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.
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?
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.
“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’?
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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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…
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
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:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
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):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/d13c_trends.jpg
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…
here’s a book to read
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0972903305/ref=nosim/mitopencourse-20
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”).
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!
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.
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
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)?
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.
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?
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.
#
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.
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.
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…
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…
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.
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
“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.
Margaret Ball says: “ the writing is . . . ”
Nutty ! ?
Thank you.