Dr. Martin Hertzberg

Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a retired Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry

Cites this media article this media article

However the article doesn't directly quote Hertzberg much and even contradicts him in one case.

The Lynching of Carbon Dioxide -The Innocent Source of Life by Dr. Martin Hertzbergment (PDF) is a better source of arguments directly from him

Arguments Condensed:

• warming causes co2 rise not the other way round
• co2 is already saturated
• CO2 concentration is small
• water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
• Scientists' conclusions are motivated by money.
• Ice age predicted in the 70s (well he says 60s, but same deal)
• It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
• CO2 rise is caused by the oceans
• Volcanos emit more co2
• co2 lifetime in atmosphere is only 5 years

Notes:

• Seems to suffer from a focus on co2 emissions rather than co2 concentrations, ie to think emissions should correlate with warming rather than concentration.
• Confuses atmospheric average lifetime of a co2 molecule with the residence time for a pulse of co2 added:
  "The global warming advocates including the IPCC argue that the CO2 we emit into the atmosphere lasts for centuries....The most authoritative study of the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere was done by a Norwegian, Professor Tom Segalstad of the University of Oslo. The measured lifetime, based on the studies of some 50 independent researchers is at most about 5 years"

An original argument..

1. human co2 emissions fell 30% from 1929 (1.17 Gt) to 1932 (0.88 Gt).

2. But co2 concentration rose about 1.5ppm in that time.

3. Given 1+2, therefore human co2 emissions aren't causing the rise in co2.

This brilliant argument is described as:

"One of the more dramatic contradictions to the Gore-IPCC hypothesis is one that I came up with myself, and which appealed to Cockburn and to an Australian group of fellow skeptics."

Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman

Applied Physicist and Engineer Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman wrote an October 24, 2006
paper entitled "The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide."

list cites: http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

Arguments Condensed

• warming causes co2 rise, not the other way round
• lack of runaway warming in past 400,000 years
• recent co2 rise is natural from the oceans
• skeptical of mauna loa co2 record

Notes:

Here is a quote from the "The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide":

"According to at least one report, climatologists are at a loss to
explain the source of the CO2:
Where did the carbon dioxide come from? “This is one of the grand
unsolved puzzles in climate research,” said Thomas Stocker, a climate modeler at
the Physics Institute of the University of Bern. Schoen [1999].
Moreover and to the contrary, climatologists dismiss the oceans as the source."

Here is the article with the Thomas Stocker quote. It continues:

“This is one of the grand unsolved puzzles in climate research,” said Thomas
Stocker, a climate modeler at the Physics Institute of the University of
Bern. "About 50% of the 80-ppm glacial-to-interglacial increase
can be explained by a change in the solubility of carbon dioxide.
Warmer ocean water carries less carbon dioxide than colder
water. However, there are complicated biochemical processes in the ocean, such
as pH, the depth of the dissolution level for calcium carbonate, and the net primary
productivity of the marine carbon cycle that are also playing a role."

So the claim that "Moreover and to the contrary, climatologists dismiss the oceans as the source" doesn't seem justified.

The "Aquital" continues:

"Gavin A. Schmidt (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York, New York; and Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York.) and his blog group at RealClimate believe …
The oceans cannot be a source of carbon to the atmosphere, because we observe them to be a sink of carbon from the atmosphere."

This article is titled How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?

I have emphaised the word "recent". The article is pointing out that recent co2 rise cannot be due to an ocean source, not that the oceans weren't a source of co2 during glacial warming periods.

There's a whole mess of confusion after that where the "Aquital" makes the same mistake between different statements from the IPCC.

It gets worse, I'll probably come back to this one there are probably quite a few arguments left to record.

Quotes:

"What they did next was revise their own embryonic global climate models, previously called GCMs, converting them into greenhouse gas, catastrophe models. The revised GCMs were less able to replicate global climate, but by manual adjustments could show manmade CO2 causing global warming within a few degrees and a fraction!"

"Back to Engelbeen, his first argument silently rests on the well-mixed hypothesis. His data appear to be Mauna Loa measurements, and not necessarily global data. The IPCC reports that investigators calibrated the other sites to match the Mauna Loa measurements. Mauna Loa as you suggest has influences of the volcano, but also of El Niño, and apparently the investigators calibrated or adjusted these effects out of their data. Meanwhile MLO sits in the wandering, variable plume of the Eastern Equatorial Pacific outgassing. And al the time, Earth is warming (an essential tenet to the AGW conjecture), causing the natural outgassing to increase (which the IPCC nowhere computes"