The "Smartest" Boys in the Room make a Schoolboy Error.

[westwall]

The Royal Society (recently the focus of a minor rebellion by some of its more scientifically honest members) has been found to have made a mathematical blunder that would best be described as really, really, really, dumb. Something a middle school student might have done...but certainly not something you would expect the smartect guys in the room (well at least they think they are) to have committed.


Royal Society Humiliated by Global Warming Basic Math Error

 

[Old Rocks]

References:

Kaiser, K. L. E, ‘The Carbon Cycle and Royal Society Math,’ Canadafreepress.com (October 13, 2010), accessed online: October 14, 2010

Johnson, C., ‘FRS Multiplication Table and CO2,’ claesjohnson.blogspot.com (October 14, 2010), accessed online: October 14, 2010

Ball, T., email correspondence with author (October 14, 2010)

Hertzberg, M., email correspondence with author (October 14, 2010)

Gerlach TM, McGee KA, Ekiast T, Sutton AJ, Doukas MP, 2002. Carbon dioxide emission rate of Kilauea Volcano: Implications for primary magma and the summit reservoir. Journal of geophysical research, 107: ECV3.1-ECV 3.15.



Read more at Suite101: Royal Society Humiliated by Global Warming Basic Math Error Royal Society Humiliated by Global Warming Basic Math Error

Well, with a referance page like that, I will have to see something that is from real scientists before I would say the physicists of the past years have been wrong.

 

[westwall]

References:

Kaiser, K. L. E, ‘The Carbon Cycle and Royal Society Math,’ Canadafreepress.com (October 13, 2010), accessed online: October 14, 2010

Johnson, C., ‘FRS Multiplication Table and CO2,’ claesjohnson.blogspot.com (October 14, 2010), accessed online: October 14, 2010

Ball, T., email correspondence with author (October 14, 2010)

Hertzberg, M., email correspondence with author (October 14, 2010)

Gerlach TM, McGee KA, Ekiast T, Sutton AJ, Doukas MP, 2002. Carbon dioxide emission rate of Kilauea Volcano: Implications for primary magma and the summit reservoir. Journal of geophysical research, 107: ECV3.1-ECV 3.15.



Read more at Suite101: Royal Society Humiliated by Global Warming Basic Math Error Royal Society Humiliated by Global Warming Basic Math Error

Well, with a referance page like that, I will have to see something that is from real scientists before I would say the physicists of the past years have been wrong.

Well then I suggest you look! Go on take a look!

 

[IanC]

Dr. Kaiser's letter-

The Carbon Cycle and Royal Society Math
By Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The recent “rebellion” by senior members of the Royal Society (RS) forced it to revise their guide “Climate change: a summary of the science”. The new guide, published on 30 September 2010, has a single paragraph under the heading The Carbon Cycle and Climate. In that, it says:


“Current understanding indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial concentrations” [emphasis added].

One can easily (on the back of an envelope) calculate the order of magnitude of the amounts of carbon currently present in the atmosphere, and those burned in the world, hence the amounts of CO2 produced (assuming complete combustion). The former leads to approximately 5x10^14 kg C present in the atmosphere (of course in the form of CO2). The latter computes to 0.4x10^13 kg C (as CO2) per annum from oil, 0.7x10^13 from coal [1], or 10^13 kg C from coal and oil together. Any additional amounts from the combustion of natural gas and biofuels, or from natural sources (volcanoes) are excluded [2].

On that basis, if there were no CO2 removal processes, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere should double every 15 years. But, in fact, over the last 100 years, at most it has increased by only 1/3, i.e. approximately from 300 to 400 ppm (parts per million in weight).

The much lower than expected increase (based on fossil fuel consumption) in the atmospheric CO2 can only be explained by a strong (natural) removal process.

It is also obvious then that the statement by the Royal Society that it would take “millennia” for atmospheric CO2 to return to levels at preindustrial times upon a (theoretical) complete and sudden cessation of all manmade CO2 release to the atmosphere cannot be true. If the CO2 were to stay in the atmosphere for millennia, why has its level in the atmosphere not doubled in the last 15 years, or gone up tenfold-plus over the last 100 hundred years? Furthermore, there are several peer-reviewed papers reporting the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere to be between 5 and 10 years. A half life of 5 years means that more than 98% of a substance will disappear in a time span of 30 years.

Obviously, that begs the question: WHAT IS WRONG HERE?

The answer is simple: THE ROYAL SOCIETY’S STATEMENT IS WRONG.

But, what else does it mean? Again, that is easy to answer:

First, it means that the turnover rate (addition to and removal from the air) of CO2 is orders of magnitude faster than implied by the RS statement.
It means that CO2 in the atmosphere is rapidly being taken up by the plants on land and even more so by the oceans. In the oceans CO2 gets converted to organic matter through photosynthesis. That is the process from which essentially all life on earth is derived. If the statement by the RS about the longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere were true, CO2 levels in the air would have increased—from mankind’s influence alone - not just by a few percent, but by a factor of 2 or so over the last one and one-half decades alone. Clearly that is not the case.
It further means that, when adding the large emissions of CO2 from natural processes [2, 3], to those from man’s activities into the calculations above, atmospheric CO2 would have had to increase even more over the last decade alone. Clearly that is not the case.
Last not least, it means that the whole CO2-climate-change scenario, as portrayed by the RS (and many others for that matter) is in shambles. As the CO2 from mankind’s burning of fossil fuels and possibly larger emissions from natural sources is consumed by organisms on land and in the water at a rate nearly identical to that of its production, it could not possibly take “several millennia” to return to a pre-industrial level upon a (theoretical) cessation of all of mankind’s CO2 emissions.
In summary
The Royal Society’s claim that it would take millennia for CO2 from human activity to dissipate from the atmosphere is clearly untenable. However, it would also appear inconceivable to think that the RS would not have done a few of such simple order-of-magnitude calculations, as shown above, to confirm the veracity of their claims. Therefore, even though it took months to prepare that document, it appears the Royal Society’s math is still wrong.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, the oceans have absorbed the majority of the CO2 that man has created. However, it is not being used up in photosynthesis. It is still there in the form of carbonic acid, and has raised the acidity of the ocean enough to endanger coral and other single celled oceanic life.

Global Scientists Draw Attention To Threat Of Ocean Acidification

ScienceDaily (Feb. 5, 2009) — More than 150 leading marine scientists from 26 countries are calling for immediate action by policy-makers to sharply reduce CO2 emissions so as to avoid widespread and severe damage to marine ecosystems from ocean acidification.

 

[Old Rocks]

The CO2 cycle

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-03.PDF

 

[westwall]

I hate to tell you olfraud but your links don't negate the basic facts that the RS made a boneheaded error. And you folks keep perpetuating it.

 

[saveliberty]

The math doesn't lie here. If oceans are absorbing it, then why are you looking to the atomsphere for answers? The model is wrong if it cannot predict results that are observable. That is why it is so critical to fudge the temperature readings. Cheats and liars acting like scientists.

 

[mdn2000]

Carbon Dioxide, thats dry ice, seems like that CO2 likes to be cold.

Of course I aint no smart professor getting fat off of tax dollars or some research for profit scam started by chicken little.

Post a link, I like the ones you people post that link to press releases.

How come you just dont take a point made in the study, present the facts, and link to the actual study.

that is a serious question, posting a link and nothing more show me that your at best lazy and do not take the time to learn the topic.

I see many schoolboy errors made by the green energy (green-garbage or fake-green energy) advocates.

try at least posting something other than a link, after all, it is a waste of energy and you do want to be green, dont you.

 

[Old Rocks]

NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

Now this is the source of the figures in the article.

Kaiser, K. L. E, ‘The Carbon Cycle and Royal Society Math,’ Canadafreepress.com (October 13, 2010), accessed online: October 14, 2010

Canadafreepress. Hmmmm......... Was that before or after the story about batboy?

 

[westwall]

NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

Now this is the source of the figures in the article.

Kaiser, K. L. E, ‘The Carbon Cycle and Royal Society Math,’ Canadafreepress.com (October 13, 2010), accessed online: October 14, 2010

Canadafreepress. Hmmmm......... Was that before or after the story about batboy?

Dr. Pielke Sr. thinks that their paper would have made a good Masters Thesis but in all other ways it is a fail. He even goes so far as to call it an op-ed piece in the guise of serious research. And this from an avowed warmer. Who just happens to be an honest scientist.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...ning-earth’s-temperature-by-lacis-et-al-2010/


And your link STILL doesn't negate the fact that the RS made a schoolboy error! HAH!

 

[Annie]

NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

Now this is the source of the figures in the article.

Kaiser, K. L. E, ‘The Carbon Cycle and Royal Society Math,’ Canadafreepress.com (October 13, 2010), accessed online: October 14, 2010

Canadafreepress. Hmmmm......... Was that before or after the story about batboy?

Dr. Pielke Sr. thinks that their paper would have made a good Masters Thesis but in all other ways it is a fail. He even goes so far as to call it an op-ed piece in the guise of serious research. And this from an avowed warmer. Who just happens to be an honest scientist.

Comment On The Science Paper “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth?s Temperature” By Lacis Et Al 2010 Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.


And your link STILL doesn't negate the fact that the RS made a schoolboy error! HAH!

Let's hope that Chris gets around to reading this, before he starts his science fair project. Excellent lesson in the post of Pielke. I'd rep if I could.

 

[Old Rocks]

Comment On The Science Paper “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth?s Temperature” By Lacis Et Al 2010 Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

They also do not present (and show why they should be refuted) alternative published perspectives so as we present in Pielke et al (2009) that

“In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, other first-order human climate forcings are important to understanding the future behavior of Earth’s climate. These forcings are spatially heterogeneous and include the effect of aerosols on clouds and associated precipitation [e.g., Rosenfeld et al., 2008], the influence of aerosol deposition (e.g., black carbon (soot) [Flanner et al. 2007] and reactive nitrogen [Galloway et al., 2004]), and the role of changes in land use/land cover [e.g., Takata et al., 2009]. Among their effects is their role in altering atmospheric and ocean circulation features away from what they would be in the natural climate system [NRC, 2005]. As with CO2, the lengths of time that they affect the climate are estimated to be on multidecadal time scales and longer.”

So, what we have here is Pielke saying they ignored the other forcings that are creating a rapidly heating planet. That is true, however, the focus of the paper was the CO2-H2O relationship, one that has been demonstrated in geological history during the times of the alternating Snowball and Hothouse Earth.

Paleoproterozoic snowball Earth: Extreme climatic and geochemical global change and its biological consequences

Geological, geophysical, and geochemical data support a theory that Earth experienced several intervals of intense, global glaciation (“snowball Earth” conditions) during Precambrian time. This snowball model predicts that postglacial, greenhouse-induced warming would lead to the deposition of banded iron formations and cap carbonates. Although global glaciation would have drastically curtailed biological productivity, melting of the oceanic ice would also have induced a cyanobacterial bloom, leading to an oxygen spike in the euphotic zone and to the oxidative precipitation of iron and manganese. A Paleoproterozoic snowball Earth at 2.4 Giga-annum before present (Ga) immediately precedes the Kalahari Manganese Field in southern Africa, suggesting that this rapid and massive change in global climate was responsible for its deposition. As large quantities of O2 are needed to precipitate this Mn, photosystem II and oxygen radical protection mechanisms must have evolved before 2.4 Ga. This geochemical event may have triggered a compensatory evolutionary branching in the Fe/Mn superoxide dismutase enzyme, providing a Paleoproterozoic calibration point for studies of molecular evolution

 

[westwall]

Comment On The Science Paper “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth?s Temperature” By Lacis Et Al 2010 Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

They also do not present (and show why they should be refuted) alternative published perspectives so as we present in Pielke et al (2009) that

“In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, other first-order human climate forcings are important to understanding the future behavior of Earth’s climate. These forcings are spatially heterogeneous and include the effect of aerosols on clouds and associated precipitation [e.g., Rosenfeld et al., 2008], the influence of aerosol deposition (e.g., black carbon (soot) [Flanner et al. 2007] and reactive nitrogen [Galloway et al., 2004]), and the role of changes in land use/land cover [e.g., Takata et al., 2009]. Among their effects is their role in altering atmospheric and ocean circulation features away from what they would be in the natural climate system [NRC, 2005]. As with CO2, the lengths of time that they affect the climate are estimated to be on multidecadal time scales and longer.”

So, what we have here is Pielke saying they ignored the other forcings that are creating a rapidly heating planet. That is true, however, the focus of the paper was the CO2-H2O relationship, one that has been demonstrated in geological history during the times of the alternating Snowball and Hothouse Earth.

Paleoproterozoic snowball Earth: Extreme climatic and geochemical global change and its biological consequences

Geological, geophysical, and geochemical data support a theory that Earth experienced several intervals of intense, global glaciation (“snowball Earth” conditions) during Precambrian time. This snowball model predicts that postglacial, greenhouse-induced warming would lead to the deposition of banded iron formations and cap carbonates. Although global glaciation would have drastically curtailed biological productivity, melting of the oceanic ice would also have induced a cyanobacterial bloom, leading to an oxygen spike in the euphotic zone and to the oxidative precipitation of iron and manganese. A Paleoproterozoic snowball Earth at 2.4 Giga-annum before present (Ga) immediately precedes the Kalahari Manganese Field in southern Africa, suggesting that this rapid and massive change in global climate was responsible for its deposition. As large quantities of O2 are needed to precipitate this Mn, photosystem II and oxygen radical protection mechanisms must have evolved before 2.4 Ga. This geochemical event may have triggered a compensatory evolutionary branching in the Fe/Mn superoxide dismutase enzyme, providing a Paleoproterozoic calibration point for studies of molecular evolution

Still doesn't negate the boneheaded error which you folks continue to perpetuate. Additionally the assertion that the banded iron formations are the result of global climate change are not supported by fact. The ONLY cause with any type of evidentiary support is simply the pulses of O2 given off by life (remember it was an anaerobic atmosphere up till 1.7 bya or so) that combined with the Fe in the waters and air and precipitated out.

 

[IanC]

NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

Now this is the source of the figures in the article.

Kaiser, K. L. E, ‘The Carbon Cycle and Royal Society Math,’ Canadafreepress.com (October 13, 2010), accessed online: October 14, 2010

Canadafreepress. Hmmmm......... Was that before or after the story about batboy?

I have asked you before but I will ask again. Why do you think the location of publication is more important than what is said? If you wanted to question the author's credentials, that would at least be germaine to the subject. But to dismiss the idea out of hand because you don't like one of the sites that it appears in is indicative of your twisted thinking. You have a slavish dedication to authority rather than an open and inquiring mind. You let others do your thinking for you.

 

[Annie]

NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

Now this is the source of the figures in the article.

Kaiser, K. L. E, ‘The Carbon Cycle and Royal Society Math,’ Canadafreepress.com (October 13, 2010), accessed online: October 14, 2010

Canadafreepress. Hmmmm......... Was that before or after the story about batboy?

I have asked you before but I will ask again. Why do you think the location of publication is more important than what is said? If you wanted to question the author's credentials, that would at least be germaine to the subject. But to dismiss the idea out of hand because you don't like one of the sites that it appears in is indicative of your twisted thinking. You have a slavish dedication to authority rather than an open and inquiring mind. You let others do your thinking for you.

Indeed. All the AGW would like to keep only the publications in the soup with those connected with Mann and Jones, you know, those that profit from their 'findings.'

OR would certainly be of the same mind as this little lady, profiled today in The Telegraph:

Climategate: the Fox connection – Telegraph Blogs

Climategate: the Fox connection

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: October 16th, 2010

Wrong Fox - but no harm done, eh?

A strange story in Bishop Hill about Fiona Fox. You may remember she’s the director of the Science Media Centre who claimed earlier this year that the way BBC could improve its science coverage was to give less space to sceptics.

She said: “To have a sceptic or contrarian in every interview is really misleading the public.”

Then, amusingly, she dropped two of the BBC’s more shameless eco-activists in the dudu by commenting:

“With Climate Science there’s been a real change with people like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin fighting internally to say ‘We don’t have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate scientist.’”​

How Rich and Rog must have thanked her for this revelation!

And now she’s in trouble of a different kind. It seems she took part in a practical joke which went horribly wrong, summarised here by the Bishop:

She is also apparently a close friend of Jim Devine, a former Labour MP who is now facing fraud charges over his expense claims. She appears to have got herself involved in a bizarre and rather nasty practical joke involving Devine and his office manager, and which has now led to a substantial damages award against the politician.​

Unless it involves Al Gore, masseuses and the phrase “love poodle” I’m not generally that interested in reporting sordid, sorry tales about people’s rackety personal lives – not least because it can’t be long before word leaks out about me last weekend with the hamsters, the dwarves with cocaine bowls balanced on their heads, Jimmy Page and the cast of High School Musical III. (And it’s interesting to note that when Steve McIntyre chose to write it up at ClimateAudit, some of his commenters got frightfully sniffy. “And what, pray does this have to do with statistics or climate science?” some of his more matronly readers wanted to know as they reached for the smelling salts).

Me, I’m much more interested in the Science Media Centre connection and the puzzling question of how Fiona Fox became to become so influential figure in the Climate Change Pseudoscience Alarmism Spin Machine. OK so she’s a former revolutionary Marxist – but so too are her sister Claire, as well as the Spiked Online gang Brendan O’Neill, Mick Hume, Frank Furedi and the rest. And all the latter are ferocious defenders of Enlightenment values, as well as being so sceptical about Global Warming b***ocks generally they make me sound like Geoffrey Lean. Well, almost.

One theory, mooted by one of the Bishop’s sharp-eyed readers, is that she was got at by an organisation called LobbyWatch and bullied in changing tack. But did she really have to go so far the other way as to appoint to her Science Advisory Panel such nakedly partisan figures as (former Government Alarmist-in-Chief) Sir David King, and to her board, such outrageously parti-pris types as Philip Campbell (editor in chief of Nature) and, Lord preserve us, Bob Ward?

“Only connect.” As well as being the epigraph of Howard’s End, this is also the theme of an infinitely superior book coming out soon on the great climate change conspiracy called Watermelons.

Fox, Campbell, King, Ward, Hansen, Gore, Monbiot, Porritt, Connolley….Not without reason do these names crop up again and again in this blog. They may not be sitting round the same table plotting. But they’re all part of the cabal, a surprisingly small cabal, given the vastness of its influence and the almost unimaginable immensity of the bill they are trying to impose on mankind in the name of their religion, Climatism.

 

[westwall]

NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

Now this is the source of the figures in the article.

Kaiser, K. L. E, ‘The Carbon Cycle and Royal Society Math,’ Canadafreepress.com (October 13, 2010), accessed online: October 14, 2010

Canadafreepress. Hmmmm......... Was that before or after the story about batboy?

I have asked you before but I will ask again. Why do you think the location of publication is more important than what is said? If you wanted to question the author's credentials, that would at least be germaine to the subject. But to dismiss the idea out of hand because you don't like one of the sites that it appears in is indicative of your twisted thinking. You have a slavish dedication to authority rather than an open and inquiring mind. You let others do your thinking for you.

Oh, olfraud is perfectly willing to use a blog or newspaper report anytime....so long as it agree's with his POV. Of course if it doesn't then it's a no go. Typical internet buffoonery.

 

[tinydancer]

I've been busy prepping for winter so I really haven't stayed up to speed on this new story but I was finally able to spend some time today on it.

The one thing that struck me as I was going thru different sites like David Icke's is that no one is buying into "simple error" anymore.

When you are seeing the Royal Society associated with terms like "humiliated" or "embarrassed" and the top two editors at Wiki being banned from editing Wikipedias Climate Change topics one can hold out hope that this farce known as AGW is blowing up in the perpetrators faces. Permanently.

How far the mighty have fallen. And I'm loving every minute of it.



Disclaimer. I am no scientist just a denier from way back based on common sense and information I was hearing ages ago from a gentleman from my current part of the universe, Dr. Tim Ball. Husband is a biology graduate from U of T so he keeps me grounded with Science 101 lessons when I come up against data that is way over my head.

But my expertise in promotion and hype (used to be in the music industry) gives me the ability to smell bullshit a mile away

And the "legend of global warming" has been one of the biggest hype jobs since Milli Vanilli.

I've never witnessed any scam like this in my lifetime. It's been the big show. Glad it's dying this painful death.

 

[tinydancer]

References:

Kaiser, K. L. E, ‘The Carbon Cycle and Royal Society Math,’ Canadafreepress.com (October 13, 2010), accessed online: October 14, 2010

Johnson, C., ‘FRS Multiplication Table and CO2,’ claesjohnson.blogspot.com (October 14, 2010), accessed online: October 14, 2010

Ball, T., email correspondence with author (October 14, 2010)
Hertzberg, M., email correspondence with author (October 14, 2010)

Gerlach TM, McGee KA, Ekiast T, Sutton AJ, Doukas MP, 2002. Carbon dioxide emission rate of Kilauea Volcano: Implications for primary magma and the summit reservoir. Journal of geophysical research, 107: ECV3.1-ECV 3.15.



Read more at Suite101: Royal Society Humiliated by Global Warming Basic Math Error Royal Society Humiliated by Global Warming Basic Math Error

Well, with a referance page like that, I will have to see something that is from real scientists before I would say the physicists of the past years have been wrong.

Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

Scientist and author,has been conducting research for more than four decades.


After receiving his doctorate in chemistry from the Technical University Munich, he joined Environment Canada's National Water Research Institute where he served as research scientist and project manager for several research groups.

He represented the institute at a variety of national and international committees, gave numerous presentations at scientific conferences, was editorial board member and peer reviewer for serveral journals, adjunct professor and external reviewer of university theses, and was the Editor-in- Chief of the the Water Quality Research Journal of Canada for nearly ten years.

Dr. Kaiser is an author of nearly 200 publications in scientific journals, government and national and international agency reports, books, trade magazines, and newspapers.

He has been president of the Intl. Association for Great Lakes Research, and is a recipient of the Intl. QSAR Award.

He is currently Director of Research of TerraBase Inc., and is a Fellow of the Chemical Institute of Canada.

Dr. Kaiser is widely recognized for his expertise in environmental chemistry and his "no-nonsense" approach to issues.



Looks like a pretty good resume to me. But go ahead a slag someone because an article appears in an online publication you deem unfit for consideration.

Nice deflection.

 

[konradv]

Sounds like good news to me. That means attempts to limit CO2 emissions will be more effective, sooner.