There is quite a bit of buzz surrounding a talk and pending paper from Prof. Murry Salby the Chair of Climate, of Macquarie University. Aussie Jo Nova has excellent commentary, as has Andrew Bolt in his blog. I’m sure others will weigh in soon.
In a nutshell, the issue is rather simple, yet powerful. Salby is arguing that atmospheric CO2 increase that we observe is a product of temperature increase, and not the other way around, meaning it is a product of natural variation. This goes back to the 800 year lead/lag issue related to the paleo temperature and CO2 graphs Al Gore presented in his movie an An Inconvenient Truth, Jo Nova writes:
Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.
Salby is no climatic lightweight, which makes this all the more powerful. He has a strong list of publications here. The abstract for his talk is here and also reprinted below.
PROFESSOR MURRY SALBY
Chair of Climate, Macquarie University
Atmospheric Science, Climate Change and Carbon – Some Facts
Carbon dioxide is emitted by human activities as well as a host of natural processes. The satellite record, in concert with instrumental observations, is now long enough to have collected a population of climate perturbations, wherein the Earth-atmosphere system was disturbed from equilibrium. Introduced naturally, those perturbations reveal that net global emission of CO2 (combined from all sources, human and natural) is controlled by properties of the general circulation – properties internal to the climate system that regulate emission from natural sources. The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.
Professor Murry Salby holds the Climate Chair at Macquarie University and has had a lengthy career as a world-recognised researcher and academic in the field of Atmospheric Physics. He has held positions at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado, with invited professorships at universities in Europe and Asia. At Macquarie University, Professor Salby uses satellite data and supercomputing to explore issues surrounding changes of global climate and climate variability over Australia. Professor Salby is the author of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate due out in 2011. Professor Salby’s latest research makes a timely and highly-relevant contribution to the current discourse on climate.
Salby’s talk was given in June at the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysic meeting in Melbourne Australia. He indicates that a journal paper is in press, with an expectation of publication a few months out. He also hints that some of the results will be in his book Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate which is supposed to be available Sept 30th.
The podcast for his talk“Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources” is here (MP3 audio format). The podcast length is an hour, split between his formal presentation ~ 30 minutes, and Q&A for the remaining time.
Andrew Bolt says in his Herald Sun blog:
Salby’s argument is that the usual evidence given for the rise in CO2 being man-made is mistaken. It’s usually taken to be the fact that as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the 1 per cent of CO2 that’s the heavier carbon isotope ratio c13 declines in proportion. Plants, which produced our coal and oil, prefer the lighter c12 isotope. Hence, it must be our gasses that caused this relative decline.
But that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused. Salby says there are – the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa – which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.
Dr. Judith Curry has some strong words of support, and of caution:
I just finished listening to Murry Salby’s podcast on Climate Change and Carbon. Wow.
If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science. Salby and I were both at the University of Colorado-Boulder in the 1990′s, but I don’t know him well personally. He is the author of a popular introductory graduate text Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics. He is an excellent lecturer and teacher, which comes across in his podcast. He has the reputation of a thorough and careful researcher. While all this is frustratingly preliminary without publication, slides, etc., it is sufficiently important that we should start talking about these issues. I’ll close with this text from Bolt’s article:
He said he had an “involuntary gag reflex” whenever someone said the “science was settled”.
“Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.”
Dr Roy Spencer has suspected something similar, See Atmospheric CO2 Increases: Could the Ocean, Rather Than Mankind, Be the Reason? plus part 2 Spencer Part2: More CO2 Peculiarities – The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio both guest posts at WUWT in 2008. Both of these are well worth your time to re-read as a primer for what will surely be a (ahem) hotly contested issue.
I’m pretty sure Australian bloggers John Cook at Skeptical Science and Tim Lambert at Deltoid are having conniption fits right about now. And, I’m betting that soon, the usual smears of “denier” will be applied to Dr. Salby by those two clowns, followed by the other usual suspects.
Smears of denial and catcalls aside, if it holds up, it may be the Emily Litella moment for climate science and CO2 – “Never mind…”
I was at the talk given by Prof Salby – and thus had the benefit of the slides. It was tightly argued and logically compelling. I am waiting for the publication so I can review it all in detail at at my pace. I will be more interested in the informed debate among climate scientists that will undoubtably occur.
I went to the talk thinking this would be a chance to hear a prominent climate scientist explain the AGW science. After all, he has a Chair in a major Australian university and is a former IPCC reviewer. To say I was surprised is an understatement.
I appreciated his comment that he has a gag reflex when he hears about “settled science”. His statement that science should proceed interativly by discourse was obvious – but unfortunately needs to be stated sometimes.
His statement that CO2 is not the driver of the bus, was music to this scientifically trained but skeptical citizen of a country that is hell bent on imposing the most punitive carbon tax regime in the world.
This is interesting. I did an analysis of the acceleration of global temperature and CO2 earlier this year but was unsure how to interpret the results so I sat on it.
After listening to the podcast it was clear that the results I found using an acceleration analysis is in line with his results on temperature driving the rate of change in the CO2 level.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/08/curious-about-the-latest-co2-paper/
john a and Orson Olson:
John a,
the answer to your question is, yes. This is mentioned as items 3 and 4 in my post in this thread at August 5, 2011 at 8:37 am.
Orson Olson,
thankyou for your overly generous kind words.
You say,
“However, a NOAA illustration of the Annual Mean Growth of CO2. Note the group by decade-and no relation to human emissions.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png “
Yes, and
compare those decadal averages shifted back in time ~30 years
to
mean global temperature (e.g. HadCRUT, see
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ )
Does that suggest anything to you?
Richard
@R. Gates says:
August 5, 2011 at 8:55 am
“Well then, it seems skeptics to the anthropogenic build-up of CO2 studies would have a difficult choice to make.”
Well the build up of all them studies ought to be anthropogenic since there seem to be a lack of aliens conducting them studies.
“Why, for example, didn’t CO2 reach the levels we see today during the Holocene Optimum, Roman Warm period, or much beloved MWP?”
Because there were more trees back then, christ the spaghetti monster, but don’t you know anything of import?
Hi Anthony, I listened to the podcast of his presentation and was impressesed how he conveyed his message, without even seeing the displays. Frankly, he only states what I have come to think, but his credentials are much larger than mine … also he has balls to make these remarks … I guess he doesn’t need the funding. I was a bit surprised by Curry’s reaction .. I guess she has been in the tank so long that she didn’t question the basics .. but good for her for having an open ear.
The AGW argument relies upon three sequential arguments, anyone of which being wrong brings down the whole edifice. They are:
1) The Earth is warming
2) The warming is caused by CO2
3) The increased CO2 is due to man.
4) We are all going to die!!
OK number 4 I don’t disagree with, unfortunately 🙁
Just as a note to those readers who do not know Australia – there is an intense and viceral “debate” going on in that glorious country about a soi-disant “carbon tax” that the current government is now committed to, that, to win the election, insisted there would not be a carbon tax. The government did not win the election and made a pact with the devil greens to get a ONE SEAT majority to form the government.
Most Australians are disgusted with such blatant lying. Google Juliar. or Andrew Bolt. or Tim Blair
When you do comparisons, you have to have ‘all other factors being equal’, or the comparison doesn’t mean much. The world was quite a different place during the LGM. For one thing, it had a lot less liquid water. So, all other factors were really not equal and you have to do a detailed calculation before you can reach any kind of conclusion (or even ask an intelligent question for that matter).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum
Frank K. asks @ur momisugly August 5, 2011 at 6:43 am
Can someone (especially someone from Australia) tell me why a carbon tax is needed and what it will accomplish?
It is up to you, as an Australian, to do that. What will it accomplish? Nothing, zero, nada, zilch. Ask the supporters of Juliar how much it will decrease the temperature. Here in Canada, that question is very telling … like, you know, we want a colder Canada.
Yes. It suggests delta-T is causing rising atmospheric CO2.
And beyond the ‘rock throwing’ of the blogosphere, with the arrival of a dissenter like Salby – author of, I think, one of the three graduate-level atmospheric physics textbooks, it suggests that there is a New Kid on the Block. To wit, the fundamental assumptions of AGW and the EGE need to be re-argued, and scientists sent to settle some fundamental facts, instead of prevailing with ‘arm waving.’
Someone mentioned how Salby hasn’t really added anything new that AGW-skeptics haven’t. I hope his paper goes beyong re-arguing analysis and has new evidence. It not, the new window for climate science may be shut again. But, post-Climategate, other dissenters might stand up and be counted.
As for your welcome presence here, Richard, you are like Steve McIntyre: a disciplined voice among the noise, and thus all the more instructive through both words and manner.
Now, will someone kindly plot up the NOAA and CRU graphic? (I gottat revisit your E&E paper, too: “The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle,” E & E, 2005
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/d81267523838p173/?p=82f895ea658a479c962d8a5f38778a01&pi=44)
Others have adequately pointed out the problems with relying on the mass balance defense…..the natural fluxes are not adequately constrained; and the arguments about today’s levels being unprecedented……..we can’t know that because the proxies do not have adequate resolution. All of this is plausible and I hope this paper starts a long overdue discussion. It will certainly be hard for scientists with no stake in the debate to dismiss out of hand.
The most important thing we should learn from this is to stop assigning new observations to anthropogenic causes without adequate investigation and debate. The first time we began monitoring atmospheric CO2 concentrations we observed an approx 2ppmv annual rise and arrogantly assigned this rising level of CO2 to anthropogenic causes. We did the same thing with the ozone “hole” over Antarctica. “Oh look, a hole in the ozone layer, it must be us.”
Tom Gray says:
Suppose AGW theory is correct and a rise in atmosheric CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature and that this could verry bad effects.
Then why is it a good thing that this is natural?
If the rise is natural, then at least we can save our money and fight what we can fight: poverty especially (but also human rights, improving education, etc). At the moment we have the worst of both worlds, as we are wasting money fighting something that cannot be beaten. We are building expensive wind stations when we would get more power from coal for the same money.
If the warming is natural then we can use the money better in mitigation, rather than prevention.
There is also a philisophical postion at stake. Some people think that economic growth and development is the root of much evil in the world. Others think it is the answer to most of the evil in the world. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming plays into the hands of the first group. (Note I do not hold with fake left/right division on this — there are conservative greenies, such as Prince Charles, and there are leftist sceptics, such as Vaclav Havel. The division is at least as strong on the authoritarian vs libertarian axis.)
David Middleton says:
August 5, 2011 at 12:43 pm
R. Gates says:
August 5, 2011 at 12:08 pm
David Middleton says:
“The stomata data clearly support a temperature-driven carbon cycle.”
___
And no doubt, prior to the onset of human industrialization, the carbon cycle was clearly driven by temperatures (and you could argue, that human industrial activity also is a consequence of the Holocene warmth, so in a round-about way, our release of CO2 continues the relationship between warmth and CO2 levels.)
You could also argue that fossil fuels are concentrated solar power… But that’s not relevant either.
—-
Why is the fact that fossil fuels are stored sunlight not important? It’s absolutely important as our entire modern lifestyle and the industrialization that brought it could not have come about if we were not able to tap into this stored sunlight from eons ago. The burning of this stored sunlight allowed us to in essence break away from the long term pattern whereby CO2 levels were entrained to the Milankovitch cycles of glaciation and interglacials. Now we will find out the consequences of breaking that pattern.
Before I found WUWT I suggested on a thread on unReal Climate that perhaps the rise in CO2 in recent history was due to a delayed response to the MWP 800 years ago. The response was – how shall I say? – robust…
REPLY: Best LOL of the week! – Anthony
R. Gates says:
August 5, 2011 at 7:32 pm
The burning of this stored sunlight allowed us to in essence break away from the long term pattern whereby CO2 levels were entrained to the Milankovitch cycles of glaciation and interglacials.
========================================
WOW, are you saying that we may have inadvertently avoided the next Ice Age ?? Not all bad, in my opinion. This could be huge for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. I think I, amazingly, must have missed the peer-reviewed literature on this. Could you please oblige with a few references ?
Blaming CO2 for the phony GLOBAL warming; but now blaming CO2 for going into another sink; for not producing GLOBAL warming (by the Warmist and the active Skeptics) is the new low in the Warmist sewer. What about admitting that: CO2 doesn’t produce GLOBAL warming; stop misleading yourself! Yes, this is not going to be your ‘’backdoor exit’’ CO2 is not a ‘’Greenhouse gas’’ CO2 is a ‘’shade-cloth affect gas’’ Oxygen + nitrogen are Greenhouse gases – one of the reasons the earth is warmer than the moon. Start using the ‘’laws of physics, or those laws soon will get you on the witness stand, under oath. CO2 intercepts extra heat during the day – at night CO2 intercepts more coldness than oxygen and nitrogen = those two factors cancel each other = zero warming effect.
1] Oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to sunlight, same as glass roof on a normal greenhouse. Then, as perfect insulators, they slow down cooling = same as normal greenhouse does. CO2 is not transparent to sunlight as glass on a normal greenhouse. You don’t want to know the difference? Isn’t it why is the search of ‘’backdoors exits’’ suddenly?!
2] another reference of ‘’Greenhouse’’ is misrepresented: when the air in a ‘’normal greenhouse’’ warms up = 20% of the air out the door. Volume of the greenhouse stays the same, but quantity of air decreases. In the Shonky’s ‘’Greenhouse’’ (in nature); when air warms up = volume increases, quantity doesn’t decrease even by one atom. So much about referring to CO2 as a Greenhouse gas. If one knows anything about physics; shouldn’t call CO2 a Greenhouse gas! Please note: no need to wait 100years, to know all things in this text + more.
3] experiment was done and can be replicated now: cover a roof on a greenhouse with thick coat of CO2 = the temperature inside decreases. Everything is documented. Therefore, stop searching for some imaginary sinks, why GLOBAL warming is not happening. The moderator my not approve this text – but cannot silence it. If the shonky science keep molesting the CO2… blaming the Chinese increase of CO2 for preventing the phony GLOBAL warming and other ‘’backdoors exits’’… Have in mind that: all the proofs exist that CO2 is not a global warming gas; and everything associated with the Warmist industry. http://www.stefanmitich.com.au Disregarding the real proofs will be as proof that you folk in the Warmist club did know that you are wrong, reason for disregarding the real proofs. If one was genuinely worrying about GLOBAL warming, the proofs that never was a treat of global warming would have brought joy. Instead of going into carbon 14, or any other isotope. Trees don’t discriminate, they use any carbon available to them. Those gimmicks can only put you in deeper water that you are trying to muddy now with different isotopic forms, or searching for elusive carbon sinks. All those carbon sinks were available when carbon extortion started.
Mooloo says:
If the warming is natural then we can use the money better in mitigation, rather than prevention.
Mitigation is precisely what the powers that be are aiming for. The money ought to go to adaptation, which includes poverty alleviation. Harder to adapt if you have less resources, right?
richard verney says:
August 5, 2011 at 6:03 am
“It is implausible, that the planet has similarly greened (in like linear fashion) each year. Indeed, it is almost certainly the case that there must have been years when de-forestation more than offset any natural greening in other areas, yet one still sees that the sink capacity has increased. ”
merely postulate that CO2 uptake is non-linear with increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2 while plant footprint is linear?
It is the destiny of mankind as the masters of fire to break the cycle and defeat the Wirrun (the aboriginal term for the Ice Giants – i.e. Glaciers). This is a traditional aboriginal folk tale from australia.
Robert of Ottawa says:
August 5, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Just as a note to those readers who do not know Australia – there is an intense and viceral “debate” going on in that glorious country about a soi-disant “carbon tax” that the current government is now committed to, that, to win the election, insisted there would not be a carbon tax. The government did not win the election and made a pact with the devil greens to get a ONE SEAT majority to form the government.
Most Australians are disgusted with such blatant lying. Google Juliar. or Andrew Bolt. or Tim Blair
—————————————————————————
Okay, from an Australian, here in brief is what’s happened:
2007 federal election, both Labor (left) and Liberal (right) went to the poll with an ETS package. For other reasons Libs lost the election and Labor took over Govt with a majority (Kevin Rudd). Over the next few years Rudd made some big blunders and a couple months out from the 2010 federal election was knifed in the back by Julia Gillard, who took over. Before the election Libs found out she was planning a carbon tax, and Greens went to the election with both a carbon tax and 40% mining tax. Gillard flatly denied a carbon tax with her famous words two days before the election, “There will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead”. Quite simply, if she’d said yes they were planning a carbon tax, Libs would have won with a majority. The election was the tightest in federal election history and resulted in Libs having one more seat than Labor, but there were also 1 Green, 3 Independents and 1 Country Liberal Party members. The CLP member signed with Libs (both right wing) and the Green signed with Labor (both left wing). Then both sides bartered with the 3 independents who eventually signed with Labor due to the National Broadband Network proposal of Labor’s. No one knew at that point that to get the Green to sign up, Labor had agreed to implement the Green’s carbon tax policy.
Thus here we are, a year on from the 2010 election. The carbon tax has been announced, and vicious debate is occurring. In Australia, most people (~70%) agree that global warming is occurring, but most disagree (~60%) that a carbon tax is the right way to tackle it. The carbon tax package will tax the 500 worst carbon “polluters” (another point of debate whether it’s “pollution” or not) at $23 per tonne. The money from that is split 50% back to people in increased Govt payments and tax cuts. The Govt claims that 9 in 10 households will receive benefit from payments or tax cuts, but the reality is that due to passed on costs, 60% of households will be worse off. Basically, the tax is structured to benefit low income earners (Labor’s heartland voters), at the cost of medium-high income earners (Libs heartland voters). The other 50% of the tax is split between a “climate fund” which will be headed by Labor Govt and AGW stooge Tim Flannery, who is an environmental extremist whom even Greenpeace distances from as too extreme. Flannery is famous for proclaiming an 8 story sea level rise, yet still lives in his million dollar mansion on beachfront property. The rest of the money goes to subsidise the coal industry (so why even tax carbon if the money goes straight back) and of course to Australia’s commitment to give 25% of the tax to the UN.
However, an interesting sideline has come up in the last couple of weeks which could spell the downfall of the entire thing (and the Govt). A Labor backbencher is suspected of defrauding a union (before he got elected in 2010). Criminal investigations have started and if he’s charged he’ll have to resign his seat. This will cause a by-election in one of Australia’s most marginal seats facing a national swing against labor of ~10%. If the by-election occurs he will lose his seat. One of the 3 independents has ripped up his agreement with Labor, so Labor only holds Parliament by one vote. If a Lib replaces this Labor back bencher the Libs will immediately call a “vote of confidence” which Labor will not win (the Independent is furious at Gillard for her deceipt about the carbon tax, he’s in a heavy mining seat which will be hit hard by the tax). Labor will lose the “vote of confidence” and the Governor General will be forced to disband both Houses of Parliament and call a full General Federal Election, which Libs will win.
So fun times in the next couple of months coming up, and hopefully a change of Govt. 😀
Owen wrote;
“The climate does not instantaneously respond to stimulus. All the arguments about year on year changes tacitly assume the system is in a state of equilibrium.”
IMHO, this is exactly correct, the natural system is NEVER in a state of equilibrium, rather it is CONSTANTLY chasing the most recent perturbation. The only question is how fast can it respond to the perturbations?
One of the wonders of engineering is the ability to overcome the limits of any natural system to respond to perturbations and force the system to respond in accord with our wishes.
For example a simple mass suspended by springs will swing back and forth at a “natural frequency” determined by the masses/inertias involved. But with real “feedback” an engineer can force the mass to remain in place (within the limits of our ability to; resolve its position; apply power to move it; and the bandwidth at which we can calculate updates).
The alleged “feedbacks” referred to by the climate scientists are actually a combination of parallel and serial responses to the perturbations. Some of which just happen to correlate (some or most of the time) with the perturbation. Other “feedbacks” just happen to be random effects that over some random time interval might appear to be a feedback.
“NEVERMIND” INDEED, who is going to replace all those golden and bald eagles minced by the wind mills ? Funny that their populations were going UP after we stopped shooting them for FUN several decades before the DDT ban.
Cheers, Kevin.
Katherine, money colected for carbon rip-of should be used for building new big jails for the members of the Warmist club. They are extortion money; they are hot money, billions. Urban Seep needs to be compensated / money rethurned. Then, if they want to contribute, to make you look generous, they should be given an option; it’s their money. The members of the warmist club should start thinking how to repair the real damages done to the environment /climate / humanity; under the banner of preventing the phony GLOBAL warming – which was converted into Climate Change. IT’s clear cut; there is no such a thing as GLOBAL warming. Climate NEVER stopped changing for one day for the last 4 billion years. Now they intend to mislead that they will stop the climate; probaly the winds allso… with carbon rip-of. Crime shouldn’t pay !!!
Seems that there is a surge in posting today, I believe I posted this before,but I’ll send it in again in case it got lost. If it is duplicate please delete one copy.(thanks, K Klees)
Owen wrote;
“The climate does not instantaneously respond to stimulus. All the arguments about year on year changes tacitly assume the system is in a state of equilibrium.”
IMHO, this is exactly correct, the natural system is NEVER in a state of equilibrium, rather it is CONSTANTLY chasing the most recent perturbation. The only question is how fast can it respond to the perturbations?
One of the wonders of engineering is the ability to overcome the limits of any natural system to respond to perturbations and force the system to respond in accord with our wishes.
For example a simple mass suspended by springs will swing back and forth at a “natural frequency” determined by the masses/inertias involved. But with real “feedback” an engineer can force the mass to remain in place (within the limits of our ability to; resolve its position; apply power to move it; and the bandwidth at which we can calculate updates).
The alleged “feedbacks” referred to by the climate scientists are actually a combination of parallel and serial responses to the perturbations. Some of which just happen to correlate (some or most of the time) with the perturbation. Other “feedbacks” just happen to be random effects that over some random time interval might appear to be a feedback.
“NEVERMIND” INDEED, who is going to replace all those golden and bald eagles minced by the wind mills ? Funny that their populations were going UP after we stopped shooting them for FUN several decades before the DDT ban.
Cheers, Kevin.
We covered this a month or so back:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/which-causes-which-out-of-atmospheric-temperature-and-co2-content/
On the isotope ratio thing, I put this up last year:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/miso-rise-in-co2-due-to-plants-not-coal/
What, no comment from Ferdinand Englebeen yet???
R. Gates says:
August 5, 2011 at 8:55 am
Heh, heh, heh. You are toast, buddy. You are toast. You’d best listen to the Selby podcast, instead of making a bunch of nonsensical comments that you are having your hand called on. It destroys your arguments, along with those of your fellow warmists. Don’t be so arrogant to presume that you are more of an authority on the subject than this fellow Selby.