Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge ("It is all fiction")
NewsBusters ^ | July 9, 2007 | Noel Sheppard

Posted on 07/09/2007 10:22:03 PM PDT by Stoat

Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge

Posted by Noel Sheppard on July 9, 2007 - 13:53.
With each passing day, more and more current and former members of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are stepping out of the shadows to suggest that this group’s alarmist conclusions concerning global warming are more based in myth than science.

Another member of this growing list of skeptics is Tom V. Segalstad who was an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC’s third assessment report.

As published in Canada’s National Post Saturday, conveniently coincident with Al Gore’s Live Earth concerts (emphasis added throughout):

 

We are doomed, say climate change scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that is organizing most of the climate change research occurring in the world today. Carbon dioxide from man-made sources rises to the atmosphere and then stays there for 50, 100, or even 200 years. This unprecedented buildup of CO2 then traps heat that would otherwise escape our atmosphere, threatening us all.

“This is nonsense," says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC. He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists -- a knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view, since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.

"The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible."

Most leading geologists know this? But, how can that be true? After all, Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, Laurie David, and Leonardo DiCaprio – despite having absolutely no expertise concerning this matter – say otherwise. As such, why should we care what someone that actually specializes in this field thinks?

Regardless, the article demonstrated how the IPCC has basically created computer models to predict an end result it wanted while totally ignoring current and past scientific observations regarding CO2’s expected life in the atmosphere:

[W]ith the advent of IPCC-influenced science, the length of time that carbon stays in the atmosphere became controversial. Climate change scientists began creating carbon cycle models to explain what they thought must be an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These computer models calculated a long life for carbon dioxide.

Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims.

Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are erroneous.

"They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process."

For those that are interested, this is why anthropogenic global warming is regularly referred to as junk science. As Segalstad stated, rather than base future expectations on known past and present observations, the IPCC has created models to predict future events lacking any historical basis.

The article then explained what has been observed, and why what the IPCC is predicting is so ridiculous:

In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world."

So, how does the IPCC resolve this conundrum? Better remove all fluids from proximity:

Also in the real world, Prof. Segalstad's isotope mass balance calculations -- a standard technique in science -- show that if CO2 in the atmosphere had a lifetime of 50 to 200 years, as claimed by IPCC scientists, the atmosphere would necessarily have half of its current CO2 mass. Because this is a nonsensical outcome, the IPCC model postulates that half of the CO2 must be hiding somewhere, in "a missing sink." Many studies have sought this missing sink -- a Holy Grail of climate science research-- without success.

 

Marvelous, wouldn’t you agree? But, not as good as the Professor’s conclusion:

"It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere," Prof. Segalstad concludes.

"It is all a fiction."

Sadly, this fiction is making a lot of people a lot of money, and threatens to have a huge negative impact on the economies of the developed world especially that of the United States.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: agw; blaspheminggore; climatechange; convenientfiction; convenientlie; environazis; environmentalism; envoronmentalism; globalwarming; ipcc; liveearth; un
Giving credit where it's due....I found this article because it is linked at Orbusmax

Orbusmax ™ Northwest News - 'Around The World In 80K'

Readers might also be interested in this recent FR thread:

IPCC Scientists Challenge Al Gore’s View of Global Warming Consensus

1 posted on 07/09/2007 10:22:07 PM PDT by Stoat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Stoat
Basic References:

Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers" (a series of articles on the view of scientists who have been labelled "Global Warming Deniers"):

Other References:


2 posted on 07/10/2007 12:15:19 AM PDT by sourcery (fRed Dawn: Wednesday, 5 November 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

Bump


3 posted on 07/10/2007 3:23:55 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (Democrat Happens!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stoat; xcamel

Bombshell: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862730/posts


4 posted on 07/10/2007 3:40:27 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Bilingual education involves the difficult achievement of learning nothing in two languages. ~Gagdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stoat; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; honolulugal; SideoutFred; Ole Okie; ...


FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH


Yupper...
5 posted on 07/10/2007 3:43:46 AM PDT by xcamel ("It's Talk Thompson Time!" >> irc://irc.freenode.net/fredthompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stoat; xcamel
Notice the relative AMOUNTS of CO2 being released, stored, and removed from the atmosphere are cleverly distorted in the little diagram: man’s CO2 influence are only a small fraction (??? percent ?) of the atmosphere’s and planet’s total CO2.

But, here, man’s influence is emphasized: every tree, anywhere that lives will die and decay, producing CO2. Today’s forests and farmland (and volcanoes) immediately recycle CO2. Today’s ocean is apparently releasing CO2 as it warms from the Middle Age hot period 800 years ago.

6 posted on 07/10/2007 6:12:52 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

Global warming skepticism PING.


7 posted on 07/10/2007 9:26:37 AM PDT by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

[pp 208-216] "On June 23, 1988, climatologist James Hansen testified before a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on a day when the temperature in Washington D.C. reached a sweltering 38C... Hansen had impressive data from 2,000 weather stations... which documented not only a century-long warming trend but a sharp resumption of warming after the early 1970s... Hansen flatly proclaimed that the earth was warming on a permanent basis because of humanity's promiscuous use of fossil fuels [sic]... Recently, James Hansen and a group of his colleagues have argued that the rapid warming of recent decades has in fact been driven by non-CO2 gases such as chlorofluorocarbons. Fossil fuel [sic] burning CO2 and aerosols have both positive and negative climatic forcing effects, which tend to cancel each other out. Hansen and his team point out that the growth rate of non-CO2 gases has declined over the past decade and could be reduced even further. This, combined with a slowing of black carbon and CO2 emissions, could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming. Much more research is needed to confirm this hypothesis."
In other words, in 1988 Hansen warned Congress that CO2 would raise world temperatures. About ten years went by, after which Hansen claimed that CO2 doesn't have any net impact at all. So much for his data. Mind you, this came from the book shown below, which is egregiously in advocacy of the notion of "global warming".
The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850 The Little Ice Age:
How Climate Made History 1300-1850

by Brian M. Fagan
Paperback
 
Catastrophism
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·

8 posted on 07/10/2007 10:18:34 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Monday, July 9, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
humanity's promiscuous use of fossil fuels [sic]...

I wanna know how that works! (Would you sleep with me for a tank of gas?)

9 posted on 07/10/2007 5:24:57 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (Fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks; SunkenCiv; All
humanity's promiscuous use of fossil fuels [sic]...

I wanna know how that works! (Would you sleep with me for a tank of gas?)

Me Too!  Have we coined a new "hussy-descriptor"?

The "Petrol Prostitute"?

The "Gasoline-Girlfriend" (shortened to "gas-girl" among close friends)?

The "Diesel Diva" (Or "Diesel Dominatrix," if your tastes run in that direction)?

img95/7959/bikerbabe3gx1.jpg

Fuel Friend?

Mobil Momma?

img95/6805/bikerbabe2pw3.jpg

Freeway Fungirl?

Exxon Ellie?

img481/8040/lowridergs7.jpg

10 posted on 07/10/2007 6:09:20 PM PDT by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

LOL! I’m happy to see it’s catching on...


11 posted on 07/10/2007 6:51:46 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (Fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson