X hits on this document

PDF document

Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven + Earth’ — Checking the Claims - page 15 / 64

187 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

15 / 64

the temperature would be 900C lower, i.e. well below the physical limit of absolute zero.

71.

p.

367:

Howeve ,

rrhenius was not aware of the carbon cycle . . . .

rrhenius’ 1896

paper explicitly includes geological aspects of the ocean carbon cycle, drawing on the

work of geologist

rvid Ho¨gbom, going to the extent of providing a summary translation

of some of Ho¨gbom’s work at the end of his own paper.

72.

p. 370, figure 44:

s noted in item 70, the exaggerated proportion of warming attributed

to

water

vapour

in

the

graphic

and

caption,

implies

that

water

vapour

is

warming

the

planet from a temperature below absolute zero

  • [also in TL list].

73. p. 371: assertion of the 0.5C climate sensitivity with no citation and contradicting other values given (or implied) by Plimer [items 104, 124] — [TL].

74.

p . 3 7 4 : O n c e t h e r e i s 4 0 0 p p m o f C O 2 i n t h e a t m o s p h e r e , t h e d o u b l i n g o r t r i p l i n g o f C O 2 c o n t e n t h a s l i t t l e e f f e c t o n a t m o s p h e r i c t e m p e r a t u r e b e c a u s e C O 2 h a s a d s o r b e d the infra-red it can adsorb. The term ‘adsorb’ is defined (Macquarie Dictionary) as “ to gather a gas, liquid or dissolved substance) on the surface of a condensed layer . . . ”, c.f. absorb’ for which the same dictionary’s definitions include: 5. to take or receive in by chemical or molecular action while Chambers Twentieth Century dictionary’s definition of ‘absorb’ includes: “to suck in, to swallow up, ... to take up and transform (energy) a l l

instead or transmitting or reflecting”.

n consistent failure [see also

items

62,

94]

to

distinguish between ‘adsorb’ and ‘absorb’ does not inspire confidence.

75.

p. 375, figure 50:16

s with many of the graphics, this is poorly described with no attribu-

tion of the numbers (see item 3). However above 100 ppm the values seem to be inversely proportional to concentration as expected for incremental change when temperature has a logarithmic dependence on concentration (which Plimer acknowledges on p. 338). Thus a better label for the vertical axis would be ‘incremental warming’. This means that the claim in the caption once the atmosphere is at its present 385 ppm, a doubling or quadrupling will have very little effect on the atmospheric temperature is untrue. (Note also similar statement on previous page — item 74). Each doubling will have the same effect on temperature until concentrations get so high that the logarithmic relation breaks down. The trend in Figure 50 shows no sign of this happening around 400 ppm. The bars would imply that the increments correspond to each additional 20 ppm of CO2. This would imply a climate sensitivity of 0.35C. While the origin of the numbers is not given,

the

discussion

on

page

42

below

notes

that

they

can

be

explained

by

using

0.5C

for

the

climate sensitivity (the lowest of Plimer’s other values) and then having error through neglecting to consider the change of base of logarithms.

a

factor

of

1.44

76. p. 381:17 In fact, satellites and radiosondes show that there is no global warming.191 . Reference 1910 is a 2007 overview by Charles F. Keller which updates his 2003 report (CFK03). The words in reference 1910 are: The big news since CFK03 is the first of

16 17

Prior to version 1.4, this was incorrectly noted as fig 5. Prior to version 2.1, the page number was given incorrectly as 379.

15

Document info
Document views187
Page views187
Page last viewedSun Dec 11 01:13:09 UTC 2016
Pages64
Paragraphs2028
Words32772

Comments