1 1 5 . p . 4 7 2 : O c e a n s , s o i l s a n d p l a n t s a l r e a d y a b s o r b a t l e a s t h a l f t h e h u m a n C O 2 e m i s s i o n Uptake of just over half of human emissions by the oceans, soils and plants is the view of mainstream science. The reason to note this statement by Plimer is that it is inconsistent with Plimer’s claims about CO2 lifetimes and large emissions from volcanoes. In partic- ular, with the 4-year lifetime that Plimer claims, the only way half of human emissions can be in the atmosphere is if most emissions have occurred within the last few years. s
p. 477–478: The discussion of Stern’s work quotes a paper by Klyashtorin and Lubushin (footnote 2221) when referring to data from many sources. The Klyashtorin and Lubushin paper is often cited (and mis-quoted) by pseudo-sceptics/doubt-spreaders. It finds no correlation between detrended series for temperature and fuel use. It is not comparing temperature to fossil carbon emissions. It is comparing temperature to what the carbon
emissions would have been if all energy use (including nuclear) had come from oil.
described in Twisted,
a number of other aspects of the fit act to reduce the type of cor-
relation that would irrelevant.
p. 479: Footnote 2235 is a repeat citation of footnote 2221, the Klyashtorin and Lubushin paper [see item 116]. Since its sole climate analysis is comparing temperature to energy use (and finding no true linear correlation in the detrended series), this citation provides no meaningful support for the statement that the next major climate change will be cooling.
p. 484: The 2007 IPCC SPM showed cooling for 100 of the last 160 years, during which time greenhouse gases were increasing. Up to version 1.4, my response was: Possibly true but irrelevant — what matters is if net year-to-year increase is significantly positive. However, on the basis of random walk statistics, my vague scepticism in saying possibly, should be changed to highly unlikely and irrelevant. more complete comment is highly unlikel , irrelevant and yet another fabrication. The SPM figure is repeated in chapter 3 (in the F Q section) of WG1 R4, where the source of the numbers is identified as the HadCRU3 data set. Looking at the year-to-year changes30 reveals 80 increases and 78 decreases. (The ‘variance reduced’ HadCRU3 set has 78 decreases and 80 increases) — [also in TL list].
p. 485: The Montreal Protocol used the precautionary principle to attempt to ban chloro- fluorocarbons because these gases destroy ozone. However we use chlorine every day to make water fit to drink and yet chlorine also destroys ozone. There is no such thing as the precautionary principle in science. This misrepresentation of the precautionary principle is discussed in item 64. The passage misrepresents the role of chlorine, in that reactive chlorine compounds are removed in the lower atmosphere (mostly ending up as water soluble compounds that dissolve in rainwater) while unreactive compounds such as CFCs are only destroyed in the stratosphere (due to higher UV levels) and where rain-out does not occur. It is the chlorine from CFC breakdown that destroys ozone — Plimer’s use of the word ‘also’ suggests that he doesn’t understand this — [also in TL list].
p. 488: another undocumented assertion of the 0.5◦C climate sensitivity.
30File hadcru3gl.txt, see description on page 41.