Dr. Murray Salby on Model World -vs- Real World

Bart said:
“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”
I have been making that point for years.

We do not know much about the magnitude of natural sources and sinks of CO2 but we know enough to understand that temperature controls the RATES of both biotic and physical chemical processes.
This relationship is the probable cause of seasonal and multiyear planetary CO2 variability not resulting from black swan events discussed by Dr. Salby.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are largely controlled by life on earth or we would not have 21% Oxygen versus .04% CO2. It’s that simple. Photosynthesis versus respiration as life “breathes”. Or did you think all that oxygen came out of Al Gore’s ass ?
AGW, Global Thermageddon, Climate Disruption, etc is and always has been so much bull$hit.

The hour spent on listening to the presentation was definitely one of the most interesting hours I have ever spent on the topic. But if I consider things carefully, I still see some inaccuracies and weak points.
What he presents and more or less proves is the fact that CO2 is driven by temperature way more than temperature is driven by CO2. I agree with that. When we go to the part calculating the CO2 change however, human emission stop being as negligible as they were in the energy budget calculation. It is rather likely that if human emissions weren’t there, the CO2 would be actually declining with about the same slope it is now increasing. Because as long as the change is caused by imbalance between natural sources and sinks – imbalance driven by temperature – humans with their comparably tiny contribution have still successfully changed the imbalance to the exactly opposite direction.
If he’s right, we probably don’t have to care about temperature. But we may still need to care about CO2. Not exactly to get rid of it, but to figure out and maintain level which is beneficial for us.

Konrad says:
June 10, 2013 at 10:06 pm

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 real problem here is that Dr Salby and ilk do not understand that the AGW GHE does not have conduction and convection, and those supporting the AGW GHE do not understand the arguments bringing in conduction and convection because they don’t have it, because their gases are not real, but the ideal gas. Their ideal gases are a theoretical fiction turned into a fantasy world and it is this they pass off as if the real world, in ignorance that this was fraudulently created by person/persons unknown, to me, but who understand real physics as still taught in up to date traditional science and have manipulated it by sleight of hand changes by misappropriating its terms, to create a world that doesn’t exist.
The AGW Greenhouse Effect is impossible in the real world.
As every meteorologist should know, who is expected to understand how we get our winds and weather from expanding and condensing real gas molecules of our mainly nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere, which changes their weight under gravity creating areas of low and high pressure. Who should know that heat is transferred by convection in this as the real gases expand and become lighter than air taking away heat from the surface and then cooling condense becoming heavier than air forming high pressure volumes and so sinking back to the surface, flowing beneath the areas of low pressure hotter volumes at the surface. These are called winds, which are volumes of air on the move, convection currents.
Hot air rise cold air sinks. Winds flow from high to low. Basic bog standard meteorolgy of real gases with individual volumes which expand and contract, real gases with mass under the pulling power of gravity which gives them weight relative to each other.
The standard air against which the mass of gas molecules are measured, water vapour and methane lighter than air and carbon dioxide one and half times heavier. Lighter than air gases always rise in air, heavier than air gases always sink, spontaneously, it takes work to change this direction just as it takes work to change the direction of heat flow which is always from hotter to colder. This is a Law of Nature. It is never seen to be broken, not in nature and not in any industry utilising heat transfer by conduction and convection. The industrial revolution was built on the 2nd Law in which there is no fake fisics “net”. There is no GHE of “backradiation of heat from colder atmosphere to warmer Earth”.
AGW’s The Greenhouse Effect is an illusion built on changing the properties of real condensable gases with mass, volume, attraction, relative weight under gravity comprising our heavy fluid ocean of gas which is our atmosphere, and replacing this with the theoretical fiction Ideal gas in empty space in an imaginary invisible container which does not exist.
The AGWScienceFiction’s world does not have an atmosphere. How can it then have conduction and convection?
The sooner all arguing about this realise that these are completely different viewpoints, completely different concepts of the world around us, the sooner we can begin untangling the damn mess that the AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Illusion has got us into.
Ideal gas has no mass, therefore nothing for gravity to work on so it has no weight which gravity gives, it is not subject to gravity and so does not separate out by weight ; it has no volume, therefore nothing to individually expand and condense; it has no attraction, because ideal gas has only elastic collisions. Ideal gas is hard dots of massless nothing so empty space.
This ideal gas cannot be called by the names of real gases such as nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide, which have all these properties.
The AGWScienceFiction fisics has exchanged real gases for ideal in their fantasy world.
The AGWScienceFictions fakenitrogen, fakeoxygen, fakecarbondioxide, are “massless hard dots of nothing travelling at great speeds through empty space under their own molecular momentum miles apart from each other, bumping off the sides of the container and each other in elastic collisions so thoroughly mixing.” – real gas nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide are not this.
Our real world gases have volume, there is not empty space between them.
Our real gases are impeded by the volume of the other real gases surrounding them.
That’s how we get sound.
We do not get sound in the empty space of the AGW ideal gas scenario..
Our real gas atmosphere is a heavy fluid, gases and liquids are fluids, which weighs a stone on every square inch, a ton on our shoulders. Our atmosphere is not empty space but a heavy ocean of real gas with individual volumes which expand when heated and condense when cooled.
This makes them lighter or heavier than air and those lighter will rise and those heavier will sink.
Gravity’s force, its pulling power, acts on the mass of the individual gases and it is reduced the further away from the surface the gas which means there is less condensing pressure on the individual molecule, from gravity’s pull to the surface and from the weight of the other gases around it squashing it. Real gases under pressure condense, as the pressure lessens they expand.
So, there are two ways for real gases to expand and condense, relative pressure from gravity’s pull and weight of the individual volumes of gases around them, and heating and cooling.
Both are in constant play in our real gas fluid atmosphere.
As a base all the real gases expand in volume the further they are away from the surface and condense the closer they are to the surface under the pull of gravity.
This is the basic scenario of the lapse rate in which temperature decreases in known degrees per feet away from the surface, because the real gases have individual volumes which expand and condense under gravity.
As they expand they take up more room – be careful here, you will not often see it said like that, but said “they get further away from each other” which gives the wrong impression of what is physically happening, implying there is empty space between them..
For example, in liquid form the number of water molecules in a given volume on expanding will take up 1000 times more space as water vapour.
As water vapour expands its volume increases taking up much more space and so the weight of the individual molecules of water are spread over a greater area, this is what gives us our low pressure areas.
Low pressure areas are simply that, expanded gases of air and water weighing less heavily on us because their weight is spread over a greater area.
So conversely, high pressure areas are where the gases are condensed so taking up less room so more of them in the same space, the combined weight now pressing down more heavily on us.
AGWScienceFicition fisics does not have this. They do not have any atmosphere at all, they have replaced all this with empty space for their radiation claims.
Not only does our bulk nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere of real gases act a blanket because real gases with individual volume under gravity, but they also play their part in convecting heat away from the surface as does water.
Water in evaporation and with its high heat capacity taking away heat from the surface to the colder heights where it releases its heat and condenses back to liquid water and ice, coming down in cold precipitation, which, is also taking out all the carbon dioxide around it because it and carbon dioxide are attracted to each other forming carbonic acid – all natural unpolluted rain has a pH of 5.6-8 from its carbonic acid content.
AGWSF’s Greenhouse Effect has taken out the Water Cycle, it has no rain in is Carbon Cycle.
This is where AGWSF has created its sleight of hand by taking out the natural real gas cooling of our atmosphere by all gases, which means that they have changed the meaning of “greenhouse”, which real world greenhouses both warm and cool, and in warming, have given the thermal blanket effect of the whole atmosphere under gravity to the trace gas which they fraudulently call carbon dioxide..
All our real gases which comprise the our atmosphere are greenhouse gases.
This is the base science fraud here, note it well –
There is no AGW Greenhouse Effect of “33°C warming by their version of greenhouse gases from the -18°C”, because that figure is from real physics and it refers to the Earth without any of its real gas atmosphere. The comparison is with the Moon. Which has no atmosphere. All the Venus arguments are a distraction from this..
Here, you can see what they’ve done in their science fraud by the real world physics of our real gas atmosphere:
Temperature of the Earth without any atmosphere at all: -18°C.
(Compare with the Moon’s -23°C.)
Temperature of the Earth without water, think deserts, but with the rest of the real gas atmosphere in place which is practically 100% nitrogen and oxygen: 67°C.
That’s what you call a thermal blanket!
From -18°C to 67°C from the bulk of our real gas atmosphere which is nitrogen and oxygen.
This is the difference between the Moon without an atmosphere and our Earth with its thermal blanket of nitrogen and oxygen, we avoid the extreme swings into cold of the Moon.
But note, our great nitrogen and oxygen real greenhouse gases are also preventing us going into the extremes of heat of the Moon.
Because they also take heat away from the surface of the Earth by convection.
“When sunlight hits the moon’s surface, the temperature can reach 253 degrees F (123 C).”
The convective power of heat transfer by oxygen and nitrogen brings that down to 67°C on our Earth.
Now, this is just with the heat capacity of nitrogen and oxygen, when we add water back into our real gas atmosphere with water’s really big heat capacity, that 67°C is further reduced – to our goldilocks 15°C.
So, bearing all this in mind, here’s what you ought to be comparing with, the Moon: http://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html
I’m sure you can see now where their AGWSF sleights of hand have created the illusion that there is “33°C warming” by their greenhouse gases, there is no mechanism for that..
They have misattributed the -18°C and have taken out the whole real gas atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen and water to create that illusion.
From within which world are all of you arguing about this? Completely in the real of up to date physics as still taught traditionally, or completely in the fictional AGWSF’s Greenhouse Effect word?
From what I’ve seen of the arguments it is usually a mixture because the fake fisics memes produced by this scam were introduced into the general education system some decades ago and its basic memes taken as if real by those not specialising in the relevant fields.
Hence all the confusion..

The only objections put up by AGW proponents so far all seem to miss the point.
Dr Salby demonstrates mathematically that it is his interpretation of the real world that fits observations whereas the assumptions of the AGW theory do not.

Kasuha
Without geting too far into the climate intricate mechanisms, it seems that professor Murry Salby is both well qualified as an atmospheric scientist, with a number of important publications to his credit and obviously more to come once the gatekeepers of so called “peer review” can’t find anything else to delay his papers/book publication. The important thing is, can we now with confidence, adapt to whatever climate serves up to us in the future. Seems from his talk that if we accept that C02 is NOT a driver of temperature, we should be able to avoid having to alter our economies dramatically to control a rather non event, due to guesswork and substandard model projections based on past guesswork.
As an Australian I find it rather strange that our present government has relied on/or stacked its Climate Commission with either poorly qualified or not qualified in this field of science, activist CAGW promoters when they have available to them Professor Salby as chair of climate at an Australian University, and one might think the government would wish to make use of his expertise in that exact field.
In the same way it is hard to understand why the Australian Broadcasting Commission, a taxpaper funded but independent broadcaster, whose charter is to provide a balanced media presentation to the Australian public (and under fire from other media for its almost total left wing biased reporting) hasn’t found time to ask Professor Murry Salby (or any other well qualified Australian sceptical climate scientists) to present such an alternative view, preferring the rather wild pronouncements by their Climate Commissioners, or failing to insist that those well qualified but sceptical scientists replace some of the Australian representatives that are also not specifically qualified in climate science, but often make pronouncements based solely on their authority conferred by participating as our “official” representatives at the IPCC. and enhanced recipients of much government funding and research dollars.?
These self proclaimed “Climatologists” get instant media coverage (no credible alternative view permitted sir) as long as they support the political view of the present government that CO2 is framed as “dirty carbon” and so evil because it is driving temperature upward, to absolutely cause disaster and necessitating the most draconian economic reversal and taxation, driving up prices, adding to the taxation burden of ordinary australians.
But even though this is hurting people now, costing jobs, why oh why doesn;t the Media and the ABC find equal time to present science instead of social twitterings, like that of unqualified people like Bill McKibben and others of similar backgrounds that get the red carpet treatment and a forum to spout their nonsense?.
I am sure that Professor Salby, Bob Tisdale, and a host of other well qualified people would be willing to debate IPCC scientists, Climate Commissioners and the stream of unqualified CAGW believers who keep the faith.
It is a travesty of justice the Australian public suffer from the stream of propaganda and science itself suffers as truth is silenced and available experts ignored.

An absolutely superb presentation.
For most of my life as a climate sceptic I have assumed that the increase in CO2 was entirely man-made. Now I find myself less and less certain.
I believe it was thought that temperature did indeed drive CO2, but with a lag of around 800 years. This was due to the oceans releasing CO2 as they warmed, and the 800 years lag was due to the vast bulk of the oceans.
However, I believe he didn’t mention this mechanism. It seems that, as temperatures rise, life becomes more active and prolific and, as a result, emits more CO2. Unlike the oceans, this will have a very small lag.
Basically, it means all bets are off. It’s been totally obvious that the warming was primarily natural, and not driven by CO2. Now it seems a serious possibility that the increase in CO2 itself was also natural.
We live in interesting times….
Chris

Alex says:
“Now you have to average it over the globe (including the angle of incidence!) and including the night side.”
Why, though? Why not consider the energy budget, instead of globally-averaged, as at a fixed point on the Earth’s surface during peak TOA radiation. Then consider it again at this fixed location when the sun is setting or rising. Then again in the middle of the night. And repeat these budgets for various latitudes…so you can start to build up a picture of the overall Earth’s energy budget but as a globe rather than a disk, and more in real-time rather than ignoring the difference between night and day. Perhaps the idea of the energy budget you would end up with would be very different than the one based on averaging everything out.

I found the talk riveting and most of the comments equally thought-provoking but, slightly off-topic a very naive question, why do so many commentators equate AGW with human release of CO2? Surely humans can increase temperatures, both locally and globally, without necessarily increasing CO2 levels? Can we not copy KenB’s terminology and distinguish between AGW and CAGW?

Chris Wright said:
“It seems that, as temperatures rise, life becomes more active and prolific and, as a result, emits more CO2. Unlike the oceans, this will have a very small lag.”
I think he implied that oceans plus soil moisture release more CO2 (net) when temperatures rise but there is then a lagging response from the biosphere so atmospheric amounts rise in the meantime.
However, the energised biosphere having taken up more but not all of the additional CO2 from warmed water at sea and on land then decomposes faster too which releases more low C13 CO2 in the decomposition process. Presumably that would apply to both the land based and oceanic biospheres together.
That way one could get both increasing CO2 in the air and a reduction in the C13 proportion without human emissions being implicated.
Furthermore, those natural processes are far larger than our puny emissions which seem to be taken up by the local and regional biosphere quickly so as to not affect the natural CO2 exchange significantly.
I think it will take a while for this to be picked over and thought through properly.

Stephen,
I did reply, just lost in m—–tion.