Lord Monckton...hero of Denialism
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
I know what your message is, and for the last time I don't care about appearances. To go back to the beginning, I linked to the reports, and noted that no inquiry of any kind thus far has found evidence of fraud. You responded to me, that you had heard they (plural no less) were biased. I've asked for examples, and I've received none, just examples of connections that could have biased panel members conclusions.
So to repeat, the reports that have investigated the CRU have found no evidence of fraud.
Also, you don't need to repeat that you have not questioned AGW...I haven't even touched that subject with you.
Not evidence of bias.
Enjoy the beer.
Do you know whether the Chinese or Indians will sacrifice economic development for mitigation of AGW?
Well, the Chinese are the building more renewable energy than any other nation. Mixing renewable energy-which is still more expensive- into the suite of power generation instead of building all coal power, is sacrificing economic development.
But I can't give you an answer on what any nation will do...'tis a strange question to ask. Why do you ask?
Because the world has changed. It doesn't matter what we in the West think or do about AGW. The Chinese, Indians and others will do what they did in Copenhagen in December of 2009 at the Global Warming Conference. They will pursue their own interests no matter what we want. Lord Monckton is irrelevant.
Senator Inhoffe asked the Office of the Inspector General to investigate the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it's data, it's involvement with CRU, and it's peer review and data access procedures. No evidence of wrong doing either.
Inspector General?s Review of Stolen Emails Confirms No Evidence of Wrong-Doing by NOAA Climate Scientists
Of course it does. You're being myopic in the extreme. Taking action when we are already the most energy intensive strengthens the bargaining position for meetings like those in Copenhagen. Leading in energy efficient technologies will create jobs, improve the health of people, of communities devastated by lost manufacturing, and improve air and water quality.
An analogy makes the point. Just because one person can't change the obesity epidemic, doesn't mean they shouldn't address their own obesity. And if everyone thought like that, nothing in the world would ever change.
Myopic. Or maybe just a severe pessimist.
I am not myopic. Perhaps I am pessimistic, but so was Cassandra of Trojan fame. No one listened to her either.
Obesity happens in autonomous units called individuals. Global warming is like a communicable disease that becomes a pandemic. The West can do whatever it wants, but it won't make any difference as long as China and India don't fully participate.
China won't participate in mitigation of global warming as long as it remains under the control of a Leninist party who's sole basis for legitimacy is economic growth. When economic growth ends so does the CCP's legitimacy. Politics, economics and environmentalism are all interrelated.
I'm sorry, but that is just plain dumb.
So who should investigate the science and the methods of scientists?
Comedians?
No it's not.
It's really a segway into another topic because he was losing the previous one.
Seen it many times from the good captain and his ship mates.
Here's the cycle....
Denier....the earth isn't warming.
Science and facts....Yes it is.
Denier.....It isn't caused by us.
Science and facts....Yes it is.
Denier....The data is corupt because of emails that show corruption.
Science and facts....No it isn't and no they don't.
Denier....(this is were they begin to lose their minds) it's contrails, it's electricity, it's a polar magnetic shift, Carl Sagan is a shame artists, Al Gore is an alien jewish banker in a marxists plot to take over the world....etc etc etc.
Sanity......sniff glue much.
Then a long absence only to start all over again.
Denier....The earth isn't warming.
Science and facts....Yawn.
Either way the ship of denialism is sinking slowly but surely.
You gain nothing by insulting me. Nothing whatsoever. Insults only diminish the person doing the insulting.
If global warming is real, then it's effects will spread through the entire biosphere, from one ecosystem to another.
Who should investigate? Scientists who are independent and who are not now, or have in the past been, connected or affiliated with those being investigated.
Toni and I had reached an impasse in that I subscribe to the view that the Tribunal which "exonerated" Phil Jones and Michael Mann lacked independence because the panel was not composed entirely of scientists who were unrelated to the institutions with which Jones was affiliated. Any judge in a similar position would recuse herself. Toni obviously disagreed with my interpretation of independence. My view is legalistic. His is not.
I then raised the irrelevance of Monckton by showing that whatever happens in the West will not stop AGW. There is no escaping that fact except to deny that the Western era is over. Do you deny that the Western era is over?
Would you prefer that I call your comments short sighted? It's not meant to be an insult, but your comments clearly are lacking a view of the larger picture.
That's not a pandemic. And it is effecting all ecosystems.
Your view isn't legalistic. The law has a burden of proof, and you can't throw out a decision without showing that the lack of independence that you argue is there, had a demonstrable effect in the outcome of the case. You haven't shown that, though I have asked.
Your view is on optics, as I said already. Appearances don't count in an appeal, facts do.
Dissent is Avros enemy therefore Avro is the enemy of dissent and doubt, two absolutely necessary qualities to conduct sound science. When he argues against deniers he argues against science and for naked authority.
Deniers and skeptics are two different animals beave.
You are neither....you're just plain looney.
Yep, heard you the first hundred times.
Then show how you came to these conclusions by telling us who in all the panels including the one just completed is connected to Mann and Phil Jones.
Keep in mind that these panels found flaws in the methods they were using as far as information sharing but has in no way affected the science which all institutions and scientists conclude is sound inside and outside of the CRU.
Intent and perception are subjective. I would prefer that you not mention me or any personal characteristic. Mentioning me or my characteristics is reasonably susceptible to interpretation as perjorative. Care is required to avoid offending others. We focus on the issues. Notice that I never say anything about you as an individual. The larger picture is not what you and I have discussed. I am focused on the appearance of a flaw in the Tribunal.
What do you mean?
I am not asserting anything other than that there is a flaw in the Tribunal's composition that creates the appearance of a lack of independence or bias if you will. I am not reaching the question of whether the Tribunal rendered a valid judgment. I have satisfied the burden of going forward with the evidence by pointing out the flaw in the composition of the panel. Now the burden of going forward with the evidence has shifted to you, and you have not gone forward with the evidence. Instead you have addressed the panel's judgment which is not the subject of our debate.
Substance and form both count. Neither can be dismissed.
Climate sensitivity describes how sensitive the global climate is to a change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere (a.k.a. a radiative forcing). For example, we know that if the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere doubles from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 560 ppmv, this will cause an energy imbalance by trapping more outgoing thermal radiation in the atmosphere, enough to directly warm the surface approximately 1.2°C. However, this doesn't account for feedbacks, for example ice melting and making the planet less reflective, and the warmer atmosphere holding more water vapor (another greenhouse gas).
Climate sensitivity is the amount the planet will warm when accounting for the various feedbacks affecting the global climate. The relevant formula is:
dT = λ*dF
Where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, 'λ' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W m-2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing, which is discussed in further detail in the Advanced rebuttal to the 'CO2 effect is weak' argument.
Climate sensitivity is not specific to CO2
It's important to note that the surface temperature change is proportional to the sensitivity and radiative forcing (in W m-2), regardless of the source of the energy imbalance. The climate sensitivity to different radiative forcings differs depending on the efficacy of the forcing, but the climate is not significantly more sensitive to other radiative forcings besides greenhouse gases.
Figure 1: Efficacies of various radiative forcings as calculated in numerous different studies (IPCC 2007)
In other words, if you argue that the Earth has a low climate sensitivity to CO2, you are also arguing for a low climate sensitivity to other influences such as solar irradiance, orbital changes, and volcanic emissions. In fact, as shown in Figure 1, the climate is less sensitive to changes in solar activity than greenhouse gases. Thus when arguing for low climate sensitivity, it becomes difficult to explain past climate changes. For example, between glacial and interglacial periods, the planet's average temperature changes on the order of 6°C (more like 8-10°C in the Antarctic). If the climate sensitivity is low, for example due to increasing low-lying cloud cover reflecting more sunlight as a response to global warming, then how can these large past climate changes be explained?
Figure 2: Antarctic temperature changes over the past 450,000 years as measured from ice cores
What is the possible range of climate sensitivity?
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized climate sensitivity as "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values."
Individual studies have put climate sensitivity from a doubling of CO2 at anywhere between 0.5°C and 10°C; however, as a consequence of increasingly better data, it appears that the extreme higher and lower values are very unlikely. In fact, as climate science has developed and advanced over time , estimates have converged around 3°C. A summary of recent climate sensitivity studies can be found here.
A study led by Stefan Rahmstorf concluded "many vastly improved models have been developed by a number of climate research centers around the world. Current state-of-the-art climate models span a range of 2.6–4.1°C, most clustering around 3°C" (Rahmstorf 2008). Several studies have put the lower bound of climate sensitivity at about 1.5°C,on the other hand, several others have found that a sensitivity higher than 4.5°C can't be ruled out.
A 2008 study led by James Hansen found that climate sensitivity to "fast feedback processes" is 3°C, but when accounting for longer-term feedbacks (such as ice sheet disintegration, vegetation migration, and greenhouse gas release from soils, tundra or ocean), if atmospheric CO2 remains at the doubled level, the sensitivity increases to 6°C based on paleoclimatic (historical climate) data.
What are the limits on the climate sensitivity value?
Paleoclimate
The main limit on the sensitivity value is that it has to be consistent with paleoclimatic data. A sensitivity which is too low will be inconsistent with past climate changes - basically if there is some large negative feedback which makes the sensitivity too low, it would have prevented the planet from transitioning from ice ages to interglacial periods, for example. Similarly a high climate sensitivity would have caused more and larger past climate changes.
One recent study examining the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 million years ago), during which the planet warmed 5-9°C, found that "At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5°C of the warming inferred from proxy records" (Zeebe 2009). This suggests that climate sensitivity may be higher than we currently believe, but it likely isn't lower.
Recent responses to large volcanic eruptions
Climate scientists have also attempted to estimate climate sensitivity based on the response to recent large volcanic eruptions, such as Mount Pinatubo in 1991. Wigley et al. (2005) found:
"Comparisons of observed and modeled coolings after the eruptions of Agung, El Chichón, and Pinatubo give implied climate sensitivities that are consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) range of 1.5–4.5°C. The cooling associated with Pinatubo appears to require a sensitivity above the IPCC lower bound of 1.5°C, and none of the observed eruption responses rules out a sensitivity above 4.5°C."
Similarly, Forster et al. (2006) concluded as follows.
"A climate feedback parameter of 2.3 +/- 1.4 W m-2 K-1 is found. This corresponds to a 1.0–4.1 K range for the equilibrium warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide"
Recent responses to the 11-year solar cycle
Tung and Camp (2007) noted that
"the annual rate of increase in radiative forcing of the lower atmosphere from solar min to solar max happens to be equivalent to that from a 1% per year increase in greenhouse gases, a rate commonly used in greenhouse-gas emission scenarios [Houghton and et al., 2001]. So it is interesting to compare the magnitude and pattern of the observed solar-cycle response to the transient warming expected due to increasing greenhouse gases in five years."
Tung and Camp were thus able to use satellite-based solar data over 4.5 cycles to calculate an observationally-determined model-independent climate sensitivity of 2.3-4.1°C for a doubling of CO2.
Other Empirical Observations
Gregory et al. (2002) used observed interior-ocean temperature changes, surface temperature changes measured since 1860, and estimates of anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing of the climate system to estimate its climate sensitivity. They found:
"we obtain a 90% confidence interval, whose lower bound (the 5th percentile) is 1.6 K. The median is 6.1 K, above the canonical range of 1.5–4.5 K; the mode is 2.1 K."
Examining Past Temperature Projections
In 1988, NASA climate scientist Dr James Hansen produced a groundbreaking study in which he produced a global climate model that calculated future warming based on three different CO2 emissions scenarios labeled A, B, and C (Hansen 1988). Now, after more than 20 years, we are able to review Hansen’s projections.
Hansen's model assumed a rather high climate sensitivity of 4.2°C for a doubling of CO2. His Scenario B has been the closest to reality, with the actual total radiative forcing being about 10% higher than in this emissions scenario. The warming trend predicted in this scenario from 1988 to 2010 was about 0.26°C per decade whereas the measured temperature increase over that period was approximately 0.18°C per decade, or about 40% lower than Scenario B.
Therefore, what Hansen's models and the real-world observations tell us is that climate sensitivity is about 40% below 4.2°C, or once again, right around 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. For further details, see the Advanced rebuttal to "Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong."
Probabilistic Estimate Analysis
Annan and Hargreaves (2009) investigated various probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity, many of which suggested a "worryingly high probability" (greater than 5%) that the sensitivity is in excess of than 6°C for a doubling of CO2. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, this study concluded that
"the long fat tail that is characteristic of all recent estimates of climate sensitivity simply disappears, with an upper 95% probability limit...easily shown to lie close to 4°C, and certainly well below 6°C."
Annan and Hargreaves concluded that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is probably close to 3°C, it may be higher, but it's probably not much lower.
Figure 3: Probability distribution of climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2
Summary of these results
Knutti and Hegerl (2008) presents a comprehensive, concise overview of our scientific understanding of climate sensitivity. In their paper, they present a figure which neatly encapsulates how various methods of estimating climate sensitivity examining different time periods have yielded consistent results, as the studies described above show. As you can see, the various methodologies are generally consistent with the range of 2-4.5°C, with few methods leaving the possibility of lower values, but several unable to rule out higher values.
Figure 4: Distributions and ranges for climate sensitivity from different lines of evidence. The circle indicates the most likely value. The thin colored bars indicate very likely value (more than 90% probability). The thicker colored bars indicate likely values (more than 66% probability). Dashed lines indicate no robust constraint on an upper bound. The IPCC likely range (2 to 4.5°C) and most likely value (3°C) are indicated by the vertical grey bar and black line, respectively.
What does all this mean?
According to a recent MIT study, we're currently on pace to reach this doubled atmospheric CO2 level by the mid-to-late 21st century.
Figure 5: Projected decadal mean concentrations of CO2. Red solid lines are median, 5%, and 95% for the MIT study, the dashed blue line is the same from the 2003 MIT projection.
So unless we change course, we're looking at a rapid warming over the 21st century. Most climate scientists agree that a 2°C warming is the 'danger limit'. Figure 5 shows temperature rise for a given CO2 level. The dark grey area indicates the climate sensitivity likely range of 2 to 4.5°C.
Figure 6: Relation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and key impacts associated with equilibrium global temperature increase. The most likely warming is indicated for climate sensitivity 3°C (black solid). The likely range (dark grey) is for the climate sensitivity range 2 to 4.5°C. Selected key impacts (some delayed) for several sectors and different temperatures are indicated in the top part of the figure (Knutti and Hegerl 2008) If we manage to stabilize CO2 levels at 450 ppmv (the atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv), according to the best estimate, we have a probability of less than 50% of meeting the 2°C target. The key impacts associated with 2°C warming can be seen at the top of Figure 6. The tight constraint on the lower limit of climate sensitivity indicates we're looking down the barrel of significant warming in future decades.
As the scientists at RealClimate put it,
"Global warming of 2°C would leave the Earth warmer than it has been in millions of years, a disruption of climate conditions that have been stable for longer than the history of human agriculture. Given the drought that already afflicts Australia, the crumbling of the sea ice in the Arctic, and the increasing storm damage after only 0.8°C of warming so far, calling 2°C a danger limit seems to us pretty cavalier."
Yes, you are focused on what might have happened in one investigation. Missing the bigger picture.
That global warming isn't analgous to a pandemic. I used obesity as an analogy because in both cases, the result is due to an imbalance in a system. If energy burned is less than the dietary energy consumed, the net impact is a gain in weight. If less energy leaves the planet than comes in, the net impact is the temperature must rise.
An Example of the Little-Moron Logic & Mendacity of BOOP:
The Carbon Isotope Ratio Nonsense.†
J. F. Kenney‡
Gas Resources Corporation
According to the program, I am supposed to explain the spontaneous generation of natural petroleum in 15(!) minutes. This subject is one which involves, in detail, the statistical mechanics of chemical thermodynamic stability theory. Fifteen minutes would be inadequate to give even an introduction to the subject.
For the moment, please understand first that the unnecessary and misleading adjective “abiotic” should be dropped as a modifier of the term natural petroleum. Natural petroleum is generated spontaneously only at high pressures. The high pressures necessary for the generation of petroleum occur at depths in the Earth where the temperatures are sufficiently high that any biological molecule would have thoroughly decomposed at a much shallower depth.
Many misguided persons have attempted during the past 75 years to demonstrate in laboratories a spontaneous generation of petroleum from biological detritus. All such attempts have failed utterly, - although many have been fraudulently misreported.
There is no information about petroleum generation that I can give to you which will be of any value to you, or which you will be able to use effectively, until you have taken a measure of the imbecility of the notion that natural petroleum is some sort of “fossil fuel” that has come into being through some (miraculous but unspecified) transformation of biological detritus in the regimes of temperature and pressure of the near-surface crust of the Earth. You must realize that the notion of a biological origin of petroleum is not only unscientific but also just plain humbug. [Hereafter, the phrase “biological-origin-of-petroleum” will be referred to by its acronym: BOOP]. Without such understanding or lacking such measure, even when given a clear description of the chemical processes by which natural petroleum spontaneously evolves, you will likely fall into one or more of the erroneous perspectives:
○ “Oh yes, the abiotic generation of petroleum is an interesting alternate view of oil and gas,” or
○ “Well, there may be some oil that has resulted from abiotic processes, but such must be only a negligible small amount,” or even,
○ “Modern petroleum science is rigorous alright, but, of course, all oil fields come from decayed organic matter (!!!)”.
Considering such errors and before going further:
○ Modern petroleum science is not an “alternate perspective” to BOOP, as astrophysics is not an alternate perspective to astrology, nor is cranial neurology to phrenology, nor chemistry to alchemy.
○ The quantity of natural petroleum which has been spontaneously generated abiotically according to the laws of physics and chemistry in the depths of the Earth exceed 1015 metric tons.1
○ All petroleum deposits are comprised of hydrocarbon compounds that have been generated abiotically at high pressure and in absence of any biological molecules.
†“Prepared as an invited paper for the Deep Carbon Cycle Workshop, Carnegie Institute, Washington, D. C., 15-17 May 2008”
‡J.F.Kenney@GasResources.net
©Gas Resources Corporation, 2008
I. The Little-Moron logic of the claims about the stable carbon isotope ratios.
The assertion that natural petroleum (“crude oil”) is a “fossil fuel” somehow evolved by a miraculous process of transformation from biological detritus in the thermodynamic regime of pressures and temperatures in the near-surface crust of the Earth, is a nonsensical, child’s fairy-story, supported by Little-Moron Logic and defended by lies. No aspect of the assertion that natural petroleum is of a biological origin demonstrates the Little-Moron Logic, and also the lies, more than do claims that the ratios of the stable isotopes of carbon, 12C and 13C, represent “evidence” for BOOP. These claims, and the moronic quality of the illogical arguments supporting them are here reviewed.
A common variety of Little-Moron Logic that runs through BOOP is the type that logicians designate “Affirming the Consequent.” In formal logic, affirming the Consequent is set forth by the following fallacious illogic. The formal proposition and its consequent:
Given an accepted syllogism or fact, -
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]If A, then B.
Then following an observation related to the syllogism or fact, -
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]B.
There proceeds theneafter the illogical affirmation of the consequent, -
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]then A.
Here are given three demonstrations of Little-Moron Logic that apply Affirming the Consequent.
1)[FONT="] [/FONT]Affirming the Consequent, - Marilyn Monroe/Hollywood Style:
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]Marilyn Monroe is a woman with blonde hair
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]That woman has blonde hair.
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]Therefore that woman is Marilyn Monroe.
2)[FONT="] [/FONT]Affirming the Consequent, – Lucy/Peanuts Style:
(taken from the comic strip of that name).
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]All cats are mortal.
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]Socrates is mortal.
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]Therefore Socrates is a cat.
3)[FONT="] [/FONT]Affirming the Consequent, - Barbara-Lollar/BOOP Style:
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]Biological matter manifests 13C/12C isotope ratios in the range more negative than – 18.0% on the Peedee Belemnite standard.
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]Some natural petroleum manifest 13C/12C isotope ratios in the range more negative than – 18.0% on the Peedee Belemnite standard.
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]Therefore natural petroleum comes from biological matter.
All of which are recognized to be pure Little-Moron Logic. Upon such are based all the claims that natural petroleum is supposedly derived from biological detritus because of its ratios of the stable carbon isotopes.
II. The technical inadequacy of the carbon isotope ratios as indicators of origin.
The claims made concerning the carbon stable-isotope ratios, and specifically such as purport to identify the origin of the material, particularly the hydrocarbons, are especially recondite and outside the experience of most persons not knowledgeable of the physics of hydrogen-carbon [H-C] systems. Furthermore, the claims concerning the carbon stable-isotope ratios most often involve methane, the only hydrocarbon which is thermodynamically stable in the regime of temperatures and pressures of the Earth’s crust and almost the only one which spontaneously evolves there.
The carbon nucleus has two stable isotopes, 12C and 13C. The overwhelmingly most abundance stable isotope of carbon is 12C, which possesses six protons and six neutrons; 13C possesses an extra neutron. (There is another, unstable isotope, 14C, which possesses two extra neutrons; 14C results from a high-energy reaction of the nitrogen nucleus, 14N, with a high-energy cosmic ray particle. The isotope 14C is not involved in the claims about the isotope ratios of carbon). The carbon isotope ratio, designated δ13C, is simply the ratio of the abundance of carbon isotopes 13C/12C, normalized to the standard of the marine carbonate Pee Dee Belemnite. The values of the measured δ13C ratio is expressed as a percentage (compared to the standard).
During the 1950’s, increasingly numerous measurements of the carbon isotope ratios of hydrocarbon gases were taken, particularly of methane; and too often assertions were made that such ratios could unambiguously determine the origin of the hydrocarbons. The validity of such assertions were tested, independently by Colombo, Gazzarini, and Gonfiantini in Italy and by Galimov in Russia. Both sets of workers established that the carbon isotope ratios cannot be used reliably to determine the origin of the carbon compound tested.
Columbo, Gazzarini, and Gonfiantini demonstrated conclusively, by a simple experiment the results of which admitted no ambiguity, that the carbon isotope ratios of methane change continuously along its transport path, becoming progressively lighter with distance traveled. Colombo et al. took a sample of natural gas and passed it through a column of crushed rock, chosen to resemble as closely as possible the terrestrial environment.2 Their results were definitive: The greater the distance of rock through which the sample of methane passes, the lighter becomes its carbon isotope ratio.
The reason for the result observed by Colombo et al. is straightforward: there is a slight preference for the heavier isotope of carbon to react chemically with the rock through which the gas passes. Therefore, the greater the transit distance through the rock, the lighter becomes the carbon isotope ratio, as the heavier is preferentially removed by chemical reaction along the transport path. This result is not surprising; contrarily, and is entirely consistent with the fundamental requirements of quantum mechanics and kinetic theory.
Pertinent to the matter of any claim that a light carbon isotope ratio might be indicative of a biological origin, the results demonstrated by Colombo et al. establish that such a claim is insupportable. Methane which might have originated from carbon material from the remains of a carbonaceous meteorite in the mantle of the Earth, and possessing initially a heavy carbon isotope ratio, would have that ratio diminished, along the path of its transit into the crust of the Earth, to a value comparable to common biological material.
Galimov demonstrated that the carbon isotope ratio of methane can become progressively heavier while at rest in a reservoir in the crust of the Earth, through the action of methane-consuming microbes.3 The city of Moscow stores methane in water-wet reservoirs on the outskirts of that city, into which natural gas is injected throughout the year. During summers, the quantity of methane in the reservoirs increases because of less use (primarily by heating), and during winters the quantity is drawn down. By calibrating the reservoir volumes and the distance from the injection facilities, the residency time of the methane in the reservoir is determined. Galimov established that the longer the methane remains in the reservoir, the heavier becomes its carbon isotope ratio.
The reason for the result observed by Galimov is also straightforward: In the water of the reservoir, there live microbes of the common, methane-metabolizing type. There is a slight preference for the lighter isotope of carbon to enter the microbe cell and to be metabolized. The longer the methane remains in the reservoir, the more of it is consumed by the methane-metabolizing microbes, with the molecules possessing lighter isotope being consumed more. Therefore, the longer its residency time in the reservoir, the heavier becomes the carbon isotope ratio, as the lighter is preferentially removed by methane-metabolizing microbes. This result is entirely consistent with the fundamental requirements of kinetic theory.
Furthermore, the carbon isotope ratios in hydrocarbon systems are also strongly influenced by the temperature of reaction. For hydrocarbons produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process, the δ13C varies from
-65% at 127 C to –20% at 177C.4,5 No material parameter, the measurement of which varies by almost 70% with a variation of temperature of only approximately 10%, can be used as a reliable determinant of any property of that material.
The δ13C carbon isotope ratio cannot be considered to determine reliably the origin of a sample of methane, - or any other compound, and no ethical and competent scientist or engineer would try to use them as such, excepting very unusual circumstances.
III. The Black Swan Effect & the Tuchman Phase-3 Phenomenon: The Mendacious Defense of the Little-Moron Logic about the Assertions that the Stable Carbon Isotopes Identify a Biological Origin of Petroleum [BOOP].
The phrase “Black Swan effect” has its origins in the scientific dictum that holds that a single exception disproves any putative claim,- i.e., the observation of a single black swan destroys any assertion that “all swans are white,” and does no matter how many white swans may have been observed. The Black Swan effect is a phenomenon recognized in mathematics and the hard sciences, and their associated engineering disciplines, whereby any single observed exception to a putative rule destroys that rule, irredeemably. In mathematics, a single demonstrated counter-example destroys any proposed theorem. The hard sciences provide many examples, such as:
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]When A. H. Michaelson first measured the transverse variation of the velocity of light, using the interferometer that he invented and which bears his name, and destroyed immediately the “undulating-ether” theory of light.
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]When E. Rutherford measured the scattering of alpha-particles in thin metallic films and destroyed at once the Thomson model of the atom.
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]When Mme Wu measure the asymmetry of beta-decay and destroyed the dictum of parity conservation in fundamental nuclear interactions.
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]When the young American from Woburn, Massachusetts, Benjamin Thompson, cranked up his cannon-boring machine and destroyed in an afternoon the caloric theory of heat which had been held previously to be true for half a century.
The Black Swan for the claims that the stable carbon isotope ratios might distinguish methane as of biotic or abiotic origin was the direct observation by Giardini & Melton6 that such cannot be considered a reliable criterion for ascertaining the origin of petroleum. Giardini & Melton took a primoridial natural diamond of 8.65 carats and measured the carbon isotope ratio of the CO2 entrapped in its inclusions. The results were an isotope ratio of –35.2% on the standard PeeDee scale. Previously the carbon isotope ratios more negative than – 18.0% had been assigned a biological origin. The diamond tested by Giardini & Melton was measured to be of an age of crystallization of at least 3.1 x 109 years, well before any record of biological life on Earth. The observation by Giardini & Melton destroyed any claimed validity of the carbon isotope ratio as a determinant of the origin of petroleum, - and probably of any other carbon compound.
Of course, an intelligent 12-year old schoolboy might be expected to ask, “why wasn’t the light-end limit of the carbon isotope ratios ever measured for the abiotic molecules before all the claims were made. After all, just because the heavy-end limit of the biotic molecules ends at – 18.0%, there stands no reason why the light-end limit of the abiotic molecules should coincide with this value.” The BOOPies have never asked this question.
Similarly, during the past forty years, a number of scientists, both in the former U.S.S.R. and in the U.S.A., have tested the validity of the assertions that a ratio of the abundances of the stable carbon isotopes can give a valid indication of the origin of the material from which the carbon material was obtained. Without exception, these scientists have demonstrated that the carbon isotope ratios can not give any reliable indication of the origin of the material of which the carbon atoms were obtained. These negative results have been shown to hold incontestably for any measurements which yield isotope ratios “lighter” than –18.0% by the PeeDee Belemenite standard and which have been often claimed to give “evidence” of a biotic origin. Samples of carbon fluids which manifest carbon isotope ratios “heavier” than –18.0% by the standard scale are usually (although not necessarily) “identified” as being of an abiotic origin. As the experiments of Galimov et al have demonstrated, such “identification” can easily be spurious. However, in circumstances in which the carbon fluids came from a high-temperature source and was characterized by a high flow rate, - as, for example, from a deep ocean vent, - then a “heavy” measure of the stable carbon isotope ratio may be taken as consistent with (not“proof of”) a deep, abiotic origin of such carbon fluids.
The Tuchman Phase-3 Phenomenon identifies the impetus behind the claims for the carbon isotopes ratios. When one acknowledges the discrediting of claims that a measurement of the relative abundances of stable carbon isotopes might give a valid determination of the origin of whatever fluid from such were taken, and particularly whether that fluid was of biotic or abiotic origin, the question stands: Why do some persons persist in asserting such scientifically insupportable claims? This question intrudes particularly when one notes that the assertions about the carbon isotope ratios were discredited more than twenty years ago.
The answer to this question has been given clearly by the historian Barbara Tuchman in her book “The March of Folly: From Troy to Viet Nam.”7 Tuchman poses the question: How do men of weak moral fiber react when confronted with information that threatens their social status, or their financial circumstance, or their professional position, or their status as an expert or guru in one area or another, or their political power? Borrowing from the behavioral sciences, Tuchman explains that such men invariably manifest the behavior identified as cognitive dissonance. The behavior of cognitive dissonance involves three phases which Tuchman describes as follows:
○ Phase I: Characterized by denial, usually with an attitude of “Don’t bother me with facts; my mind is made up.”
○ Phase II: Characterized by waffling and attempts to denigrate or minimize the significance of the unwelcome facts, usually with expressed claims like, “Oh, we already know all about such and so, and it’s really not relevant or important,” and often, “If you really possessed all the information that we do, you would understand that such and so is not as you think it to be.” And so on.
○ Phase III: Characterized by outright lying. In this phase, the moral weakling can no longer deny the unwelcome facts, and his contemporaries or the general public know that he knows such, - and he knows that they know he knows it. In this phase, the fellow descends to outright lying; he makes pronouncements that he knows to be false, and hopes to brazen it all out.
Phases I, II, and III are not mutually exclusive. A man can operate simultaneously in any two, or even all three. In this decade of this century, the purveyors of BOOP who try to proclaim that any measurement of the ratio of the abundances of the stable carbon isotopes gives a definite determination of
the origin of whatever compound or fluid has been tested, or of whether a hydrocarbon compound is of biotic or abiotic origin, are operating well into Tuchman’s Phase III. That the carbon isotope ratios cannot give any reliable determination is well known.
Such is the purveyance of BOOP: Transparent lying to defend little-moron logic in the service of imbecility. All of which does not provide a viable basis for a nation’s energy policy; and none of which ought to continue to be supported with public tax payers’ money.
1Giardini, A. A., Melton, C.E., Mitchell, R.S., (1982), J Pet. Geo., 5, 2, 173-190;
2U.Colombo, F.Gazzarini and R. Gonfiantini, “Die Variationen in der chemischen und isotopen Zusammenstzung von Erdgas aus Suditalien”,Leipzig, 1967, vol. Vortrag ASTI-67;
3E. M. Galimov, Isotope Zusammensetzung des Kohlenstoffe aus Gassen der Erdrinde, Leipzig, 1967;
4,5P. Szatmari, “Petroleum formation by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis in plate tectonics”, Bull. A.A.P.G., 1989, 73, 989-996
6Giardini, A. A., Melton, C.E., (1982), J. Pet. Geo, 4, 4, 437-439, “Evidence that stable carbon isotopes are not a reliable criterion for distinguishing biogenic from non-biogenic petroleum.”
7Tuchman, Barbara (1984), Ballentine Books, Random House, New York, New York, The March of ††Folly: From Troy to Viet Nam
Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment
The Carbon Isotope Ratio Nonsense.†
J. F. Kenney‡
Gas Resources Corporation
According to the program, I am supposed to explain the spontaneous generation of natural petroleum in 15(!) minutes. This subject is one which involves, in detail, the statistical mechanics of chemical thermodynamic stability theory. Fifteen minutes would be inadequate to give even an introduction to the subject.
For the moment, please understand first that the unnecessary and misleading adjective “abiotic” should be dropped as a modifier of the term natural petroleum. Natural petroleum is generated spontaneously only at high pressures. The high pressures necessary for the generation of petroleum occur at depths in the Earth where the temperatures are sufficiently high that any biological molecule would have thoroughly decomposed at a much shallower depth.
Many misguided persons have attempted during the past 75 years to demonstrate in laboratories a spontaneous generation of petroleum from biological detritus. All such attempts have failed utterly, - although many have been fraudulently misreported.
There is no information about petroleum generation that I can give to you which will be of any value to you, or which you will be able to use effectively, until you have taken a measure of the imbecility of the notion that natural petroleum is some sort of “fossil fuel” that has come into being through some (miraculous but unspecified) transformation of biological detritus in the regimes of temperature and pressure of the near-surface crust of the Earth. You must realize that the notion of a biological origin of petroleum is not only unscientific but also just plain humbug. [Hereafter, the phrase “biological-origin-of-petroleum” will be referred to by its acronym: BOOP]. Without such understanding or lacking such measure, even when given a clear description of the chemical processes by which natural petroleum spontaneously evolves, you will likely fall into one or more of the erroneous perspectives:
○ “Oh yes, the abiotic generation of petroleum is an interesting alternate view of oil and gas,” or
○ “Well, there may be some oil that has resulted from abiotic processes, but such must be only a negligible small amount,” or even,
○ “Modern petroleum science is rigorous alright, but, of course, all oil fields come from decayed organic matter (!!!)”.
Considering such errors and before going further:
○ Modern petroleum science is not an “alternate perspective” to BOOP, as astrophysics is not an alternate perspective to astrology, nor is cranial neurology to phrenology, nor chemistry to alchemy.
○ The quantity of natural petroleum which has been spontaneously generated abiotically according to the laws of physics and chemistry in the depths of the Earth exceed 1015 metric tons.1
○ All petroleum deposits are comprised of hydrocarbon compounds that have been generated abiotically at high pressure and in absence of any biological molecules.
†“Prepared as an invited paper for the Deep Carbon Cycle Workshop, Carnegie Institute, Washington, D. C., 15-17 May 2008”
‡J.F.Kenney@GasResources.net
©Gas Resources Corporation, 2008
I. The Little-Moron logic of the claims about the stable carbon isotope ratios.
The assertion that natural petroleum (“crude oil”) is a “fossil fuel” somehow evolved by a miraculous process of transformation from biological detritus in the thermodynamic regime of pressures and temperatures in the near-surface crust of the Earth, is a nonsensical, child’s fairy-story, supported by Little-Moron Logic and defended by lies. No aspect of the assertion that natural petroleum is of a biological origin demonstrates the Little-Moron Logic, and also the lies, more than do claims that the ratios of the stable isotopes of carbon, 12C and 13C, represent “evidence” for BOOP. These claims, and the moronic quality of the illogical arguments supporting them are here reviewed.
A common variety of Little-Moron Logic that runs through BOOP is the type that logicians designate “Affirming the Consequent.” In formal logic, affirming the Consequent is set forth by the following fallacious illogic. The formal proposition and its consequent:
Given an accepted syllogism or fact, -
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]If A, then B.
Then following an observation related to the syllogism or fact, -
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]B.
There proceeds theneafter the illogical affirmation of the consequent, -
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]then A.
Here are given three demonstrations of Little-Moron Logic that apply Affirming the Consequent.
1)[FONT="] [/FONT]Affirming the Consequent, - Marilyn Monroe/Hollywood Style:
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]Marilyn Monroe is a woman with blonde hair
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]That woman has blonde hair.
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]Therefore that woman is Marilyn Monroe.
2)[FONT="] [/FONT]Affirming the Consequent, – Lucy/Peanuts Style:
(taken from the comic strip of that name).
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]All cats are mortal.
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]Socrates is mortal.
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]Therefore Socrates is a cat.
3)[FONT="] [/FONT]Affirming the Consequent, - Barbara-Lollar/BOOP Style:
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]Biological matter manifests 13C/12C isotope ratios in the range more negative than – 18.0% on the Peedee Belemnite standard.
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]Some natural petroleum manifest 13C/12C isotope ratios in the range more negative than – 18.0% on the Peedee Belemnite standard.
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]Therefore natural petroleum comes from biological matter.
All of which are recognized to be pure Little-Moron Logic. Upon such are based all the claims that natural petroleum is supposedly derived from biological detritus because of its ratios of the stable carbon isotopes.
II. The technical inadequacy of the carbon isotope ratios as indicators of origin.
The claims made concerning the carbon stable-isotope ratios, and specifically such as purport to identify the origin of the material, particularly the hydrocarbons, are especially recondite and outside the experience of most persons not knowledgeable of the physics of hydrogen-carbon [H-C] systems. Furthermore, the claims concerning the carbon stable-isotope ratios most often involve methane, the only hydrocarbon which is thermodynamically stable in the regime of temperatures and pressures of the Earth’s crust and almost the only one which spontaneously evolves there.
The carbon nucleus has two stable isotopes, 12C and 13C. The overwhelmingly most abundance stable isotope of carbon is 12C, which possesses six protons and six neutrons; 13C possesses an extra neutron. (There is another, unstable isotope, 14C, which possesses two extra neutrons; 14C results from a high-energy reaction of the nitrogen nucleus, 14N, with a high-energy cosmic ray particle. The isotope 14C is not involved in the claims about the isotope ratios of carbon). The carbon isotope ratio, designated δ13C, is simply the ratio of the abundance of carbon isotopes 13C/12C, normalized to the standard of the marine carbonate Pee Dee Belemnite. The values of the measured δ13C ratio is expressed as a percentage (compared to the standard).
During the 1950’s, increasingly numerous measurements of the carbon isotope ratios of hydrocarbon gases were taken, particularly of methane; and too often assertions were made that such ratios could unambiguously determine the origin of the hydrocarbons. The validity of such assertions were tested, independently by Colombo, Gazzarini, and Gonfiantini in Italy and by Galimov in Russia. Both sets of workers established that the carbon isotope ratios cannot be used reliably to determine the origin of the carbon compound tested.
Columbo, Gazzarini, and Gonfiantini demonstrated conclusively, by a simple experiment the results of which admitted no ambiguity, that the carbon isotope ratios of methane change continuously along its transport path, becoming progressively lighter with distance traveled. Colombo et al. took a sample of natural gas and passed it through a column of crushed rock, chosen to resemble as closely as possible the terrestrial environment.2 Their results were definitive: The greater the distance of rock through which the sample of methane passes, the lighter becomes its carbon isotope ratio.
The reason for the result observed by Colombo et al. is straightforward: there is a slight preference for the heavier isotope of carbon to react chemically with the rock through which the gas passes. Therefore, the greater the transit distance through the rock, the lighter becomes the carbon isotope ratio, as the heavier is preferentially removed by chemical reaction along the transport path. This result is not surprising; contrarily, and is entirely consistent with the fundamental requirements of quantum mechanics and kinetic theory.
Pertinent to the matter of any claim that a light carbon isotope ratio might be indicative of a biological origin, the results demonstrated by Colombo et al. establish that such a claim is insupportable. Methane which might have originated from carbon material from the remains of a carbonaceous meteorite in the mantle of the Earth, and possessing initially a heavy carbon isotope ratio, would have that ratio diminished, along the path of its transit into the crust of the Earth, to a value comparable to common biological material.
Galimov demonstrated that the carbon isotope ratio of methane can become progressively heavier while at rest in a reservoir in the crust of the Earth, through the action of methane-consuming microbes.3 The city of Moscow stores methane in water-wet reservoirs on the outskirts of that city, into which natural gas is injected throughout the year. During summers, the quantity of methane in the reservoirs increases because of less use (primarily by heating), and during winters the quantity is drawn down. By calibrating the reservoir volumes and the distance from the injection facilities, the residency time of the methane in the reservoir is determined. Galimov established that the longer the methane remains in the reservoir, the heavier becomes its carbon isotope ratio.
The reason for the result observed by Galimov is also straightforward: In the water of the reservoir, there live microbes of the common, methane-metabolizing type. There is a slight preference for the lighter isotope of carbon to enter the microbe cell and to be metabolized. The longer the methane remains in the reservoir, the more of it is consumed by the methane-metabolizing microbes, with the molecules possessing lighter isotope being consumed more. Therefore, the longer its residency time in the reservoir, the heavier becomes the carbon isotope ratio, as the lighter is preferentially removed by methane-metabolizing microbes. This result is entirely consistent with the fundamental requirements of kinetic theory.
Furthermore, the carbon isotope ratios in hydrocarbon systems are also strongly influenced by the temperature of reaction. For hydrocarbons produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process, the δ13C varies from
-65% at 127 C to –20% at 177C.4,5 No material parameter, the measurement of which varies by almost 70% with a variation of temperature of only approximately 10%, can be used as a reliable determinant of any property of that material.
The δ13C carbon isotope ratio cannot be considered to determine reliably the origin of a sample of methane, - or any other compound, and no ethical and competent scientist or engineer would try to use them as such, excepting very unusual circumstances.
III. The Black Swan Effect & the Tuchman Phase-3 Phenomenon: The Mendacious Defense of the Little-Moron Logic about the Assertions that the Stable Carbon Isotopes Identify a Biological Origin of Petroleum [BOOP].
The phrase “Black Swan effect” has its origins in the scientific dictum that holds that a single exception disproves any putative claim,- i.e., the observation of a single black swan destroys any assertion that “all swans are white,” and does no matter how many white swans may have been observed. The Black Swan effect is a phenomenon recognized in mathematics and the hard sciences, and their associated engineering disciplines, whereby any single observed exception to a putative rule destroys that rule, irredeemably. In mathematics, a single demonstrated counter-example destroys any proposed theorem. The hard sciences provide many examples, such as:
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]When A. H. Michaelson first measured the transverse variation of the velocity of light, using the interferometer that he invented and which bears his name, and destroyed immediately the “undulating-ether” theory of light.
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]When E. Rutherford measured the scattering of alpha-particles in thin metallic films and destroyed at once the Thomson model of the atom.
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]When Mme Wu measure the asymmetry of beta-decay and destroyed the dictum of parity conservation in fundamental nuclear interactions.
[FONT="]o[FONT="] [/FONT][/FONT]When the young American from Woburn, Massachusetts, Benjamin Thompson, cranked up his cannon-boring machine and destroyed in an afternoon the caloric theory of heat which had been held previously to be true for half a century.
The Black Swan for the claims that the stable carbon isotope ratios might distinguish methane as of biotic or abiotic origin was the direct observation by Giardini & Melton6 that such cannot be considered a reliable criterion for ascertaining the origin of petroleum. Giardini & Melton took a primoridial natural diamond of 8.65 carats and measured the carbon isotope ratio of the CO2 entrapped in its inclusions. The results were an isotope ratio of –35.2% on the standard PeeDee scale. Previously the carbon isotope ratios more negative than – 18.0% had been assigned a biological origin. The diamond tested by Giardini & Melton was measured to be of an age of crystallization of at least 3.1 x 109 years, well before any record of biological life on Earth. The observation by Giardini & Melton destroyed any claimed validity of the carbon isotope ratio as a determinant of the origin of petroleum, - and probably of any other carbon compound.
Of course, an intelligent 12-year old schoolboy might be expected to ask, “why wasn’t the light-end limit of the carbon isotope ratios ever measured for the abiotic molecules before all the claims were made. After all, just because the heavy-end limit of the biotic molecules ends at – 18.0%, there stands no reason why the light-end limit of the abiotic molecules should coincide with this value.” The BOOPies have never asked this question.
Similarly, during the past forty years, a number of scientists, both in the former U.S.S.R. and in the U.S.A., have tested the validity of the assertions that a ratio of the abundances of the stable carbon isotopes can give a valid indication of the origin of the material from which the carbon material was obtained. Without exception, these scientists have demonstrated that the carbon isotope ratios can not give any reliable indication of the origin of the material of which the carbon atoms were obtained. These negative results have been shown to hold incontestably for any measurements which yield isotope ratios “lighter” than –18.0% by the PeeDee Belemenite standard and which have been often claimed to give “evidence” of a biotic origin. Samples of carbon fluids which manifest carbon isotope ratios “heavier” than –18.0% by the standard scale are usually (although not necessarily) “identified” as being of an abiotic origin. As the experiments of Galimov et al have demonstrated, such “identification” can easily be spurious. However, in circumstances in which the carbon fluids came from a high-temperature source and was characterized by a high flow rate, - as, for example, from a deep ocean vent, - then a “heavy” measure of the stable carbon isotope ratio may be taken as consistent with (not“proof of”) a deep, abiotic origin of such carbon fluids.
The Tuchman Phase-3 Phenomenon identifies the impetus behind the claims for the carbon isotopes ratios. When one acknowledges the discrediting of claims that a measurement of the relative abundances of stable carbon isotopes might give a valid determination of the origin of whatever fluid from such were taken, and particularly whether that fluid was of biotic or abiotic origin, the question stands: Why do some persons persist in asserting such scientifically insupportable claims? This question intrudes particularly when one notes that the assertions about the carbon isotope ratios were discredited more than twenty years ago.
The answer to this question has been given clearly by the historian Barbara Tuchman in her book “The March of Folly: From Troy to Viet Nam.”7 Tuchman poses the question: How do men of weak moral fiber react when confronted with information that threatens their social status, or their financial circumstance, or their professional position, or their status as an expert or guru in one area or another, or their political power? Borrowing from the behavioral sciences, Tuchman explains that such men invariably manifest the behavior identified as cognitive dissonance. The behavior of cognitive dissonance involves three phases which Tuchman describes as follows:
○ Phase I: Characterized by denial, usually with an attitude of “Don’t bother me with facts; my mind is made up.”
○ Phase II: Characterized by waffling and attempts to denigrate or minimize the significance of the unwelcome facts, usually with expressed claims like, “Oh, we already know all about such and so, and it’s really not relevant or important,” and often, “If you really possessed all the information that we do, you would understand that such and so is not as you think it to be.” And so on.
○ Phase III: Characterized by outright lying. In this phase, the moral weakling can no longer deny the unwelcome facts, and his contemporaries or the general public know that he knows such, - and he knows that they know he knows it. In this phase, the fellow descends to outright lying; he makes pronouncements that he knows to be false, and hopes to brazen it all out.
Phases I, II, and III are not mutually exclusive. A man can operate simultaneously in any two, or even all three. In this decade of this century, the purveyors of BOOP who try to proclaim that any measurement of the ratio of the abundances of the stable carbon isotopes gives a definite determination of
the origin of whatever compound or fluid has been tested, or of whether a hydrocarbon compound is of biotic or abiotic origin, are operating well into Tuchman’s Phase III. That the carbon isotope ratios cannot give any reliable determination is well known.
Such is the purveyance of BOOP: Transparent lying to defend little-moron logic in the service of imbecility. All of which does not provide a viable basis for a nation’s energy policy; and none of which ought to continue to be supported with public tax payers’ money.
1Giardini, A. A., Melton, C.E., Mitchell, R.S., (1982), J Pet. Geo., 5, 2, 173-190;
2U.Colombo, F.Gazzarini and R. Gonfiantini, “Die Variationen in der chemischen und isotopen Zusammenstzung von Erdgas aus Suditalien”,Leipzig, 1967, vol. Vortrag ASTI-67;
3E. M. Galimov, Isotope Zusammensetzung des Kohlenstoffe aus Gassen der Erdrinde, Leipzig, 1967;
4,5P. Szatmari, “Petroleum formation by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis in plate tectonics”, Bull. A.A.P.G., 1989, 73, 989-996
6Giardini, A. A., Melton, C.E., (1982), J. Pet. Geo, 4, 4, 437-439, “Evidence that stable carbon isotopes are not a reliable criterion for distinguishing biogenic from non-biogenic petroleum.”
7Tuchman, Barbara (1984), Ballentine Books, Random House, New York, New York, The March of ††Folly: From Troy to Viet Nam
Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment
Peer review is critical to maintaining the scientific database free of all known errors, and it only takes one improperly done peer review to contaminate the scientific database resulting in critical decisions being made on faulty science as is the case for human caused global warming.
In 1981 SCIENCE published a peer reviewed paper:
Climate Impact of Increasing
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff
P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell
which contained the critical error:
“Carbon dioxide absorbs in the atmospheric “window” from 7 to 14 micrometers which transmits thermal radiation emitted by the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. Increased atmospheric CO2 tends to close this window and cause outgoing radiation to emerge from higher, colder levels, thus warming the surface and lower atmosphere by the socalled greenhouse mechanism (5). The most sophisticated models suggest a
mean warming of 2° to 3.5°C for doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm (6-8).” SCIENCE, VOL. 213, 28 AUGUST 1981
CO2 only has an effect over the 13 to 17.5 micrometer range of the Earth’s radiative spectrum which is saturated to the point that it is a physical impossibility for a doubling of CO2 from 300ppm to 600ppm to cause any more than 0.4°C of additional greenhouse effect making the model output of 2°C to 3.5°C stated in this paper completely false.
Had a proper peer review been done by SCIENCE the CO2 forcing parameter used by Hansen which is still producing faulty output from climate models would have been identified as being based on energy not available to CO2 and this paper would have been rejected from publication. Without this paper there would be no AGW issue today because human caused global warming is entirely based on a non existant correlation of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and global temperature increase and the only support for this false conjecture is this false output from the climate models (sic). More here about E&E’s editorial policy and peer review standards
In 1981 SCIENCE published a peer reviewed paper:
Climate Impact of Increasing
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff
P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell
which contained the critical error:
“Carbon dioxide absorbs in the atmospheric “window” from 7 to 14 micrometers which transmits thermal radiation emitted by the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. Increased atmospheric CO2 tends to close this window and cause outgoing radiation to emerge from higher, colder levels, thus warming the surface and lower atmosphere by the socalled greenhouse mechanism (5). The most sophisticated models suggest a
mean warming of 2° to 3.5°C for doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm (6-8).” SCIENCE, VOL. 213, 28 AUGUST 1981
CO2 only has an effect over the 13 to 17.5 micrometer range of the Earth’s radiative spectrum which is saturated to the point that it is a physical impossibility for a doubling of CO2 from 300ppm to 600ppm to cause any more than 0.4°C of additional greenhouse effect making the model output of 2°C to 3.5°C stated in this paper completely false.
Had a proper peer review been done by SCIENCE the CO2 forcing parameter used by Hansen which is still producing faulty output from climate models would have been identified as being based on energy not available to CO2 and this paper would have been rejected from publication. Without this paper there would be no AGW issue today because human caused global warming is entirely based on a non existant correlation of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and global temperature increase and the only support for this false conjecture is this false output from the climate models (sic). More here about E&E’s editorial policy and peer review standards
Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
What the science says...
Observed sea levels are actually tracking at the upper range of the IPCC projections. When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.
The two main contributors to sea level rise are thermal expansion of water and melting ice. Predicting the future contribution from melting ice is problematic. Most sea level rise from ice melt actually comes from chunks of ice breaking off into the ocean, then melting. This calving process is accelerated by warming but the dynamic processes are not strongly understood. For this reason, the IPCC didn't include the effects of dynamic processes, arguing they couldn't be modelled. In 2001, the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) projected a sea level rise of 20 to 70 cm by 2100. In 2007, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) gave similar results, projecting sea level rise of 18 to 59 cm by 2100. How do the IPCC predictions compare to observations made since the two reports?
Figure 1: Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of the IPCC Third Assessment report (Allison et al 2009).
Observed sea level rise is tracking at the upper range of model predictions. Why do climate models underestimate sea level rise? The main reason for the discrepancy is, no surprise, the effects of rapid flow ice changes. Ice loss from Greenland, Antarctica and glaciers are accelerating. Even East Antarctica, previously considered stable and too cold, is now losing mass. Considering the importance of rising sea level to a human population crowded around coastlines, how can we predict sea level with greater accuracy?
An alternative way to predict future sea level rise is a semi-empirical method that uses the relationship between sea level and global temperature (Vermeer 2009). Instead of modelling glacier dynamics, the method uses model projections of global temperature which can be calculated with greater confidence. Sea level change is then derived as a function of temperature change. To confirm the relationship between sea level and temperature, observed sea level was compared to reconstructed sea level calculated from global temperature observations from 1880 to 2000. Figure 2 shows the strong correlation between observed sea level (red line) and reconstructed sea level (dark blue line with light blue uncertainty range).
Figure 2: Observed rate of sea-level rise (red) compared with reconstructed sea level calculated from global temperature (dark blue with light blue uncertainty range). Grey line is reconstructed sea level from an earlier, simpler relationship between sea level and temperature (Vermeer 2009).
The historical record shows the robustness of the relationship between sea level and global temperature. Thus, global temperature projections can be used to simulate sea levels into the future. A number of different emission scenarios were used, based on how carbon dioxide emissions might evolve over the next century. Overall, the range of projected sea level rise by 2100 is 75 to 190 cm. As you get closer to 2100, the contribution from ice melt grows relative to thermal expansion. This is the main difference to the IPCC predictions which assume the portion of ice melt would diminish while thermal expansion contributes most of the sea level rise over the 21st Century.
Figure 3: Projection of sea-level rise from 1990 to 2100, based on IPCC temperature projections for three different emission scenarios. The sea-level range projected in the IPCC AR4 for these scenarios are shown for comparison in the bars on the bottom right. Also shown in red is observed sea-level (Vermeer 2009).
Figure 3 shows projected sea level rise for three different emission scenarios. The semi-empirical method predicts sea level rise roughly 3 times greater than the IPCC predictions. Note the IPCC predictions are shown as vertical bars in the bottom right. For the lowest emission rate, sea levels are expected to rise around 1 metre by 2100. For the higher emission scenario, which is where we're currently tracking, sea level rise by 2100 is around 1.4 metres.
There are limitations to this approach. The temperature record over the past 120 years doesn't include large, highly non-linear events such as the collapse of an ice sheet. Therefore, the semi-empirical method can't rule out sharp increases in sea level from such an event.
Independent confirmation of the semi-empirical method is found in a kinematic study of glacier movements (Pfeffer 2008). The study examines calving glaciers in Greenland, determining each glacier's potential to discharge ice based on factors such as topography, cross-sectional area and whether the bedrock is based below sea level. A similar analysis is also made of West Antarctic glaciers (I can't find any mention of calculating ice loss from East Antarctica). The kinematic method estimates sea level rise between 80 cm to 2 metres by 2100.
Recent observations find sea level tracking at the upper range of IPCC projections. The semi-empirical and kinematic methods provide independent confirmation that the IPCC underestimate sea level rise by around a factor of 3. There are growing indications that sea level rise by the end of this century will approach or exceed 1 metre.
What the science says...
Observed sea levels are actually tracking at the upper range of the IPCC projections. When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.
The two main contributors to sea level rise are thermal expansion of water and melting ice. Predicting the future contribution from melting ice is problematic. Most sea level rise from ice melt actually comes from chunks of ice breaking off into the ocean, then melting. This calving process is accelerated by warming but the dynamic processes are not strongly understood. For this reason, the IPCC didn't include the effects of dynamic processes, arguing they couldn't be modelled. In 2001, the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) projected a sea level rise of 20 to 70 cm by 2100. In 2007, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) gave similar results, projecting sea level rise of 18 to 59 cm by 2100. How do the IPCC predictions compare to observations made since the two reports?
Figure 1: Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of the IPCC Third Assessment report (Allison et al 2009).
Observed sea level rise is tracking at the upper range of model predictions. Why do climate models underestimate sea level rise? The main reason for the discrepancy is, no surprise, the effects of rapid flow ice changes. Ice loss from Greenland, Antarctica and glaciers are accelerating. Even East Antarctica, previously considered stable and too cold, is now losing mass. Considering the importance of rising sea level to a human population crowded around coastlines, how can we predict sea level with greater accuracy?
An alternative way to predict future sea level rise is a semi-empirical method that uses the relationship between sea level and global temperature (Vermeer 2009). Instead of modelling glacier dynamics, the method uses model projections of global temperature which can be calculated with greater confidence. Sea level change is then derived as a function of temperature change. To confirm the relationship between sea level and temperature, observed sea level was compared to reconstructed sea level calculated from global temperature observations from 1880 to 2000. Figure 2 shows the strong correlation between observed sea level (red line) and reconstructed sea level (dark blue line with light blue uncertainty range).
Figure 2: Observed rate of sea-level rise (red) compared with reconstructed sea level calculated from global temperature (dark blue with light blue uncertainty range). Grey line is reconstructed sea level from an earlier, simpler relationship between sea level and temperature (Vermeer 2009).
The historical record shows the robustness of the relationship between sea level and global temperature. Thus, global temperature projections can be used to simulate sea levels into the future. A number of different emission scenarios were used, based on how carbon dioxide emissions might evolve over the next century. Overall, the range of projected sea level rise by 2100 is 75 to 190 cm. As you get closer to 2100, the contribution from ice melt grows relative to thermal expansion. This is the main difference to the IPCC predictions which assume the portion of ice melt would diminish while thermal expansion contributes most of the sea level rise over the 21st Century.
Figure 3: Projection of sea-level rise from 1990 to 2100, based on IPCC temperature projections for three different emission scenarios. The sea-level range projected in the IPCC AR4 for these scenarios are shown for comparison in the bars on the bottom right. Also shown in red is observed sea-level (Vermeer 2009).
Figure 3 shows projected sea level rise for three different emission scenarios. The semi-empirical method predicts sea level rise roughly 3 times greater than the IPCC predictions. Note the IPCC predictions are shown as vertical bars in the bottom right. For the lowest emission rate, sea levels are expected to rise around 1 metre by 2100. For the higher emission scenario, which is where we're currently tracking, sea level rise by 2100 is around 1.4 metres.
There are limitations to this approach. The temperature record over the past 120 years doesn't include large, highly non-linear events such as the collapse of an ice sheet. Therefore, the semi-empirical method can't rule out sharp increases in sea level from such an event.
Independent confirmation of the semi-empirical method is found in a kinematic study of glacier movements (Pfeffer 2008). The study examines calving glaciers in Greenland, determining each glacier's potential to discharge ice based on factors such as topography, cross-sectional area and whether the bedrock is based below sea level. A similar analysis is also made of West Antarctic glaciers (I can't find any mention of calculating ice loss from East Antarctica). The kinematic method estimates sea level rise between 80 cm to 2 metres by 2100.
Recent observations find sea level tracking at the upper range of IPCC projections. The semi-empirical and kinematic methods provide independent confirmation that the IPCC underestimate sea level rise by around a factor of 3. There are growing indications that sea level rise by the end of this century will approach or exceed 1 metre.
Don't worry, the Earth is going to cool down: Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years?