Pierre Gosselin (and commenter Bill_W) tips us to this:
Die kalte Sonne website here has just posted the video presentation of Murry Salby in Hamburg in April. If anyone ever demolished the dubious CO2 AGW science, it’s Salby!
Most of the presentation is very mathematical and technical. But the last 10 minutes sums everything up very nicely for the laypersons.
Watch the divergence:
I watched the whole thing and I know that 40 years ago, I understood most all of the math that he uses. It is truly a priviledge to watch someone walk through it who actually know what it means. For the other side, I have long suspected that it was all smoke and mirrors. Dr. Murray Salby takes away their mirrors.
David Riser says:
June 10, 2013 at 11:02 am
A Man of science without a doubt.
###
No man of science is without a doubt. 😛
DirkH says:
June 10, 2013 at 12:21 pm
Maybe the turn-out would have been better in Berlin or Munich.
I would surely hope so.
@ur momisugly Ryan,
I agree that Salby should be comparing model projections with observations, but that’s been done before.
In case you missed it, the models didn’t do so well.
“….1% whacks the other 99% …” (in reference to CO2 and the factors involved in the global energy balance) and the divergence in 1998 between the model and observations is in my opinion, stunningly obvious.
Who worries about the turnout? It’s what the man says that matters. And what he says is that those who believe that a teeny weeny 1% factor can wag the whole system are wrong. Now can we please agree to carry Murray’s message to the great unwashed?
Dr. Salby concluded that the CO2 variation in ice cores could understate atmospheric variation severalfold. Yet ice cores from our interglacial seem to correspond well both with ice cores from previous interglacials and with atmospheric measurements, i.e. we have no indications of 1,000 ppm CO2 in the Holocene. Presumably there are other atmospheric CO2 proxy measures that could be compared with ice cores from thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago?
His observation that climate models seem to depend in a simple way on only CO2 reminded me of Willis Eschenbach’s articles here on WUWT. The energy budget diagram with its dependence on water and cloud behavior brought to mind yesterday’s WUWT article on waterworld modeling and the slide presentations linked by Mosher in the comment thread.
Much food for thought.
The alarmists will never let the truth get in their way. They are as consistent as the CO2 and rising temperature in their failed models.
It’s Murry, not Murray.
Judging by the speech Murry Salby gave at the Sydney Institute, there’s a blockbuster paper coming soon.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/
I understand.
I have come to the conclusion that if someone is explaining the truth it is much easier to understand than someone who is telling lies; or spreading disinformation or propaganda or espousing a belief system . This was obvious when listening to Dr Spencer and then the incoherent babblings of Gavin Schmidt on the same program for example. Whenever I find myself understanding a concept I feel that I am being told the truth. I have no knowledge of climate science or atmospheric physics but I have a deep understanding of logic: I have a finely tuned bullshit meter, and a keen sense of observation, both outside the window and on screen. Good talk, Dr Salby.
I have seen a version of the presentation before, but have not seen a published paper although it was discussed previously. If there is a published paper, produce it. Intuitively it seems to me he is on to something, but without a published paper with verifiable data sources, it lacks the needed credibility.
There are three blockbuster papers coming from Professor Salby.
“I agree that Salby should be comparing model projections with observations, but that’s been done before.
In case you missed it, the models didn’t do so well.”
The Feb model/observation update from realclimate disagrees heartily with you.
In 1 hour and 8 minutes this fellow presents REAL climate science as it should have been all along using proxy records and current data. One of the more salient findings is his explanation is the fact that ice cores only reflect a small amount of atmospheric Co2. Implying that during the ice ages atmospheric C02 was much higher. He actuallyfor the firts time, explains how climate worked BEFORE and how it is likely to function now and in the future. This man gives climate science a real possibility as a serious career prospect for younger graduates. Mann et al should be ashamed of themselves. I Think this video really exposes them as quacks who should not be working in this area. Well see if RC even comments on it LOL
I would have thought that Lord Monckton who have been intensely interested in this work as it is pure maths LOL.
The thing about the ice cores wasn’t so much that there may have been 1000ppm CO2 levels missed in the core, but that any high rate of change of CO2 would have been missed. This implies that events which spike CO2 rapidly to say 500ppm which then decay fairly rapidly back to whatever baseline would be entirely not in evidence in the cores.
I also like the graph showing that the temperature integral seems to line up better with the CO2 measurements then trying to force temperature to relate to CO2 like the models do. It made more sense to me anyway.
Very nice explanation of how the very different geological time scale changes and recent rapid changes all fit together within the same model. The time constant of non conservative processes being the factor that distinguishes the two very different responses and phase relationships.
Also the explanation of dC13 ratio was very useful.
The only bit that did not ring true for me was the claim that ice core records underestimate CO2 by a factor of 15 at 100ka scale. I think if you followed that back to 1 million or 10 million years it would imply physically impossible levels of CO2. The numbers are getting to big too quickly.
The general argument and equations explaining how diffusion would cause an underestimation seem sound though.
Very interesting talk.
Forgive me if I misunderstand:
Dr. Salby makes much of the diffusion of CO2 in the ice column. He seems to treat the proxy temperature as though it doesn’t suffer from the same effect.
Around 05:00 he refers to:
If anything, I would guess that oxygen would diffuse faster than CO2. I don’t think that affects his conclusions. I wonder if some of his analysis is superfluous though.
Dr. Salby spends a lot of time talking about Fourier analysis and makes a big deal of the fact that observed CO2 and temperature evolve in quadrature. (12:35) He spends a long time explaining why the proxy record does not exhibit this quadrature relationship. As far as I can tell, this part of the analysis is a waste of effort.
Given two waveforms that closely resemble each other, except perhaps for a time lag, I will assume that there is no phase distortion (see also) between the two. A quadrature relationship between any of the frequency components will be a coincidence. If many of the frequency components of the two signals are in quadrature, this phase distortion will have the result that the waveforms will not resemble each other.
While the instrumental record CO2 looks like the integral of temperature, the same isn’t true of the proxy CO2. Using diffusion to explain the difference really doesn’t work. The two waveforms are too similar to say that one is the integral of the other.
Dr. Briggs, are you in the house?
So, CO2 is the dependent variable (not cause) in both instrument and proxy records and the dependence of CO2 is on the integral of temperature. Then based on his analysis, which looked good to me, CO2 as a driver is unimportant. The inference then is that the temperature and CO2 variations in modern times are both natural and not anthropogenic. (if CO2 tracks the integral of temperature, the reverse of causation would be that CO2 was the independent variable and then temperature would have to depend on the derivative of CO2, which implies some unknown physical mechanism).
What then is driving temperature, and, moreover, driving it in such a way of producing a nice monotonic CO2 rise?
I wonder if Dr. Lindzen has seen this presentation?
http://www.climatescience.cam.ac.uk/community/file/download/843
Eric Wolff does not accept Salby’s analysis. Anyone else have time to read this?
Owen in GA says (June 10, 2013 at 1:58 pm): “The thing about the ice cores wasn’t so much that there may have been 1000ppm CO2 levels missed in the core, but that any high rate of change of CO2 would have been missed.”
Ah, thanks, that makes more sense.
A natural teacher and communicator. An absolute mastery of his subject combined with a finely judged use of the measured pause and the killer fact. Anyone who has been taught by Professor Salby is a very lucky person indeed
Dr Salby confirms as follows:
i) The ice core record is too coarse to accurately reflect natural short term variability in atmospheric CO2. It appears to be far larger than generally supposed.
ii) There are potential natural sources of low C13 CO2 which are capable of confounding the isotope based diagnosis. I have suggested that one such may be decomposing organic material in the oceans just as decomposing organic matter on land is low in C13.
iii) CO2 involves only a tiny fraction of the energy absorbed by an atmosphere. I think he understates the role of mass in the presentation but impliedly acknowledges it when he refers to conduction and convection.
iv) The potential variability of the speed of conduction and convection would provide a negative system response.
All of those points are confirm my comments here and elsewhere over the years.
The next step is to get a grip on the way the climate system changes when the effects of forcing elements other than mass, gravity and ToA insolation occur (primarily variations in atmospheric composition) and I think I have given plausible mechanisms in that regard.
The ultimate truth must be that atmospheric composition changes, including radiative ability of constituent molecules will only ever result in circulation changes which would eventually return the system to the initial equilibrium set by mass, gravity and insolation if everything else remained equal.
The key to that is climate zone shifting and changes in jet stream behaviour.
The key diagnostic indicator as to whether the system is gaining energy or losing energy at any given time is global cloudiness and albedo.
I wonder if Dr Salby would be willing to debate al gore on live TV 🙂 I would like to see al’s head explode….what a gory mess it would be.
Thanks Dr Salby for all that you do. Along with Dr Spencer and now Dr Salby, I may be starting to gain faith in science again.
@ur momisugly Ryan:
“The Feb model/observation update from realclimate disagrees heartily with you.”
I assume you are referring to this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/
They present 5 charts that show the following:
1) Climate models are much better at hindcasting than forecasting.
2) Climate scientists would rather show adjusted data than actual data,
3) The models got the direction of Ocean Heat Content right, but “If the models were to be simply extrapolated, they would lie above the observations”.
4) Models failed spectacularly to either hindcast or forecast the rate of acrtic ice melt.
5) The world has warmed less than Hansen et al (1988) Scenario C, despite GHG emissions and concentrations that have risen faster than Scenario B.