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:
Graham W says:
June 11, 2013 at 4:44 am
Alex says:
“You must take the energy flux from the Sun within the Earth cross-section”
Why is that though, excuse my ignorance?
—————–
School phys.
Look at the Sun. You see it is a disk. Uniformly bright. Guess why.
Alex.
I know what he did I know this is wrong. It does NOT follow reality.
TOA insolation is 1370W/m2. his model has a sunny night side which he divided by 4. This is obviously WRONG since the sun, providing that insolation, only shines on half the planet at a time since we do have a day/night divide. The day side receives radiation and radiates but the night side only radiates heat away so is cooling all night. Sunrise starts the warming cycle again with the average 500W/m2 and a zenith flux of 1000W/ms. this can be MEASURED AS EMPIRICAL DATA.
The flat earth model is wrong because it does not model reality which is a sphere rotating once every 24 hours with sunrise, sunset a daily occurrence and 12 hours of zero energy arriving at the surface. Reality thinking means reality answers and a debunking of the GHE because that is unnecessary for the heating that reality proves we have.
http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter02/618x221xImage48.jpg.pagespeed.ic.L4ICd4WbAt.jpg
By radiative gas I suppose you mean GHG’s.
Convection relies on density difference not radiation. The density difference is caused by temperature gained by, usually, conduction, ie. contact with a warmer surface. All gasses will convect regardless of their IR reactivity given a density difference. Convection happens on Jupiter, no GHG’s, and Venus, all GHG’s. So in this Spencer is correct the rest wrong.
KenB says:
June 11, 2013 at 3:33 am
Kasuha
Without geting too far into the climate intricate mechanisms, it seems that professor Murry Salby is both well qualified as an atmospheric scientist…
____________________________________________________
Your post is irrelevant to my argument. I’m used to seeing well qualified atmospheric scientists hiding things they don’t like in their presentations. This whole site is dedicated to unveiling such things in works of scientists like Mann or Hansen. Just because Dr. Salby is saying what you want to hear does not mean he’s not hiding anything.
He’s not right because he’s well qualified.That’s argument from authority, a thing this site is dedicated to battle. He can be only right if he did a good job.
I consider myself a climate skeptic. That means, I am skeptical to any claims about climate. Including those most people visiting WUWT want to hear.
If you think Dr. Salby is right because he is well qualified (and says what you want to hear), you’re not a climate skeptic. You’re a believer who happened to choose the non-mainstream religion.
Graham W.
We seem to agree on this figure as the TOA insolation. Albedo and atmospheric losses reduce this to ~1000W/m2 at the surface. TOA of 340W/m2 is plainly wrong. 1000W/m2 flux will heat part of the surface, about 10%, and the same flux spread over the hemisphere is half that at 500W/m2.(zero at the poles) 1000W/m2 equates to 88C at radiative equilibrium much of this being lost to convection, latent heat of evapouration of water etc.
Latent heat losses also explain the temperature difference between a very hot dry desert and a cooler rainforest at the same latitude.
Like many others, I was also struck by the small scale of human emissions compared with ocean and land/ plant emissions.
Is there data which allows one to compare the cumulative human emissions to date with the stock of CO2 dissolved in the oceans or absorbed in the land or by plants. It seems to be that this relationship would help one understand the materiality of the human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere, given that there are clearly many physical mechanisms at work which dictate the balance between CO2 in the atmosphere, on the one hand, and CO2 in the oceans/ land/ plants, on the other.
Yes, I agree that this is the right figure for TOA insolation at a point on the Earth’s surface when at that location the sun is directly overhead. Then I’d agree that part of that is going to be reflected because of the atmosphere and clouds etc and so only a smaller amount is actually going to reach the surface…you say ~1000 W/m2, I’m not sure exactly how that’s calculated but it doesn’t seem unreasonable! Then at other times of the day, when the sun is not directly overhead, seems to me that the TOA insolation figure at that same location on the Earth’s surface will be less…and at night it will be zero. I would think that these differences should all be considered and taken into account when considering the Earth’s energy budget rather than just averaging everything out (dividing insolation by 4, averaging out night/day etc) because the energy you’re receiving from the sun during the day is going to be more than 340 W/m2 at TOA for the majority of the time.
Deltas + party poppers: http://postimg.org/image/r2ncjrv5f/full
@Ryan Spear
The reason he showed the past is to explain that CO2 and Temperature are related, however rather than CO2 CAUSING increased Warming ( which would account for the 1% wagging the 99% ) he was demonstrating that CO2 via natural sources ( and to a limited extent Anthropological ) track temperature. He also indicated that the CO2 levels via proxy ice core data show a mean which suggest much higher elevations than what are demonstrated.
Did you watch the talk?
I’m afraid that anybody who concludes that the current high atmospheric Co2 level is not manmade has not been paying attention in bookkeeping 101 classes.
I notified Ferdinand Engelbeen of this thread.
Hans Erren says:
June 11, 2013 at 10:29 am
You must have forgotten to account for the hefty payments of Co2 to the cold ocean surfaces near the poles.
And since that sounds stupid, I must note Warm waters out gas Co2.
My main contention was that Dr. Salby is wasting his time bothering about diffusion in the ice cores. That explanation is too easily disputed and it’s not necessary. He spends a lot of time trying to use diffusion to explain why the proxy CO2 and proxy temperature don’t exhibit the same behaviour as the instrumental versions.
All the data is simply explained using a first order low pass filter analogue. Over periods shorter than one time constant, such filters integrate. Over long periods, the inputs and outputs are directly proportional. So simple. There is nothing about the waveforms that suggests that it is worthwhile to go for a more complicated relationship. As always, one should apply Occam’s Razor.
Once we have established the relationship, we can worry about the physical mechanisms involved, which is what you are doing. (And yes I do realize that adaptive control systems are wonderful … until they break and you have to fix them. I built my first one in 1974.)
Hans Erren says:
June 11, 2013 at 10:29 am
“I’m afraid that anybody who concludes that the current high atmospheric Co2 level is not manmade has not been paying attention in bookkeeping 101 classes. “
Or, they’ve moved well beyond such basic arithmetic and learned calculus.
commieBob says:
June 11, 2013 at 11:30 am
“All the data is simply explained using a first order low pass filter analogue.”
I only sampled the video, so I could have gotten some low pass filtering and aliasing in my own perceptions, but I thought that was Salby’s point, that the diffusion process affects the measurements similarly to such a low pass filter. So, if someone asks how can it be that “Over periods shorter than one time constant, such filters integrate. Over long periods, the inputs and outputs are directly proportional”, he can answer: “this way”.
“Peter Wilson said: In August 2011, Gavin gave this reply to a question about Salby on RealClimate. He implies Dr Salby is a little out of his field and out of date, and that his analysis implies much greater changes in CO2 during the ice ages. Dr Salby’s CV seems to make the first claim a little absurd, I’d be interested in a learned response to the second claim”
Peter, if I recall correctly, Salby has added quite a bit to his analysis since 2011. He just published the new edition of his atmospheric chemistry textbook as well. Hopefully he has one or more peer-reviewed papers on the way as well. I think the analysis with the firn and the decay rate and the arguments about the phase and quadrature are new since 2011, at least in the two talks I watched on You-tube. Some of the”rebuttals” are from people with a B.S. degree in Environmental studies so I don’t necessarily put them in the same league as Salby but of course what matters is the truth.
Personally, I want to know about the cause of the decay of the signal. I assume it is just diffusion from the air bubble to the neighboring ice, which seems entirely reasonable. It amuses me when someone says that one experiment in modern times proves that the CO2 just stays in the air bubble and that this proves that it won’t diffuse out over 100,000 years.
As far as the 2nd question, the changes in CO2 would be large, maybe up to 15 times larger (I think that is what Salby said) so up to several thousand ppm, but it has been that high in the distant past. I think that leaf stomata data implies that CO2 was higher in the past. Anyone have links for this?
Bill says:
June 11, 2013 at 12:16 pm
My thought would be, well, what do you expect Gavin to say? “Whoops! Oh, boy, was I wrong. Well, better clean out my desk and brush up my panhandling technique.”
You may be assured, those who have everything to lose will hold out to the bitter end.
@willhaas –
Here’s your smoking gun: Temps today substantially lower than in the 1930s, 80 years ago, while CO2 is 40% higher. The correlation is negative, the causation nonexistent.
Magnificent!
Murry Salby utterly and forever demolished the intellectually dishonest propaganda of the IPCC.
The Cult of Climatology’s glittering glass CO2 god lies smashed on the pavement.
Never to be pieced together again.
That was a deeply moving video, even for this layperson who watched (and, thanks to Salby’s excellent communication style AND THE EXCELLENT TEACHING I HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY WUWT’s SCIENCE GIANTS, with 90% comprehension) the entire thing.
Thanks, Pierre Gosselin, Bill W, and A-th-y, for the joy of watching a science hero in action.
The ice-core analysis makes clear the relative timing of events. And while it is certain that atmospheric CO2 lags temperature in both directions, so as to more readily be an effect and not a cause of temperature change, the one fact that is most uncertain from ice-core analysis is the exact magnitude of the CO2 spike that accompanies each and every interglacial (and also accompanies warming periods within a given interglacial).
Why? Because, for one, these spikes are, by definition, the highest temporal frequency events – which, of course, bestow on them the greatest sampling uncertainty. But this uncertainty is of magnitude and not of relative timing. The CO2 peaks, as represented from the ice-cores, are the established values obtainable within a finite (and limited) temporal sampling resolution. If higher sampling resolution could be arbitrarily applied, it could only reveal yet higher peaks (i.e. yet higher frequency events). These are facts of statistical sampling. See Figure A, on p12 below (we are fortunate to get 500 years least-count time resolution on any parameter when we go back more than just a few 1000’s of years).
Additionally, this uncertainty of magnitude is further muddied by an incomplete understanding of diffusion processes taking place distributed within an enormous pressure gradient (along with many other poorly understood processes). The uncertainty of this diffusion between ice layers can only act in such a way so as to underestimate the peaks of the highest frequency components as these peaks are also exactly, and by definition, where the diffusion gradient too is the very greatest. (There is no method to recover this lost information as it is no longer present within the samples.)
Therefore an exceptionally important aspect regarding the ice-core analysis, and one that is seemingly wholly under-appreciated, is the fact that this uncertainty of magnitude is substantially (entirely) all in one direction. And that direction is up. The highest peaks (ones that might have durations of only several hundred years) would not be temporally resolved at the very same time that unquantifiable diffusion processes would attenuate them preferentially the greatest (and with most likely significant attenuation as the higher and sharper the peak the more and harder our post-dated analysis will knock it down). Therefore in the end, we do know with certainty that CO2 lags temperature. But for all we know, atmospheric CO2 has spiked to over 1000 ppm (not so unlikely), for a relatively short period of time (quite possibly up to 500 years or even more), during each and every prior interglacial (and to only a marginally lesser extent in prior warming periods of the current interglacial).
Let me state this again, differently, and with as much clarity as is possible. All of the ice-core data, each and every piece, without regard to where the analysis might fall within the spatial extent of the physical ice core sample, supports the relative timing of temperature vs. CO2. And CO2 lags temperature without doubt. However, when it comes to the highest frequency components (the CO2 peaks) we can say with certainty that they are under-represented in the analysis. The true reality of the peaks of CO2 is that they are higher than we have determined, but by an amount higher that we cannot determine. And I would dare to add that prior peaks were very likely >>600 ppm.
johnmarshall says:
June 11, 2013 at 7:20 am
Alex.
I know what he did I know this is wrong. It does NOT follow reality.
TOA insolation is 1370W/m2. his model has a sunny night side which he divided by 4. This is obviously WRONG since the sun, providing that insolation, only shines on half the planet at a time since we do have a day/night divide. The day side receives radiation and radiates but the night side only radiates heat away so is cooling all night. Sunrise starts the warming cycle again with the average 500W/m2 and a zenith flux of 1000W/ms. this can be MEASURED AS EMPIRICAL DATA.
The flat earth model is wrong because it does not model reality which is a sphere rotating once every 24 hours with sunrise, sunset a daily occurrence and 12 hours of zero energy arriving at the surface.
So what is going on here? Is it or isn’t isn’t divided by 4?
And there’s more that confuses me with the figures that get presented, but let me first of all say that the AGW Greenhouse Effect energy budget of “shortwave in longwave out” is fake fisics.
They’ve taken out the direct heat radiation from the Sun, longwave infrared, and claim ludicrously that shortwaves heat the Earth (mainly visible with shortwave uv and ir either side, the shortwave ir being 1% of the total and mostly ignored, uv usually ignored too). But perhaps this has a bearing on the figures they use.
What you are giving giving is the solar constant which includes all wavelengths so includes the longwave thermal infrared, which AGW’s GHE energy budget has excluded – its 100% “Solar”, (KT97 and ilk) is shortwaves only and that mostly visible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant
“The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. It is measured by satellite to be roughly 1.361 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²) at solar minimum and approximately 0.1% greater (roughly 1.362 kW/m²) at solar maximum.”
It goes on to say:
“The Earth receives a total amount of radiation determined by its cross section (π·RE²), but as it rotates this energy is distributed across the entire surface area (4·π·RE²). Hence the average incoming solar radiation, taking into account the angle at which the rays strike and that at any one moment half the planet does not receive any solar radiation, is one-fourth the solar constant (approximately 340 W/m²). At any given moment, the amount of solar radiation received at a location on the Earth’s surface depends on the state of the atmosphere, the location’s latitude, and the time of day.”
But, as visible light and uv together at less than half that of the combined visible, uv and all of infrared including thermal longwave, they are using the number for longwave infrared from the Sun, but calling it shortwave. .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation
“Direct sunlight has a luminous efficacy of about 93 lumens per watt of radiant flux. Bright sunlight provides illuminance of approximately 100,000 lux or lumens per square meter at the Earth’s surface. The total amount of energy received at ground level from the sun at the zenith is 1004 watts per square meter, which is composed of 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.”
Reality thinking means reality answers and a debunking of the GHE because that is unnecessary for the heating that reality proves we have.
The fraud here of course is that they have taken out the name of thermal infrared direct from the Sun, but attributed its power to visible.
(And give two versions of why their GHE world doesn’t get any direct heat from the Sun.)
They have done this in order to claim that any downwelling infrared is “from backradiation from greenhouse gases”.
That alone proves the GHE is a fraud.
Which double counting shows up for their strangely large figure for their “downwelling from the atmosphere backradiation” of 333 as in the Trenberth comic cartoon:
http://bobfjones.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/trenberth-cartoon-ex-colose.jpg?w=588&h=375&h=375
Taken from the discussion here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/26/does-the-trenberth-et-al-%e2%80%9cearth%e2%80%99s-energy-budget-diagram%e2%80%9d-contain-a-paradox/
So, back to my question, what exactly is happening here?
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7i_2.html
This gives shortwave (July 83-90) as
“0 to 350 W/m2. Global mean = 158 W/m2, Minimum = 0 W/m2, Maximum = 323 W/m2. (Source: NASA Surface Radiation Budget Project).
Is this including or excluding the missing heat longwave infrared direct from the Sun of the GHE energy budget?
Or is that mean what shortwave alone would be in the solar constant divided by four?
Here’s another: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7i_5.html
This is shortwave and longwave combined, and I don’t understand it either:
“Figure 7i-7: Average net radiation at the Earth’s surface: January 1984-1991. Total net radiation is the sum of shortwave and longwave net radiation. It is dominated by the shortwave portion. Highest values occur along the subtropical oceans of the Southern Hemisphere. Lowest values occur over areas of low solar input such as the North Pole, and areas of high surface reflection such as the South Pole. Color range: blue – red – white, light green = 0 W/m2, Values: -50 to 250 W/m2. Global mean = 114 W/m2, Minimum = -60 W/m2, Maximum = 261 W/m2. (Source: NASA Surface Radiation Budget Project).”
“It is dominated by the shortwave portion” – how is it showing this?
What difference does “Lowest values occur over areas … and areas of high surface reflection ..”
Is this or isn’t this measuring what is reaching the surface? What does what happens next matter?
Here’s another: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7i_6.html
This again is for the same period as the shortwave only:
“Figure 7i-8: Average net radiation at the Earth’s surface: July 1983-1990. Total net radiation is the sum of shortwave and longwave net radiation. It is dominated by the shortwave portion. Highest values occur along the subtropical oceans of the Northern Hemisphere. Lowest values occur over areas of low solar input such as the South Pole, and areas of high surface reflection such as the North Pole. Color range: blue – red – white, light green = 0 W/m2, Values: -50 to 250 W/m2. Global mean = 111 W/m2, Minimum = -65 W/m2, Maximum = 249 W/m2. ”
Again, how are they showing that shortwave dominates, and, why are the figures for combined less than shortwave alone?
How can I get a copy of the paper? Anyone?
And, p.s., isn’t the solar constant calculated on how much the Sun heats the Earth? So, since shortwaves don’t heat the Earth’s land and water then they were never historically included in that 1.36 figure, that is all thermal infrared, i.e. longwave infrared direct from the Sun.
In other words, it doesn’t break up into the 53% infrared, 47% visible and uv at the surface – it’s all infrared minus non-thermal longwave.
Here a way to measure solar constant: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Curric_7-12/Activity_3.pdf
Thermal infrared, longwave, does of course travel through glass, or there wouldn’t be manufacturers of glass and film for windows minimising its entry and maximising the entry of visible light.., and of course, water is transparent to visible light so not absorbed but transmitted through unchanged. So all that’s being measured is thermal infrared direct from the Sun, longwave.