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.htmlArguments CondensedNotes:
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"
