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:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think it needs to be remembered that physics is a quantitative subject, not just a qualitative one. The fact that curves can be made to match in shape means that they might be pointing to a relationship, but it may not be the whole effect.
To illustrate the point I shall claim that I am personally responsible for global warming. In the 1980’s I bought a house, got married, had children, moved to a bigger house, and generally increased our energy consumption up until the early 2000’s when the children left to go to university and our energy use fell. So there you are – a correlation – it even has the right units – and it explains ‘the pause’ as well. So what’s wrong? Well that’s obvious – our contribution is too small by at least a factor of a billion to have any effect – you have to consider magnitudes as well as qualitative correlations.
Now I don’t want to knock what Allan and Bart are showing – it is an interesting relationship (though it could be done a bit more rigorously) and it may explain some short term variations, but as Ferdinand Engelbeen points out it cannot account correctly for the magnitude of the CO2 rise – there has to be something else going on in addition, and the obvious thing is mankind’s contribution.
And while I am here, Gail Combs says “Henry’s law shows that as ocean temperature increases the oceans will out gas CO2 or as the temperature decreases oceans will absorb CO2.”
No it doesn’t. Henry’s Law states that the solubility is proportional to the partial pressure. The solubility also depends on temperature, but when the temperature of the oceans has changed by about half a degree, and the partial pressure of CO2 has changed by over 30%, then it is clear which Henry’s Law will predict to dominate.
jimmi_the_dalek:
You provide a good post at August 16, 2013 at 6:54 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1392118
I write to provide a quibble. You rightly say
Yes, but it has to be remembered that “the obvious thing” is often not the right thing.
And the problem is that “mankind’s contribution” also “cannot account correctly for the magnitude of the CO2 rise” without adjustments and assumptions. Please see my above post at August 13, 2013 at 8:42 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388508
And there are direct physical observations which indicate “mankind’s contribution” is NOT merely accumulating in the air. Please see my above post at August 13, 2013 at 4:10 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388367
In other words, as you say
You rightly consider that when assessing the findings of Allan and Bart then say quantification indicates there work seems to fail quantitatively. I agree.
I also consider that when assessing the findings of Ferdinand then say quantification indicates his work seems to fail quantitatively
And that is why I continue to remain sitting on the fence.
Richard
Ooops “their” not “there”. Sorry, Richard
richardscourtney says:
August 16, 2013 at 10:02 am
Richard, there are estimates for the quantitative uptake of CO2 into the biosphere, the ocean surface and the deep oceans. These are based on the oxygen balance, the 13C/12C balance and the 14C spike of the atomic bomb test. While there still are large margins of error, each of them are proven net sinks for CO2, not sources, for all years that there are data. With a few exceptions, all within the margins of error.
Human emissions fit all observations. The accumulation in the atmosphere shows an incredible constant ratio to the total human emissions (while temperature does not). That is quantatively measured:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2.jpg
Of course, there are several theoretical solutions to the same relationship. But these indeed fail one or more observations: a similar increase ratio from the deep oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. The ocean surface has a limited capacity for changes and vegetation is a proven sink. And other possible sources (volcanoes, rock weathering,…) are either too small or too slow…
Gail Combs says:
August 16, 2013 at 5:48 am
Partial pressure of CO2 in the gas phase in equilibrium with seawater doubles with every 16 °K increase in temperature…
Indeed, that means a doubling from 280 to 560 ppmv for 16 K increase in temperature of the whole ocean surface.
For the 0.4 K increase in global ocean temperature increase over the past 50 years, that gives an increase of 7 ppmv in the atmosphere to reach a new equilibrium. The rest of the 70 ppmv increase is thus not from the oceans, or that would violate Henry’s Law…
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
In reply to my post at August 16, 2013 at 10:02 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1392289
you write at August 16, 2013 at 11:27 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1392401
saying
NO! Human emissions CAN BE MADE TO fit all observations.
We discussed this above; e.g. see my post at August 13, 2013 at 8:42 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388508
Richard
richardscourtney says:
August 16, 2013 at 11:59 am
NO! Human emissions CAN BE MADE TO fit all observations.
But the alternatives can’t be made to fit all observations…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says: August 16, 2013 at 2:27 am
“All that Bart has done is interpretating one nice fit of temperature and CO2 increaase. From that he concludes that a sustained small difference in temperature against a baseline is responsible for both the short term and longer term (over 5 decades) increase in CO2. That is also the claim of Murry Salby.
While that is clearly right for the short term (1-3) years variability, it is impossible for the longer term trend, because that is violating near all observations over the past 50 years. The “match” of the trend is pure coincidence based on an arbitrary baseline.”
I think you can make a stronger statement than that. If you think about the steps Bart has taken to draw his graph then the if the relationship he has drawn holds it pretty much demonstrates that the temperature anomaly as a parameter CANNOT explain the long term growth in CO2 – i.e. if his graph proves anything it is the opposite of what he is claiming. The issue is basically understanding what his graph is showing regarding CO2 and what important aspect it has effectively removed from consideration.
Interestingly Bart clearly has more than enough maths skills to work out the mistake he has made.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
At August 16, 2013 at 12:12 pm you say to me
Assertion is not argument or evidence.
Please explain why the arguments of Allan and/or Bart “can’t be made to fit all observations”.
Richard
Nyq Only:
At August 16, 2013 at 12:24 pm you say
Perhaps, but either you lack such skills or your assertion is so unfounded that you are not willing to state his “mistake” which you claim to have found.
Richard
richardscourtney says: August 16, 2013 at 12:59 pm
“Perhaps, but either you lack such skills or your assertion is so unfounded that you are not willing to state his “mistake” which you claim to have found.”
More than one person has already summarized the broad issue with Brad’s graph – I didn’t find it, multiple people have either sketched aspects of it or alluded to it prior to me. I’m happy to take you through things if you like…however I think you can also work it out and you aren’t likely to dismiss your own reasoning as blinded-by-dogma. So I could type lots of stuff which you will dismiss out of hand (lose-lose for both of us) or you can think about it a bit more (where’s the harm in that?). It is fun when you think about it. You don’t need to be too scared – it won’t prove global warming or anything too frightening 🙂
Nyq Only:
At August 16, 2013 at 12:24 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1392462
you claimed Bart had made a mathematical “mistake” which you have detected but you did not state.
At August 16, 2013 at 12:59 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1392504
I called you on it.
At August 16, 2013 at 1:47 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1392552
you have replied to my post with excuses for not presenting the mysterious “mistake” you claim to have found. But, you again failed to state the “mistake”.
It seems your superstitious belief (which you have repeatedly demonstrated in this thread) has induced you to make an unfounded assertion in support of your dogma that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic. Believe whatever you want, but unfounded assertions convince nobody on this blog.
Richard
richardscourtney says: August 16, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Well thanks for the recap Richard. Luckily my ability to remember stuff goes back at least a few hours so, yes, I do recall our last few posts.
As for my belief being “superstitious” – no it isn’t. My belief is based on the simple fact that when Bart claims the absolute concentration of atmospheric CO2 lags the temperature anomaly that is a claim that is easily checked empirically. You or anybody can look at a graph of both the temperature anomaly and atmospheric CO2 and see that it basically doesn’t. No superstition involved. I’m hardly the only one to point that out but even if you think I’m some sort of crazed superstitious-blinded-by-dogma loon you can draw the graph yourself and have a look and see that it really, actually doesn’t do that.
Does that mean Bart’s graph is a fabrication? Nope. It just doesn’t show what he thinks it shows. Much of his reasoning is sound but his hypothesis implies that the growth of CO2 should lag temperature. That is cool because Bart has made a scientific hypothesis open to being empirically falsified – and when we check it turns out to not be true. That is still cool – being wrong in a clever way is a good thing.
Put your skeptical glasses on. By all means dismiss me out of hand as some evil warmist alarmist al goreish monster lurking under a bridge threatening passing goats – once you do the issue won’t go away and you still need to think about Bart’s hypothesis scientifically – Is it actually true? If he is right what other relationships should we see? Do we actually see them? Or has he misstated it slightly but significantly?
What ever my failings may be are independent of whether Bart is correct or not. Just as Prof Salby’s scientific claims are true or false independently of any ethical failings on his part or his employer’s part.
Nyq Only:
I wasted my time by reading your content-free diatribe at August 16, 2013 at 2:23 pm.
It does not state the mysterious mathematical “mistake” which you claim to have found in Bart’s analysis.
Richard
PS
Incidentally, I am being “skeptical”: it is you who admits to belief. I only accept what the data shows, and it does not show that either the analysis by Bart or that by Ferdinand can be rejected.
richardscourtney says: August 16, 2013 at 2:35 pm
“I wasted my time by reading your content-free diatribe at August 16, 2013 at 2:23 pm.”
Apparently so – apart from anything else in the process you apparently forgot the meaning of the word “diatribe”.
“It does not state the mysterious mathematical “mistake” which you claim to have found in Bart’s analysis.”
It is largely very elementary calculus and I didn’t claim to have found it. It has already been at least alluded to others before I even started discussing Bart’s graph (or dbstealy’s graph). The only thing mysterious about it the error of interpretation is why Bart hasn’t spotted it yet.
“Incidentally, I am being “skeptical””
Really? So why do you keep ignoring that Bart’s hypothesis fail a basic empirical test – Bart predicts that absolute concentration of CO2 should lag the temperature anomaly. As I pointed out in my “content-free diatribe”* it doesn’t and you can easily go and check that. You don’t need to take my word for it. If you are skeptical you’ll check. Notably you really, really, really don’t want to engage with that aspect of my post. Why not? Oh yeah because I’m a bad person or something. OK I’m a horrible person but less horrible people have already pointed that out.
No I do wonder if you will be able to reply with some substantive content about CO2 and temperature or will I get a reply like the last few. For the second option may I recommend calling me a poopyhead? I haven’t had that one yet and I’d like to start a collection 🙂
[*wait…if my post had no content how did I manage to make that point? I must be more talented than I realized…]
richardscourtney says:
August 16, 2013 at 12:55 pm
Assertion is not argument or evidence.
Please explain why the arguments of Allan and/or Bart “can’t be made to fit all observations”.
Already said before, but to repeat the obvious:
– the whole biosphere (land and sea plants, microbes, insects, animals and humans) is a net producer of oxygen, thus a net absorber of CO2 and preferentially 12CO2, thus not the cause of the increase, neither the cause of the 1C/12C decline (to the contrary).
– ocean surfaces are a proven, but limited sink for CO2, as the total amount of inorganic carbon (DIC) increased over time. And its 13C/12C ratio is declining in ratio with the atmosphere, while the reverse net transfer would decrease DIC and increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere.
– deep ocean exchanges also increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere.
– the sink rate in whatever sinks increased near a threefold over the past 5 decades. Either that is the result of human emissions, or that is the result of an increased turnover of natural flows from the deep oceans. That is not observed in any decrease of the residence time, to the contrary, and it should lead to an increase of 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere and the ocean surface, while we see a firm decline.
– other possible sources are either too small or too slow…
Chris Schoneveld says:
August 16, 2013 at 4:55 am
Ferdinand, on the one hand I have difficulty is accepting coincidance as an explanation for the extraordinary ∆CO2-T anomaly match, on the other hand I have difficulty in accepting that the tiny ∆CO2 signature and its correlation with T anomaly remains preserved in the huge sinks and sources (both terrestrial and oceanic) that control the global CO2 budget.
The point is that the ∆CO2-Tanom is right for the SH temperature trend but already diverts if you take the global or NH temperature, and diverts even more if you extend the period back in time. Further, that you can make a quite similar graph using ∆CO2-∆T for short term variations and the increasing CO2 pressure in the atmosphere as second parameter, that fits the current period slightly better and the prvious period much better:
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
Thus the good fit of ∆CO2-Tanom is pure coincidence, especially if you think of glacial-interglacial transitions…
I would like to point out that the oceans localized temperature, ie in any given place, changes daily, monthly and yearly by a very wide quantity. I know the average temp change is very small over the averages of the places we measure but those are significantly massaged to create an average. The real surface of the ocean changes by upwards of 15C in some places (gulf of mexico for instance) over the course of a year with changes in hourly and monthly some fraction of that. The global change in temps from place to place is about 40c. This water moves about, with things like the gulf stream that move high temp water into cooler regions. This makes the Ocean a giant CO2 pump it draws it in and expels it. Additionally to make matters interesting the ocean also sequesters carbon through a bunch of biochemical and chemical exchanges. I am not sure if the ocean is a net emitter of CO2 or a sink but it doesn’t matter because locally it can pump out a lot more CO2 than man can generate in that same area over the course of a year. Granted it will draw some back in during the winter months but my point is that its more complex than adding the CO2 from the net warming over the course of a year. So give gail a break and think before you post. Overall I still find the discussion very interesting except for ol Nyq Only, I can’t bear to read his silliness anymore.
v/r,
David Riser
“Overall I still find the discussion very interesting except for ol Nyq Only, I can’t bear to read his silliness anymore.”
Well I’m sorry you feel that way David. What is it about my points that is upsetting you? What is it that you would prefer that I say. I could pretend that atmospheric CO2 lags behind temperature but as you can see it doesn’t: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1960/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/mean:12
I you think I have made an error there then please point it out and I’ll reconsider my position.
Nyg Only, your woodfortrees plot doesn’t show the derivative of CO2, (we are talking about changes in ∆CO2). So what are you trying to prove? I guess you even don’t know what the issue is that is being discussed here. That’s why people get tired responding to your nonsense.
“Nyg Only, your woodfortrees plot doesn’t show the derivative of CO2”
Correct – Bart’s hypothesis is this that because the derivative of CO2 concentration corresponds so well with the temperature anomaly that THEREFORE the actual growth in CO2 over time must be driven by temperature i.e. must lag behind temperature. Consequently we can check Bart’s hypothesis by actually looking at the relation between absolute CO2 and temperature. Does CO2 follow temperature? In Bart’s own words August 15, 2013 at 9:34 am “The rate of change of CO2 IS COINCIDENT WITH temperature anomaly. This naturally begets a 90 degree phase lag in absolute CO2 relative to temperature anomaly.”
As I’ve pointed out ad nauseum now this is something we can actually inspect. We can look and see if absolute CO2 (rather than derivative) does what Bart thinks it will do. And it doesn’t. Now dbstealy on the other hand DOES produce a graph which shows CO2 with a lag behind temperature. It is very interesting to note what dbstealy has graphed and what it implies.
“So what are you trying to prove? ”
That absolute CO2 does not lag the temperature anomaly. Interestingly enough it doesn’t. Graph it yourself and have a look. Better yet draw a graph that does show a lag and then consider what you had to effectively remove to make the graph.
“I guess you even don’t know what the issue is that is being discussed here.”
Your guess would be incorrect.
“That’s why people get tired responding to your nonsense.”
Well here is your chance to show what a misguided fool I am.
Chris Schoneveld says: August 16, 2013 at 10:59 pm
“Nyg Only, your woodfortrees plot doesn’t show the derivative of CO2, (we are talking about changes in ∆CO2)”
Sorry I forgot to add in case you had missed that we can look at Bart’s relationship the other way round. Indeed he does this himself in an earlier message when he considers the INTERGRAL of temperature anomaly and compares it with the concentration of CO2. You might want to try that for yourself at WFT http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/mean:12/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/integral/normalise
Fun isn’t it?
Nyg Only,
The intergral doesn’t show the high frequency changes in CO2, the derivative does. Therefore you are unable to detect any relationship.
Ferdinand:
Thankyou for your post at August 16, 2013 at 3:42 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1392668
which provides your answer to my question which was
However, each of your points has been addressed above in this thread. And – as the above discussion shows – your interpretations of those facts can’t be made to fit with the arguments of Allan and Bart, but other interpretations can.
I also direct you to the point concerning variation(s) of ocean temperatures which David Riser introduced to this thread in his post at August 16, 2013 at 6:41 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1392759
This is very pertinent to your assumption that Hanry’s Law applies: it does not unless you can obtain sea surface temperature data for the entire globe, apply Henry’s Law to each locality, and then integrate the result. And that assumes biological effects in the ocean can be ignored (i.e. an assumption which I do not accept).
Ferdinand, you may be right. So may Bart and/or Allan. It is important that you each promote your case, but – at present – the data does not enable falsification of any of those cases.
Richard
Chris Schoneveld says:
August 17, 2013 at 2:03 am
The intergral doesn’t show the high frequency changes in CO2, the derivative does. Therefore you are unable to detect any relationship.
Everybody agrees that the high frequency changes of CO2 are caused by the high frequency changes in temperature. No matter if you take the temperature anomaly or the derivative of temperature or a fast (less than 1 year) response function, as Pieter Tans has done in his speech at the festivities of 50 years Mauna Loa data. All three methods give similar results for the short term variability. See:
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf from sheet 11 on.
The discussion is about the effect of the slope in the temperature trend: If Bart is right, then near the whole increase of CO2 over the past 50 years is from a small, sustained increase in temperature. The short term changes in CO2 are at exactly the same timing as the changes in temperature anomaly. The integral of the short term CO2 variations then should follow the integral of the temperature anomaly over the same time frame, which it doesn’t. If NOAA and I are right, then ∆CO2 follows ∆T and temperature has a small contribution to the total CO2 increase (the total increase in temperature is ~0.4 K, directly measured or from integration of the fast changes, leading to ~3.2 ppmv CO2 extra in the atmosphere) and the bulk of the increase is from human emissions.