Murry Salby responds to critics

Jo Nova writes:

Murry Salby was sacked from Macquarie University, and Macquarie  struggled to explain why, among other things, it was necessary to abandon, and strand him in Paris and hold a “misconduct” meeting in his absence. Since then he has been subject to attacks related to his previous employment. I’ve asked him to respond, which he has at length in a PDF (see below). The figures listed below refer to that PDF, which encompasses 15 years of events.

I don’t have the resources (unlike the  National Science Foundation, the NSF) to investigate it all, but wanted to give Murry the right of reply.

On closer inspection the NSF report used by people to attack Salby does not appear to be the balanced, impartial analysis I would have expected. Indeed the hyperbolic language based on insubstantial evidence is disturbing to say the least. Because of the long detailed nature of this I cannot draw conclusions, except to say that any scientist who responds to a question about Murry Salby’s work with a reference to his employment is no scientist.

Remember the NSF report was supposedly an inhouse private document. It was marked “Confidential”, subject to the Privacy Act, with disclosure outside the NSF prohibited except through FOI. Desmog vaguely suggest there “must have been an FOI”, but there are no links to support that. In the end, a confidential, low standard, internal document with legalistic sounding words, may have been “leaked” to those in search of a character attack.

My summary of his reply:

See: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/murry-salby-responds-to-the-attacks-on-his-record/

The PDF:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/salby-murry/re_nsf_r.pdf

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

If the facts support your case, argue the facts. If the facts support your opponent, argue the man. Salby is arguing the facts, Desmog is arguing the man.
I believe it was no less a figure than Abraham Lincoln that used this technique with great success. When faced with a case he could not win on the evidence he argued that the city slicker lawyer for the other side clearly didn’t know what he was talking about, because he couldn’t even figure out how to tie his collar.
(At the time collars were worn separate from the shirt, and it had become the fashion in the city to wear your collar back to front, while country folks still wore their collars front to front.)

milodonharlani

Graham Readfearn, who “found” the NSF report, in the linked Desmog blog post, refers to Anth_ny W_tts as a “denialist”, along with a reporter. IMO the antiscientific IPCC denies reality, by asserting without evidence that humans are responsible for 90% of “climate change” over the past 50 years.

Ox AO

NSF investigation started with this as it’s primary reason:
From the PDF report:
“The investigation pursued numerous targets, finding little of substance. When one target proved fruitless, it adopted another. After years of searching, the best it could come up with was:
“…Acknowledged as the investigation’s most significant finding, the claim was, by its own admission, mere speculation. It was inconsistent with the physical evidence…””
Since we do not know what this ‘inconsistency’ is and I doubt they did either because after this letter the NSF used the bureaucracy in order to eliminate him. Not on the bases of the science presented.

Nyq Only

“Because of the long detailed nature of this I cannot draw conclusions, except to say that any scientist who responds to a question about Murry Salby’s work with a reference to his employment is no scientist.”
A reasonable point – but the NSF report did not come to light with regard to Prof Salby’s claims about CO2 but in relation to his allegations regarding his termination of employment.

I’m willing to look at both sides and consider the possibility that perhaps Murray is a screwball.
But.
Macquarie University stranding him in Paris and holding a hearing they went out of their way to make sure he couldn’t attend speaks volumes about them. There are also many other points in support of Murray and few if any in support of Macquarie.
It looks very much like Macquarie University broke their commitments to Murray and then went out of their way to discredit their own professor when he did science they didn’t approve of.

*Murry a.k.a. Professor Salby

Nyq Only

“Macquarie University stranding him in Paris and holding a hearing they went out of their way to make sure he couldn’t attend speaks volumes about them.”
Wait – According to both Prof Salby and the Uni they had not given approval for the trip and according to Prof Salby he had to fund the trip himself as a consequence. The university claims that Prof Salby bought the plane ticker using unapproved university funds and that claim fits with Prof Salby’s own account. So what we have is a university cancelling a plane ticket that had been improperly bought and Prof Salby abroad AGAINST THE ADVICE of the university. What should the university have done in such a circumstance? Personally I don’t think they should have cancelled the ticket but rather have recouped the money in a way that wouldn’t have left Prof Salby stranded. However it certainly isn’t as cut and dried as you describe it.

RACookPE1978

So, the CAGW-crowds’ hero-status goes to Jim Hansen who illegally and publically as a public employee not only received hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra pay and benefits and international travel from international agencies and gifts and “awards” DESPITE his illegal political statements and activities, but also that international acclaim and publicity came specifically BECAUSE of his political posturing.
but another man, NOT on the CAGW-crowds’ politically corrupt CAGW bandwagon, get stranded overseas wrongly and fired while stranded and without recourse because of …. what now? False claims and unsubstantiated “potential” problems while funding his own way to a conference?

Fair points, Nyq.

Desmogblog’s slanderous forays seem near comical in the context of James Hoggan’s public $ tough-slurping behavior. What a piece of work he is.
http://archive.citycaucus.com/2009/02/was-council-bypassed-for-60k-contract

Nyq Only

“but another man, NOT on the CAGW-crowds’ politically corrupt CAGW bandwagon, get stranded overseas wrongly and fired while stranded and without recourse because of …. what now? False claims and unsubstantiated “potential” problems while funding his own way to a conference?”
If he had funded his own way to the conference then the university couldn’t have cancelled his plane ticket. There is basic issue of facts here. Also according to Prof Salby’s account the problems with Macquarie U started years before Prof Salby’s public comments about the behavior of CO2.

M Courtney

This is not a bun-fight I want to get into, I’m more interested in the scientific research he is doing. But unskeptical activists are spinning what appears to be an unbalanced, inconsistent report to do what they do — attack the man, to distract us from his research. (If only DeSmog had scientific evidence they wouldn’t need to run the smear campaigns, would they?)

Jo Nova says it all.
Yet, I would add (being cynical) that if I wanted to take down a sceptical scientist in this manner – publically portraying him as weird- then I would make sure he had priors and would have some vulnerability.
They didn’t try it with Pat Michaels, for example.
But they did tinker with his career within academia.

Nyq Only says:
Personally I don’t think they should have cancelled the ticket but rather have recouped the money in a way that wouldn’t have left Prof Salby stranded. However it certainly isn’t as cut and dried as you describe it.
Agree wuth your first sentence. However, it is as ‘cut and dried’ as described by Mr Dollis. This was simply back room water-cooler politics. The feeders at the CAGW trough wanted to cause Prof Salby grief. Is there any doubt? The university’s explanations are a load of hogwash. They never even attempted to get Salby’s side of anything; they saw an opportunity to strand him at the airport and did. Then they saw an opportunity to decide his fate in their “investigation” — which they made sure he could not attend.
Maybe Salby isn’t a team player. Maybe he is even off his rocker. I don’t know. But you can be certain that if someone like Michael Mann or James Hansen was the issue, they never would have been stranded like that [in Mann’s case, he was even allowed to sit in and help formulate the questions he was going to be asked in one of his “investigations”!]
The whole thing stinks. Macquarie acted unethically, repeatedly, as did Colorado U]. If you want to defend their actions, I look forward to your rationale. Because given the facts presented by both sides, I think they done him wrong.

Keitho

Nice to see the argument here is about whether Salby acted outside the financial controls of his research. What about his research itself regarding CO2, surely that’s the issue here.

One of the comments on JoNova’s site hits home:

I find it amazing that someone like Tim Flannery who has a 3 day week and pulls in $180,000 per year, plus ALL expenses paid, and the government does nothing about the garbage he tells to all and sundry.
Because his views agree with the Green Scheme, simple as that.
Tim Flannery, who contributes nothing apart from a cocktail circuit of appearances, creating climate fear scenarios etc and gets rewarded.
Murry Salby views disagree and he gets vilified by the institution.
Have a look at the difference:
1. Tim Flannery: “that even if it rained again, it wouldn’t fill the dams” Big reward.
2. Murry Salby: Presents a video slowly dissecting the climate models accepted by and promoted by the IPCC to continue their cause. Sacked.
I have seen the start of a trend in this area in government departments also (federal, state and local) in regard to termination of employment if skeptical views are aired publicly…

That kind of retaliation has been happening in the U.S., as documented in Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion, and elsewhere.
We are witnessing a slide into intolerance. History repeats. Those defending the university’s actions should think long and hard about what they are defending.

Greg Goodman

The link to “Salsby’s work” on Jo Nova’s site is over two years old now.
Where’s the “imminent blockbuster” paper ??! Supposedly six weeks away from being published two years ago.
I’m very interested from what I saw of Salsby’s presentation in Hamburg recently but we need to see a paper not a lecture.
It does appear that there has been some very devious petty-politicking going on here, but the key issue is his work. Let’s see what he’s got.

Greg Goodman

Don’t forget Desmegblog was Peter Glieck’s “partner” in crime, collaborating in diffusing the fake Hearthland document.
How much cred can you give that site?

Greg Goodman

Murry Salby says ice CO2 records may be off by a couple of orders of magnitude for the really old samples. That’s a huge claim that needs backing up with some substantial arguments and quantitative evidence.
That was one part of his presentation that did not ring true to me. The rest of it “sounded” good but where is the much heralded paper?
It was reported at Jo Nova’s the is had “passed peer review” in 2011 …… where is it?

Murray Salby has attempted to revive an old controversy about the accurace of ice core data for atmospheric CO2 simply because his theories now require that. But Salby is making (and needs to make for the sake of his theories) some very radical claims about a ‘reverse smoothing’ mechanism in the topmost (firn) layer of ice pre-load compaction. Salby has not cited any prior literature in support of the (his estimated) extremes of the ‘effect’ nor has he presented any published literature of his own on this ‘effect’ nor has he presented any published literature of his own on his theories per se (despite them now being quite some years in gestation). And yet he is clearly a good scientist in some other areas?! What gives?
Quite frankly, I find the previous claims by Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski regarding a much milder ice core CO2-altering effect far more scientifically sound and supported by known data than those of Salby. See for example:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
It is noted that Jaworowski’s work (and minority position) was strongly supported by the historic review of the now deceased Ernst-George Beck on the body of pre-IR, chemically derived atmospheric CO2 data. As a former analyticvl chemist and geochemist I suggest it ‘beggars the imagination’ that all the pre-IR (pre-Keeling/Mauna Loa) historic atmospheric CO2 data could have been so wrong as Callendar, Keeling etc. (and the whole AGW bandwagon) have required.
But the fact remains that there is no sound evidence whatsoever that Salby’s radical levels ofpost-depositional reverse smoothing of past peak CO2 levels have any credence.
Personally I find Salby’s stuff so extremely tendentious that it reaches even greater heights of imagination than the (latent and sensible heat transfer-free) fantasies of Ferenc Miskolczi. People in the sceptical camp who take up the baton on Salby’s behalf are ignoring the very same dictates of good science and sound logic that the thousands who ran amok with Misckolczi’s bizarre theory did. They do a great disservice to the sceptical community IMHO.

Here there is a long account now of how the NSF mistreated Salby. In fact the original investigation was actually by the Office of Inspector General (p 34). When Salby left UC, he sued the University, and the Governor of Colorado, for infringing on his civil rights; then he mounted a state suit against UC. But he didn’t legally challenge the OiG or NSF investigations leading to him being debarred from grant funding, which seem to be his primary problem.

Ian Wilson

Steve Short,
“…nor has he presented any published literature of his own on this ‘effect’ nor has he presented any published literature of his own on his theories per se (despite them now being quite some years in gestation). And yet he is clearly a good scientist in some other areas?! What gives?”
The history of science teaches us that when potentially new-ideas are put forward that question the status-quo [whether they are subsequently shown to be correct or not], they meet fierce resistance from the established scientific community. In an ideal world this is a good thing, since science requires a high level of proof before it abandons and established theory.
Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world, and so it is often the case that petty human spite and vindictiveness are used as the guiding principles in deciding whether or not these new ideas will appear in the peer-reviewed literature. Scientific history is replete with these pathetic attempts at gate-keeping.
If you are correct about Prof. Salby’s work then he will eventually put his ideas into the literature and they will be either fully/partially confirmed or rebuffed by the evidence.
The fact that the self-appointed gate-keepers of science are squealing like stuck-pigs about Prof. Salby’s work makes me feel that bulk of resistance he is experiencing is based upon the failings of human nature rather than genuine scientific concern.

Bart

Steve Short says:
August 11, 2013 at 5:03 pm
“…I suggest it ‘beggars the imagination’ that all the pre-IR (pre-Keeling/Mauna Loa) historic atmospheric CO2 data could have been so wrong as Callendar, Keeling etc. (and the whole AGW bandwagon) have required.”
Riggghhhtt. Because, as we all know, the history of Science is one smooth, unbroken progression of incremental modification of the consensus view.
In case it doesn’t come through, that statement is dripping with sarcasm. That is the whole problem with the appeals to the “consensus”. Even if it were true, it would only have weight if the consensus were usually correct. But, in fact, the “consensus” is usually hard over in the wrong direction prior to a paradigm shift.

Bart

BTW, Salby’s theory is almost trivially confirmed by readily available evidence. The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration is proportional to temperature anomaly with respect to a particular baseline. No its, ands, or buts about it. Human inputs have little effect. It’s right there, right before our eyes. The only way to miss it is to have a heavy bias against recognizing what is placed right under one’s nose.

dbstealey says: August 11, 2013 at 1:26 pm
“This was simply back room water-cooler politics. The feeders at the CAGW trough wanted to cause Prof Salby grief. Is there any doubt?”

Is there any evidence? Prof Salby was suspended without pay in February, pending a misconduct hearing. That would entail cancelling his Uni credit card. Someone in the Finance dept would have had the job of dealing with any outstanding matters on the card. The ticket got cancelled.
“They never even attempted to get Salby’s side of anything;”
Prof Salby took off for Europe after he had been suspended, with misconduct hearing pending. That is a structured process with the union represented and ample opportunity for the subject to be heard and quiz people. He preferred to be in Europe. The committee is required to meet within fifteen days, so it’s hardly the case that being in Paris weeks later kept him away.

Niff

Nyq Only says:
August 11, 2013 at 12:22 pm
Personally I don’t think they should have cancelled the ticket but rather have recouped the money in a way that wouldn’t have left Prof Salby stranded.
What is even more obvious in regards to motivations is that the ticket was non-refundable and therefore Macquarie got nothing back, financially, for cancelling the ticket.

The university’s explanations are a load of hogwash. They never even attempted to get Salby’s side of anything; they saw an opportunity to strand him at the airport and did. Then they saw an opportunity to decide his fate in their “investigation” — which they made sure he could not attend.

I agree with this. There simply was no good reason to hold the hearing in his absence. That stunk to high heaven.
If they felt really perturbed by the airline ticket, they could have cancelled it and rescheduled the hearing, and brought up the ticket at the hearing that Professor Salby then attended.

What is even more obvious in regards to motivations is that the ticket was non-refundable and therefore Macquarie got nothing back, financially, for cancelling the ticket.

True that. To cancel a non-refundable ticket for zero financial gain, which also resulted (coincidentally? lol) in Prof. Salby being unable to attend the hearing.

Even if the university was within their rights, to cancel the ticket and hold the hearing on schedule makes them look bad. They should have either let him fly back (and attempted to recoup any proper expenses rather than cancel a non-refundable ticket) or rescheduled the hearing a little later.
This would have given the appearance of proper behaviour and would make the hearing result seem more credible. As it is, they look terrible – facts aside.

Bart I am not at all convinced that “Salby’s theory(s) (there are a number of them if you look closely) is/are almost trivially confirmed by readily available evidence.” Your logic and reference) is faulty, in that respect. At least part of Salby’s theory(s) is/are patenetly over the top when it boils down to ‘post-depositional CO2 level smoothing’ in ice. Where is the evidence for that?
But I am convinced there is indeed an unresolved discrepancy (putting aside the tribe-like tendency of a majority of little boys clubs to reach a consensus even if the consensus is not absolutely proven) between the reality of the CO2 in air bubbles in ice cores and the reality of CO2 in a contemporary atmosphere (trapped at the time). Murry Salby was only right about one thing – it is all about the firm layer. But he is a lot less right than Jaworowski who came well before. Jawarovski is a practiced hands on an core expert who speaks clumsy English. Salby is a moderately talented signal deconvoluter, not an experimentalist (see his published papers).
This paper reveals the rarely mentioned rot behind that consensus:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/siple.html
The key sentences are of course:
“The ice could be dated with an accuracy of approximately ±2 years to a depth of 144 m (which corresponds to the year 1834) by counting seasonal variations in electrical conductivity. ”
and
“On the basis of porosity measurements, investigators determined that the time lag between the mean age of the gas and the age of the ice was 95 years and that the duration of the close-off process was 22 years (Schwander and Stauffer 1984).”
Everything since has hinged on those subsequent (almost invariably never acknowledged) ‘fiddle factors’ called ‘time lag’ and (mean) ‘close off duration”. Yet another model.
What this really means is that we really only know the CO2 content of the atmosphere in (say) Victorian times to ±95 years – coincidentally well within the majority of the pre-1900 chemical determinations which (in all fairness) averaged about 335 ppmv around 1884 (then ‘consensus value’) – very close indeed to the 345 ppmv (‘new consensus’) value for 1984!
Those Bern Swiss; Friedl, Neftel, Oeschger et al have a lot to answer for IMHO. It is where this rotten new consensus first really took root. Thirty years later their fiddle-factored consensus has still not been put to a burden of absolute truth. Fact.

I have Murry Salby’s climate textbook published in early 2012. In it there is little corroboration of the IPCC’s assessment of alarming AGW from burning fossil fuels.
I recommend for all to access it. One (of several) observations is that he is very critical of the Bern Carbon Cycle Model.
Salby is very publicly in fundamental opposition to Australian and US climate science establishments. That alone calls forth very critical vigilance / due diligence on their version of their story about the instances of their treatment of him.
We saw CG1 & CG2 provide widespread evidence showing a significant number of establishment scientists thwarting scientists which opposed their own; that is thwarting skeptical climate science that was critical of the IPCC’s ideologically biased meme of alarming AGW from burning CO2.
When a situation arises where there is an internationally based establishment focussing pejoratives toward a single individual, it should be of concern to those who have had the experience of opposing establishment.
John

Thanks Bart. Good comments.
Steve – not so much.
Best, Allan

‘James Hoggan’s public $ tough-slurping behavior.” Correction: “trough-slurping”

If anyone were to doubt that the extraction of ALL CO2 from ice core i.e. of a sample truly representative of the total partail pressure in the atmosphere at time of ice depostion AND of its delta13C ratio is not quite the ‘open and shut case’ which has been presented to the general public by the ‘consensus crowd’ since the early 1980s, they need only read the following RECENT papers:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/97JC00159/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
http://epic.awi.de/25634/1/schmitt11amt.pdf
My apologies that Alex Wilson’s paper is behind a firewall (noting he is one of the grand old men of ice core CO2 work) but the Introduction to the 2nd paper by Schmitt et al more or less let all of the long well-concealed cats out of the bag.
Please note that, ironically, these methodological issues also profoundly effect the reliability of both the CO2 and the 13C data Murry Salby has relied on for his Fourier Transform analysis etc.
(not for the MacRaes of this world 😉

richard verney

Obviously none of us kniow the full and true facts. It is usually the case that matters are not black and white, and neither side openly and accurately conveys the true and full position.
That said, I find it completely unacceptable for the University to hold a hearing in Prof. Salby’s absence. This is almost certainly against the rules of natural justice. It is almost certainly the case that whatever the cause behind Prof Salby’s absence (ie., whether it was justified or not), the correct and appropriate procedure would have been to postpone the hearing and re-schedule it for a date when Prof Salby could attend and/or was in some other way represented.
In Court cases, it is my understanding that hearings are rarely conducted in the absence of one of the parties, and usually there is an adjournment with cost consequences which may depend upon the reason for the absence. I would have thought that the reasoning behind such approach to be even more compelling in the case of disciplinary hearings which may lead to dismissal. It would surprise me greatly if the University can justify its position with respect to the hearing, but then as noted at the outset, perhaps the full facts and circumstances are not known.
Whilst it is obviously of great concern to Prof Salby personally, and whilst I can see the wider implication for scientists who do not tow the ‘party line’, my utmost concern is the science. I am predominantly interested in whether and to what extent (if any) there is validity in the scientific points (or some of them) raised by Prof Salby.
Attacks against the man carry no weight, and hopefully this episode will not silence Prof Salby and he will continue to explore and push the science that he considers to be correct and relevant. Hopefully, the debate on this science will continure unabated.

richard verney

Bart says:
August 11, 2013 at 6:19 pm
///////////////////////////////
Bart
i have seen you raise this point a number of times together with your supporting plot. I have never seen Nick Stokes respond to your point and it would be interesting to read Nick Stokes’ comments on your point and the plotted data to which you refer (in your hyper link).
If Nick Stokes is still following this thread, perhaps he would kindly respond to it, but, of course, that may well depend upon whether he has a good counter argument.

Steve Short says:
August 11, 2013 at 7:05 pm
Simply said: let Ernst Beck and Jaworowsky rest in peace, together with their theories of historical measurements and ice cores .
I had some long year discussions with the late Ernst Beck about the historical measurements. Most should be discarded as taken in “CO2 heat islands” to compare with the interpretation of temperature readings. Taken midst of towns, forests, growing crops, etc. levels between 200 and 650 ppmv at the same place within hours…
Samples taken over the oceans were around the CO2 values of ice cores, confirmed decades later. See further:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
As problematic is what the late Jaworowsky said: migration of CO2 from lower concentrations to higher ones, misinterpretation of the difference between the ice age and gas age of ice cores, etc… Most of his objections were already answered by Etheridge e.a. in 1992 by drilling three ice cores at Law Dome with different techniques (wet and dry) and carefully measuring CO2 levels in firn and ice, top down. Including an overlap of ~20 years with the direct measurements at the South Pole. See further:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
The ice cores d13C is measured by sublimating all ice just under the melting point under vacuum and separating all gases cryogenically. That effectively destroys all clathrates which have been formed under pressure. See further:
http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/GHG.pdf for the CO2 distribution and the different techniques used and more in depth for the sublimation technique:
http://www.awi.de/de/forschung/fachbereiche/geowissenschaften/glaziologie/techniques/high_precision_d13c_and_co2_analysis/
Last but not least, Salby, Bart and others all interpretate the nice correlation between temperature and CO2 rate of change on short time variability as causing the whole increase over the past 160 years, or at least the past 50 years. But that is curve fitting, based on an completely arbitrary base line. One can make the same fit for every combination of temperature influence and human emissions. Thus one need to look at other observations to see what really happened. See for a comparison:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_T_dT_em_1960_2011.jpg
and
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_T_dT_em_1900_2011.jpg
both are fitted to the least squares residue over the period 1960-2011
Then it becomes interesting: human emissions fit all observations, temperature doesn’t. Thus according to Salby and Bart, the observations must be wrong and Salby makes his own interpretation of the migration in ice cores to fit his theory… But there is no such migration: over 800 kyr the peaks and drops in CO2 exactly follow the peaks and drops in temperature (with some lag) at a ratio of ~8 ppmv/K. If there was any substantial migration, the peaks of CO2 would fade over each interglacial 100 kyr back in time…
Bart simply rejects all other observations and “shows” that the oceans are the main source, be it that he doesn’t include the negative feedback from a higher CO2 pressure in the atmosphere…
Where it goes wrong is that Salby and Bart think that the short term variation and the increase over the period 1850-current are caused by the same processes. But the short term reaction of (tropical) vegetation on temperature is by releasing more CO2, while the longer term reaction of (mid-latitude to polar) vegetation on temperature is more uptake. For short term reactions temperature is the main cause, while for the increase pressure related processes are at work…

richard verney says: August 12, 2013 at 1:54 am
“If Nick Stokes is still following this thread, perhaps he would kindly respond to it, “

I don’t know how well what Bart is saying relates to any Salby theory. The reason is that while two years ago we were told
“The up and coming paper with all the graphs will be released in about six weeks. It has passed peer review, and sounds like it has been a long time coming.”
there’s been nothing in writing – not even a blog post.
But Bart’s theory has a big gap. He shows the derivative of pCO2 against temperature, but with a fudge number, which aligns the graphs. That number includes the gradient of the steady rise of CO2, and corresponds to what sensible people see as the natural consequence of burning nearly 10 Gtons of carbon a year. That just disappears from the graph..
But that aside, if you look at the graph, it does track the El Nino peaks quite well. That’s not surprising – no one disputes that seas will outgas some CO2 when they warm. Otherwise, tracking isn’t great. Since 1980 the CO2 rate dips quite frequently with little corresponding temperature movement. Before then, it’s temperature that makes unrequited dips.

Ferdinand,
Given that everything you say is true, what is your opinion on Macquaie U deliberately stranding Salby at he airport, and denying him the opportunity to defend himseelf at a hearing?

Nyq Only

“Given that everything you say is true, what is your opinion on Macquaie U deliberately stranding Salby at he airport, and denying him the opportunity to defend himseelf at a hearing?”
The uni had asked Prof Salby not to travel and hadn’t approved his travel. What do you think the university should have done. What would YOU do if an employee of yours bought a plane ticket without approval?

Nyq Only

“Even if the university was within their rights, to cancel the ticket and hold the hearing on schedule makes them look bad. They should have either let him fly back (and attempted to recoup any proper expenses rather than cancel a non-refundable ticket) or rescheduled the hearing a little later.
This would have given the appearance of proper behaviour and would make the hearing result seem more credible. As it is, they look terrible – facts aside.”
I agree – just in this thread alone people keep returning to the stranded-at-the-airport story even though in Salby’s own account it was actually one of his weakest points. It is easy to see how the stranding occurred but it was a PR error on the uni’s part.

Nyq Only

“Yet, I would add (being cynical) that if I wanted to take down a sceptical scientist in this manner – publically portraying him as weird- then I would make sure he had priors and would have some vulnerability.”
The problem with most of these plots-against-salby theories is they tend to mismatch with the sequence of events. In this case please remember that it was Prof Salby who publicized his dispute with Macquirie Uni and it was only after his public complaint (via this blog and others) that a prior dispute with his previous employer was publicized. Notably the NSF report did not appear on warmist sites in response to Prof Salby’s Sydney Institute lecture.

Greg Goodman says:
“It does appear that there has been some very devious petty-politicking going on here, but the key issue is his work. Let’s see what he’s got.”
Greg, you are on point, and the entire issue here is the university’s actions. They were not aboveboard, and they had nothing to do with Salby’s science. This was politics, nothing more or less.
And regarding this:
“…there is a long account now of how the NSF mistreated Salby. In fact the original investigation was actually by the Office of Inspector General (p 34). When Salby left UC, he sued the University, and the Governor of Colorado, for infringing on his civil rights; then he mounted a state suit against UC…”
Dr Salby prevailed in all of his actions, according to Jo Nova. When someone forces an institution and state bureaucrats to back down, there are hurt feelings, and some folks don’t forget. These vindictive attacks seem to have hounded Salby all the way to Australia. What else would explain what is going on here?
I’m not defending or attacking Salby’s science. But it appears obvious that some un-named people are using the weight of the university to cause him personal grief. That seems reprehensible to me. His scientific facts should stand or fall on their own, without being hobbled by the university’s unethical actions.
Nyq Only says:
“What would YOU do if an employee of yours bought a plane ticket without approval?”
Please. You make it too easy.

DonShockley

After reading the ENTIRE report from the NSF (using the Desmog link) yesterday, a couple self-contradictions jumped out at me. Some were related to Salby’s response and some were not. I won’t address Salby’s explanations in his response, only what was included in the NSF report itself. Equally troubling was the fact that all the supporting evidence mentioned in the report was not included. The only facts and figures were the NSF summary interpretations.
The main contradictions that bothered me were:
1. A footnote at the start of the report mentions the “duplicate” application with another agency was not funded. Yet later in the report it states Salby broke the rules by not disclosing the “pending” application. If the first application was already denied, then it wasn’t pending and didn’t need to be disclosed.
2. Much of the report focuses on the issue of the Company 2 as a subcontractor. But the NSF report goes back and forth concerning Company 2 being just Salby or being another actual company doing work. When they want to dismiss all but the first $25,000 as being overcharges, NSF assumes that the “indirect” charges limit should be applied because the subcontractor was doing all the work. But when they want to characterize the subcontract as a sham to funnel money clandestinely to Salby, they say that Salby was the only employee. They switch again when Salby points out that Company 2 is a personal corporation that all his financial dealings go through, it suddenly has other employees also. Similarly, when discussing the ability to do the work the NSF says it’s financial so would be no good at doing scientific work. Yet is Company 2 is Salby then he as the Principal Investigator is obviously capable of doing the work.
3. There was also a major Catch-22 going on. They contacted Salby in Australia to provide supporting evidence of the documented hours. Yet when he is able to provide it, they assume it’s fake because he is in Australia. So either way, they had already decided there was no evidence that would be accepted.
4. Another aspect of the “indirect” limitation application. To justify the “overcharging” by imposing the indirect limitation, they discuss all the additional company related expenses that a subcontractor would not be entitled to. Yet when suggesting Salby is a tax cheat to boot, they point out that not all the money paid to Company 2 shows up on Salby’s taxes. This too comes from the Just Salby/Real Company flip flopping throughout the report.
5. Although not an explicit contradiction, there is one damning point that is implied but never actually stated. This suggest that the actual fact would contradict the implied fact. Throughout the report, much hay is made of need to report staffing and assigned duty changes because of how they will affect the financial cost and timely outcome of the grant. The strong implication is that Salby made these changes to enrich himself and allowed the research to suffer. However, nowhere in the report does it state that the research was late, over budget, or of substandard quality.

Actually Steve, I don’t mind your post of 7:05 pm – not sure how I missed it with my 9:22pm – maybe it was not visible yet. My apologies.
To be clear, I am increasingly convinced that since atmospheric dCO2/dt changes almost contemporaneously with temperature, and CO2 lags atmospheric temperature by about 9 months, this is compelling evidence that CO2 drives temperature – not the reverse as the popular consensus falsely dictates. Bart wrote this point on August 11, 2013 at 6:19 pm.
BTW, this is not originally Salby’s theory – I published it in January 2008 on icecap.us, and others had published parts of it before me (the new part was the dCO2/dt vs. T relationship).
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
The argument from the consensus crowd is that the above CO2-after-temperature lag is a “feedback mechanism” is utterly specious, imo.
But if temperature primarily drives atmospheric CO2, not the reverse, why has atmospheric CO2 continued to increase even as there has been no significant warming of average atmospheric temperatures for the past ~10-20 years?
I think it is safe to say that we really do not have a good understanding of atmospheric CO2 concentrations pre-1958. There are many valid questions about absolute accuracy of the ice-core record. The late Ernst Beck raised some good questions based on chemical analyses, but was unfortunately shouted down by the consensus crowd. Beck, Salby and others make counter-arguments that may or may not prove true. Richard Courtney and Ferdinand Engelbeen have ably debated the “mass balance argument” in these pages and elsewhere.
In the end, we just do not know enough about atmospheric CO2 concentrations pre-1958. I suggest that if, as we predicted in 2002, atmospheric temperatures will soon cool, then we will reach a better fundamental understanding of the relationship between CO2 and temperature.
In the meantime, it is reasonable to conclude that:
1. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is near-zero and increasing CO2 concentrations are inconsequential to atmospheric temperature. The alleged global warming crisis does not exist.
2. Grid-connected “green energy” schemes like wind and solar power are currently inefficient, ineffective, and a waste of scarce global resources.
BTW, we confidently published both these conclusions in 2002.
Finally, I suggest that in science, one of the only true tests is one’s predictive record, and the CAGW crowd has none.
Regards, Allan

FerdiEgb

dbstealey says:
August 12, 2013 at 2:54 am
Given that everything you say is true, what is your opinion on Macquaie U deliberately stranding Salby at he airport, and denying him the opportunity to defend himseelf at a hearing?
Whatever the dispute over the science, that is no reason to fire someone, only reason to discuss things out. Seems that everything escalated since day one. I can’t and won’t interprete what happened as one need to know more details from both sides, but at least the hearing should have been with Salby present in person…

Gail Combs

Nyq Only says: @ August 12, 2013 at 3:05 am
….The uni had asked Prof Salby not to travel and hadn’t approved his travel. What do you think the university should have done. What would YOU do if an employee of yours bought a plane ticket without approval?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It depends.
He was giving a presentation. This means he had probably made COMMITMENTS long before the brohaha blew-up AND the plane reservation was also made long before there was any mention of the hearing. Many of these conferences and such are often set-up a year or more in advance. The speakers have to be book well in advance so the brochures advertising the event can be printed up and sent to the potential audience months before the event. I do kids entertainment and we get booked six months to a year in advance so I would guess that Prof Salby received the invitation to speak with at least that much lead time.
Remember hotel accommodations and convention centers have to be set-up and this is often done years in advance.
Why should he not honor his commitment, honor his word? Canceling at the last minute would be a grave disservice to the conference. Besides, the University doesn’t OWN him.
If the University did not wish him to go WHY DID THEY WAIT UNTIL HE WAS IN THE EU to cancel the ticket, especially since it was non-refundable? That is what stinks of petty vengeance.

Martin A

Nyq Only says: Nyq Only says:
August 11, 2013 at 12:22 pm
(,…) So what we have is a university cancelling a plane ticket that had been improperly bought and Prof Salby abroad AGAINST THE ADVICE of the university. What should the university have done in such a circumstance? Personally I don’t think they should have cancelled the ticket but rather have recouped the money in a way that wouldn’t have left Prof Salby stranded. However it certainly isn’t as cut and dried as you describe it.
August 11, 2013 at 12:22 pm

Hold on. Maquarie University later said that they “cancelled his ticket in error”.
Furthermore, the ticket was non-refundable so they did not recoup the money in any case.

Nick Stokes says:
August 11, 2013 at 6:28 pm
Is there any evidence?

Perhaps being Monday morning, I am just in a pedantic mood. But to give you (and Patty over at Jo Nova) the answer is YES. There is evidence. Salby provided it.
Perhaps you meant to ask is there “credible” evidence. That is open for debate.

Gail Combs

If you look at Prof Salby and Dr Jaworowski from the point of view of politics there are interesting parallels.

…Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be “immoral” if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.
The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute’s director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that “this is not the way one gets research projects.” Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, “this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute.” Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski’s science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding…..

In both instances politics and not science is used to take down the man. This makes you wonder just how dangerous the line of research they were pursuing is to the CAGW religion.
I would hazard a guess, VERY DANGEROUS. “…. the research would be “immoral” if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research….”

Nick Stokes

dbstealey says: August 12, 2013 at 2:54 am
” Macquaie U deliberately stranding Salby at he airport, and denying him the opportunity to defend himseelf at a hearing?”

If you’re going to keep on with this, you should find out the timing. Salby says he was suspended without pay for misconduct in February. That requires that a committee meets within fifteen days. Salby himself says:
“14. While I was in Europe presenting our new research on greenhouse gases, Macquarie undertook its misconduct proceedings – with me in absentia. Macquarie was well informed of the circumstances. It was more than informed.”
And clearly, Salby was informed. But he went to Europe anyway. His first date there seems to have been EGU, April 8th. The committee would have been going for weeks at that stage. It may well have finished. How do you get that Salby was rendered unable to defend himself by lack of an air ticket at end April?
“Dr Salby prevailed in all of his actions, according to Jo Nova.”
No, he abandoned both court actions.
Gail Combs says: August 12, 2013 at 4:26 am
“He was giving a presentation. This means he had probably made COMMITMENTS long before the brohaha blew-up AND the plane reservation was also made long before there was any mention of the hearing.”

No, he says he applied for permission and the University refused. They are, or were, paying his salary. They also refused to fund the air ticket.