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:
If he is right or mostly right then climate scientists have been grappling with the age old chicken or the egg question. We have been coming out of the Little Ice Age since the 19th century and there was a sharpish, mostly ‘natural’ warming between 1910 to 1940 (under the safe co2 level).
Dr. James Hansen on the climate models. 16 May 2013, assuming it’s a correct transcript.
But they can tell us the temperature of planet Water in 2100.
Philip Richens says:
June 10, 2013 at 12:18 pm
“I don’t know if this is any better founded.”
It has no foundation whatsoever. Ferdinand basically assumes the sinks are constant, and do not vary in response to the amount of CO2 in the system. Only in such a static situation is his “mass balance” argument applicable.
But, that is not the case. Plants grow faster with increased CO2. Minerals weather faster and absorb more CO2. The oceans dissolve more with increased partial pressure. It is a dynamic feedback system. Static analysis is not applicable.
While one can say that Nature is an overall sink, there is no way to determine on the basis of that information alone that it would still remain a sink if the anthropogenic input were taken away. This is because the sinks themselves grow in response to those anthropogenic inputs, and would shrink back down if the anthropogenic inputs were taken away.
It is a classic feedback action. Really, very elementary.
Russ R. at 12:16 pm above offers two criticisms based on watching the final 10 min of the video. I assume this was based on Anthony’s recommendation for that section of the video. I think that was a mistake and urge you to watch the whole video. Salby addresses those issues in detail earlier in the video.
Hockey Schtick says:
June 10, 2013 at 10:04 am
I went to your page, but I cannot seem to leave a comment. Your first poster is off base. That is not a plot of temperature and CO2, but of temperature and the rate of change of CO2, as the formula above it indicates.
It’s a good video. Thanks for linking to it.
Well, if he’s right about the atmospheric CO2 concentration being proportional to the integral of the temperature then perhaps Beck was right all along. It certainly makes sense (Henry’s Law) but I’m hardly convinced. The only way I see out of this alarm driven nightmare is for CO2 concentration to decline. There will always be some excuse or other “manifestation” of warming to invoke and of course ocean acidification to keep demonizing the use of fossil fuels.
Impressive and implaccable logic.
Should be required viewing for all members of Congress. They wouldn’t understand the math, of course (they can’t even do budget arithmetic), but they might still get the point.
Now compare Salby’s contribution to science to this:
“3. Global Warming
If you are worried about global warming and its effects globally and locally, coal trains are a bad idea. The proposed export volumes are huge: roughly 15% of the total coal usage of China. We will be a participant and contributor to a significant increase in atmospheric CO2. It is nice to drive our hybrids and use wind energy. The coal trains will compensate (in a bad way) for all our sacrifices and investments.”
LOL Now name the author of this gem… 😉
After watching this video, I have to conclude that the science indeed is settled. CO2 has been found innocent and is free to leave the court.
Ryan says | June 10, 2013 at 1:26 pm
“The Feb model/observation update from realclimate disagrees heartily with you.”
—————-
Is that before or after the hindcast corrections ? Undergraduate ?
Refer to the segment where Dr Salby discusses model hindcasting … hindcasting is of no consequence, only forecasting. Now show us where the forecasts have accurately foretold the unadulterated observations.
Wolff doesn’t like that Salby says the ice core data loses its resolution because of gas diffusion. Wolff presents evidence that even old data can be resolved within 50 years.
The ice core data contradicts Salby’s hypothesis that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a function of the integral of temperature. Even if we do allow that the proxy record is smeared because of diffusion, there’s no way the proxy CO2 behaves as a function of the integral of proxy temperature.
I think Dr. Salby is wasting his time with the ‘diffusion’ thing. He should be able to find a low pass filter whose output fits both the proxy and instrument data. A first order filter with a time constant in the order of decades would be my initial guess.
Marvellous talk. Judging from the number of warmist nay-sayers here, it’s devastating.
commieBob says:
June 10, 2013 at 6:47 pm
“The ice core data contradicts Salby’s hypothesis that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a function of the integral of temperature. “
No, because it is the scaled integral of temperature anomaly, and neither the baseline for the anomaly nor the proportionality factor are necessarily constant in time. However, they may be modeled as such over finite durations to achieve an approximate system model within the neighborhood of a given operating condition.
This is basic linearization theory for control systems, and successful applications are vast beyond description.
I will give you an example of how such a process might come about. Suppose that a CO2 rich mass of waters from the thermohaline circulation starts upwelling in the tropics. Those cold waters start to heat up at the surface and release their CO2. If downwelling waters at the poles do not carry down as much CO2 as is being pumped into the surface system by the upwelling waters, then CO2 will accumulate in the atmosphere. Since the rate at which it accumulates is proportional to temperature, this produces a relationship of the form
dCO2/dt = k*(T – Teq)
where dCO2/dt is the derivative or rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere, k is the proportionality factor, and Teq is an equilibrium temperature such that, if surface temperatures were to fall to it, the upwelling waters would no longer outgas their contents. This is precisely the relationship we see in the data. The solution of the above differential equations is, of course,
CO2(t) = CO2(0) + integral( k*(T – Teq) from 0 to t )
Now, several decades later, the upwelling waters become less CO2 enriched. The value of k decreases, and the temperature Teq needed to reestablish equilibrium drops. Thus, a new operating regime has been entered, and the parameters needed to accurately model what is happening have changed with it.
The upwelling waters in the thermohaline pipeline have been charting their course for centuries. Their CO2 concentration is dependent on what it was at the time they originally downwelled, as well as any other processes they endured during their multi-century trek. There is no reason at all to expect that they would be homogeneous in content from one end of the pipeline to the other, any more than you would expect the flow of the Nile to be uniform over centuries. Properties change over time, and especially over the immense expanses of time characteristic of ocean circulation.
This adds to the idea that there is no evidence that CO2 effects climate. It is hard for me to believe that man is not having a significant effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere but it does not seem to matter. The idea that CO2 spikes as well as temperature spikes in proxy data is low pass filtered out is well taken so there may have been CO2 changes in the past like we are seeing today and in the past man could have not possible been the cause. If CO2 levels in general do not effect climate then Man’s contribution cannot either. I have always contended that the IPCC computer models just beg the question and this article seems to support that idea. You hard code in that increased CO2 levels add heat so that is what your simulation results show. It has nothing to do with reality. Besides observations, I have a line of physical reasoning that supports the idea that CO2 does not effect climate but unfortunately I do not believe that what I have constitutes a “smoking gun” against the idea of human caused climate change. This article helps but I am still looking for it.
Michael Cohen says:
June 10, 2013 at 2:30 pm
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?
Wolff’s defense of the ice core concentration data seems credible. He doesn’t contradict Salby’s arguments about lack of data on the concentration dependent responses and carbon isotope concentrations of CO2 sinks.
As far as the CO2 debate goes, Dr. Selby went into great detail concerning mathematical issue’s between old ice core proxy (I use proxy since the comparison is between icebound CO2 and atmospheric not necessarily the same thing) new ice core and actual observation. If you watch the entire presentation and have a decent grasp of math, what he says makes perfect sense. He is careful to not try and calculate actual amounts just notes that it is under represented which makes a logical sense considering we are talking ice, which has a tendancy to keep the local surface area to a bounded upper temperature, the CO2 observations have a huge annual variation, all which would tend to limit the moment to moment capture of the CO2.
The interesting thing will be then next 10-20 years if the CO2 in atmosphere follows the integral of the temp we may see a leveling then a decrease in CO2 concentrations.
It’s good to hear a skeptic’s presentation delivered using a competent sound recording system. Heartland’s presentations were poorly edited and recorded, and every Lindzen presentation I’ve heard appears to have been recorded using a horn and a wax cylinder.
It’s the annual temperature cycle that causes the change in atmospheric CO2 (net emission). The cycle is a CO2 pump, whose flow is temperature dependent. At sufficiently low temperatures the flow is zero and negative.
I discovered the close relationship between dCO2/dt and temperature in late 2007 and in January 2008 I published the paper below at:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
I concluded that dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperature and its integral CO2 lags LT temperature by ~9 months.
I summarized as follows:
“The IPCC’s position that increased CO2 is the primary cause of global warming is not supported by the temperature data. In fact, strong evidence exists that disproves the IPCC’s scientific position. This UPDATED paper and Excel spreadsheet show that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lag (occur after) variations in Earth’s Surface Temperature by ~9 months. The IPCC states that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause of global warming – in effect, the IPCC states that the future is causing the past. The IPCC’s core scientific conclusion is illogical and false.”
When I wrote this conclusion I was criticized by both sides of the global warming debate.
Initially, this relationship (dCO2/dt varies with T and CO2 lags T by 9 months) was deemed incorrect.
Then it was accepted as valid by some on the warmist side of this debate, but dismissed as a “feedback”.
This “feedback argument” appears to be a “cargo cult” rationalization, derived as follows:
“We KNOW that CO2 drives Temperature, therefore it MUST BE a feedback.”
My “climate heresy” is now gaining some traction.
Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen. Faites vos jeux.
Regards, Allan
Note that the above paper was written ~3 years before Murry Salby’s first address to the Sydney Institute in 2011.
So well worth the time, Dr. Salby! I thoroughly enjoyed that.
Dr. Salby has shown that temperature drives CO2 concentrations, and that models that assume the opposite must fail.
Dr. Spencer has shown that 73 climate models that assume CO2 concentration drives temperature have indeed failed.
It is not just the AGW hypothesis that must be questioned, but also the radiative GHE hypothesis. Many sceptics and AGW believers accept the radiative GHE hypothesis, yet just like the AGW hypothesis, it remains unproven. Is there a case for claiming that the net effect of radiative gases is cooling?
Dr. Salby raises an important point toward the end of his presentation. He states that the mechanical energy transfer from the surface to atmosphere through conduction and convection is two orders of magnitude greater than any expected CO2 warming effect.
The slightest increase in mechanical energy transfer could therefore offset any radiative warming of the lower atmosphere by CO2.
Radiative gases are critical to convective circulation in the troposphere. They add to heating of the lower atmosphere and allow radiative cooling of the upper atmosphere. Adding energy low in a moving gas atmosphere while removing it at altitude drives convective circulation. The speed and strength of tropospheric convective circulation is dependant of the concentration of radiative gases.
To calculate the net effect of radiative gases in the atmosphere, the role of radiative gases in driving mechanical energy transfer must be solved simultaneously with the change in direct radiative flux. Does the “basic physics” of the “settled science” do this correctly? The answer is clearly no.
Konrad.
Although you get much right it cannot be right that GHGs are necessary for convective overturning to occur.
One doesn’t need to add energy at the bottom AND remove it at the top to create overturning.
All one needs is for pressure (and density) to reduce with height so that KE is converted to PE as one goes higher.
The conversion of KE to PE with height produces a temperature decline because PE does not register as heat.
The only two factors needed to provoke convective overturning are a pressure decline with height and surface heating and both are present in a non GHG atmosphere.
Konrad said:
“The speed and strength of tropospheric convective circulation is dependant of the concentration of radiative gases.”
It is dependent on the pressure decline with height plus the strength and unevenness of surface heating.
Whatever net effect that radiative gases might have (if any) is offset be an equal and opposite change in the speed and strength of the convective circulation.
If GHGs reduce energy loss to space the convective circulation will have to work harder and if they increase energy loss to space the convective circulation will work less hard.
That negative system response ensures that planets can retain their atmospheres whatever the compositional variations within an atmosphere.
ALL compositional variations including radiative characteristics have their thermal effects cancelled by changes in the convective circulation.
If it were not so then atmospheres could not be retained in the long term.