Skip to comments.Physicist says fossil fuel burning is insignificant in the global carbon pool
Posted on 09/20/2010 9:11:18 AM PDT by Signalman
Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement, calling it a corrupt social phenomenon.
He writes this in an essay on science trust issues plus adds this powerful closing passage about climate science:
And there is a thorough critique of the science as band wagon trumpeting and interested self-deception . Climategate only confirms what should be obvious to any practicing scientist: That science is a mafia when its not simply a sleeping pill.
Now he thinks that fossil fuel burning isnt a problem of significance based on the scale. Excerpts below.
INSIGNIFICANCE OF FOSSIL FUEL BURNING ENERGY RELEASE
The present (2010) historic maximum of anthropogenic (caused by humans) fossil fuel burning is only 8% or so of global primary production (GPP) (both expressed as kilograms of carbon per year, kg-C/y). GPP is the rate at which new biomass (living matter) is produced on the whole planet. And of course all biomass can in principle be considered fuel that could be burned with oxygen (O2) to produce CO2 gas, H2O water, energy, and an ash residue.
This shows the extent to which anthropogenic energy production from fossil fuel burning is small in comparison to the suns energy delivery to Earth, since biomass primary production results from the suns energy via photosynthesis.
In summary, the total amount of post-industrial fossil fuel burned to date (and expressed as kilograms of carbon) represents less than 1% of the global bio-available carbon pools.
More importantly, bio-available carbon is a minor constituent of the Earths surface environment and one that is readily buffered and exchanged between compartments without significant consequences to the diversity and quantity of life on the planet. The known history of life on Earth (over the last billions of years) is unambiguous on this point.
This ocean acidification side show on the global warming science bandwagon, involving major nation research centers and international collaborations, is interesting to compare with the 1970s-1980s hoax of boreal forest lake acidification. 
More importantly, scientists know virtually nothing about the dynamic carbon exchange fluxes that occur on all the relevant time and lengths scales to say anything definitive about how atmospheric CO2 arises and is exchanged in interaction with the planets ecological systems. We are barely at the point of being able to ask intelligent questions.
For left progressives to collaborate with First World governments that practice global extortion and geopolitical wars in order to pass carbon schemes to undemocratically manage and control the developments of non-First-World communities and sovereign states is obscene, racist, and cruelly cynical.
Gee, who knew?
The level of CO2 avail to plants has also been down, if anything siocne the ice age acycle began earth has been facing a slowly dwindling supply of CO2 to feed plants. We are doing “God’s work” by re-liberating the Carbon.
"Nevertheless, the earth does move."
"Nevertheless, the earth does cool."
I'd say the good doctor is in respectable company. The best part is the implication that science may not be dead. Yet.
There’s a reason why physicists generally don’t become envirowacko nutjobs.
They know better.
Science is dead; you just missed the funeral notice.
One need only address the canard known as the “greenhouse effect.”
If the atmosphere is capable of reflecting heat (and it surely is) it is going to reflect far more heat away from the planet than will be reflected back toward us. (which is the greater source, Earth or the sun?)
Chipping away at AGW, Ping!
Save the Earth, drive more.
For instance,snow reflects the sunlight rather than absorbing itas would a plowed field or macadam road.Visible light and even some ultraviotet produce heat on being absorbed by an object,then that object will radiate in the infrared.The Earth's atmosphere tends to block infrared,and far more so when cloudy.That is why infrared astronomy has vastly better results using a satellite above our atmosphere.
Regardless,the AlGore Global Warming Tax and Carbon Credits is a criminal enterprise.
Science is not dead yet. It's just resting.
Perhaps it's even stunned. But this is a sign that science can again become what it was meant to be - the unbiased search for objective truth (something that many libs admit they don't believe even exists).
WRT “the greenhouse effect,” what is on the ground is irrelevant.
The greenhouse effect has been proven to be fiction. It violates the laws of physics. The atmosphere is a shield preventing the penetration of a huge percentage of the sun’s radiation.
Physics, the treasure of calculating the energy of a spherical body (Approximation of the Sun) Think of the Sun as an irradiating sphere, and the waves of solar radiation as spheres which expand outward into space. As the sphere radiates outward, the surface area of this imaginary sphere representing the radiation becomes well-dispersed over the area of any given point on it, as the sphere expands (distance increases) If the energy output at the Sun’s surface were to decrease by even a small amount, this would change the radiation received at the surface of the Earth by a significant amount, given how much the Sun’s radiative energy disperses with distance.
It’s not the atmosphere so much as it is the Sun’s energy naturally dispersing with distance.
The “greenhouse effect” does not comment on how much of the sun’s radiation reaches the earth. It is a function of how much is re-radiated back into space from the earth. Exactly the way a glass greenhouse works.
The “greenhouse effect” as a physical phenomenon is well confirmed. Whether the earth is presently in the first stages of an increased greenhouse effect and whether that effect is being caused by humans is an entirely different question.
The total radiation does have an effect on the Greenhouse effect as well. Less total shortwave radiation means less longwave radiation from the surface being absorbed by Greenhouse gases, and a change in the greenhouse effect itself.
Your point being?
No Sherman, physicists have recently published numerous papers showing that the effect does not exist, and would violate several physical laws.
Its basically the same as all the leftist chicken little scares, like the old ozone depletion canard that has finally been completely demolished by the real data.
People love to be taken for a ride.
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.