Production rates appear (to me) to be modulated by the changing temperature of our atmosphere.

    http://www.leif.org/research/2008GL036359-pip.pdf

  28. E.M.Smith says:

    OK, I looked into the whole C12 / C13 (and it IS C13, not a C 14 argument) issue some time back. It’s full of holes.

    One of the biggest, IMHO, is that the ratio of C12 to C13 varies widely for different sources of coal, oil, and natural gas. To have a clue what burning it did, we would need to know what those ratios WERE, but we burned the stuff a long time ago so we simply do not know (nor can we). There are a lot of other issues as well. (Not the least of which is that we’ve recently found a bunch of fish excrete “gut rocks” containing carbonates and have a very poor idea what THAT has done to carbon ratios over historical times… Oh, and that we don’t have a good handle on the C ratios in under the ocean volcanoes either… and much more.

    Basically the argument falls into the “Given these conclusions what assumptions can we draw” category with a load of assumptions for which there is no data.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/

    Oh and on the “Iron Sun” issue:

    While the curve of binding energy says that things will end up at Iron with the lowest energy state, it takes a very long time and some very energetic processes to get there. When we look at the sun, the primary things we see happening are light elements fusing, not very heavy ones, so the notion of an Iron Sun has some “issues” to work out. (Where all the energy is coming from if not H fusion. Why it’s all iron and not a load of other stuff too given the curve of binding energy implies a distribution of elements until the bitter end of fusion and even then some stochastic distribution. Things much past Carbon take more energy to ‘make go’ than the sun is likely to provide, short of a nova event. Etc.)

    So they have this cute theory that the sun is iron and there is a load of electricity heating it up as that electricity flows in from space (and flows between the planets). OK, we have an Aurora, and there is SOME electricity… but… just measure the amount of energy flowing from the sun… Hard to hide that much electric current flowing in to the sun in the heater process, but we don’t see it in space. And then you still have the question of where THAT energy comes from…

    No, not any one issue entirely fatal to the theory, but… the Standard Model covers more, with fewer loose ends, and better match to the actual data.

    IMHO, there will be a load of iron in the sun (just as there is throughout the solar system) as leftovers from the supernovae that made the elements of our solar system. But the tendency is for light elements to be depleted in smaller hotter bodies and for them to accumulate in heavier bodies (as their gravity can hold light gases better). So look at Jupiter. A “gas giant” with a very small rocky core. Odds are the sun is like that, but with an even bigger gas envelope to small core ratio. (and the gas envelope on Jupiter is already a very large percentage…) So just looking at the other bodies in the solar system argues that the sun will have way more H than Fe in it. So it’s going to be a largely H body with some Fe contamination… To be otherwise you need to explain why it lost it’s H against a stronger gravity well and Jupiter did not.

    Oh, and as an amusing thought experiment:

    What is the gravity at the exact center of a planet or sun?

    So with equal amounts of ‘stuff’ in all directions, atoms at the very center will be weightless. (But under great pressure). In those circumstances there is little reason for heavy and light things to separate from each other. It’s only as you get away from the center than “density” matters. Given the great heat in the core of the sun, I’d expect things to be ‘well mixed’ and ‘poorly fractionated’. (Not to mention being squashed and heated so much the nuclei fuse together) Trying to predict what elements would make up that core seems like a bit of a fantasy to me…

  29. E.M.Smith says:
    November 29, 2010 at 11:52 pm
    Trying to predict what elements would make up that core seems like a bit of a fantasy to me…
    Your description is largely correct, except for this little bit. There are only a small number of possible reactions and elements involved and their rates and energies are well known from laboratory experiments, so the processes are actually well-understood.

  30. Brian H says:

    EMS;
    shouldn’t really highjack this page for the iron sun stuff, but as I recall the little I’ve read, the posited iron core was there from the beginning, since he posits the sun as a fragment from a supernova type explosion, where the iron was built up. Then the sun (and most stars) accumulate the lighter elements in fractionated layers.

    But I may have that wrong.

  31. Alex the skeptic says:

    docattheautopsy says:
    November 29, 2010 at 10:28 pm
    Paul beat me to it.

    As a chemist, …………………………………………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.
    =============================================================
    The resident time of CO2 is around 5 years, even the IPCC accepts this fact, according to what I have found and read on the ‘net. However, the warmists then go on a complicated warped sort of tangent declaring that this short resident time is irrelevant. Of course, if it was 100-200 years it would not be irrelevant, but for them it would be a major factor adding strenght to their (failed) theory.
    Fact is, if all the global CO2 sources were to cease, such as volcanoes etc, life on this planet would be gone within a few decades.
    We should be keeping these sources on a silver platter and instituting international laws to protect CO2 sources, declaring them as property of all humanity.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Re this book….It’s another nail in the AGW coffin, but there’s no more space for nails, sorry.

  32. max_b says:
    November 29, 2010 at 11:48 pm
    Production rates appear (to me) to be modulated by the changing temperature of our atmosphere.
    Not quite. The muon i>detection rate is, but not the C-14 production rate.

  33. E.M.Smith says:

    Charles Sainte Claire P.E. and proud of it says:
    “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?

    A spinning sphere of liquid metal generates a magnetic field. This has been done in the lab with a ball full of sodium. Story / tease at the link:

    http://www.universetoday.com/14664/how-do-you-model-the-earths-magnetic-field-build-your-own-baby-planet/

    more detail here:

    http://focus.aps.org/story/v19/st3

    Paper with lots of details here:

    http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/00/08/75/PDF/CBJN_Arxiv.pdf

    If you want more than that, I suggest some google time…

  34. Grumbler says:

    Robert Wykoff says:
    November 29, 2010 at 8:24 pm
    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? ….

    To quote the late great, Leslie Nielsen -“you’re outta here” :-)

  35. E.M.Smith says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    Your description is largely correct, except for this little bit. There are only a small number of possible reactions and elements involved and their rates and energies are well known from laboratory experiments, so the processes are actually well-understood.

    Sorry, I was unclear in what I meant. I wasn’t saying that the production would be hard to predict, it is, as you say, well understood. My point was only that trying to predict exactly which of the elements end up in the core will be a bit tricky as the gravitational force fractionating them will diminish as you approach the center AND the energy per particle is quite high.

    While I’d expect it to be ‘well mixed’ in the very center, there are going to be shells of density segregation above that (as you get to greater and greater non-zero gravity well) and I simply have no idea what is going to fractionate and what is going to be mixing given the high energy involved.

    So I’m basically saying that the surface ought to be light elements, and the heavy stuff ought to head toward the core; but as you get closer to the center that segregating force tails off and who knows what gets TO the core.

    Then again, you ARE a solar scientist, so you might well be “who knows” ;-)

  36. Kev-in-UK says:

    just a comment on the C12/C13 issue – as far as I can make out, the errors in measurements, and the scale of the Carbon reservoir (in the atmosphere, oceans, rocks, etc) would make it virtually impossible to determine a human signature.

    I can imagine that a very localised effect, e.g. next to a FF power station may be possible to observe by comparison of very careful closeby and remote monitoring. Has anyone done this? Even though of course, different FF’s produce different C12/C13 ratios, at least this would be a demonstrable measurement. And what about doing the same next to active volcanoes, etc – and of course, comparable measurements of changing C12/C13 ratios during photosythensis in different plant environments?

    I do find the generally presented C12/C13 argument for AGW, a little obtuse, with weak scientific evidence – but of course the warmist/alarmist types use it as the main so called evidence!

  37. Paul Clark says:

    The corona of the Sun is millions of degrees C. The photosphere is 6000C, then it’s supposed to get hotter again as you move into the core. How does the photosphere stay cool when it is in between two hotter layers? Something’s not right.

    A sunspot consists of cooler matter upwelling from below. An open mind would say that it is cooler because the lower layers are cooler. A closed mind would make up some kind of patch, like plasma magnetic field makes the vibration slow down, to protect the older theory instead of taking Occam’s razor.

    To me the sun’s reactions occur on the outside while inner layers are cooler. There is no thermonuclear core but potentially an iron supercritical fluid.

    There’s a lot of iron in all planets; why should the sun be an exception? The idea that there a slowly burning nuclear explosion in the core that doesn’t blow the sun up is balmy to me.

    Anthony Watts:

    “A bit of a nut.”

    That’s what you would have said of Copernicus I expect. Earthmen have made fusion explosions on earth only by using heavy hydrogen. The sun doesn’t have this. (Yes, I’m aware of the made-up chain reaction theory.)

    Leif Svalgaard says: November 30, 2010 at 12:00 am,

    “… e.g. helioseismology, neutrino flux, solar oblateness, other stars, etc…”

    Neutrinos are imaginary. Most “leading edge” particle physics is. Where are the X-rays revealing a thermonuclear core if the hot core theory is true? (Please don’t regurgitate the idea that it is absorbed by the intervening layers — I’m aware of the claims of conventional theory.)

    “helioseismology” Huh? In what way — what has been measured that backs up a thermonuclear core? “..solar oblateness, other stars..” What does that show to deny an iron core?

    How many times have very intelligent people been dead wrong about science. Answer: perhaps most of time. Perhaps the idea is too big for Anthony.

  38. Sorry folks,

    This was already discussed many times in different groups, including my contribution at WUWT:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/16/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-3/

    It is simple: there are only two main sources of low 13C in nature: the whole biosphere of recent plants and their users: microbes and animals, including humans, and fossil fuels, which are derived from the ancient biosphere. All other known sources are higher in 13C/12C ratio, including ocean waters, chalk deposits (rock weathering) and volcanic vents.

    Thus if there is a decline in d13C (that is a measure for the 13C/12C ratio), then it is either current vegetation decay or fossil fuel burning. How one can make a differentiation? Recent organics contain some radioactive 14C as that is incorporated together with 12C and 13C from CO2 in the atmosphere. That is used to calculate the age of ancient artefacts up to some 60,000 years ago with the carbon dating method. Fossil fuels don’t contain 14C anymore, as that is completely gone over time.

    The carbon dating method did encounter problems from about 1750 on, as fossil fuel burning slowly started: they needed to use correction tables until 1950, when another disturbance, atomic bomb testing, doubled the 14C levels in the atmosphere.

    Thus the 14C levels since 1750 point to fossil fuel use, but that is not a definitive proof of anything.

    What proves that only fossil fuel is the cause of the d13C decline is the oxygen balance: burning fossil fuels uses oxygen. Growing vegetation produces oxygen, but vegetation decay uses oxygen. The balance between these three shows that the biosphere as a whole is a net producer of oxygen: some less oxygen use is noticed than calculated from fossil fuel use. See:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467.abstract and

    http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

    That gives: the net oxygen production by the biosphere means more CO2 uptake than release (the “greening earth”), but preferential more 12CO2, thus leaving more 13CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus the biosphere currenlty does increase the d13C level, while we see a decrease. That means that the only source of the d13C decrease is fossil fuel burning.

    Does that prove that fossil fuel burning is the source of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere? No, but it proves that neither the oceans, nor the biosphere are the sources. These are the only two huge, fast sources which may influence the atmospheric CO2 content. Other sources like volcanoes, rock weathering,… are either too slow or are minor contributors and all have the wrong isotopic composition.

    It is unfortunate that the authors still use arguments which are proven wrong. That reduces their credibility for other points where the arguments of the “consensus” are much weaker…

    See further:

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html

  39. Alex the skeptic says:
    November 30, 2010 at 12:03 am

    The resident time of CO2 is around 5 years, even the IPCC accepts this fact, according to what I have found and read on the ‘net. However, the warmists then go on a complicated warped sort of tangent declaring that this short resident time is irrelevant. Of course, if it was 100-200 years it would not be irrelevant, but for them it would be a major factor adding strenght to their (failed) theory.

    The residence time is how long a certain molecule of CO2 (whatever the origin) resides in the atmosphere before being exchanged with one from the oceans or vegetation or,… That is about exchange rates (currently about 150 GtC per year or about 20% of the 800 GtC in the atmosphere). That doesn’t say anything about how fast an excess amount of CO2 is removed out of the atmosphere. That is currently about 4 GtC/year, quite a difference with the 150 GtC/year exchange rate. The real excess decay time is about 40 years half life, see Peter Dietze at:

    http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm

    The figures of the IPCC may be relevant if we burn all oil and lots of coal, influencing even the deep ocean carbon levels. Until then, the long residence times are irrelevant.

  40. Sorry, I made the same mistake as many before (and after) me by mixing up residence time and excess decay time (even the IPCC does mix up both meanings in the same paragraphs…):

    “long residence times” in the last sentence must be “long excess decay times”.

  41. Ed Murphy says:

    Thank you Keith Minto for the geologist Timothy Casey site.! That’s what we need around here.

    http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

  42. crosspatch says:

    I feel privileged to have not been banned from WUWT, although I probably came close a couple of times. It should be noted that I have been banned from almost every popular political, economic, and news blog on the net. I’m more of a rabble rouser and promoter of unpopular ideas, should they have merit. I defer more in depth discussions on topics like this to the knowledge base and enjoy reading the comments, for the most part. Interesting topic this one is.

    Barry, is that you?

  43. Frosty was Pete says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 30, 2010 at 12:40 am

    Ferdinand could you please comment on the carbon released since 1750 by deforestation, and loss of carbon from the soil since the green revolution. Where did it all go, and how would that effect carbon ratios.

    TIA.

  44. John Marshall says:

    It is about time that the GHG hypothesis was shown to be bogus. The carbon isotope ratio was a cornerstone of proving anthropomorphic emissions were bad, though why I could not work out given the fact that we need CO2 in the atmosphere and the miserly volume permitted by the alarmists was based on a fairy story. Historic high volumes of atmospheric CO2 did not cause any climate problems so why would the small volume today be any problem? The ratio given as proving AGW did no such thing due there being too many inputs into the climate system to point to CO2 as the villain. It was always that an environmental hope was driving theory not true observations.
    So a welcome book/s which I will try to get.

  45. Rational Debate says:

    I haven’t read all of the comments yet, so apologies if this has already been mentioned…. but in addition to the already mentioned underwater vent and volcano issue, what about the rather incredible amounts of oil and natural gasses that naturally leak into the oceans and atmosphere? Then, at least in the oceans, some/much of that oil is gobbled up by microbes, which then enter the food chain. It seems to me that these seeps and natural releases of oil and gas are yet another source of low ratio C entering the system, is it not?

  46. lapogus says:

    hunter says:
    November 29, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    I am very dubious about any book that is going to debunk basic physics.
    AGW does not fail because of basic physics.

    I would argue that it does; Beer-Lamberts Law renders CO2’s greenhouse effect virtually insignificant above 350ppm. And then even if there had been 1C warming from CO2 concentration rising from 285ppm to 385ppm (more likely mostly due to long term oceanic cycles, bad data and UHI), the negative feedback from increased water vapour / clouds counter-balances. I suppose it depends on how you define ‘basic’, but these topics are hardly on the same level as special relativity or quantum physics. I don’t know anything of the specifics of the C12/C13 issue, or the inner sun. But it is always best to keep an open mind (qualified by critical thinking of course), and sometimes Anthony is guilty of dismissing things which may sound nutty but do have merit.

  47. Edim says:

    In real science there should be no dogma and everything is on the table.

    If AGW theory was the only bad scientific theory and everything else (physics, medicine, astrophysics…) was correct, the AGW wouldn’t stand a chance of standing for so long. Expect warmist’s last answer to sceptic’s criticism to be

    “so what, that’s the way the science is!”

    And they will be right. The problem is much wider than AGW establishment. It is science establishment (corruption, confirmation bias,…)

  48. Julian Flood says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says at
    November 30, 2010 at 12:40 am

    quote Does that prove that fossil fuel burning is the source of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere? No, but it proves that neither the oceans, nor the biosphere are the sources. These are the only two huge, fast sources which may influence the atmospheric CO2 content. Other sources like volcanoes, rock weathering,… are either too slow or are minor contributors and all have the wrong isotopic composition. unquote

    Unless, of course, there a huge fast sink which is changing rapidly in the other direction. Have you looked for this? And how do you explain the assertion I have seen elsewhere that the ratio doesn’t actually fit the amount of light C emitted by fossil fuel burning? There is, as far as I can see, too much light carbon in the atmosphere and that must have come from somewhere.

    Questions: where does the O2 come from, and are we sure that the source is stable? Are you sure you are not making the error of assuming the processes of production and consumption are steady and devations are anthropogenic, rather than the more reasonable assumption that the process of production and consumption varies, with humanity’s contribution too small to be seen? Talking of oxygen production, consider the population collapse of phytoplankton in [Boyce et al, 2010].

    A link between vocanoes and the isotope ratios can start at

    http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/gl/gl1019/2010GL044629/2010GL044629.xml

    Briefly, volcanic ash fed the ocean in 2008, resulting in a vast bloom of diatoms.

    Diatoms are interesting in that they have a metabolic system of C fixation which does not discriminate strongly between the C isotopes (‘C4-like’), unlike the common, unstressed calcareous phytoplankton (‘C3′). Presumably the diatom bloom mentioned in the North Pacific would have pulled down anomalous amounts of heavy carbon, leaving a ‘anthropogenic’ light carbon signal in the atmosphere. I wonder if it’s big enough to show in Alaskan isotope studies?

    Is anyone sampling CO2 up there?

    JF
    I’ve thought of another source of light C: acid rain reduced the metabolisation (sorry, sorry) of methane held in the permafrost. With the controls imposed on sulphur emissions came a release of methane which is being eaten by methanophages. Result, more light carbon CO2.

  49. I think it is worth noting the reference given in AR4 for the carbon isotope issue. The reference given is “Prentice, I.C., et al., 2001: The carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 184–238.”

    That’s just Chapter 3 of WG1 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, and for this section Prentice was the co-ordinating lead author. In other words, the IPCC is just quoting itself as its own authority.

  50. max_b says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 30, 2010 at 12:06 am
    Not quite. The muon i>detection rate is, but not the C-14 production rate.

    Thanks… I wish I could find summat to read (which I could understand) which would explain why C-14 production rate is not modulated by changes in atmospheric temperature. I guess if I ask, you’re gonna tell me the the same goes for beryllium-10 production rates?

  51. Ed Murphy says:
    November 30, 2010 at 1:13 am

    Thank you Keith Minto for the geologist Timothy Casey site.! That’s what we need around here.

    http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

    I have read those pages, lots of assumptions, but the main argument fails:
    Gases from volcanic eruptions have a 13C/12C ratio about 5 to 8 ‰ below standard (δ13C about -5 to -8 ‰, some are even positive). But the current atmospheric CO2 is already below -8 ‰, thus at or below the volcanic vents/eruptions. Thus an increase of volcanism would INcrease the d13C ratio, but we see a DEcrease, both in the atmosphere as in the upper oceans, which parallels the use of fossil fuels:

    Even further back in time, the ice cores show only small d13C changes between glacials and interglacials, far less than the drop in the past 160 years.

    In addition, there is no known increase of volcanism or plant decay or anything else which could explain the increase of CO2 and the decrease of d13C over the past 160 years, without violating the mass balance or other observations…

  52. Rational Debate says:

    Re post by: Paul Clark says: November 30, 2010 at 12:39 am

    Paul, I can understand why it might seem nutty to you that the sun could have an ongoing nuclear reaction without blowing itself up (that’d be a supernova)…. but believe me, the physics seems to work, and is best fit for our observations too. I know most folks think nuclear, and they think bomb, but it is actually easier to get a nuclear reaction that doesn’t blow up like a bomb than one that is. There have been serveral research accidents where if the scientists hadn’t realized what occurred and physically disrupted the process, the reaction would have continued or even escalated and the results would have been far worse. They were heros.

    Not only that, and this is something most folks don’t realize, but there is evidence of naturally occurring, self sustaining nuclear reactions having occurred here on the earth in the past. Just google Oklo, or “naturally occurring nuclear reactions” or something along those lines. That Oklo was a fairly long running naturally occurring nuclear reaction has been pretty well established for decades now. Pretty darned fascinating too, isn’t it? Things just have to occur in the right geometry and composition for this sort of thing to occur. The sun is rather prime in that regard.

    Anyhow, here’s a start for you:

    A. P. Meshik, C. M. Hohenberg, and O. V. Pravdivtseva
    Physics Department, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130, USA

    [Featured in Phys. Rev. Focus] [Featured in Physics News Update] Received 13 May 2004; published 27 October 2004

    Using selective laser extraction technique combined with sensitive ion-counting mass spectrometry, we have analyzed the isotopic structure of fission noble gases in U-free La-Ce-Sr-Ca aluminous hydroxy phosphate associated with the 2 billion yr old Oklo natural nuclear reactor. In addition to elevated abundances of fission-produced Zr, Ce, and Sr, we discovered high (up to 0.03  cm3   STP/g) concentrations of fission Xe and Kr, the largest ever observed in any natural material. The specific isotopic structure of xenon in this mineral defines a cycling operation for the reactor with 30-min active pulses separated by 2.5 h dormant periods. Thus, nature not only created conditions for self-sustained nuclear chain reactions, but also provided clues on how to retain nuclear wastes, including fission Xe and Kr, and prevent uncontrolled runaway chain reaction.

    © 2004 The American Physical Society
    URL:

    http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.182302

  53. Douglas Haynes says:

    I apologise for not reading all of this thread, but Ferdinand is right! The del C13 data point unequivocally to anthropogenic sources of approximately 110ppmv, that is 30%, of the current atmospheric CO2 load. Of course, the big question is, how much is this added 110ppmv adding to the amplitude of the global mean surface temperature excursions since 1850? For various reasons, I agree with Lindzen and others that the likely enhanced surface temperature effect is of the order of 0.3 degrees C at present…but that is another discussion….

  54. E.M.Smith: I’m very sceptical of your assertion “A spinning sphere of liquid metal generates a magnetic field” if that is to imply that it would self-generate a field where none previously existed. I have spent decades on magnetics and electromagnetics, and can’t see a mechanism for this. Sure, a molten ball of metal with eddies already in a magnetic field will modify the magnetic field and, if one puts work into turning the ball (because there will be resistance which will end up as heat through eddy currents etc) then you might very well get a stronger field than the external one, and (by putting in work) can make it self-sustaining. But you need an external magnetic field to start with. And that is explicit in the paper you referenced, which says

    “DTS [Derviche Tourneur Sodium] is an experiment devoted to the study of MHD turbulence in the presence of a strong magnetic field and rotation in the magnetostrophic regime…

    2.2 Imposed magnetic field.
    …only an imposed magnetic field may change the properties of the hydrodynamical flow of liquid sodium…

    The inner sphere is filled with permanent magnets, which impose a strong,
    mainly dipolar, magnetic field on the fluid flow…

    The magnetostrophic balance can also be tested in smaller scale experiments
    with an imposed magnetic field.

    From this and the 2008 paper “Generation of magnetic field by dynamo action in a turbulent flow of liquid sodium”

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0701/0701075v1.pdf

    it is clear that above a certain threshold there is a dynamo action that takes place, and that it self-generates a magnetic field provided one puts energy into the apparatus. Well, this is not entirely surprising, but what would be surprising would be for this to happen without a magnetic field in place to start with, and the last mentioned article certainly shows that the ambient magnetic field is required:

    “Below the dynamo threshold, the effect of induction due to the ambient magnetic field is observed.”

    “In the present experiment, fluctuations enter…due to the interaction of the velocity field with the ambient magnetic field. ”

    There is no known mechanism, even in the light of these experiments, for getting any planetary or solar dynamos going without the presence of an external magnetic field to start with, or a magnetic field internally generated by current through the bodies.

  55. Baa Humbug says:

    I’d just like to add that I too have found Oliver K manuel to be one of the most polite posters on many blogs.
    His continued repetition of his iron core sun theory doesn’t bother me in the least.

    Nutty or not I wouldn’t know, but some of the most likeable and interesting people are the nutty (or eccentric) ones.

    To Mr Manuel who I’m sure still reads WUWT; If you are as passionate as you appear to be about an iron core sun, keep up your passion and keep fighting for your ideas.

  56. phlogiston says:

    Tom in Texas says:
    November 29, 2010 at 8:36 pm
    From Amazon:

    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

    Which browzer did you use? – occasionally downloading big pdfs I have had problems using Google Chrome but Microsoft IE (8, 9) worked better.

  57. Frosty was Pete says:
    November 30, 2010 at 1:33 am

    Ferdinand could you please comment on the carbon released since 1750 by deforestation, and loss of carbon from the soil since the green revolution. Where did it all go, and how would that effect carbon ratios.

    Deforestation has a similar effect on d13C changes as fossil fuel burning, but depends of the difference in carbon loss of the deforestation and the carbon gain of the crops which are planted instead. In general it is thought that there are extra emissions of some 2 GtC/year from deforestation to the atmosphere, above the 8 GtC/year from fossil fuel burning. I don’t take these figures into account, as these are quite unreliable, compared to fossil fuel use, which are based on national inventories of fuel sales (taxes!) and burning efficiencies for the different types of fuels.
    Thus the extra emissions from deforestation add to the total emissions and help to reduce the d13C ratio’s, but the latter also is influenced by the CO2 exchanges between oceans and atmosphere over the seasons.

  58. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    @Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 29, 2010 at 8:50 pm
    —–
    Thanks, Leif!

  59. John Carter says:

    I find the label you attach to Oliver to be both undeserved and offensive.
    We all have views and opinions and nobody is right all the time.
    WUWT should stand above the ugly warmist blogs by virtue of honesty and tolerance for diverse opinion.
    Don’t let the bad corrupt the good.
    And to Oliver, thank you for your comments contributions to many blogs.
    You have many friends.

  60. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 29, 2010 at 8:50 pm
    iron loses it magnetic field when heated to above ~770 degrees C.

    Wouldn’t iron continue to have diamagnetic properties above that temperature Leif?

  61. tallbloke says:

    ScientistForTruth says:
    November 30, 2010 at 3:33 am (Edit)

    E.M.Smith: I’m very sceptical of your assertion “A spinning sphere of liquid metal generates a magnetic field” if that is to imply that it would self-generate a field where none previously existed.

    http://www.crystalinks.com/earthswobble.html

    “Scientists in Riga at the Institute of Physics at the University of Latvia are continuing to work on a much more physical mock-up of the core.

    Their model consists of two concentric steel cylinders, three metres high and 80 centimetres in diameter, filled with molten sodium.

    A propeller drives the sodium down through the inner cylinder in a helical flow.

    The metal returns up the outer cylinder, and electric currents create a magnetic field.

    “Sodium has – by a factor of 50 – better electro-conductivity,” the University’s Dr Agris Gailetis told Science In Action. “Sodium is moving 10,000 times faster.

    “But of course our system is much, much smaller… but altogether, these factors are making our experiment not very different from conditions inside the Earth.” “

  62. Don Keiller says:

    As a plant physiologist I can say with confidence that C3 plants are NOT extinct.
    In fact they comprise well over 80% of the Earth’s flora. The remainder are C4 and CAM photosynthesis plants.

    One possibility is that because C4 plants are more efficient at higher temperatures than C3, the statement (if it is correct) about C3 being extinct reflects the IPCC’s
    expectations for a hot Earth.

  63. Pull My Finger says:

    What is the deal with the cover of this book? The title, the moon landing, the dragon? What has any of this got to do with global warming?

    As to iron in the sun, isn’t the build up of iron and other heavier elements one of the issues that cause super novas as stars age? If stars were primarily iron wouldn’t that be observable by the light emitted? Not to mention wouldn’t it require a total redo of every theory of Cosmology we have since the composition of basic elements comprising the universe would be totally thrown out of whack.

  64. hunter says:

    John,
    I find Dr. Manuel very interesting as well, but until recently all he did was carpet bomb threads with the exact same post.
    He is clearly bright, but that does not exclude the possibility that he is obsessive, repetitive, and even wrong about the sun.
    What is clear is that when he does talk about some of his thoughts on climate issues, he is interesting.
    I always apply the cocktail party rule when considering blog manners:
    It is the host’s party, guests should not be boorish, and most of all guests should not annoy the host(ess).

  65. J.Hansford says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 29, 2010 at 11:27 pm
    ………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.
    ======================================================

    This can be emulated in the laboratory, without an outside electical input Leif?….. Or is it purely a theoretical model?

  66. J.Hansford says:

    Very interesting comment there, Tallbloke…. Sounds a bit like what Leif was saying.

  67. Dave B says:

    Interesting thread with some excellent posts.

    I’d always assumed that the argument (“the burning of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution has been responsible for almost all the observed increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide”) as presented here:

    http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page20.htm

    was essentially correct. It certainly addresses many points raised here. If it’s wrong, how?

    * On a point of order, Anthony Watts didn’t say that Oliver Manuel was “a nut”; he said that his iron sun theory was a “nutty idea”. The first would have been offensive but the second surely isn’t. It’s badinage. Besides, the good prof was banned for “carpet-bombing” threads, not for intellectual non-conformity.

  68. E.M.Smith says:
    November 30, 2010 at 12:18 am
    So I’m basically saying that the surface ought to be light elements, and the heavy stuff ought to head toward the core; but as you get closer to the center that segregating force tails off and who knows what gets TO the core.
    Small stars are convective throughout, large stars have convective cores, so for both of those the interior will be well mixed. Stars like Sun has a radiative core so that mixing does not occur. The main reason the core is not made of iron is there simply is not enough [only 1/5000 by mass].

    Then again, you ARE a solar scientist, so you might well be “who knows” ;-)
    Kev-in-UK says:
    November 30, 2010 at 12:24 am
    just a comment on the C12/C13 issue – as far as I can make out, the errors in measurements, and the scale of the Carbon reservoir (in the atmosphere, oceans, rocks, etc) would make it virtually impossible to determine a human signature.

    Paul Clark says:
    November 30, 2010 at 12:39 am
    The corona of the Sun is millions of degrees C. The photosphere is 6000C, then it’s supposed to get hotter again as you move into the core. How does the photosphere stay cool when it is in between two hotter layers? Something’s not right.
    It stays cool because the corona is extremely tenuous [and therefore very little heat content in spite of its high temperature].

    A sunspot consists of cooler matter upwelling from below. An open mind would say that it is cooler because the lower layers are cooler. A closed mind would make up some kind of patch, like plasma magnetic field makes the vibration slow down, to protect the older theory instead of taking Occam’s razor.
    A sunspot is cooler because its strong magnetic field suppresses the convection that brings heat to the surface. The ‘open mind’ is just wrong on this.

    There’s a lot of iron in all planets; why should the sun be an exception? The idea that there a slowly burning nuclear explosion in the core that doesn’t blow the sun up is balmy to me.
    The sun is not an exception, it has a lot of iron, it just has a lot more of hydrogen and helium. The sun doesn’t blow up because the nuclear reactions are extremely gentle. A kettle of water heated at the same rate would take a week to get to boil.

    “helioseismology” Huh? In what way — what has been measured that backs up a thermonuclear core? “..solar oblateness, other stars..” What does that show to deny an iron core?
    Allows us the measure the speed of sound in the interior. The speed of sound depends on temperature and on composition, so allows us to get a check on our ideas about the interior.

    max_b says:
    November 30, 2010 at 2:37 am
    Thanks… I wish I could find summat to read (which I could understand) which would explain why C-14 production rate is not modulated by changes in atmospheric temperature. I guess if I ask, you’re gonna tell me the the same goes for beryllium-10 production rates?
    The production rates are not determined by temperature. For muons is is the detection that is temperature dependent. The process works something line this: muons only lives a a very small fraction of a second so many of them decays before they reach our sensors on the surface. If the atmosphere is warmer, it expands and the cosmic rays run into the air at a higher altitude, so the muons resulting from the collision are generated at a higher altitude and thus have a longer way to travel before reaching the surface, during which longer time more muons decays, so we we see less.
    There is a temperature [and hence climate] issue with 14V and 10Be, in the sense that the ‘deposition depends on the climate. E.g. 10Be is mostly produced at lower latitude [simply because most of Earth is at lower latitudes] and is transported to the poles [and the ice] by temperature-dependent atmospheric circulation.

    ScientistForTruth says:
    November 30, 2010 at 3:33 am
    I’m very sceptical of your assertion “A spinning sphere of liquid metal generates a magnetic field” if that is to imply that it would self-generate a field where none previously existed.
    As you yourself point out, there is a pre-existing magnetic field, so no problem.

    tallbloke says:
    November 30, 2010 at 5:23 am
    Wouldn’t iron continue to have diamagnetic properties above that temperature Leif?
    Check out the definition of diamagnetism: “Of or relating to a substance that is repelled by a magnet.”.

  69. Pamela Gray says:

    To tell you the truth, what I find nutty about some passionate scientists is that they refuse to go about the serious work of falsifying their hypothesis. Fortunately, these folks tend to rise to fame in a flash, and die in that same pan.

    The doggedly dedicated scientists who stand by the credo, “The null hypothesis is king.” are the ones to read.

  70. Paul Birch says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 29, 2010 at 9:40 pm
    “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.”

    As (or if!) I understand it, the iron sun model assumes that the sun has accreted on top of an old neutron star. This seems quite reasonable; there must be a lot of them out there (~1e8 or more in the Milky Way galaxy), and once they have settled down a bit (a matter of a few thousand years) they will be able to accrete gas and debris from the interstellar medium. They could be the seed that initiates gas cloud collapse into a star; alternatively, they could be captured by a cloud already in the process of star formation. Either way, we end up with new stars with a neutron star core. Somewhat more of their early luminosity would be provided by gravitational energy, but once they entered the main sequence they would behave much the same as any other star. Fusion would take place in a shell, rather than a sphere, and the fusion temperatures might be slightly different, but most of the star wouldn’t be able to tell the difference; the neutron star is too tiny. I can see there might be a problem with the solar oblateness/gravitational quadrupole moment, since the rest of the sun would have to be that much more oblate (the neutron star being effectively a central point mass); however, one could possibly get around that by assuming that rotation rates increase with depth, driven by the rapid rotation of the neutron star.

  71. Paul Birch says:

    ScientistForTruth says:
    November 30, 2010 at 3:33 am
    “There is no known mechanism, even in the light of these experiments, for getting any planetary or solar dynamos going without the presence of an external magnetic field to start with, or a magnetic field internally generated by current through the bodies.”

    There are always magnetic fields, even in interstellar and intergalactic space, which will be amplified many-fold as nebulas condense into stars and planets. This should be plenty to get the dynamo going.

  72. Grey Lensman says:

    But………..

    Quote

    The metal returns up the outer cylinder, and electric currents create a magnetic field.

    Unquote

    Different beast. Same with the natural nuclear reactors. They get hotter towards the core not on the surface.

    But not only that, seems we have lost track, is the man made co2 debunked or not. Did the book do that? I liked the references to 1750 and post carbon fuels and deforestation but prior to that date Europe was deforested from about 1300 to 1750 in the same way post 1750 deforested the tropical forests.

    Plus is not the Co2 thing only one small part of the books mission?

  73. Paul says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:

    This was already discussed many times in different groups, including my contribution at WUWT:

    You can discuss it as many times as you want; that doesn’t mean the argument is more than tautological. Please confront my argument above, 8th? comment.

  74. Larry Geiger says:

    Carpet bombing leads to hijacked threads and off-topic discussions. Off-topic tends to create a lot of excess verbiage unrelated to the point being made and obscuring the main point. This is almost always counterproductive.

    Thank you Anthony.

  75. Pull My Finger says:
    November 30, 2010 at 5:47 am
    If stars were primarily iron wouldn’t that be observable by the light emitted?
    If the stars were primarily iron they wouldn’t shine at all as you have to put more energy into the process than is produced by nuclear reactions involving of iron [and heavier atoms].
    Not to mention wouldn’t it require a total redo of every theory of Cosmology we have since the composition of basic elements comprising the universe would be totally thrown out of whack.
    For some people that is precisely the point: they want modern astrophysics to be thrown out and discarded.

    hunter says:
    November 30, 2010 at 5:57 am
    He is clearly bright, but that does not exclude the possibility that he is obsessive, repetitive, and even wrong about the sun.
    He believes that there is a vast international conspiracy to falsify or suppress all data that contradict his ideas.

    J.Hansford says:
    November 30, 2010 at 6:21 am
    This can be emulated in the laboratory, without an outside electical input?
    You generate the needed electricity by moving a conductor across an existing magnetic field. The electricity that powered your computer when you typed your question was most likely generated that way [except if you used solar panels - or a battery (which must be charged anyway by ordinary power)]

  76. Paul Birch “There are always magnetic fields, even in interstellar and intergalactic space, which will be amplified many-fold as nebulas condense into stars and planets. This should be plenty to get the dynamo going.”

    If there is ‘plenty’ would you care to put a figure on it please (an order of magnitude, with some reference) so that we can do a reality check? What is the strength of the magnetic field permeating our solar system from interstellar and intergalactic space?

  77. Paul Birch says:
    November 30, 2010 at 7:01 am
    As (or if!) I understand it, the iron sun model assumes that the sun has accreted on top of an old neutron star. This seems quite reasonable
    As neutron stars are rare, most stars cannot have formed that way. Especially not the very first stars to form. So that would make the sun a very special case.
    At any rate, there are lots of evidence that our standard model of the sun is correct. Manuel claims all that is manufactured by a hostile astrophysical community out to discredit his ideas.

    however, one could possibly get around that by assuming that rotation rates increase with depth, driven by the rapid rotation of the neutron star.
    Actually, we can measure the rotation rate in the interior [helioseismology] and the interior of the sun rotates slower than the outer layers. The measured oblateness is just what is calculated from the standard model.

  78. Bill Marsh says:

    “qualified climatologists, prominent skeptic scientists and a world leading math professor.”

    Wow, I didn’t know that ‘skeptic’ was now a specialty branch of scientific inquiry like atmospheric physics or climatology. I wonder what Universities are offering post grad work in ‘Skeptical Science’?

  79. tallbloke

    “Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 29, 2010 at 8:50 pm
    iron loses it magnetic field when heated to above ~770 degrees C.

    Wouldn’t iron continue to have diamagnetic properties above that temperature Leif?”

    No, iron becomes paramagnetic above its Curie point. But both diamagnetism and paramagnetism are only effects that can occur in the presence of a magnetic field. So, again, you either need an external magnetic field or a large current through the celestial body to cause any paramagnetic activity or to start any dynamo effect.

  80. tallbloke: the reference you gave was originally from a BBC report – not exactly wonderful or accurate science writing:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3433661.stm

    “The metal returns up the outer cylinder, and electric currents create a magnetic field. ” And where do these electric currents come from? Moving molten metal through a magnetic field could certainly cause electric current flow, but, as I see it, without an initial current or external magnetic field to start with any attempt at generating a dynamo effect will be stillborn.

  81. Bill Marsh says:

    @ Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 30, 2010 at 7:30 am

    ===========

    He reminds me of Immanuel Velikovsky and his “Worlds in Collision” theories. All that’s needed is the freedom to rearrange dates and facts to your liking…

  82. Alan says:

    Anthony, sir.

    You would be a real gentleman if only you apologized for the mean and uncalled for “nutty” labeling of one of the authors, in your introduction. Aren’t we talking about unsettled science and theories here? I’m obviously not the only one who wishes you didn’t go into ad hominem attacks.

    REPLY: No, I think the Iron Sun theory is in fact “nutty”, which is my honest opinion. – Anthony

  83. Julian Flood says:
    November 30, 2010 at 2:20 am

    Unless, of course, there a huge fast sink which is changing rapidly in the other direction. Have you looked for this? And how do you explain the assertion I have seen elsewhere that the ratio doesn’t actually fit the amount of light C emitted by fossil fuel burning? There is, as far as I can see, too much light carbon in the atmosphere and that must have come from somewhere.

    The deep oceans have a d13C level of about 0 to 1 ‰ while the bioactivity near the surface increases that to 1-4 ‰, depending of abundance of activity. CO2 leaving the oceans is reduced in d13C (depending on temperature), while absorption also reduces d13C of what enters the waters from the atmosphere. The net result in the pre-industrial past was about -6.4 ‰ during thousands of years over the Holocene, somewhat lower (-6.8) at the last glacial maximum:

    http://epic.awi.de/Publications/Khl2004e.pdf

    But currently we are already below -8 ‰ with the addition of fossil fuels (which are average at -24 ‰) in only 160 years time…

    Indeed, there is less low 13C CO2 in the atmosphere than can be calculated from fossil fuel burning: the reason is that every year some 20% of all CO2 present in the atmosphere is exchanged each year with CO2 from the oceans and vegetation. That goes two-ways, opposite in the cold seasons that in the warm seasons. Vegetation absorbs a lot in spring-summer, which increases d13C levels, but the decay of leaves and small stems in fall-winter largely decreases the d13C levels to about the same extent, minus what is stored more permanently in stems and roots. Thus that is not the source of more light carbon.
    Neither are the mixed layers at the top of the oceans. Due to their high bio-activity, any release of CO2 of the mixed layer would increase the d13C level of the atmosphere (despite a drop in d13C), but also some uptake increases the d13C level of the atmosphere. And as measured as DIC (dissolved inorganic carbon) at a lot of places, that is increasing, thus effectively absorbing part of the extra CO2.
    What rests are the deep oceans: the THC sink place (mainly at the NE Atlantic) absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere with a slight increase of d13C in the atmosphere, but the upwelling (mainly at the tropical Pacific) gives a lot of CO2 from the deep, which would increase the d13C levels back to pre-industrial, if we should stop the emissions today. It is possible to calculate the amount of exchange from the deep oceans which circulates over the atmosphere, based on the measured d13C levels. Here a few trends for different deep oceans exchanges with the atmosphere:

    The deviations in the early decades probably is due to the real infuence of vegetation, which isn’t included.

    Questions: where does the O2 come from, and are we sure that the source is stable? Are you sure you are not making the error of assuming the processes of production and consumption are steady and devations are anthropogenic, rather than the more reasonable assumption that the process of production and consumption varies, with humanity’s contribution too small to be seen?

    The source isn’t stable: there is a huge variation over the seasons, as the biosphere, mainly in the mid-latitudes, gives a lot of uptake and release, depending of the season. But as far as I know, the biosphere is the only natural source and sink of O2. All other minerals and elements are already oxydised, and the planet was originally O2 free and CO2 rich. Only through photosynthesis has that changed. On the other hand, CO2 releases of burning fossil fuels can be calculated, if there was more O2 use than calculated, then the biosphere as a whole was a net source of CO2 (including 13C depletion), but there is less O2 use than calculated…

    Talking of oxygen production, consider the population collapse of phytoplankton in [Boyce et al, 2010].
    Interesting if confirmed (there are hints of that in Bermuda sea samples). But not (yet) visible in the CO2 levels or d13C decline.

    A link between vocanoes and the isotope ratios can start at

    http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/gl/gl1019/2010GL044629/2010GL044629.xml

    Briefly, volcanic ash fed the ocean in 2008, resulting in a vast bloom of diatoms.
    Diatoms are interesting in that they have a metabolic system of C fixation which does not discriminate strongly between the C isotopes (‘C4-like’), unlike the common, unstressed calcareous phytoplankton (‘C3′). Presumably the diatom bloom mentioned in the North Pacific would have pulled down anomalous amounts of heavy carbon, leaving a ‘anthropogenic’ light carbon signal in the atmosphere. I wonder if it’s big enough to show in Alaskan isotope studies?
    Is anyone sampling CO2 up there?

    Yes, at Barrow (Arctic Ocean), which receives air from the mid-to high latitudes via the Ferrell cells. d13C decline is far more irregular than at other places, as it is nearer to the main sources (including melting permafrost):

    and at two Aleutean islands, see the carbon tracker and plot the time series:

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/

    Hardly any influence visible…

    I’ve thought of another source of light C: acid rain reduced the metabolisation (sorry, sorry) of methane held in the permafrost. With the controls imposed on sulphur emissions came a release of methane which is being eaten by methanophages. Result, more light carbon CO2.
    Even despite methanophages, that would increase the methane levels, but that hardly is the case for the past decade…

  84. Paul Birch says:

    ScientistForTruth says:
    November 30, 2010 at 7:52 am
    “If there is ‘plenty’ would you care to put a figure on it please (an order of magnitude, with some reference) so that we can do a reality check? What is the strength of the magnetic field permeating our solar system from interstellar and intergalactic space?”

    For a self-exciting system, I don’t think it matters; an arbitrarily weak initial field can be amplified all the way up to the maximum the system can sustain. It’s like a pencil balancing on its point; if there is any wind at all, no matter how light, the pencil will fall.

    However, as a rough rule of thumb, typical magnetic field strengths in the interstellar medium are ~1nT, or energy densities ~1eV/cc, approximately in equipartition with the plasma’s thermal energy. Less where the ISM’s cooler or neutral. Condensed to planetary or solar densities that would imply fields ~1000T (not necessarily well-ordered, but still “plenty”).

  85. Ken Roberts says:

    I must be the dumbest rock in the pile for I fail to understand why there would be any excess CO2 at all; shouldn’t the extra simply be greedily gobbled up by the existing plants?

    I know I asked for this subject of carbon isotopes the other day but I didn’t know there was a whole new book out about it.

    And I still think they don’t clean their Mauna Loa gauge, so there!

  86. Steven Mosher says:

    Edim says:
    November 30, 2010 at 2:13 am (Edit)

    In real science there should be no dogma and everything is on the table.

    #######

    except the dogma about everything being on the table.

    when we call a science settled, what we mean is that other lines of inquiry are not worth the time.

  87. Jaye Bass says:

    The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
    A gigantic nuclear furnace
    Where hydrogen is built into helium
    At a temperature of millions of degrees

    Yo ho, it’s hot, the sun is not
    A place where we could live
    But here on Earth there’d be no life
    Without the light it gives

    We need its light
    We need its heat
    We need its energy
    Without the sun, without a doubt
    There’d be no you and me

    The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
    A gigantic nuclear furnace
    Where hydrogen is built into helium
    At a temperature of millions of degrees

    The sun is hot

    It is so hot that everything on it is a gas: iron, copper, aluminum, and many others.

    The sun is large

    If the sun were hollow, a million Earths could fit inside. And yet, the sun is only a middle-sized star.

    The sun is far away

    About 93 million miles away, and that’s why it looks so small.

    And even when it’s out of sight
    The sun shines night and day

    The sun gives heat
    The sun gives light
    The sunlight that we see
    The sunlight comes from our own sun’s
    Atomic energy

    Scientists have found that the sun is a huge atom-smashing machine. The heat and light of the sun come from the nuclear reactions of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and helium.*

    The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
    A gigantic nuclear furnace
    Where hydrogen is built into helium
    At a temperature of millions of degrees

  88. Paul Birch says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 30, 2010 at 7:54 am
    “As neutron stars are rare, most stars cannot have formed that way. Especially not the very first stars to form. So that would make the sun a very special case.”

    Sure, but then the sun is a special case – it has an inhabited solar system. One could conceive of model subtleties that would let life develop only around that minority of stars (perhaps ~0.01%) that had formed round old neutron stars.

    “Actually, we can measure the rotation rate in the interior [helioseismology] and the interior of the sun rotates slower than the outer layers. The measured oblateness is just what is calculated from the standard model.”

    Fair point. Can you clarify how the rotation rate as a function of depth is derived from observations (which I assume to be of the sun’s vibrational modes)?

  89. Margaret Ball says:

    This discussion seems to have strayed rather far from the book. I’m about halfway through the Kindle version of “Slaying the Sky Dragon.” The Kindle version is the only one offered by Amazon; I don’t know if there exists a dead tree version.

    I do find the Kindle version frustrating because a number of the essays rely on charts and graphs which, even with the K3’s zooming and rotating features, are unreadable. It might do slightly better on a Kindle DX but there would still be the problem of the authors’ referring to color, which, of course, the Kindle does not display. Statements like “The blue in this table represents blah blah blah while the orange represents bleh bleh bleh,” are pointless in a Kindle book!

    As you might expect from a book with so many authors, the quality of the writing is uneven and it reads more like a collection of essays on a common theme than like a single, sustained, coherent argument.

    I’m finding it slow going because so much of the writing is so clunky that I’m in danger of grinding the enamel off my teeth. If the authors plan to release a hard-copy version, I implore them to FIND AN EDITOR first. Someone who understands the use of the apostrophe would be good. Someone who knows how to use commas would be even better.

  90. Paul Birch “For a self-exciting system, I don’t think it matters; an arbitrarily weak initial field can be amplified all the way up to the maximum the system can sustain. It’s like a pencil balancing on its point; if there is any wind at all, no matter how light, the pencil will fall.

    However, as a rough rule of thumb, typical magnetic field strengths in the interstellar medium are ~1nT, or energy densities ~1eV/cc, approximately in equipartition with the plasma’s thermal energy. Less where the ISM’s cooler or neutral. Condensed to planetary or solar densities that would imply fields ~1000T (not necessarily well-ordered, but still “plenty”).”

    I do not wish to be rude, but do you actually know anything about the physics of magnetism? Molten metal is hugely lossy due to eddy current flow. Who says that an arbitrarily low initial field can be amplified? References please, not bald assertions.

    One nanotesla? Well, I’d be surprised if you can do a lot with that. And what’s all this about condensation to give fields of 1000 teslas? That sounds like poppycock. Have you discovered magnetic monopoles then?

  91. Ken Roberts says:

    I can’t seem to get Kindle for PC to work to read a sample; don’t feel like buying vaporware.

    Kindle for PC shows up nice and pretty but blank and unresponsive.

  92. DesertYote says:

    #
    Mike says:
    November 29, 2010 at 8:43 pm

    The decline in O2 gives independent evidence that the increase in CO2 is from burning.

    A nut is a nut.
    ####

    A nut is a nut, and a troll is a troll.

  93. Paul Birch says:
    November 30, 2010 at 9:14 am
    Sure, but then the sun is a special case –
    There is no evidence for that. The life-argument sounds like desperation to me. The main argument against the neutron star idea is simply that it is not needed. The sun as far as we can see is not different from any other star of its class.

    “Actually, we can measure the rotation rate in the interior [helioseismology] and the interior of the sun rotates slower than the outer layers. The measured oblateness is just what is calculated from the standard model.”
    Fair point. Can you clarify how the rotation rate as a function of depth is derived from observations (which I assume to be of the sun’s vibrational modes)?

    Yes, waves from convection on the surface ['sun quakes' is you like] travel through the sun. If the medium through which the wave is moving is itself moving [e.g. rotating] the waves will be retarded when going against the movement of the medium and advanced if going with the medium. This is easily observed. Initially we could not see into the very deep interior with this method, but as the length of time observational data increases we see deeper and deeper and are by now pretty close to very center. So far, the data indicates that the whole radiative inner core rotates as a solid body with no variation of [angular] speed with distance from the center or with latitude. The really crucial argument is however the distribution of density and temperature inside the sun [determining the sound speed - together with composition] can also be determined and agree very well [to a small fraction of a percent] with the standard [non-neutron star] model.

  94. max_b says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 30, 2010 at 6:55 am
    The production rates are not determined by temperature. For muons it is the detection that is temperature dependent.

    Got it this time, I think, thanks… C-14 & Be-10 production rates are not affected by atmospheric temperatures because the particles which make these light radio isotopes always interact with our atmosphere.

    Which is very different from the muons which don’t interact very much at all, but have such a short life, that the altitude at which they are created significantly affects how many of them we detect at or below ground level.

    That paper I referred to earlier says their are two effects:
    1) An increase in temperature causes the atmosphere to expand so muons
    are produced higher up and therefore have a larger probability to decay before being
    detected. (which is the example you gave)
    2) The mesons may interact with the atmosphere (and thereby be lost) as well as decaying into muons. As the temperature increases, the probability of interaction becomes smaller because the local atmospheric density decreases, so more mesons decay, causing an increase in the muon rate. (The paper says that this second effect is the dominating one, for deep underground muon detectors).

    None of this really matters, cause you’ve cleared up my understanding of Be-10 and C-14 production rates. Thanks again…

  95. max_b says:
    November 30, 2010 at 10:35 am
    That paper I referred to earlier says their are two effects
    Things always get more complicated once you get down to the details…

  96. Paul says:
    November 29, 2010 at 9:18 pm

    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.

    While I agree with most arguments (d13C in itself is no proof that the emissions are the cause of the increase), I disagree with this last paragraph:
    The average d13C ratio of fossil fuels is more or less known (calculated by amounts used and type and subtype), be it with large margins of error. The d13C ratio’s of exchanges with the oceans (surface and deep) are more or less known and these with the biosphere too, again with large margins of error.

    The biosphere is a net sink for CO2, as the oxygen use proves. That means that the biosphere slightly increases the d13C level, but doesn’t add to the total CO2 content of the atmosphere.
    The oceans deliver the “thinning” of the d13C decline: the observed decrease in d13C is about 1/3rd of what can be expected from the addition of fossil CO2. Thus (mainly deep) ocean CO2 is either added or simply exchanged (or a mix of both).
    Because of the smaller difference in d13C between ocean carbon and the atmosphere at one side and fossil fuel burning at the other side, one need some 40 GtC from the deep oceans to add enough high d13C to compensate the low d13C of fossil fuels use. If that was additive, then the total increase in the atmosphere would be 48 GtC/year, but the real increase is only 4 GtC/year while the emissions are around 8 GtC/year. That makes that the ocean contributions are mainly exchanges, not additions and even sinks (the difference between the 4 GtC/year sink rate and what is calculated as CO2 sink in vegetation, based on the oxygen balance). See:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/287/5462/2467.pdf and

    http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

    The C13 ratio argument is a bad one.
    It is not a proof in itself, but it adds to the evidence, together with all other arguments.

  97. Ken Roberts says:
    November 30, 2010 at 9:00 am

    I must be the dumbest rock in the pile for I fail to understand why there would be any excess CO2 at all; shouldn’t the extra simply be greedily gobbled up by the existing plants?

    At last they would, but the emissions are faster increasing than what the plants and the oceans can absorb as extra over a year (after a full cycle of seasons): some 4 GtC/year, about 1/3rd in plants, 2/3rd in the (mainly deep) oceans.
    As tests in greenhouses and open air showed: a 100% rise of CO2 gives average some 50% increased growth, not 100%…

    And I still think they don’t clean their Mauna Loa gauge, so there!

    Well have a read of their testing and calibration procedures: one can only hope that thermometer readings were as rigorously controlled:

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

  98. jakers says:

    “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.”

    What very very peculiar language, is all I have to say.

  99. John F. Hultquist says:

    Margaret Ball says: “ the writing is . . .

    Nutty ! ?

    Thank you.

  100. Dave Springer says:

    C3 plants are believed to compose 95% of all green plants and 75% of terrestrial green plants. They are characterized by intolerance to heat and drought. C3 plants were the first to evolve with C4 plants believed to have evolved “recently” about 30 million years ago.

    I know there were some real boners produced by IPCC but I seriously doubt one so egregious as C3 plants being extinct (or even in a minority) is one those. When you see one huge error such as this in a book it casts doubt on the rest of it.

    While it’s probably not fair to judge a book by its cover the fact is that life is short and there more books worth reading than there is time to read them. So we take shortcuts in separating the wheat from the chaff. While an occasional grain of wheat might be cast aside in this way the net result is still a much improved ratio of wheat to chaff in what remains after the initial cut.

    So I’m going to take a pass on this book due to too many red flags on the face of it.

    That said, I never did agree that a fossil fuel signature could be sorted out of the carbon cycle. However, we’re still left with a very compelling correlation in that humans have been emitting a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and the atmosphere’s CO2 content has increased by roughly half of the man-made contribution. As a working proposition that correlation is compelling enough to make it the de-facto assumption until either proven false or a better explanation is presented.

  101. Rational Debate says:

    re post by: Bill Marsh says: November 30, 2010 at 8:04 am

    ….I wonder what Universities are offering post grad work in ‘Skeptical Science’?

    I hope to heck that ALL Universities teaching science offer work teach a very heavy dose of ‘Skeptical Science’ in each and every science course. They darned well ought to be. Those that aren’t, are perverting those they teach and contributing to the downfall of any continuing scientific progress.

    Sorry, I just HAD to say it. It’s gotten to be a bit of a pet peeve of mine, in that any scientist, rather by definition, has to be skeptical, has to be a skeptic. So, we get tangled up in what has rather grossly become the common meaning of a ‘climate science skeptic’ and a ‘skeptical scientist’ rather than being able to use the meaning of the words correctly. Then we toss the whole ‘post normal science’ abomination on top of it…. and I have no idea how many ‘scientists’ and universities or university departments actually adhere to or believe that cr*p – I hope very few, but we sure see it in some of the top ‘climate scientists’ today, and frankly that’s scary to me because it’s so antithetical to science itself. And the ‘skeptic’ label as it’s being used seems mired in or born of that quagmire somehow too…

    So, every time I see something like “he’s a climate scientist, not a skeptic” I just wanna scream, if he’s not skeptical about current scientific work, if he’s not a skeptic, he’s not a scientist!!

    So, Bill, I hope you’ll forgive me — its not your fault the terminology wound up being used as it is, and I know this wasn’t what you were meaning. Plus my venting about it isn’t likely to make a bit of difference. It just drives me crazy, especially when I see scientists themselves claiming to not be skeptics or that sort of thing — I guess because in part that terminology presupposes that being skeptical isn’t a crucial, integral part of using the tool of science itself, of actually being a scientist.

    I can’t help but have the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that this whole thing just inadvertently teaches more and more people ideas that are dead wrong base concepts about the very nature of science itself and what it means to be a good scientist. Especially disturbing considering the large number of kids seeing and participating in this debate online in our most digital age. And yet, with the common usage as it is, how does one discuss various aspects of AGW now without falling into that very trap? It’s possible of course, but awkward and difficult all the way around, and typically far easier to just give in to the common usage. Sigh. /rant /soapbox

  102. Dave Springer says:

    Speaking of compelling correlations between hard data sets the average temperature of the earth is demonstrably about 40C higher than an airless rock.

    Two separate Apollo missions deployed experiments to measure the thermal conductivity of lunar regolith. Both experiments were deployed in mid-latitude locations of average lunar albedo. Both experiments, which continued to transmit data for several years, revealed that at depths of 1 meter or more all temperature variation ceased and was a constant -23C year-round. So when an airless rock with an albedo of about 15% is positioned 93 million miles from the sun its average temperature at equilibrium is about -23C. Talk about blackbodies and Stephan-Boltzman and so forth all you want but if your calculation for a 15% albedo rock 93 million miles from the sun doesn’t come out to -23C equilibrium temperature your calculation is wrong.

    Now we get to the earth. The average albedo of the earth is less well known than that of the moon but it’s almost always given to be in the range of 30% to 40%. Various GCMs use this range as a fudge factor – a “constant” in the model that can be tweaked to any value between 30% and 40% to get the most agreement between model output and historic observational data.

    Anyhow, the earth’s albedo is certainly close to twice as great as the moon’s and perhaps more than twice. Inarguably then the earth should have a much lower average temperature than the moon. Yet the earth’s average temperature is far higher than the moon. We can rule out internal heat (that of formation and radioisotope decay) as the culprit because the rate of escape of that heat is insignificant compared to heating from the sun. The reason it’s so insignificant is that rocks are excellent insulators – the earth’s crust insulates the heat of the core from the cold (3 degrees above absolute zero) of outer space. That leaves us with ocean and atmosphere as somehow raising the average temperature of the earth well in excess of 40C above what it would be if it were a dry airless rock with an albedo of 30%.

    If someone has an explanation for that higher surface temperature of the earth other than so-called greenhouse effect I’d love to hear it because so far over the course of the last five years in which I’ve taken a keen interest in global warming climate change global climate disruption I’ve yet to see it.

    **The average surface temperature of the earth over the past few million years of ice age conditions is approximately 4C which is about 12C below the current measured average. I say this because if the ocean were well-mixed its temperature would be 4C – only a shallow surface layer is warmer than that while the vast bulk of the global ocean (90% of its volume) lies below the thermocline at a relatively constant 3C.

    The big and largely the only mystery as far as I’m concerned is why the calculated effect of the increase in greenhouse gases (which is fundamental experimentally verified physics known for close to 200 years and proven 150 years ago by John Tyndall) since the beginning of the industrial revolution is a 2C rise in average temperature and the best estimate of actual rise is between 0.5C and 1.0C. There’s a whole bunch of missing heat and it’s a travesty that climate boffins on the warmist bandwagon can’t explain it. I remain pretty convinced that the explanation is largely in the water cycle which through evaporation, convection, and condensation is moving most of the extra greenhouse contribution far above the surface and also where convective currents in both air and ocean are transporting most of the excess heat away from the equator to the poles where it is more easily radiated out to space. Heat takes the path of least resistance. Convective transport of water from surface to cloud carrying massive amounts of energy in the form of latent heat of vaporization is a path of least resistance where the water cycle is very active.

  103. Ted Swart says:

    If anyone wants to get a handle on the percentage of the CO2 content of the atmosphere which arises from the burning of fossil fuels then using C_13/C_12 ratios is a clueless way to go. The whole situaiton is far too complicated to lead to even half decent conclusions. It is far better to use C_14/C_12 ratios which are useable back to some 50,000 years ago. The reason why this is so is because there is NO C_14 in fossil fuels since C_14 is radioactive and has a half life of about 5,730 years. Having set up the first radiocarbkn dating laboratory in Africa I am only too well aware that the burning of fossil fules has thus diluted the percentage of C_14 in the atmosphere. However, from the figures I have seen the AGW fanatics would not be pleased with the results which point to a much smaller fossil fuel CO2 component in the atmosphere than they would like.

  104. Dave Springer says:

    Rational Debate says:
    November 30, 2010 at 11:52 am

    re; importance of scientists being skeptics

    Like most things skepticism works best in moderation. If every scientist began his work being skeptical of things like the acceleration of gravity, water expanding when it freezes, and so forth then they’d spend all their time re-confirming fundamental knowledge and no time discovering anything new. But if they were skeptical of nothing then there would also be little progress – we’d still be talking about phlogiston and epicycles!

    So we’re left with a fuzzy term for what the scientist should hold to – a healthy amount of skepticism. I daresay the climate boffins on the warmist bandwagon hold and unhealthy dearth of skepticism and those persons who think the greenhouse effect is fundamentally wrong (insulators don’t insulate) have an unhealthy excess of skepticism.

  105. Luboš Motl says:

    The isotopes of carbon are so totally irrelevant for the question of CO2 emissions.

    We can simply calculate how much carbon is being added by the industrial and related activity. It’s as simple as measuring how much water you drink every day. Whether there is C12 or C13 or C14 in it is irrelevant. They have the same chemical – and greenhouse – properties because these properties are determined by the electrons, not by the neutrons. After all, the carbon of all isotopes is being used and recycled all the time.

    The “extra” CO2 in the atmosphere is not composed of the “same atoms” that were once emitted by humans. The CO2 atoms may have circulated several times. It’s still true that the CO2 concentration would be lower if we didn’t produce it.

    Every year, we produce the equivalent of CO2 that would raise the concentration by 4 ppm per year. One half of it, about 1.8 ppm, is indeed added to the concentration, while the rest, 2.1 ppm, is absorbed by the oceans and biosphere. Because the concentration is higher than the 280 ppm equilibrium value, the processes consuming CO2 are strengthened, which adds to reduction of CO2. At this moment, only about 50% of our “emissions” are being abruptly absorbed. Clearly, this percentage would grow higher if the concentration were higher, or if the emissions were lower.

    None of these things has any impact on the CO2 warming effects – which are small and surely independent of the isotopic composition of the carbon.

    Iron Sun Theory is just nutty. At least the surface layers of the Sun clearly don’t contain any significant iron as can be seen via spectroscopy. About 0.1% of the solar mass is iron, just type a simple Wolfram Alpha query

    http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=amount+of+iron+in+sun

    It’s pretty difficult to run nuclear reactions all the way to iron – which has the biggest binding energy per nucleus, being “most stable” in this sense. That’s why there’s not too much iron in the stars yet. It may change in future stars in a few billion years. But claiming that the surface of the Sun is mostly iron etc. is just nutty – a kind of medieval pseudoscience.

  106. Julian Flood says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:

    quote
    The deep oceans have a d13C level of about 0 to 1 ‰
    unquote

    Is that dissolved or is there a solid component? While CaCO3 dissolves below a certain depth, are there components of the solid fall-out which do not dissolve at depth? Does the calcium carbonate fall-out of plankton all get dissolved?

    quote
    “a release of methane which is being eaten by methanophages. Result, more light carbon CO2.”
    Even despite methanophages, that would increase the methane levels, but that hardly is the case for the past decade…
    unquote

    http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/04/gloomy_emissions_data_shows_me.html has a neat graph up to 2008.

    I’ve seen several ‘the sky is falling’ assertions that methane levels are rising.

    At what temperature do deep sea bacteria begin to consume clathrates?

    JF
    Thanks for your helpful and educated posts.
    (and, BTW, I notice that you make no allowance for the fact that the seasonal isotopic variations may not be consistent — C4, CAM and C4-like plants will confuse the figures.)

  107. JAE says:

    Dave Springer says:

    “If someone has an explanation for that higher surface temperature of the earth other than so-called greenhouse effect I’d love to hear it because so far over the course of the last five years in which I’ve taken a keen interest in global warming climate change global climate disruption I’ve yet to see it. ”

    Try the simple concept of heat storage by the air and (especially) water, since sunlight can penetrate these materials, unlike the case of the moon. The new book which is the topic of this post has some very thoughtful ideas on why the “greenhouse effect” may not make sense. Can you refute all these ideas?

  108. Fernando says:

    Luboš Motl,

    You’re one of the few that I have deep respect.

    Please do not give ideas.

    exemplo,

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/231/4737/488.abstract

    Imagine,

    Energy balance may need to add the term related to nuclear magnetic resonance.

    I’m seeing the extra confusion.

    I am sure that the system may be the most complicated.

    One day I’ll ask Lubos.

    About,

    Ilya Prigogine

  109. kwik says:

    Dave Springer says:
    November 30, 2010 at 11:38 am

    “So I’m going to take a pass on this book due to too many red flags on the face of it. ”

    Me too. Why this focus on that iron sun stuff?

  110. Joe Olson says:

    As one of the co-authors of Slaying the Sky Dragon let me say, that I find a wide range of ‘settled’ science to be dubious. I was always duboius of the fusion ball of Hydrogen hypothesis for the Sun and found Dr Manuels complete series on Neutron Repulsion, Solar System Orgins and Solar Neutron Repulsion to be very compelling. My book one & book two chapters deal with a wide range of Earth science which is unconventional including Earth’s magnetism, Aboigentic Oil, Carbon Isotope anomolies, all the result of study into the undervalued Earth fission process. Some of these concepts are being introduced for debate for the first time and are offered with no claim as settled science. The delayed and denied debate over climate change has opened an entirely new line of reasoning for all future science. We should be grateful for the varying perspectives while we work to sort out their merits. All of the material in this book deserves that same consideration. I welcome informed debate over all my hypothesis presented in the Sky Dragon and posted in articles at thousands of websites. This is what ‘true’ science should be.

  111. Margaret Ball says:

    John F. Hultquist says:

    “Margaret Ball says: “ the writing is . . . ”

    Nutty ! ?”

    I said clunky, not nutty, John. I’ll leave it to physicists to decide which of the many ideas being thrown around in this book have merit and which are merely mixed nuts.

    It’s passages like these that annoy me:

    “Consensus was a major argument in support of the claim that humans were the primary cause of global warming almost from the inception of the IPCC. It was coincident because it was the people involved with the IPCC that was the consensus.”

    I don’t have any quarrel with the assertion that the oft-cited “consensus” is an artifact of the IPPC’s charter, personnel, and process. But the second sentence above is a crime against the English language, and I’m getting tired of mentally rewriting sentences like that as I read through the book.

    And this one.

    “Rare among compounds, is the fact that water exists in all three phases in our natural environment.”

    Or how about this:

    “There is largely ignored evidence that the past atmosphere was vastly different than today’s by comparing winged flight.”

    By the way, the Kindle informs me that I am now 72% of the way through the book, and the subject of carbon isotopes has yet to come up. Maybe that’s what’s in the mystery PDF file.

  112. Anthony,

    I agree with both those posters who have found Oliver Manuel a polite and gentlemanly poster and those who have found him something of a distracting nuisance in scientific threads.

    Could I suggest a solution? First, send Oliver a link to detailed instructions as to starting his own blog. Second, in the blog list at the right of the content here, create a new category — “Fringe” or the like — to include his blog and those promoting electrical universe and whatnot, and offer him a prominent place in this list. We skeptics differ sociologically (or perhaps psychologically) from the dogmatic Left mostly in that we are willing to listen to anything, but reserve our right to dismiss it as nonsense.

    Nutty ideas deserve a hearing. They do not deserve acceptance. And I have to say that the whole CO2-driven AGW business struck me as nutty two decades ago and I am horrified to see the environmental and economic destruction it has wrought. We all here believe in freedom of thought and the general Internet philosophy of “say whatever you want, I’ll either pay attention or I won’t, depending on how convincing I find you.”

    But I do find flat banning somewhat beneath the scientific dignity of WUWT, even though I have (I confess) begun to automatically skip over Mr. Manuel’s comments on other blogs.

  113. Northern Exposure says:

    The interesting question(s) here is whether or not there actually is a distinguishable difference in the isotope fingerprints between fossil fuel burning and volcanic CO2… and whether or not we actually know just how much CO2 is being leaked out daily from these thousands upon thousands of volcanoes both on land and at the bottom of the oceans… and whether or not oxygen depletion can actually be used as a viable process to determine the manmade signature since its still not fully understood whether or not volcanic CO2 consumes O2 in its processes and/or how much is or isn’t consumed.

    Is anyone able to answer those questions with a high degree of confidence and the substantial evidence to back it up ?

    Based on that thought process, it may very well turn out that the fossil fuel burning isotope signature is much much smaller than what has been assumed. On the other hand, it may turn out that it’s larger than what has been assumed.

    So books like these are a welcome, as they put the spotlight back on to unanswered questions and push for further scientific research to be conducted in order to substantiate and backup the established assumptions.

  114. Steven Mosher says:

    jae:

    Start with the book I linked to.

  115. Paul Birch says:

    ScientistForTruth says:
    November 30, 2010 at 9:22 am
    “Molten metal is hugely lossy due to eddy current flow. Who says that an arbitrarily low initial field can be amplified? References please, not bald assertions.”

    I have no interest in argument by authority. And you should note that the original amplification is happening in plasma, not metal. If the dynamo does have the form of a self-exciting system (I do not know whether that is the case) then it will be able to amplify an arbitrarily low field. Field strengths are proportional to the induced currents, and induced currents and voltages are proportional to the field strengths and velocity; thus the induced power goes as the square of the current, as do the losses; so the loss ratio is independent of field strength (assuming constant resistivity). In a metal core, since losses scale with the square of the current, the temperature will increase with field strength, and since resistivity increases with temperature, the loss ratio will also increase with temperature. Thus such a self-exciting system would actually work better the lower the magnetic field.

    “One nanotesla? Well, I’d be surprised if you can do a lot with that. And what’s all this about condensation to give fields of 1000 teslas? That sounds like poppycock. Have you discovered magnetic monopoles then?”

    The magnetic field is frozen into the ionised medium; if the gas cloud becomes more compact, under the influence of gravity (the mechanism by which stars and planets are formed) the magnetic field will be compressed with it. The density ratio from interstellar medium to star is ~1e24, so even if the excess heat were all radiated away during the collapse, so that the temperature did not rise, the magnetic energy density (scaling as the square of the field) would increase by the same factor. Deep within the cloud, where the temperature does rise during the condensation process, the magnetic field will be even stronger.

  116. John F. Hultquist says:

    Margaret Ball at 2:46

    Yes, I used the word nutty not you, because I wanted to subtly indicate that I supported Anthony’s use of the word regarding the theory of the iron sun.

    The “Thank you” was for your comments on the book. Others seem not to have noticed that the post was about a book and not about specific scientific issues.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Luboš Motl says: 1:08

    You make good sense. I suspect that you always do, even though I’m not always able to follow all you do and write about on “the reference frame.”

  117. JAE says:

    Mosh: I could probably even WRITE that book, but I would not believe what I wrote :)

  118. Ron House says:

    I’ve been looking up some of Oliver Manuel’s work. I don’t believe it is as nutty as its strangeness might make it appear. That by no means means I believe him, but he has a huge track record of publications in real science journals (meaning not climate ‘science’ ones).

    If you want to see a very surprising movie, take a look at:

    [video src="http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/The%20Surface%20Of%20The%20Sun_0001.wmv" /]

    which appears to show something quite solid rotating as a single object, and would seem to be incompatible with the idea of the Sun as a ball of plasma or gas.

    I’m not saying he’s right. I’m not saying he hasn’t blotted his copybook here by going on about his theory to excess, but I am saying that as far as his research goes, it has rationale and he isn’t a crackpot.

  119. Pamela Gray says:

    Craig said, “Nutty ideas deserve a hearing. They do not deserve acceptance.”

    In my ideal world, nutty ideas are not given advertising space. At the most, they should be confined to the back pages of comic books.

    That said, nutty ideas have been known to hold accepted, “consensus”, status. So, while I tire of the posts that seem oblivious to the fact they are beating a dead dog, we must accept the notion that all ideas MUST be made public and the underlying data and analysis provided to us, the consumers. And yes, we the reading public, are the consumers of scientific inquiries and discoveries. We have a right to know what you are up to in your Ivory Towers.

  120. Poptech says:

    My only concern with all this is calling someone with an alternative theory “nutty”. We should welcome discussion on alternative scientific theories and if they are found to not be scientifically viable then we move on but if any scientist that tries to challenge “established” science gets called a “nut”, it discourages future scientists from attempting to challenge any aspect of science in general. I’ve personally never had a problem with Dr. Manuel as he simply wishes to discuss and argue his theory.

    His theory was also widely reported in the media,

    Sun Is Mostly Iron, Not Hydrogen, Professor Says (Science Daily, January 9, 2002)
    Scientist: Sun composed mostly of iron (CNN, July 23, 2002)

  121. George E. Smith says:

    “”””” Robert Wykoff says:
    November 29, 2010 at 8:24 pm
    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. “””””

    Well if the sun did gather up iron meteoroids, they presumably would gravitate towards the solar core; although I don’t know that. But in any case; that iron would not result in any magnetic effects; well any ferromagnetic effects anyway, since the solar temperatures are way above the curie Temperature at which ferromagnetism in iron disappears completely.

    Solar magnetic fields are electromagnetic fields generated by flowing electric charges; as in any plasma. You don’t need iron to get magnetic fields, in fact you can get a damn side more powerful magnetic field by getting rid of the iron; or any other ferro-magnetic material.

    The University of Canberra (I think) built a proton Synchrotron that was half the diameter of the Bevatron (berserkeley); and they achieved that (Prof Marcus Oliphant) by simply getting rid of the iron core and its 15,000 or so Gauss limiting saturation magnetic field. They simply wound a copper wire core and put a lot of current through it with no iron. The coil only had two turns, but those wires were a foot in diameter; assembled from parallel strands, that were about one square inch cross-section each. To stop the wires from blowing apart due to mutual repulsion, those two wires were embedded in aluminum plates that were about 4 ft square to provide hoop strength to the wires,. Well the two wires actually overlapped like a partial eclipse sort of arrangement; and since the current went in opposite directions in the two turns there was no current in the3 overlap section at all; so they left those strands out, since they were not needed to carry zero current. That gave them a nice little hole around the magnet coils into which they placed the beam vacuum tube. So the two opposing currents provided a parallel field that was perpendicular to the plane of the two wires, to keep the protons or whatever going in a circle.

    It took a little bit of power to run up that magnetic field; like eight hundred Volts at six million Amps or 4.8 gigaWatts peak power. This was generated by a faraday disc generator with two sets of counterrotating pairs of plates that were all connected in series from edge to next center and so on so they got 200 Volts per disk. Of course it takes some weird brushes to make contact with a large rotating disk that is about a foot thick, and I think some eight feet or so in diameter. So they used liquid sodium streams to make both the brush contacts and also the on-off switch.
    The wound up the two disks counter-rotating with a few horse power electric motors; and then they turned on the sodium to make the electrical connection. Of course when they did that, those disks came to a screeching halt. If they hadn’t used counter-rotating disks that rapid stop would probably have turned the whole building over. Well of course the inductive kick back from that two turn coil then started to wind up the disks in the opposite direction to store the unused energy from the first jolt, and then the electric motors wound them back up to speed. While the kickback and wind up was being done, they reversed the polarity of the power to the magnetic field coils that powered the Faraday disks; so that with the reversed field, and reversed rotation they generated the same polarity output pulse next time.

    So you don’t need iron to get a powerful magnetic field. This scheme was so outrageous, that Prof Olophant was able to con somebody into funding the thing; even though some of his colleagues thought it was a huge boondoggle; well they referred to the contraption as the “White Oliphant.”

    When I was in College (University), they already had the Faraday disk and Sodium liquid brush system working; and they were in the process of building up the copper wires and aluminum hoop strength plates.

    Well I always knew that Australians were stark raving mad anyway; and that machine just proves it; but the damn thing worked.

  122. kuhnkat says:

    Gentlemen,

    when you talk about C13 and say it doesn’t decay, what happens to produce C13??? Did they actually say C13 decays??

  123. old construction worker says:

    ‘George E. Smith says:
    November 30, 2010 at 5:56 pm
    Well I always knew that Australians were stark raving mad anyway; and that machine just proves it; but the damn thing woked.’

    I would have loved to have been there when they turned it on.

  124. Ron House says:
    November 30, 2010 at 5:08 pm
    which appears to show something quite solid rotating as a single object, and would seem to be incompatible with the idea of the Sun as a ball of plasma or gas.
    If you look at Earth from space, the clouds in the gaseous atmosphere seem to rotate as if part of Earth.

    he isn’t a crackpot.
    That bit comes when you realize that he believes thousands of astrophysicists are part of a worldwide conspiracy to suppress and withhold data supporting hos theory, while at the same manufacturing false data in support for the ‘standard model’. Now, I grant you that many people believe the same about AGW…

    Poptech says:
    November 30, 2010 at 5:38 pm
    We should welcome discussion on alternative scientific theories and if they are found to not be scientifically viable then we move on
    Except that Manuel does not move on.

  125. kuhnkat says:

    Lubos,

    I agree that it is pretty hard to make iron in nuclear reactions. It isn’t made in fission or fusion reactions.

  126. kuhnkat says:
    November 30, 2010 at 6:27 pm
    I agree that it is pretty hard to make iron in nuclear reactions. It isn’t made in fission or fusion reactions.
    It is made in fusion reactions just before a supernova explosion. It is in fact the production of iron that causes the explosion [which is really the rebound from an implosion as the huge star collapses in a few seconds because of the turning off of nuclear fusion [which can't go beyond iron] because fusion stops with iron, so the energy source is suddenly lost.

  127. Leif Svalgaard says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    November 30, 2010 at 6:40 pm
    kuhnkat says:
    November 30, 2010 at 6:27 pm
    I agree that it is pretty hard to make iron in nuclear reactions. It isn’t made in fission or fusion reactions.
    Iron is made in fusion reactions just before a supernova explosion. It is in fact the production of iron that causes the explosion [which is really the rebound from an implosion as the huge star collapses in a few seconds because of the turning off of nuclear fusion [which can't go beyond iron]] because fusion stops with iron, so the energy source is suddenly lost.

  128. jae says:

    BTW, moshpit, I don’t think you have any credentials to “disparage” my ideas or those of the subject book. If I am wrong, please advise.

  129. KBK says:

    What an interesting and informative thread!

    I’m proud of you guys. Thanks to Anthony for creating and managing to sustain this website!

    It’s so refreshing to find an oasis of reasoned discourse in a sea of partisan snark.

  130. Max Hugoson says:

    A little defense of Dr. Manuel here. He is a retired professor…and has a distinguished career as a RADIO-CHEMIST.

    OK, so he is stuck on a “strange theory”, with regard the function of the sun.

    I’d hasten to point out that according to “standard” cosmology, we (the Earth) have to be a “capture” from a “super nova” explosion. As the “standard model” of the sun, leaves off at IRON as the highest element.

    In essence, all the planets also, conveniently have to be “captures of super nova explosions”. How convenient! I find there are ALL SORTS OF HOLES IN ACCEPTED COSMOLOGY, and bringing those down, even to the level of the standard “fusion” model of the sun, doesn’t take a lot of skin off my nose. Let Dr. Manuel think what he wants about the mechanism of the sun. But the more MUNDANE mechanism of isotope separation in geo-science chemistry may well yield to his depth of experience. (O16 to O18 ratios anyone? Cause of enrichment…tropical thunderstorms! Known empirically, but all “source” explanations are HAND WAVING at best.)

  131. Rob Huber says:

    I’ve read that iron fusion has been proposed as a mechanism leading to neutron star formation. According to the hypothesis, iron fusion initiates then terminates in a sort of endothermic shock resulting in cooling and contraction of the core. The process then repeats until the remaining nuclei degenerate into free-flowing non-bonded subatomic particles.

    Off topic as Hell, but by now that shouldn’t matter! :-)

  132. Max Hugoson says:
    November 30, 2010 at 8:50 pm
    I’d hasten to point out that according to “standard” cosmology, we (the Earth) have to be a “capture” from a “super nova” explosion.
    Indeed, yes, YOU were once inside that exploding star [or rather pieces of you come from many such stars]. The first stars contained only hydrogen and helium. When the heavier stars eventually exploded, they enriched the interstellar medium with the heavier elements [such as iron and oxygen, etc]. Subsequent stars then contain this small ‘contamination’. And when they exploded, the interstellar medium was enriched a little bit more, and so on. So each new ‘generation’ of stars contains more and more of the heavier material that make up you and I. We can directly observe the chemical content of stars and we find precisely that relationship: older = less heavier elements. So Manuel is correct that we all come from supernovae. He is wrong in believing that that a single supernova was the birth of the Sun. The Sun [as all stars, except the very first ones] is the product of many supernovae exploding over billions of year before the Sun existed and dispersing their heavier material throughout the Galaxy.

  133. Smokey says:

    Oliver K. Manuel has his good & bad points. But I’ve always appreciated his perceptive comment:

    “Scientists have been trained with grant funds the way Pavlov’s dogs were trained with dog biscuits.”

  134. racookpe1978 says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 30, 2010 at 9:15 pm (Edit)

    Max Hugoson says:
    November 30, 2010 at 8:50 pm
    I’d hasten to point out that according to “standard” cosmology, we (the Earth) have to be a “capture” from a “super nova” explosion.
    Indeed, yes, YOU were once inside that exploding star [or rather pieces of you come from many such stars]. The first stars contained only hydrogen and helium. When the heavier stars eventually exploded, they enriched the interstellar medium with the heavier elements [such as iron and oxygen, etc]. Subsequent stars then contain this small ‘contamination’. And when they exploded, the interstellar medium was enriched a little bit more, and so on. So each new ‘generation’ of stars contains more and more of the heavier material that make up you and I. We can directly observe the chemical content of stars and we find precisely that relationship: older = less heavier elements.

    —…—…—

    Please, let us continue this discussion: but using using the latest estimate of the age of the universe (15 billion-some-odd years, or 1.5 x 10^9 years) and the known number of heavy elements in just our little solar system in the planets: some 2 x 10^54 atoms, last I estimated. The sun + major planets were isolated into their local solidified rocks about 4.5 billion years ago (my bookshelf has a fossil 3.5 billion years old!), so you have “only” 10 billion years to form “all” of the solar system’s elements. Worse, the conventional wisdom tells us that all systems have been expanding (moving away) from each other since Creation (er, the Big Bang).

    OK. Fine. No problem. But how does conventional cosmic theory account for that many supernovas transmitting their fused atoms from generation to generation at a rate of 10^54/10^9 years? Does that not require – just to fill our known solar system with – not 10^45 reactions per year for 10^9 years continuously, but also have every elements exactly transmitted from source supernova to daughter supernova to granddaughter supernova to great-granddaughter supernova (10^44 times in a row ?) all in time so that all of that
    Li (H + He),
    Be (He + He, Li + H, H+H+H+H ?),
    B (He+Li, Li+H+H ?),
    C (He+He+He probably – so every C atom requires three collisions of He ions, or 6 collisions of H ions; so 3x He ions colliding exactly at the right time and place and energy are needed to make 1x C atom one time – and that C atom cannot be subsequently collided ever again so it remains Carbon, and is not transmuted up higher on the periodic table),
    N (an odd number, got to be Li + He + He, or Li + a previously created Be, or (previously created C + H, etc.),
    O (easier at “only” needing some original He+He+He+He ions running into each other. Again, at the exact same time at the exact right energy and at the exact right net directions) Easy to see how the “plus 4’s” are the most often created. ….

    True, seen at a one-by-one theory, at a one-by-one pace, all of these reactions occur. All I have measured. Calculated. Agree with.

    But conventional cosmological theory does not have enough time to create enough higher-order atoms to populate our simple, little solar system.

    A steady-state plasma-linked universe much older than 15 billion years? With matter “popping” back out of Hawking’s black holes into the cosmic voids at a rate needed to satisfy Einstein’s cosmological constant of one atom every 10^5 m^3? Maybe. Hawking may be onto something, but he hasn’t finished his thoughts. Yet.

    Please.

    Address the matter-transmission problem of supernova->supernova->supernova->supernova in an expanding universe and a speed-of-light limit of mass in space.
    Please address how many supernova’s are needed to create just the heavier elements needed to populate our earth, Mars, Mercury, and Venus and the asteroids. My list above is not correct -> but where is it wrong? How can iron, gold, silver, and lead be created without multiple generations of multiple collisions? We know they exist: How did all of these atoms get here?
    Please address the age of each supernova, and the (im)probabilty of getting every collision exactly right so the masses that we know we have measured in today’s worlds could be created in a universe of finite mass, finite speeds, and finite solar lifetimes.

    Robert

  135. racookpe1978 says:
    November 30, 2010 at 10:01 pm
    so you have “only” 10 billion years to form “all” of the solar system’s elements.
    That is more than enough. There are something like 2 supernovae[SN] in the Galaxy per century [we don't see most of them because of all the dust in the Galaxy]. So in 10 billion years [100 million centuries] we expect 200 million SNs. There are 200 billion stars, so the debris from one SN is shared between 1000 stars, so make up 0.1% of the stellar material. That is about what the Sun contains; actually the Sun contains about 10 times as much – about 1%, but considering the crude calculation – and simplifying assumptions – it is close enough.

    Worse, the conventional wisdom tells us that all systems have been expanding (moving away) from each other since Creation (er, the Big Bang).
    Not conventional wisdom, but direct observations. And systems are not ‘moving away’ from each other. The galaxies are largely at rest except for small local movements due to gravity. It is space itself that is expanding taking the non-moving galaxies with it. The expansion of space is so weak locally that gravity overpowers it locally [i.e. the Galaxy and you and I are not expanding - there is a nice proof of that called Birkhoff's theorem, but no need to go there].

    and that C atom cannot be subsequently collided ever again so it remains Carbon, and is not transmuted up higher on the periodic table)
    The basic ‘ladder’ would go like this 4He+4He = 8Be*, 8Be*+4He = 12C, except 8Be* is unstable, so we need 4He+4He+4He = 12C to get to carbon, which then becomes a bottleneck in the formation of heavier elements, because it is very unlikely that three 4He would collide at the same time. Now, Fred Hoyle predicted that in order that 8Be* + 4He could form 12C there had to exist an ‘excited’ state of 12C [called a 'resonance'] with precisely the energy of 8Be* + 4He. In due time such a resonance was actually observed lending credence to the theory. Now, we can keep adding 4He nuclei: 12C + 4He = 16O, and 16O + 4He = 20Ne, 20Ne + 4He = 24Mg, etc, through Si, S, Ar, Ca, Ti, etc up to the iron ‘peak’ [actually to Ni, that decays to Fe] where the process stops because it takes more energy to keep going than you get out of the reaction. Heavier atoms [lead, gold, etc] are created by capture of neutrons [but that is another long story].

    But conventional cosmological theory does not have enough time to create enough higher-order atoms to populate our simple, little solar system.
    I just showed at the beginning of my reply that since the sun only contains so little heavy atoms, that there is enough time. Now, there would NOT have been enough time if the Sun and all stars actually consisted of iron, oxygen, etc as Manuel claims, so this is a severe blow to his theory [which he can get around by positing that only the Sun was formed the way he postulates].

  136. Ed Murphy says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says: November 30, 2010 at 3:05 am

    Thanks for your take on the subject. I respect what you have to say, duly noted. Will try extremely hard to retain it for next time.

    Michael, I’ve been banned from all the Mayan 2012 end of the world forums for first appearing like a believer but actually being a debunker. The profit$ of doom$ don’t like debunkers for obviou$ rea$on$.

    I don’t miss them in the least, though I do dislike seeing vulnerable people and kids being emotionally screwed up by those [snips]. Kinda like CAGW alarmists. I’d get banned immediately at pro-AGW sites.

    I may have been pretty successful, those 2012 forums are really, really dead now.

    I do believe Oliver had been warned, repeatedly.

  137. Paul Birch
    “I have no interest in argument by authority”. Nor me – I wasn’t asking for authorities, merely references, i.e. published results of real world phenomena.

    “If the dynamo does have the form of a self-exciting system (I do not know whether that is the case) then it will be able to amplify an arbitrarily low field.” That’s practically a statement of the obvious, but doesn’t get us any closer to the thing to be proved, which is self-excitation, of which I was and remain sceptical. None of the experiments have demonstrated self-excitation, nor does known physics predict it. Scepticism would therefore seem to be a sensible approach rather than the bald positive assertion by E.M Smith previously.

    “The magnetic field is frozen into the ionised medium; if the gas cloud becomes more compact, under the influence of gravity (the mechanism by which stars and planets are formed) the magnetic field will be compressed with it. ”

    Poppycock. You are talking about the magnetic field as if it is some substance that can be frozen, condensed and compressed. A static field is not an entity in itself, you can’t spoon it up – a field is ultimately a convenient fiction. I do wish astrophysicists would take the time to understand what they are talking about when it comes to electricity and magnetism. If you have bits of matter that are attracted together then, yes, the local gravitational field strength around the point of aggregation can increase. And, yes, if you have charged particles that can be brought together then the local electric field strength around the point of aggregation can increase. And, yes, if we had magnetic monopoles that could be brought together then the local magnetic field strength around the point of aggregation can increase. But we don’t have magnetic monopoles, so I’m afraid Maxwell’s equation div B = 0 pertains. If you coalesce 1000 magnetic dipoles which maintain a local field strength of 1 tesla you don’t get a magnetic field strength of 1000 tesla. You can’t make a permanent magnet stronger by simply adding more of the same permanent magnets to it. But, anyway, I don’t suppose you are thinking that the magnetic fields in interstellar space are coming from permanent magnets. Neglecting permanent magnets, then, and ignoring rapid variations of electric field and concentrating on statics (since we are talking millions of years, right?) what other than current flow is going to create a static magnetizing field, and hence magnetic field, curl H = uoJ, or the Biot-Savart law for B if you prefer? Oh, some will say, if there is condensation then the current density will increase. Indeed, locally, but then it will decrease in the regions where it was before it ‘condensed’, and the far field will not be a whit different.

    So, since self-excitation of a dynamo is not demonstrated experimentally or theoretically, to produce a local magnetic field, as I said, either you have to have an enormous current pass through the celestial body, so that there is a high local magnetic field, or you will need an external magnetic field and some distant current flow of trillions of amps to create any far field magnetic field worth mentioning. I’m not saying that such currents don’t occur, my point is that if one is going to posit magnetic fields, he’d better start looking for some rather hefty currents unless he has found a mine of magnetic monopoles.

  138. Julian Flood says:
    November 30, 2010 at 1:51 pm
    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:

    Is that dissolved or is there a solid component? While CaCO3 dissolves below a certain depth, are there components of the solid fall-out which do not dissolve at depth? Does the calcium carbonate fall-out of plankton all get dissolved?

    That is for the dissolved CO2 – bicarbonate – carbonate part (DIC), the near 40,000 GtC inorganic carbon dissolved in the deep oceans. d13C from calcite deposits are somewhat higher in d13C, but organic carbon is a lot lower. Both are recycled (at least in part) when they fall out of the upper ocean layer. See the nice introduction by Anton Uriarte Cantolla at:

    http://homepage.mac.com/uriarte/carbon13.html

    More detailed for the North Atlantic:

    http://www.bjerknes.uib.no/pages.asp?kat=8&id=1909&lang=2

    http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/04/gloomy_emissions_data_shows_me.html has a neat graph up to 2008.

    I’ve seen several ‘the sky is falling’ assertions that methane levels are rising.

    Yes, but they don’t show you the full picture of the last decades, and only a small range: there is little increase in the past decade, compared with the decades before:

    http://zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Atmospheric%20Methane.asp

    Even more interesting: the Eemian was much warmer than the current warm period, during thousands of years, especially around the Arctic (5-10°C warmer!): trees growing until the Arctic Oceans, as well as in Siberia as in North America. Thus much less permafrost, clathrates decomposed from shallow coasts,…
    Despite that, methane levels didn’t reach more than 700 ppbv:

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/eemian.html

    Thus it doesn’t seem that the sky will be falling (yet)…

    At what temperature do deep sea bacteria begin to consume clathrates?

    I have no idea…

    BTW, I notice that you make no allowance for the fact that the seasonal isotopic variations may not be consistent — C4, CAM and C4-like plants will confuse the figures.

    Indeed, there are several influencing factors in the seasonal amplitude of CO2 levels: temperature is one, but precipitation is also quite important in countries with low precipitation. C3 plants are more sensitive for high temperatures and low precipitation than C4 plants and CAM plants can survive even in deserts. That influences the year by year increase of CO2 as variability around the trend and also influences the 13C/12C ratio over the seasons from year to year. But as all three forms preferentially use 12C (at different rates), the oxygen balance shows anyway that vegetation is a net source of d13C increase, thus opposing the d13C decline caused by fossil fuel burning.

  139. jae says:

    Moshpit: Someone still needs to explain to me why it is so much hotter in Phoenix than in Atlanta on a sunny summer day. Same elevation and latitude, but Atlanta has 4 times as much “greenhouse gases.” It seems to me that the radiation cartoons can’t explain this.

  140. Paul says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:

    The C13 ratio argument is a bad one.
    It is not a proof in itself, but it adds to the evidence, together with all other arguments.

    You make many distracting citations which is a bit of verisimilitude. Lets be clear about the strongest possible conclusion on the basis of your citations if we admit all your precepts without argument: declining C13/C12 ratios is not inconsistent with rising CO2 being driven by fossil fuel emissions.

    That statement is so weak, its not even in the same league as your original claim or the IPCC’s claim which is that declining C13 ratios excludes other explanations.

    As I stated before, that claim adds basically nothing to the case for AGW beyond whatever first order information exists about CO2 exchange with the oceans. You’ve made an honest effort to prove your point, now don’t turn into a troll refusing to let the argument go.

  141. Jeff Daly says:

    Phew!!! And back to the topic of thread – this book!! I’ve now read most of my Kindle version. It downloaded ok for me in PC format.
    The chapters by Ball, Siddons, Schreuder and Anderson were a delight to read. Special thanks to the authors for bringing to my attention ideas I’d never seen mentioned elsewhere before e.g. it was a revelation to find that on the 6 planets in our solar system that possess a significant atmosphere, all showed a distinct correlation between pressure and temperature. Why is this glaring fact not talked about by climate scientists?
    Thanks to the book I’m now persuaded that the greenhouse effect is a far less plausible explanation than the aforesaid adiabatic explanation (atmospheric pressure).
    Finally, I would have preferred a paperback but there was no alternative to the less satisfying b&w Kindle variant. The book should do well but only if only they release a dead tree version!

  142. Northern Exposure says:
    November 30, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    The interesting question(s) here is whether or not there actually is a distinguishable difference in the isotope fingerprints between fossil fuel burning and volcanic CO2… and whether or not we actually know just how much CO2 is being leaked out daily from these thousands upon thousands of volcanoes both on land and at the bottom of the oceans… and whether or not oxygen depletion can actually be used as a viable process to determine the manmade signature since its still not fully understood whether or not volcanic CO2 consumes O2 in its processes and/or how much is or isn’t consumed.

    Is anyone able to answer those questions with a high degree of confidence and the substantial evidence to back it up ?

    Volcanic d13C ranges from slighlty positive to -8 ‰. Atmospheric CO2 nowadays is below -8 ‰ and vegetation is average at -26 ‰ (C3 plants -22 to -30 ‰, C4 plants -10 to -14 ‰ and CAM plants inbetween). Thus volcanic CO2 would increase the d13C levels of the atmosphere, while vegetation decay decreases d13C, but vegetation CO2 uptake increases d13C. Fossil fuel use at average -24 ‰ definitively decreases d13C in the atmosphere.

    Volcanic CO2 is partly from subduction of carbonates (and organics), partly directly from the mantle. The latter shows the lower range d13C, while the former is at the high side. The organics need oxygen, the cabonates not, and I am not sure if the mantle CO2 is already present as CO2 or carbonate, and probably needs no oxygen.

    Anyway, one doesn’t need much oxygen as volcanic eruptions and vents are about 1% of human emissions:

    http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

    Thus it is quite sure that the oxygen balance is the result of more CO2 uptake than release by vegetation.

  143. ScientistForTruth says:
    December 1, 2010 at 7:13 am
    I do wish astrophysicists would take the time to understand what they are talking about when it comes to electricity and magnetism.
    Your problem is that you do not take into account that space plasmas have such high electrical conductivity that the magnetic flux through any closed contour is a conserved quantity, e.g. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/lectures/node65.html
    You can also start with the beginning of the lecture series: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/lectures/node1.html
    and work your way though.
    It is sometimes more useful to consider the plasma as ‘frozen’ to the field, rather than the field ‘frozen’ into the plasma. These concepts are useful within their domains and astrophysicists are well aware of the conditions under which the concepts are not useful.
    Perhaps the cleanest example of how plasma and field move together [connected at the hip, if you will] is the solar wind: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/lectures/node69.html

  144. Paul Birch says:

    ScientistForTruth says:
    December 1, 2010 at 7:13 am
    “None of the experiments have demonstrated self-excitation, nor does known physics predict it.”

    I don’t think you understand what self-excitation means. Self exciting motors and dynamos certainly exist. For those it does not matter how low the ambient magnetic field may be. At least, not classically. There might, I suppose, be a theoretical limit when only a single flux quantum threads the circuit; but even then, so long as there exist fluctuations of this magnitude, the self-excitation can still take off. I do not know the details of the analysis purportedly demonstrating that a massive rotating conducting fluid ball will constitute such a dynamo, so I will accept, for the sake of argument, that this might be mistaken, but worrying about whether the ambient field is strong enough is plain misguided. The initial strength of the field is irrelevant.

    PB: The magnetic field is frozen into the ionised medium; if the gas cloud becomes more compact, under the influence of gravity (the mechanism by which stars and planets are formed) the magnetic field will be compressed with it.

    “Poppycock. You are talking about the magnetic field as if it is some substance that can be frozen, condensed and compressed.”

    It’s a standard metaphor. The magnetic fields in a plasma are generated by electric currents – the motion of charged particles within the plasma. In astrophysical plasmas, viscosity is very low and can usually be neglected; conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum and vorticity then means that the field behaves very much like another gaseous species, in equipartition, moving with the bulk ionised material. When that is compressed, the magnetic field goes with it, and gets stronger. There are two effects: (i) the currents generating the field get squashed into a smaller volume, so they generate a stronger field over that smaller volume; and (ii) as the cloud is compressed, the motion of the plasma through the magnetic field induces currents which make the field stronger. This is basic magnetohydrodynamics.

  145. _Jim says:

    jae December 1, 2010 at 7:44 am says:

    Moshpit: Someone still needs to explain to me why it is so much hotter in Phoenix than in Atlanta on a sunny summer day. Same elevation and latitude, but Atlanta has 4 times as much “greenhouse gases.” It seems to me that the radiation cartoons can’t explain this.

    Tried simple some meteorology, physics and plant biology (as opposed to riding a noted ‘hobby horse’), to wit, A) the conversion of solar/thermal energy (in Atlanta) to latent heat (as in vaporizing water) and B) simple calorimetric-input required to raise the temperature of air containing a higher percent of WV x number of degrees and C) the absorption of solar energy in plant life and conversion to chemical in/around Atlanta vs Phoenix?

    .

  146. Paul says:
    December 1, 2010 at 7:44 am

    You make many distracting citations which is a bit of verisimilitude. Lets be clear about the strongest possible conclusion on the basis of your citations if we admit all your precepts without argument: declining C13/C12 ratios is not inconsistent with rising CO2 being driven by fossil fuel emissions.

    I disagree: the 13C/12C ratio doesn’t prove that the rise is only from fossil fuel burning, but the combination of d13C levels and other arguments show that it is:
    – The mass balance and the higher d13C level exclude the oceans as source.
    – The oxygen balance and the higher d13C level by uptake exclude the biosphere as source.
    – The d13C level of rock weathering and volcanic eruptions/vents is too high.

    Thus as no other huge sources of low d13C are known, fossil fuel emissions are the only source. That has no influence on the more interesting question what the effect is of the measured increase of CO2 (which I expect to be a minor one).

  147. Ed Murphy says:

    Anyway, one doesn’t need much oxygen as volcanic eruptions and vents are about 1% of human emissions:

    http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

    That is so outdated, I have a real problem with that. Before the Pinatubo (6) and Cerro Hudson (5+) eruptions in 1991 there were fewer eruptions and the total VEI was extremely low. After 1991 and particularly after 1995 the yearly total VEI and number of eruptions have increased considerably.

    http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/find_eruptions.cfm

    Type in a year and compare to other years. I have them copied down but it would make this comment miserably long. If Redoubt had been left as a VEI-4 like it probably should have, we would have 7 VEI-4’s since May, 2008, with Eyjafjallajökull & Merapi anticipated to be classed as VEI-4 at the end of this year.

    Many eruptions aren’t observed well because of cloud cover or remote location, so its a bit of a sloppy system, but its all we have.

  148. Ed Murphy says:
    December 1, 2010 at 10:56 am

    That is so outdated, I have a real problem with that. Before the Pinatubo (6) and Cerro Hudson (5+) eruptions in 1991 there were fewer eruptions and the total VEI was extremely low. After 1991 and particularly after 1995 the yearly total VEI and number of eruptions have increased considerably.

    Probably outdated, but even the 1991 Pinatubo with VEI 6 was not visible as increase in the CO2 record: there was even a temporarely drop in the CO2 increase, due to a 0.6°C global drop in temperature caused by the ash cloud. As the VEI scale is logarithmic, A VEI 6 has the same explosive strength as 100 VEI 4 eruptions. Also in 1991, the Hudson, Cerro volcano in Chile had a VEI 5+ eruption. Not bad for one year…

    If we may assume that the CO2 releases of the eruptions and the continuous venting years after the eruption are in ratio with the VEI index, thus also logarithmic, then even the sum of all volcanic eruptions of each year between 1991 and 2010 doesn’t reach 10% of what the Pinatubo alone emitted, which didn’t increase the CO2 levels.
    Thus the contribution of volcanoes to the rise of CO2 or the decline of d13C is negligible.

  149. JAE says:

    Jim says:

    “Tried simple some meteorology, physics and plant biology (as opposed to riding a noted ‘hobby horse’), to wit, A) the conversion of solar/thermal energy (in Atlanta) to latent heat (as in vaporizing water) and B) simple calorimetric-input required to raise the temperature of air containing a higher percent of WV x number of degrees and C) the absorption of solar energy in plant life and conversion to chemical in/around Atlanta vs Phoenix?”

    Correct. So, now tell us what the effect would be of adding more “greenhouse gas” (OCO) in Atlanta. And with all that extra “back radiation” from the greenhouse gases, why won’t a black surface enclosed in an IR-transparent box get much hotter in Atlanta than in Phoenix?

  150. David Socrates says:

    Anthony,

    You must be really regretting your wholly innocent comment about Oliver K. Manuel’s “nutty iron Sun theory”. It is extraordinary that ¾ of your blog responses are obsessing about this theory rather than about the real subject of the blog – an intriguing new book that forcefully argues against CO2 being a global warming mechanism at all.

    Call me narrow minded but, frankly, I really couldn’t care less about what is or is not at the centre of the Sun. However I do care a lot about whether the CO2 warming theory is true or false. What a pity the blog trail was inadvertently hijacked by a completely irrelevant side issue.

    I have downloaded and read the electronic version of the book. Oliver Manuel’s chapter is very short, almost completely incomprehensible, and utterly unmemorable. But that is in contrast to the remaining chapters by the other authors, all of which are fascinating, intellectually challenging and written with great clarity and simplicity.

    As far as I can gather after a quick initial reading of the book, the thrust of the argument is that that CO2 has no effect on the warmth of the Earth’s atmosphere because any minor effects that the trace gas might exhibit arecompletely negated by the energy transfer balancing effects of water in all its three phases.

    In a nutshell, any warming of the oceans (which cover 70% of the Earth’s surface) causes evaporation, causes more cloud cover, causes a raised albedo, causes less radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, causes compensatory cooling. This is a closed loop control system which fortuitously contains an extreme non-linearity (the evaporation of water off the ocean surfaces goes up exponentially with the raised ocean water temperature). This non-linearity is the absolutely perfect ingredient for a very strong and stabilising natural thermostat, far more powerful by a factor of many than any greenhouse gas.

    Furthermore, and this is the crucial point, any minor warming effect that additional CO2 in the atmosphere might have is not just insignificant, it is actually fully compensated for by the Earth’s water cycle thermostat. This is because the CO2 warming effect is effectively inside the control loop of the water cycle thermostat. To understand the significance of this, a good analogy would be the effect of turning on a 3kW electric fan heater inside my 40kW centrally heated, and thermostatically controlled, house. The extra 3kW from the fan heater will not raise the temperature at all because the additional heat it supplies will be exactly compensated for by the thermostatically controlled CH boiler system, leaving my house at precisely the same temperature as it was before.

    The water cycle natural thermostat is not a new theory – others including me have advocated it many times – but this is the first book I have read in which all these concepts have been explained so clearly and forcefully.

    I found the book challenging and compelling. It’s a pity your readers were sidelined onto a completely false trail on an arcane and irrelevant subject rather than addressing (and challenging) the arguments it raises. I urge everyone to read it and comment on it and get a real debate going. This is no side issue – it could well be the end game for AGW.

    REPLY:
    Nope, I don’t regret it at all. My opinion of the iron sun theory as being “nutty” is unchanged. One reader said that is in the book, the question remains: why? – Anthony

  151. Poptech says:

    REPLY: Nope, I don’t regret it at all. My opinion of the iron sun theory as being “nutty” is unchanged. One reader said that is in the book, the question remains: why? – Anthony

    Anthony, you realize your comments have officially discredited the book and now none of it will ever be taken remotely serious? They are already parroting your “nutty” comment about Dr. Manuel around the Internet. All the authors are now considered “crackpots” because “even Anthony Watts thinks they are”.

    So why even post a topic on the book here if it is not to be taken seriously?

    REPLY: Wow, I didn’t realize that a one word utterance from me had the power to “officially discredit” a book. However, the very first commenter on this thread seems to have ignored that and points out that he intends to buy a copy. Nobody listens ;o) /sarc – Anthony

  152. Poptech says:

    Interestingly Discover Magazine gave a very honest discussion about Dr. Manuel,

    An iconoclastic theory of the solar system’s origin shows how science tests its truisms (Discover Magazine, March 2002)

    In the late 1960s, chemist Oliver Manuel made a small but staggering discovery about meteorites. He noticed that the abundances of certain elements in meteorites were distinctly different from those in the Earth and much of the solar system. This observation spurred research showing that our solar system probably formed from material generated in many different stars. For Manuel, it also spawned a radical theory about the origins of our solar system, which he has doggedly pursued for forty years. Nearly all astronomers agree that the Sun and the rest of the planets formed from an amorphous cloud of gas and dust 4.6 billion years ago. But Manuel argues, based on his compositional data, that the solar system was created by a dramatic stellar explosion–a supernova–and that the iron-encased remnant of the progenitor star still sits at the center of the Sun. Manuel fits a popular stereotype, the lone dissenter promoting a new idea that flies in the face of the scientific establishment. In the real world, some of these theories eventually have been proven right but vastly more have been proven wrong. Manuel is under no illusions about the popularity of his idea. “Ninety-nine percent of the field will tell you it’s junk science,” he says. The evidence weighs in heavily against him. If he’s right, however, we need to completely rethink how planetary systems form. Even if he’s wrong, some scientists say, at least he has made people think. Astrophysicists don’t deny the validity of Manuel’s original meteorite data. “It was a good observation,” says cosmochemist Frank Podosek of Washington University. “This was something we hadn’t observed before. It was a fruitful thing to notice, but he picked it up and ran with it very much farther than the basis could justify.” To support his theory, Manuel pieced together bits of information from history, astronomy, biology and physics. He founded his theory on isotopes, variants of an element that have different atomic weights but the same basic chemical properties. On Earth, isotopes have consistent, well-known relative abundances. Manuel cited unusual mixes of isotopes in meteorites and possibly in the atmosphere of Jupiter as evidence that those objects formed from the outer layers of a supernova, where such strange isotope ratios would be the norm. The inner planets, made from rocky debris, formed from heavy elements in the inner part of the supernova, he says, where more familiar isotope concentrations prevailed. And the Sun, which Manuel argues is iron-rich, formed around a neutron star, the collapsed remnant of the exploded star. “This is not a news flash,” he says. “This is my conclusion from 42 years of measuring the abundance of isotopes.” Manuel’s insistence both infuriates and amuses others in the field. Scientists who know him talk about him in a tone that is both weary and indulgent, as they would describe an eccentric relative. “I happen to like Oliver,” says Donald Burnett, professor of geochemistry at the California Institute of Technology. “I don’t agree with anything he says, but I find him a colorful character.” There is one widely accepted element in Manuel’s scenario. In the universe, many elements heavier than iron are thought to have been forged in supernovae. But the evidence increasingly seems to rule out Manuel’s supernova-genesis theory. At the start of the 20th century, many scientists believed the Sun was made mostly of iron. Manuel cites the historical support for an iron-rich Sun as evidence for his theory. “A high iron content for the Sun is not revolutionary but is actually quite compatible with the history of solar research,” he says. But in 1925, astronomer Cecelia Payne analyzed the light of our star and proposed that the Sun was most likely a burning ball of hydrogen. By the late thirties, the case was nearly settled. The surface of the Sun has been proven to be mostly hydrogen, and many subsequent studies have led to extremely detailed models of the hydrogen fusion reactions that power our star. “We can make an explicit model of the Sun, putting its mass and brightness into the computer, along with the laws of physics and that then produces right amount of Sunshine and brightness,” says Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. These models also explain the various stages of stellar evolution that astronomers can observe. And the principles of hydrogen fusion are well established, both in the laboratory and in the detonations of hydrogen bombs. According to theory and experiment, light hydrogen atoms in the Sun fuse together to form helium atoms, releasing bursts of energy in the process. All of the evidence points to our Sun being made primarily of hydrogen. Manuel argues that the surface is made up mostly of hydrogen only because elements in the Sun separate according to mass. Hydrogen, the lightest element, floats to the surface, while heavier elements huddle below. But his theory creates another problem: If the Sun isn’t made of hydrogen, how does it generate its energy? Fusing a heavy and stable element like iron consumes more energy than it releases. In his theory, Manuel relies the neutron star at the center to make up for energy lost when hydrogen is taken out of the picture. The neutrons that make up the star have higher energy than free neutrons, he says, so a neutron escaping from the star releases energy. The free neutron then decays into a proton as it migrates toward the surface, again releasing energy. The proton, which is a hydrogen atom minus an electron, fuses to form helium and releases even more energy. He supposes that some of the decayed neutrons stick around as protons and account for the abundance of hydrogen on the surface of the Sun and in the solar wind. Manuel’s colleagues are skeptical about this elaborate and unproven explanation. Many scientists also find it improbable that our solar system could have formed quickly from the debris of a supernova. They have only found one system in which planets formed around a neutron star, and it looks nothing like our solar system. On the other hand, astronomers have spotted innumerable stars forming out of clouds of gas and dust and find strong indications that planets are forming around these protostars. Finally, there is persuasive evidence that our solar system contains the remains of many different supernovae. Ironically, Manuel’s own discovery contributed to this understanding. Chemists have traced the strange isotopic concentrations Manuel first observed to individual grains within meteorites. The proportions of each isotope vary from grain to grain. If the solar system formed from a single supernova, all the grains should have roughly the same abundances of isotopes. Since they don’t, most scientists view the isotopes in a particular grain as a clue to its origin, and, hence, as evidence that meteorites, and most other bodies in the solar system, are made of heterogeneous material derived from many stars. That makes Manuel’s theory look less likely than ever. “Fifteen years ago, I would have kept a question mark in my mind,” said cosmochemist Roy Lewis, of the Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago. “I would have said well he’s almost certainly wrong but by golly if he turns out to be right, won’t that be interesting.” Although most scientists don’t believe Manuel’s theory, they all acknowledge that outlandish hypotheses have been proven correct in the past. It seems especially unlikely in Manuel’s case, however. In addition to citing the contradictory evidence, many scientists also dismiss the iron-Sun theory on the grounds of simplicity. Most observations of our solar system can be explained by fairly common processes, so why evoke rare and complicated explanations? Still, some scientists see fringe theorists like Manuel as an asset, as they make people reassess long-held theories. “Manuel is a little off the wall,” Lewis says. “But science is filled with people a little off the wall. Our great strength is to allow them to express their views.” Manuel’s views got an airing again at the January meeting of the American Astronomical Society meeting in Washington, DC, where once again they received little notice. Meanwhile, Manuel continues to argue his theory with an air of implacable certainty, believing that solar physics is on the verge of a revolution. He talks as though scientists need only to come to their senses and reassess the data. “I’m not trying to refute the professional careers of the scientists whose shoulders I’m standing on,” Manuel says. “My work depends on their evidence. It’s just a different interpretation.”

  153. Poptech says:

    On another note Leif seems to “carpet bomb” threads with his theory of the sun as much as Dr. Manuel did.

    REPLY: Dr. Manuel had been asked on several occasions NOT to continue, he’d been warned not to post his theories on threads that have nothing to do with the sun, yet persisted. That’s when I cut him off. Dr. Svalgaard doesn’t try posting linkbacks to papers he’s written on threads that have nothing to do with solar science. There’s the difference.

    I gave Dr. Manuel every opportunity to stop his disruptive posting, and he continued. That’s what earned him a ban. As I mention, he’s very polite, but it’s like inviting somebody over for dinner who only wants to talk about a single subject and ruins the conversation for other guests. Eventually, such people find themselves uninvited. – Anthony

  154. johnnythelowery says:

    Interesting thread.

    Oliver was incesant. IN fairness, Anthony gave full and fair warning to knock it off
    but he didn’t listen. He also got booted off of Tallblokes but reason unknown. I liked
    Oliver; he was pleasant and interesting but no one liked his theory.

  155. Poptech says:

    Wow, I didn’t realize that a one word utterance from me had the power to “officially discredit” a book.

    Now you know.

    While it will not stop some skeptics from buying it, it really makes any serious discussion of it pointless. If a Wikipedia page is created about it, you are sure to be quoted. If a laymen brings it up for discussion somewhere, you are sure to be quoted. Like it or not you are the most well know skeptic site online.

    It will be eventually spun to, “Even Anthony Watts thinks the Book is full of Crackpots”.

    For the record I have not read the book, I am just discussing the PR of this.

  156. Poptech says:
    December 1, 2010 at 8:43 pm
    It will be eventually spun to, “Even Anthony Watts thinks the Book is full of Crackpots”.
    Having Oliver as an author shows poor judgement on part of the lead author [Tim Ball]. Oliver’s contribution is his conspiracy theory that ‘mainstream’ astrophysicists are part of a vast conspiracy to suppress data that might discredit Oliver’s theory. Possibly, Ball thought that that somehow resembled mainstream climate science trying to ‘hide the decline’. The book would have been better without O.K.M.
    BTW, my comments are not about ‘my’ solar theory, but reflect pretty much ‘standard’ textbook theory.

  157. maksimovich says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    December 1, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    If we may assume that the CO2 releases of the eruptions and the continuous venting years after the eruption are in ratio with the VEI index, thus also logarithmic, then even the sum of all volcanic eruptions of each year between 1991 and 2010 doesn’t reach 10% of what the Pinatubo alone emitted, which didn’t increase the CO2 levels.
    Thus the contribution of volcanoes to the rise of CO2 or the decline of d13C is negligible.

    The sign is inverse to expectations eg Duggan et al 2009

    The role of airborne volcanic ash for the surface ocean biogeochemical iron-cycle:
    a review

    Iron is a key limiting micro-nutrient for marine primary productivity. It can be supplied to the ocean by atmospheric dust deposition. Volcanic ash deposition into the ocean represents another external and so far largely neglected source of iron. This study 5 demonstrates strong evidence for natural fertilisation in the iron-limited oceanic area of the NE Pacific, induced by volcanic ash from the eruption of Kasatochi volcano in August 2008. Atmospheric and oceanic conditions were favourable to generate a massive phytoplankton bloom in the NE Pacific Ocean which for the first time establishes a causal connection between oceanic iron-fertilisation and volcanic ash supply….

    ..In 1993 Jorge L. Sarmiento linked the unexpected relative
    drawdown of atmospheric CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere following the 1991
    large-scale eruption of Pinatubo volcano (Philippines) to oceanic iron fertilization with
    volcanic ash (Sarmiento, 1993). He mentioned the unfortunate luck in the lack of an
    ocean colour imager available at that time, as the according increase in MPP would
    likely have been visible from space. Sarmiento made some simple calculations as to
    the amount of iron required from the Pinatubo volcanic matter but these were based
    on the bulk composition of the material that did not take into account how the iron was
    bound (e.g. in soluble salts or less soluble silicate structures) (Spirakis, 1991). In 1997
    Andrew Watson drew the attention to an extra atmospheric oxygen pulse emanating
    from the ocean in the Southern Hemisphere (Keeling et al., 1996), eventually associated with the post-Pinatubo eruption atmospheric CO2-drawdown. He linked this to iron-fertilisation with volcanic ash in the iron-limited Southern Ocean, which is a major HNLC area (Watson, 1997). Watson further stressed that iron-fertilisation with volcanic ash can not only cause short-term perturbations of the atmospheric CO2 but may also have long-term effects – on the order of thousands of years – through changes in the inorganic to organic carbon rain ratio associated with diatom blooms. In his iron-flux calculations he assumed (based on measurements of aeolian dust) that 1% of the bulk iron content is soluble and thus bio-available for uptake in marine phytoplankton.In order to link oceanic Fe-addition to C-cycles, Watson used the molar C:Fe ratio of phytoplankton observed in iron-limited areas, which is on the order of 10^5. This large number stresses that even relatively small amounts of iron added to the surface ocean may have a strong impact on the MPP and C-cycles. In a more recent paper it was proposed that fertilisation by volcanic fallout may be partly responsible for productivity feedback and the termination of global warmth at the Paleocene/Eocene boundary (Bains et al., 2000). This implies that surface ocean iron-fertilisation by volcanic ash might be among the essential processes in shaping the Earth’s climate history.

  158. David Socrates says:

    Anthony,

    You must be really regretting your wholly innocent comment about Oliver K. Manuel’s “nutty iron Sun theory”. It is extraordinary that ¾ of your blog responses are obsessing about this theory rather than about the real subject of the blog – an intriguing new book that forcefully argues against CO2 being a global warming mechanism at all.

    Call me narrow minded but, frankly, I really couldn’t care less about what is or is not at the centre of the Sun. However I do care a lot about whether the CO2 warming theory is true or false. What a pity the blog trail was inadvertently hijacked by a completely irrelevant side issue.

    I have downloaded and read the electronic version of the book. Oliver Manuel’s chapter is very short, almost completely incomprehensible, and utterly unmemorable. But that is in contrast to the remaining chapters by the other authors, all of which are fascinating, intellectually challenging and written with great clarity and simplicity.

    As far as I can gather after a quick initial reading of the book, the thrust of the argument is that that CO2 has no effect on the warmth of the Earth’s atmosphere because any minor effects that the trace gas might exhibit arecompletely negated by the energy transfer balancing effects of water in all its three phases.

    In a nutshell, any warming of the oceans (which cover 70% of the Earth’s surface) causes evaporation, causes more cloud cover, causes a raised albedo, causes less radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, causes compensatory cooling. This is a closed loop control system which fortuitously contains an extreme non-linearity (the evaporation of water off the ocean surfaces goes up exponentially with the raised ocean water temperature). This non-linearity is the absolutely perfect ingredient for a very strong and stabilising natural thermostat, far more powerful by a factor of many than any greenhouse gas.

    Furthermore, and this is the crucial point, any minor warming effect that additional CO2 in the atmosphere might have is not just insignificant, it is actually fully compensated for by the Earth’s water cycle thermostat. This is because the CO2 warming effect is effectively inside the control loop of the water cycle thermostat. To understand the significance of this, a good analogy would be the effect of turning on a 3kW electric fan heater inside my 40kW centrally heated, and thermostatically controlled, house. The extra 3kW from the fan heater will not raise the temperature at all because the additional heat it supplies will be exactly compensated for by the thermostatically controlled CH boiler system, leaving my house at precisely the same temperature as it was before.

    The water cycle natural thermostat is not a new theory – others including me have advocated it many times – but this is the first book I have read in which all these concepts have been explained so clearly and forcefully.

    I found the book challenging and compelling. It’s a pity your readers were sidelined onto a completely false trail on an arcane and irrelevant subject rather than addressing (and challenging) the arguments it raises. I urge everyone to read it and comment on it and get a real debate going. This is no side issue – it could well be the end game for AGW.

  159. maksimovich says:
    December 1, 2010 at 11:02 pm

    Thanks for the background, which adds to the evidence that volcanic events are not the cause of the CO2 increase.

    BTW, I also read somewhere of another (additional?) reason for the CO2 drop after the Pinatubo eruption: small particles in the stratosphere makes that incoming sunlight is partly scattered in all directions. That makes that leaves which are part of the day in the shadow of other leaves for direct sunlight, receive more indirect sunlight, thus increasing total photosynthesis…

  160. David Socrates says:
    December 1, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    The iron sun theory is one part of the book which is at least questionable, but another more essential part is totally wrong too. As their own words say:

    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.

    While what he says is partly true, the IPCC doesn’t count solely on the d13C level of what happens to CO2 in the atmosphere, but also on the oxygen balance and the d14C level changes before 1950 to make the differentiation between d13C changes caused by fossil fuel burning and organics decay. That was nicely summarised in the following graph in the TAR at page 206:

    http://www.grida.no/climate/IPCC_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-03.PDF

    or directly here:

    This reflects very badly on the author of this chapter of the book, as it is easy to find out what the IPCC authors did take into account in reality.

    That are already two chapters which contain accusations of conspiracy or fraud which are either very discutable (iron sun) or proven wrong (origin of the d13C decline). Even if the rest of the chapters is right (I do agree to a large extent with the water thermostat theory), this makes that the whole book is contaminated and easily can be dismissed by the opposants as bunk.

  161. David Ball says:

    This has been a very revealing thread.

  162. oneuniverse says:

    Leif Svalgaard: “Having Oliver as an author shows poor judgement on part of the lead author [Tim Ball].”

    At the risk of being accused of going ballistically ad-hominem, the personal credibility of OKM is in question :

    “Dr. Oliver Manuel arrested for multiple counts of rape and sodomy of his children” (2006)

    “The allegations that are being prosecuted came from four of Manuel’s children. Sharon Manuel, 50, his adopted daughter, alleged the abuse took place from the time she was 6 to 14 years old. Oliver Manuel Jr., 43, his biological son, alleged that the abuse took place from the time he was 11 to 17 years old. James Rosenburg, 34, his stepson, alleged the abuse took place from the time he was 7 to 17 years old. Sirikka Llohoefner, 27, his biological daughter alleged the abuse took place from the time she was 5 to 11 years old. ”

    I apologise if mentioning this is considered distasteful. I’m personally grateful that OKM is banned from the comments here, as I suffer something akin to panic when I now encounter his comments.

    re: OKM’s scientific work
    I originally had some interest in what Manuel wrote, not because of his iron sun theory (which I understand struggles to account for many observations), but because he’d made what sounded like an interesting successful prediction, the (in his own words) “1983 prediction that the Galileo probe would find “strange” xenon in the helium-rich atmosphere of Jupiter [O. K. Manuel and Golden Hwaung, Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222]. The prediction was confirmed when the xenon isotope data from Jupiter were released in 1998 [O. Manuel, Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33 (1998, extended abstract 5011) A97.”

    Leif, if it isn’t OT, I’d appreciate your thoughts on this scientific validity and significance of the above.

  163. Myrrh says:

    Moshpit: Someone still needs to explain to me why it is so much hotter in Phoenix than in Atlanta on a sunny summer day. Same elevation and latitude, but Atlanta has 4 times as much “greenhouse gases.” It seems to me that the radiation cartoons can’t explain this.

    AGW radiation cartoons are produced the other side of the looking glass, in this case the opposite effect of “greenhouse gases” is touted as ‘real’, and all arguments then based on this, pro and con. Water is the greenhouse gas of our real greenhouse world, the greenhouse being the whole atmosphere, without it our world would be hotter, not colder, in other words, real greenhouse gases primarily cool the atmosphere, they don’t warm it. All the ‘back-radiation’ arguments are irrelevant.

    The difference between the two places is percentage of humidity. The higher the humidity, the cooler the local atmosphere. Water vapour as the major real greenhouse gas in our real world and not the world we step into with Alice, absorbs the greater heat from the sun in more humid areas and because water vapour is lighter than air and heat rises and so on as in real world physics, takes that heat up and away (bringing it down as rain as it reaches colder higher levels and washing the dirt out our atmosphere in doing so, the cool wash recycle programme..). Without water our world would be some 20-30oC hotter. Hotter AGW claims it would be some 20oC colder. Our world would turn into a desert without water to cool us down from the effects of the sun.

    That’s why it’s taken out of AGW cartoons and models, so the modellers can continue to pretend that water does not have a significant role to play in cooling the earth, it’s best to ignore it altogether.

    What’s more difficult to understand is why anti-AGWScience protagonists join in by arguing from the AGWScience premise that water is a greenhouse gas in the AGWScience sense, that “greenhouse gases warm the earth and without it the earth would be colder”. So the arguments roll on, that AGW doesn’t take into account the greater direct warming potential of water vapour v CO2, and that greenhouse gases actually cool the earth in our wonderful greenhouse is excised …

    I can only imagine that the AGWScience from the other side of the mirror has so successfully inculcated their impossible looking glass premise into ‘general knowledge’ that even otherwise real science antis take it as read.

  164. oneuniverse says:
    December 2, 2010 at 6:57 am
    “1983 prediction that the Galileo probe would find “strange” xenon in the helium-rich atmosphere of Jupiter [O. K. Manuel and Golden Hwaung, Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222].
    For this to be relevant, he would have to show that this can only be explained by the iron sun theory. There is no doubt that all the material heavier than helium comes from supernovae somewhere, so the iron sun does not uniquely ‘predict’ this.

  165. Poptech says:

    oneuniverse, Thank you for the information.

    Trial begins for retired professor Manuel (The Missouri Miner)

    This is unreal. How come this was never brought up before?

    REPLY: It has been, but in other places, and it didn’t get “legs” as they say in the news business. It’s been on Scienceblogs/deltoid in comments in 2008 as well as Physorg.com http://www.physorg.com/news163863704.html in 2009. It is an ugly situation, and had I known about it I would have banned Dr. Manuel long before I did. Unfortunately like you, the comment from “oneuniverse” is the first I heard of it.

    – Anthony

  166. bsfootprint says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 1, 2010 at 9:34 pm
    Oliver’s contribution is his conspiracy theory that ‘mainstream’ astrophysicists are part of a vast conspiracy to suppress data that might discredit Oliver’s theory.

    Leif,

    You’ve mentioned OKM’s conspiracy views several times. I’ve not read any of his materials, and I have no plans to purchase the Sky Dragon book. Are there online references where he mentions the conspiracy views you mention? I’d like to know if you are characterizing them accurately (I assume you are, but I’d rather not assume).

  167. bsfootprint says:

    Poptech says:
    December 2, 2010 at 8:38 am

    oneuniverse, Thank you for the information.

    Trial begins for retired professor Manuel (The Missouri Miner)

    This is unreal. How come this was never brought up before?

    REPLY: It has been, but in other places, and it didn’t get “legs” as they say in the news business. It’s been on Scienceblogs/deltoid in comments in 2008 as well as Physorg.com http://www.physorg.com/news163863704.html in 2009. It is an ugly situation, and had I known about it I would have banned Dr. Manuel long before I did. Unfortunately like you, the comment from “oneuniverse” is the first I heard of it.

    – Anthony

    Now that’s disturbing. I had no idea. Thanks for posting these links. Dr. Manuel’s behavior seemed odd — I have seen his iron sun ‘carpet bombing’ on other blogs. This is the first I’ve read of the charges and trial. I’m not sure what to make of all of this, but I’ll certainly keep it in mind.

    Anthony, good on you for banning OKM if indeed he was carpet bombing your blog the way I’ve seen on Judith Curry’s blog. After the first few comments on Judith’s blog that seemed to be copy-and-paste templates promoting his theories, I just started to scroll past them without reading — ironic, as I doubt he understands he causes readers to tune out by his ham-fisted promotional antics.

  168. bsfootprint says:
    December 2, 2010 at 8:50 am
    Are there online references where he mentions the conspiracy views you mention?
    E.g. from himself: http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/booker-vs-pachauri/#comment-145
    but just google ‘oliver manual conspiracy’ or ‘corruption’

  169. TomRude says:

    Sad indeed to have the thread highjacked… I was hoping for a review of various aspects not Dr. Manuel’s sun theory.

    REPLY: Hope elsewhere, because there’s no way in double hockeysticks it will ever be discussed here again. – Anthony

  170. oneuniverse says:

    Leif Svalgaard: For this to be relevant, he would have to show that this can only be explained by the iron sun theory.

    Thank you Leif. If observations contradict a prediction of the currently accepted model, then they are relevant (even if not establishing the iron sun theory, as you point out).

    To better phrase my query: Was strange xenon actually found in Jupiter’s atmosphere as described by Dr. Manuel? Does the standard cosmological model make a prediction about xenon in the Jovian atmosphere? If so, is the prediction contradicted by observations (as claimed by Dr. Manuel ) ?

  171. oneuniverse says:
    December 2, 2010 at 10:50 am
    Does the standard cosmological model make a prediction about xenon in the Jovian atmosphere? If so, is the prediction contradicted by observations (as claimed by Dr. Manuel ) ?
    It is much simpler than that. The cloud from which the solar system originated was a mixture of grains and gases from several [very many, throughout the 7 billion years that went before the Sun was formed] supernovae and was therefore inhomogeneous from the start, i.e had different isotopic composition in different places, so it is not surprising that there are different amounts of Xenon. No detailed prediction is possible, but the amounts found were not inconsistent with the standard picture. If there had been NO Xenon at all, for example, the standard model would be in trouble.

  172. oneuniverse says:

    REPLY: Hope elsewhere, because there’s no way in double hockeysticks it will ever be discussed here again. – Anthony

    Hi Anthony, please consider allowing my question to Leif at 10:50 am to pass, to hopefully allow Leif to possibly clear up the point about strange xenon in Jupiter. In case it’s necessary for me to restate : I think that the iron sun theory is wrong, and I’m not arguing for it or some improvement of it.

    However, at the same time, I’ve had a little time to recover from the shock of reading about Dr. Manuel’s actions, and I’d prefer this point cleared up, the unpleasantness notwithstanding – perhaps it’s just a personal bother, and this is not the venue or time to discuss this – I just thought Leif might be able to settle the matter in a single swift comment.

  173. oneuniverse says:
    December 2, 2010 at 10:50 am
    Does the standard cosmological model make a prediction about xenon in the Jovian atmosphere? If so, is the prediction contradicted by observations (as claimed by Dr. Manuel ) ?
    I have a confession to make: Oliver’s papers are incomprehensible [to me at least]. Perhaps you [or someone else] could explain why the ‘strange Xenon’ shows that the Sun today has a neutron star in the core, and that there can not be another explanation for the Xenon.

  174. Joe Olson says:

    As co-author to the subject text I find the Dr Maunel criminal behavior very disturbing. I do find this thread very interesting and the OKM content now less important. Perhaps Anthony can open a new ‘OKM free thread’ so we can begin anew with the many relevant issues the Slayers have presented.

    My chapter was written to present technical information in laymans terms and have been taken out of context above. “Rare amoung compounds is the fact that water exists in all three phases in our enviroment” is 100% correct in laymans terms. Water can be solid ice, liquid water or water vapor and is present as such on the surface AND in the atmosphere.

    “There is largely ignored evidence that the past atmosphere was vastly different than that of today by comparison of winged flight” is entirely correct. There is very credible evidence that 60 million years ago sea level air density was TWICE the current level. There is absolutely NO question that there is constant erosion of the upper atmosphere by solar wind. There is logical reason to believe that explosion of a super volcano or a large meteroite could draw some atmosphere beyond the pull of Earths gravity.

    My revelations on Carbon-14 dating are in the book Two volume and concern Earth’s fission generated ‘elemental’ Carbon which has absolutely no relationship to atmospheric levels which also vary with cosmic rays from both the Sun and the Universe. We are engaging in the greatest debate in the history of science and welcome all informed dissent. Thanks to Anthony and all of the commentors.

Comments are closed.