the polar bear climate change photo

Started Mar 24, 2007 | Discussions thread
Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
He's a petroleum geologist

TomFid wrote:

Let me get you started with just one paper here: Khilyuk, L.F., and
G. V. Chilingar. 2006. On global forces of nature driving the
Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology, 50,
899–910.

If this is the best evidence you can muster, you're in trouble.
This is an entirely laughable article. God put "yuk" in the
author's name for a reason. It's been cited twice - once by the
authors, and once in a devastating rebuttal in the same journal.
http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-rebuttal.html

Tom

And their article is shot full of basic errors that even a lay-person can understand...

When you consider that Exxon Moble are "publicly" offering $10,000 buck for article "refuting" global warming, you have to wonder...

Dave

**************************

"It seems that the authors forgot to take the time factor into account. The anthropogenic emission happened during 200 years, whereas the natural degassing during geologic history spanned 4.5 billion years. Thus, the above numbers yield a yearly anthropogenic flux that is about 50 times larger than the mantle degassing flux, which hardly is negligible. It appears that the authors assume that the 4.63 • 10^23g of CO2 degassed from the mantle all remained in the atmosphere. Yet, the present day atmosphere contains less than 3 • 10^18 g of CO2, and compared to this number the total anthropogenic CO2 emission of 1 • 10^18g certainly is significant."

http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-rebuttal.html

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
igb
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow