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.
Lubos,
I agree that it is pretty hard to make iron in nuclear reactions. It isn’t made in fission or fusion reactions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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! 🙂
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.
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.”
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
jae
start here, it’s free
http://maths.ucd.ie/met/msc/PhysMet/PhysMetLectNotes.pdf
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].
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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?
.
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).
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.
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.