I have not read this book, but it has been raising some volume in Skeptic websites. What strikes me is the number of authors, it has (9 by my count).
Strangely, one of the authors, Oliver K. Manuel, is a person I’ve banned from WUWT for carpet bombing threads with his vision of the Iron Sun Theory, which I personally think is nutty. So, that right there gives me some pause. But, I haven’t read the book, so it may have nothing to do with that. OTOH, he’s one of the most well mannered commenters you’ll ever find.
The main thrust of the book seems to be discovering what they say is a flaw in understanding and accounting for 13C/12C isotopes within carbon dioxide, and this then points to a different signature related to human produced CO2.
Over at Climate Change Dispatch, they have this to say about it:
Newly released science book revelation is set to heap further misery on UN global warming researchers. Will latest setback derail Cancun Climate conference?
Authors of a new book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ claim they have debunked the widely established greenhouse gas theory climate change. In the first of what they say will be a series of sensational statements to promote the launch of their book, they attack a cornerstone belief of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – what is known as the “carbon isotope argument.”
Mišo Alkalaj, is one of 24 expert authors of this two-volume publication, among them are qualified climatologists, prominent skeptic scientists and a world leading math professor. It is Alkalaj’s chapter in the second of the two books that exposes the fraud concerning the isotopes 13C/12C found in carbon dioxide (CO2).
If true, the disclosure may possibly derail last-ditch attempts at a binding international treaty to ‘halt man-made global warming.’ At minimum the story will be sure to trigger a fresh scandal for the beleaguered United Nations body.
Do Human Emissions of Carbon Dioxide Exhibit a Distinct Signature?
The low-key internal study focused on the behavior of 13C/12C isotopes within carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules and examined how the isotopes decay over time. Its conclusions became the sole basis of claims that ‘newer’ airborne CO2 exhibits a different and thus distinct ‘human signature.’ The paper was employed by the IPCC to give a green light to researchers to claim they could quantify the amount of human versus natural proportions just from counting the number of isotopes within that ‘greenhouse gas.’
Alkalaj, who is head of Center for Communication Infrastructure at the “J. Stefan” Institute, Slovenia says because of the nature of organic plant decay, that emits CO2, such a mass spectrometry analysis is bogus. Therefore, it is argues, IPCC researchers are either grossly incompetent or corrupt because it is impossible to detect whether carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is of human or organic origin.
…
The 13C/12C argument being attacked by Mišo Alkalaj may be found in IPCC’s AR4 – The Physical Science Basis Working Group. The IPCC clarifies its position on Page 139 of that chapter.
According to Miso the fatal assumption made by the IPCC is that the atmospheric concentration of the 13C isotope (distinctive in prehistoric plants) are fixed. They also assume C3-type plants no longer exist so would need to be factored into the equations. Indeed, as Miso points out such plants, “make up 95% of the mass of all current plant life.”
Therefore, decay of 95% of present-day plant material is constantly emitting the 13C-deficient carbon dioxide supposedly characteristic of coal combustion—and CO2 emitted by plant decay is an order of magnitude greater than all human-generated emissions.
…
From Amazon.com:
Even before publication, Slaying the Sky Dragon was destined to be the benchmark for future generations of climate researchers. This is the world’s first and only full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming.
Nine leading international experts methodically expose how willful fakery and outright incompetence were hidden within the politicized realm of government climatology. Applying a thoughtful and sympathetic writing style, the authors help even the untrained mind to navigate the maze of atmospheric thermodynamics. Step-by-step the reader is shown why the so-called greenhouse effect cannot possibly exist in nature.
By deft statistical analysis the cornerstones of climate equations – incorrectly calculated by an incredible factor of three – are exposed then shattered.
This volume is a scientific tour de force and the game-changer for international environmental policymakers as well as being a joy to read for hard-pressed taxpayers everywhere.
==============================================================
There is also a kindle version available on Amazon.com.
At this point I can’t recommend the book from either a pro or con perspective, I’m just making it known to WUWT readers.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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” 🙂
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” 😉
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!
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:
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,
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.
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
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.
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”.
Thank you Keith Minto for the geologist Timothy Casey site.! That’s what we need around here.
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
Barry, is that you?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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,…)
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.
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.
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?