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:
David Riser says:
August 16, 2013 at 6:41 pm
One need to make a distinction between seasonal and continuous effects for CO2 release/uptake of the oceans. The seasonal effect is in the mid-latitudes, while the continuous release is around the tropics and the continuous uptake is near the poles.
While it is quite difficult to obtain real time data (there are only a few stations doing that, most are from frequent ships surveys), there were several attempts to make an inventory of seasonal and yearly fluxes in/out the oceans. These are based on pCO2 measurements of seawater over time. pCO2 combines temperature, salt content, pH, bioactivity and DIC (total carbon) in one driving parameter for CO2 exchanges. Combined with wind speed, the CO2 flux in or out can be calculated. Here are the results:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
That the ocean surface is a net sink for CO2 can be deduced from the increase in DIC over time.
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.”
If you like, however the derivative necessarily removes the approximately* linear trend in CO2 during the twentieth century. So the fundamental crux of the discussion (is that growth natural or anthropogenic) is not included. Essentially put to one side. dbstealey removed it in a different way in this graph http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.26/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958
Bart finds the differential, dbstealey uses the isolate function on WFT in both cases the trend which is fundamental question is removed and we are left with the short term ‘noise’. If Bart is right then the temperature anomaly fully accounts for what? Well what it fully accounts for is the small variation in the CO2 (smoothed over 12 months) that is *NOT* accounted for by assuming smooth monotonic growth in CO2. i.e. the relationship Bart shows accounts for everything OTHER than the actual upward trend in CO2. Put another way Bart has actually shown the temperature does has not driven CO2 growth – which on reflection is obvious because we can actually see that is not the case.
So yes, we can’t detect the relationship at the scale I keep pointing too because at that scale the relationship basically isn’t there. Why not because in addition to changes in CO2 due to seasonal variation and due to temperature and other climactic parameters we have a growth in CO2 which comes from humans burning fossil fuels. No faith, superstition or dogma is required just observation.
[*for arguments sake]
Nyq Only says:
August 17, 2013 at 5:22 am
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.”
Just to recapitulate in graphs. Reconstructing Barts and dbstealey’s
1. plot Mauna Loa interpolated mean with mean samples at 12 to get this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/mean:12 – that is the growth in CO2 which needs explaining and which Bart’s claim at least is that it is driven by temperature.
2. Bart’s graph: Find the derivative http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/mean:12/derivative
By the wholly unmysterious magic of calculus this is flatter – the growth shown in 1 primarily determines the vertical offset of this graph.
3. Plot temperature on the same scale. Bart and dbstealy used a scale factor I’ll use normalise cause I’m lazy. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/mean:12/derivative/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/normalise They sort of match quite nicely. This is Bart’s observation. Let’s go with it. Temperature anomaly is a goodish match for the graph of the differential BUT by aligning them on the same scale we’ve ignored the vertical position of the derivative of CO2 graph (there was no way of not ignoring it – no shenanigans are implied). So the match has no bearing on the growth trend we saw in plot 1. The two things are UNrelated.
4. dbstealy. Back to 3. Change “derivative” to “Isolate” and set samples to 60. Add ‘isolate” to the temperature as well – again at 60. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/mean:12/isolate:60/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/isolate:60/normalise Now we have change in CO2 over 5 year against temperature over 5 but now we can see the lag predicted by Bart. But the lag in what? What does “isolate” do? WFT: “Does the same running mean as ‘mean’, but then subtracts this from the raw data to leave the ‘noise'” Again we’ve removed the long term growth we saw in 1. and graphed the ‘noise’. This noise lags behind temperature. What about the growth? Temperature doesn’t explain it – it explains the noise ASIDE from the growth trend.
Both graphs assume dbstealey and Bart are right(ish) then they have both shown temperature anomaly explains the noise in the growth of the CO2. Something else explains the growth we see in graph 1. It basically can’t be temperature.
Friends:
The issue of long-term effects and so-called short-term (i.e. less than one year and so-called seasonal) effects has again arisen.
In attempt to avoid repetition of the discussion, I remind of the point I made earlier. For example, at August 13, 2013 at 1:35 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388815
where I wrote
And, as I repeatedly said, e.g. at August 13, 2013 at 4:10 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388367
the important question which derives from this is
As I then explained, Arthur Rorsch, Dick Thoenes and I have shown in one of our papers
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
this question can be answered by assuming something has changed the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle. The ‘something’ may be anthropogenic (e.g. the anthropogenic emission) or natural (e.g. the global temperature change).
In this thread there has been no significant debate of the question I posed and no debate of its possible answer suggested by Arthur, Dick and I.
I would welcome address of the question and attempted refutation of our answer to it.
Richard
Last graph for the moment. This is a version of dbstealey’s graph but with the absolute CO2 superimposed for scale and offset. The squiggly little green line is the CO2 plotted in dbstealey’s graph and the squiggly little blue line is temperature scaled in a similar way to the original. From that we can see how much of the change in CO2 is being explained by temperature..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/offset:-350/from:1960/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/isolate:60/from:1960/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:60/from:1960/scale:3.8
Nyq Only:
I am responding to your post at August 17, 2013 at 5:22 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1393086
Please address the question posed – yet again – in my post at August 17, 2013 at 6:07 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1393086
Your ignoring this question while iterating your dogma is both boring and boorish.
Richard
Let us ASSUME for the moment that Ferdinand’s hypo is correct, in that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is predominantly due or entirely due to the combustion of fossil fuels.
This “mass balance argument” is indeed very important for science, but much less important for the politics of global warming and the welfare of humanity and the environment.
Intellectually, global warming alarmism is dead. Despite increases in atmospheric CO2, there has been no significant global warming for 10-20 years. Furthermore, the chief scientific proponents of global warming alarmism have been demonstrated in the Climategate emails to be highly unreliable.
The “sensitivity of climate to increased atmospheric CO2” is insignificant, and may not even exist at all, since it is clear that atmospheric dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature and CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record. There is a similar but much longer lag of CO2 after temperature in the ice core record. These observation strongly suggest that in nature, temperature drives CO2, not the popularly-held opposite opinion.
So in Ferdinand’s hypo, a humanmade near-linear increase in atmospheric CO2 due to fossil fuel combustion is overlain by the natural “CO2 lags temperature” phenomenon.
What can we thus conclude for humanity and the environment?
1. The impact of increased fossil fuel use is, to our knowledge, entirely beneficial for humanity and the environment, since atmospheric CO2 is excellent plant food and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are at low, and perhaps DANGEROUSLY LOW levels.
2. We should be much more concerned about global cooling than global warming, since increased atmospheric CO2 will not materially alter Earth’s entry into the next Ice Age, which is imminent – if not within the next few years, certainly within the next several centuries.
The above two conclusions are also valid if Ferdinand’s hypo is incorrect.
I strongly suggest that humanity should focus on these conclusions. Winter is approaching.
richardscourtney says:
August 17, 2013 at 6:07 am
There are NO “different processes at work”.
Richard, if you think that there are no different processes at work, then you don’t take into account what the different reservoir exchanges in nature do. There are obvious lots of different fast, slow and very slow processes at work:
– the ocean surface and part of vegetation react very fast (less than 1 year) on temperature changes. That accounts for seasonal and other fast swings (1-3 years) reactions on temperature. These hardly respond to an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
– the deep oceans and more permanent storage in vegetation are much slower processes against temperature and respond more to atmospheric CO2 pressure than to temperature (for the current excess CO2 levels).
– the very long term change in CO2 levels again is temperature dependent, involves changes in growth area, ice cover, deep ocean flows, etc. Very slow processes: 5000-15000 years for 10 K and 80 ppmv change.
– the extreme long term change involves sedimentation processes in the oceans, rock weathering, etc…
Thus your question has little relevance for the reason why the current increase is man-made or not. The fast, temperature related processes are hardly involved in the current medium-term (decades) change in CO2…
Allan MacRae says:
August 17, 2013 at 7:33 am
Allan, you know that I do agree with you on the impact of the increase of CO2 on temperature…
But I fear that the continuous discussion about the origin of the increase by skeptics diverts from the far more important discussion about the impact of the increase.
In my opinion and of most “warmists” (ranging from luke-warm to extreme) the origin is clear and discussing that is as bad for the credibility of the skeptics as discussing the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas… Except if you have clear evidence for an alternative explanation that doesn’t violate one or more observations…
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Your post at August 17, 2013 at 8:04 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1393152
yet again misses the point.
As you say, there are different processes and they have different rate constants. You mention some of them. Do you want me to list all the known ones again?
As I said above in my post addressed to you at August 13, 2013 at 4:10 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388367
But so what?
The issue is
Why do the natural sequestration processes NOT absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year when the dynamics of the carbon cycle indicate that the processes can easily sequester them all?
I yet again ask you to recognise that this question refers to the short-term sequestration processes in each year. There are NO long-term sequestration processes involved in this question.
And if the short-term sequestration processes in each year did absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year then there would be no rise in any year. Hence, there would be no long-term rise.
As I said, our explanation of this paradox is a change to equilbrium state of the carbon cycle. In other words, the equilibriation between air and sea surface CO2 concentrations has changed and this causes the short-term sequestration processes to not absorb all the emissions. But the total equilibrium of the system has not yet been achieved because the equilibrium between sea surface layer and deep oceans has also changed and the rate of transfer of CO2 to the deep ocean is very slow.
If you have a different solution to the paradox then please state it.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
August 17, 2013 at 8:42 am
Why do the natural sequestration processes NOT absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year when the dynamics of the carbon cycle indicate that the processes can easily sequester them all?
Simple answer: because they can’t. The ocean surface has a limited capacity for CO2 uptake: 10% of the change in the atmosphere. That is the Revelle (buffer) factor. And the temperature variability has a limited impact on CO2 intake/outgassing of the ocean surface: 16 ppmv/K, where vegetation goes the other way out, leading to a global average change of 5 ppmv/K.
Other processes are much slower.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
re your post at August 17, 2013 at 9:26 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1393196
Ferdinand,
I KNOW THE PROCESSES CAN’T SEQUESTER ALL THE CO2 EMISSIONS, BECAUSE THEY DON’T.
But
THE DYNAMICS OF THE SEQUESTRATION PROCESSES SHOW THEY CAN SEQUESTER ALL THE CO2 EMISSIONS,
That is the paradox.
Listing things you say can’t sequester all the emissions avoids the question.
I will try to spell it out.
Short-term processes
1. Consumption of CO2 by photosynthesis that takes place in green plants on land. CO2 from the air and water from the soil are coupled to form carbohydrates. Oxygen is liberated. This process takes place mostly in spring and summer. A rough distinction can be made:
1a. The formation of leaves that are short lived (less than a year).
1b. The formation of tree branches and trunks, that are long lived (decades).
2. Production of CO2 by the metabolism of animals, and by the decomposition of vegetable matter by micro-organisms including those in the intestines of animals, whereby oxygen is consumed and water and CO2 (and some carbon monoxide and methane that will eventually be oxidised to CO2) are liberated. Again distinctions can be made:
2a. The decomposition of leaves, that takes place in autumn and continues well into the next winter, spring and summer.
2b. The decomposition of branches, trunks, etc. that typically has a delay of some decades after their formation.
2c. The metabolism of animals that goes on throughout the year.
3. Consumption of CO2 by absorption in cold ocean waters. Part of this is consumed by marine vegetation through photosynthesis.
4. Production of CO2 by desorption from warm ocean waters. Part of this may be the result of decomposition of organic debris.
5. Circulation of ocean waters from warm to cold zones, and vice versa, thus promoting processes 3 and 4.
In each year the increase of the anthropogenic emissions is approximately 0.1 GtC/year. The natural fluctuation of the excess consumption (i.e. consumption processes 1 and 3 minus production processes 2 and 4) is at least 6 ppmv (which corresponds to 12 GtC) in 4 months. This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production, which strongly suggests that the dynamics of the natural processes here listed 1-5 can cope easily with the human production of CO2. A serious disruption of the system may be expected when the rate of increase of the anthropogenic emissions becomes larger than the natural variations of CO2. But the above data indicates this is not possible.
So, the dynamics indicate that the natural sequestration is easily capable of sequestering all emissions – both natural and anthropogenic – but it does not. Why does it not?
Ferdinand, listing what you think to be the limits of various sequestration processes ignores the fact that the dynamics of the system indicate the sequestration processes can sequester much more than all the emission in each year.
The data from Mauna Loa, Alert, etc. may all be wrong. But if the data is correct then it indicates the observed dynamics show the sequestration processes can do what they do not. And that is the paradox which you are failing to address.
Richard
Ferdinand Engelbeen says: August 17, 2013 at 8:22 am
“In my opinion and of most “warmists” (ranging from luke-warm to extreme) the origin is clear and discussing that is as bad for the credibility of the skeptics as discussing the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas…”
Allan says:
But Ferdinand, the warmists and their acolytes must be reminded again and again that they have absolutely NO SUCCESSFUL PREDICTIVE RECORD.
And I submit that one’s predictive record is a primary indicator of scientific competence.
The warmists’ only successful record is that of scientific dishonesty and fraud.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
richardscourtney says:
Allan MacRae says:
Let me (deliberfately) distract you for a moment as I ask if may not be true that “each of you” is correct in your “details” of the analysis of CO2 absorbtion, storage, and use, and release over time IN THE SPECIFIC DETAILS of consumption and release, but “each of you” is at the same time “failing” overall because you are trying to assume that the planet reacts to the same impulse at the same time.
Instead, break your analysis up by latitude bands and seasons.
There is CO2 monthly data available for
Antarctica => Very cold, no photosynthesis on land south of 56 latitude, irregular amounts in the ocean between 45 south and 60 south. Virtually none between 60 south and the pole. Right?
Mid-south latitudes: south 30 latitude through south 45 latitude. DOn’t know of CO2 collection stattions. Almost all the area is productive “ocean” area plus limited land: part of South America, Africa, and Australia are about it. CO2 “phase” is out-of-step with northern hemisphere (on land!) but not too much change in temperature really compared to the “mirror latitude” band in the northern hemisphere. Doesn’t this, coupled with the limited-but-present CO2 exchange between northern hemispphere->tropic latitude-> southern latitudes, mean that you’d expect a phase-and macnitude limiit on ANY “impulse change” to CO2 levels?
Tropics: 30 south to 30 north. Small temperature changes month-to-month, monsoon and local (desert/mountain range/dust/jungle/savanah) extreme changes in local climate affecting CO2 release and consumption (extreme deserts vs Amazon and Congo basins).
“Classic northern hemisphere temperate zone”. This is the ONLY area of the global where your generalizations and your time scales “fit” your arguments – both pro and con. But because this is just one area of the global, i suggest politely but firmly that your attempts to “brush” these arguments from one region to a entire global single “climate-and-CO2-response zone” are what is fouling up your arguments: good valid arguments for one place for one time of year are getting trumped by equally valid findings from another place at the same time of year, but phase-shited. Except the second place is dominated by a lack of ocean area, or land area, that is too large/too small in the first area.
It is much like the apologists for the continuing Antarctic sea ice increase. They use arithamtic to “prove” that more Arctic sea ice is lost compared to what is gained by Antarctic sea ice => Therefore only the Arctic loss is a problem. Or they use “percent lost” up north in the Arctic ( “I my God! 30% of the arctic sea ice is lost, but only 5% of the antarctic sea is gained!” without realizing that losing 1 million km from 3 million is a bunch, but that loss has to be compared to gaining 1 million ON TOP OF the already 19 million around the south pole that is itself around the existing 14 million on the antarctic continent.
Result?
We lose 1 million km of sea ice at 85 north latitude, at a time of year when there is almost no sunshine at 85 north latitude. We gain 1 million km of sea ice at 60 south latitude. Where that sunlight IS reflected back into space.
To repeat my beginning statement: Assume Hawaii’s CO2 month-to-month variations are ONLY valid for that latitude band in the north hemisphere, but that they accurately show a mass balance change for that band. What are the resulting CO2 mass balances for the rest of the latitude bands, and WHEN do those mass balances (over land and over ocean) change?
RACookPE1978 says:
August 17, 2013 at 10:56 am
The main difference between latitude bands, altitude bands and the hemispheres is a matter of mixing speed. For altitude, that gives in the NH:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_height.jpg
The largest changes are from the seasonal growth and decay of vegetation, which is dominant in the NH.
Besides that, there is North-South gradient: the main increase of CO2 is in the NH:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg
The South Pole lags Mauna Loa with 1-2 years. The lag is longer for passing the equator, as the ITCZ allows only an exchange of 10% per year in air mass between the hemispheres.
A nice illustration of seasonal and global trends is here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/globalview/
In summary, while the exchanges over the seasons are huge, the net result is quite moderate, partly because the exchanges between atmosphere and oceans and between atmosphere and vegetation go in countercurrent with temperature. And the differences between different latitude bands are quite small within one hemisphere.
RACookPE1978:
Thankyou for your post at August 17, 2013 at 10:56 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1393266
In essence you make the same point as David Riser at August 16, 2013 at 6:41 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1392759
i.e. changes occur to different degrees in different places and at different times.
It is a very good point, and I agreed with David at August 17, 2013 at 3:07 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1393004
However, I have two responses to your post.
Firstly, I do not agree with the ‘mass balance argument’. And this the essential disagreement which Ferdinand and I have been arguing for several years. In my view there cannot be a valid mass balance because nobody knows the carbon exchange between ocean surface layer and deep ocean, but almost all the carbon flowing in the carbon cycle is in the deep ocean. Ferdinand defends the ‘mass balance argument’ as vigorously as I dispute it.
Secondly, my question which I keep pressing
(see e.g. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1393100 )
is valid for all the CO2 measurement sites; i.e. Mauna Loa, Barrow, Alert, etc..
This second point is pertinent because different places have different geography (e.g. ocean cover, local biota, etc.) and, therefore, the question seems to be independent of location. Also, the daily sequestration rates are often higher than the annual sequestration rates at each locality, and this adds to the paradox presented by my question. Indeed, these large and rapid variations in local atmospheric CO2 concentrations are a major reason why some people (e.g. Ferdinand) reject the data collated by Beck.
Please note that I stand ‘in the middle’ in this debate. And I feel sure that if one ‘side’ were able to provide a cogent answer to the question then I would probably move to that side.
Again, thankyou for your post. Your point did need to be made again at this stage, and I thank you for making it.
Richard
RACookPE1978:
Ferdinand has given you his answer to your question. My long answer differs from his but (for some inexplicable reason) it has gone into moderation.
I respectfully suggest that if you intend to reply it may be advantageous to you to wait until you can provide a single reply to us both.
Richard
EDIT: ADDED THE WORD “SCIENTIFIC”
Allan says:
But Ferdinand, the warmists and their acolytes must be reminded again and again that they have NO SUCCESSFUL SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIVE RECORD.
And I submit that one’s scientific predictive record is a primary indicator of scientific competence.
The warmists’ only successful record is that of scientific dishonesty and fraud.
richardscourtney says:
August 17, 2013 at 10:08 am
The dynamics of the sequestration processes show they can sequester all the CO2 emissions
Richard, they can’t, because they are limited in capacity. No matter how fast these processes are (90 GtC in and out partly over the seasons and partly continuous for the oceans), if the ocean surface is in equilibrium at the temperature of that moment with the atmospheric CO2 pressure, then no further uptake will take place. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere only has a limited response (10%) in the oceans surface. 90% remains in the atmosphere or other reservoirs.
The same for vegetation: the rapid growth of leaves stops when they are formed and no further uptake for leaf formation will take place. Other processes like stem, root and fruit formation are slower, but still are limited in capacity. The full seasonal cycle in the biosphere is somewhere between 60 and 120 GtC in and out over the seasons. The year by year variability in that cycle is around +/- 1.5 GtC, mainly temperature dependent (based on dO2 and d13C data). The average increase of vegetation after a full seasonal cycle is ~1 GtC/yr (which is a much slower process than the seasonal cycle and mainly pressure dependent), while humans currently emit ~9 GtC/yr.
The total uptake from the fastest processes in average is ~1.5 GtC/year. Thus the remaining ~7.5 GtC/year needs slower processes to get reduced…
Allan MacRae says:
August 17, 2013 at 10:20 am
But Ferdinand, the warmists and their acolytes must be reminded again and again that they have NO SUCCESSFUL SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIVE RECORD.
Allan, the question of the predictive record (in fact the sensitivity of temperature for the increase in CO2) is totally independent of the question of the origin of the increase. The knowledge of the causes of the CO2 increase are spread over a broader group of persons, including a lot of skeptics, like Willis Eschenbach, Lindzen and others. The competence of the climate model makers has nothing to do with that.
Nyq Only says:
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
What you are showing is not cause and effect. It is a simple overlay. I keep trying to explain that ∆T causes ∆CO2, but I keep getting linked to charts like that, which only show coincidental correlation. They don’t show cause and effect. The charts I posted do show cause and effect, and there is no “pretend” about it.
To be clear: I think human activity has added some CO2 to the atmosphere. How much is debatable. But that is not the relevant point.
The question is: does the added CO2 cause rising global temperatures? I have shown repeatedly that ∆T causes ∆CO2, on time scales from months to hundreds of millennia. The cause and effect is clear, and the charts verifying that cause and effect are based on ample empirical evidence. If we can’t agree on that point, there is no reason to continue the debate.
But if you can accept that point, then the question becomes: has the rise in CO2 caused any global harm, or damage? If so, you must quantify the damage, and show conclusively that it results directly from human CO2 emissions. But so far, no one has been able to show that.
There is no measurable scientific evidence proving:
a) that human CO2 emissions have caused any global harm. Thus, they can be considered harmless. And
b) that human CO2 emissions are the cause of any measurable rise in global temperatures.
If something cannot be measured, it stops at the conjecture step of the Scientific Method. It is an opinion, with no more weight than a conjecture that CO2 causes no global warming. If it cannot be measured, it is not testable science, is it? It is speculation.
[I happen to think that at current levels, a rise in CO2 will cause some slight warming. But that warming is minuscule compared with other forcings. It is too small to even measure, therefore it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.]
Almost all the warming from CO2 has already taken place, during the first 20 ppm rise in that trace gas. At current concentrations, any small warming effect from additional CO2 is simply too small to measure.
The scientific skeptics’ hypothesis is: At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. More than 31,000 skeptical scientists and engineers, all with degrees in the hard sciences, have already agreed in writing with that position.
Your job is to falsify that hypothesis. I don’t care if you do, because if you did it would advance our knowledge, and that is what science is all about. But up to now no one has been able to provide testable, empirical evidence showing that human CO2 emissions cause any global harm or damage. And there is ample evidence that airborne CO2 causes increased agricultural yields.
Conclusion: the “carbon” scare has been sufficiently deconstructed. It is a false alarm. More CO2 is a net benefit. And since the climate always fluctuates, our preference should be for a warmer planet over a colder planet.
If there is a flaw in my reasoning, by all means, please point it out.
The big problem is the entire basis for Englebeen and the warmists claims about CO2 is that it is “Well mixed in the atmosphere” Without that assumption Callendar cannot toss out all the historic CO2 analysis he did not like. The ice core CO2 analysis from before 1982, showing concentrations up to 2900 ppm, cannot be tossed on the garbage heap and Mauna Loa’s rejection step purging outliers that don’t “Fit” their curve is shown to be pure BAD SCIENCE.
Well these satellite images shows the “Well mixed in the atmosphere” conjecture is bogus:
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2012/12/img/20121203_ibuki_05_e.gif
Also this information is not from a point source.
For AIRS, the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) built by BAE SYSTEMS for NASA/JPL, the IR spatial resolution is 13.5 km at nadir
Another image AIRS… global distribution of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere at a nadir resolution of 90 km x 90 km.
They are mixing data from 90 km by 90 km area and STILL do not get uniform CO2!
richardscourtney says: August 17, 2013 at 6:15 am
I am responding to your post at August 17, 2013 at 5:22 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1393086
Please address the question posed – yet again – in my post at August 17, 2013 at 6:07 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1393086
Darn I was hoping for “poopyhead” and instead got “ignorant and boorish”. Also you posted the same link twice. You didn’t address any of the content of my post and instead refer me to a post that you didn’t address to me and demand that I answer your ‘question’. How about YOU post something of substance in regard to what I have actually written.
Once again all you’ve provided is clumsy name calling. We can debate substance or you can call me names. I’m posting substance.
Nyq Only:
I am replying to your post at August 17, 2013 at 12:56 pm.
This will be my last post in reply to any more of your prattle.
This is a conversation between adults and you have repeatedly demonstrated that you lack sufficient maturity to contribute except to be disruptive.
In this thread you have lied, misrepresented and insulted all in support of your ridiculous dogma. Take your childish beliefs back to your playpen.
When you have a proper reply to either the question posed to you by dbstealey or the question I have posed to all then – and only then – will I be bothered to read more of your childish twaddle which is wasting space on the thread.
Richard
dbstealey says: August 17, 2013 at 12:43 pm
“What you are showing is not cause and effect.”
Well as what I am showing is a demonstration that the cause and effect you and Bart is claiming ISN’T THERE it would be odd for me to say the graph DOES show cause and effect.
” keep trying to explain that ∆T causes ∆CO2,”
Yes, and I understand your argument and your graphs. See my messages above.
“The question is: does the added CO2 cause rising global temperatures? I have shown repeatedly that ∆T causes ∆CO2, on time scales from months to hundreds of millennia.”
And mainstream climate science and your Gavin Schmidt’s and Michael Mann’s et al would agree with you that an increase in temperature certainly can result in an increase in CO2. That is a known thing. Do any of your graphs show that CO2 *CANNOT* cause a rise in temperature. No. Not a single one of them does that. Do any of your graphs show that the general staedy growth of CO2 over at least the last quarter of the 20th century and beyond was caused by temperature? No – your graphs do *NOT* show that. Indeed to get the relationship you have shown (which you say is causal and which I’ll except for the sake of argument) you first have to remove the approximately linear growth trend.
A best you’ve shown temperature causes some of the wobbles – the stuff OTHER than actual overall growth trend. Which effectively (not utterly or 100% completely but pretty much) rules out temperature as a driver of CO2 growth. Which, as I’ve pointed out too many times now, is hardly a surprise because when we look at straight CO2 and the temperature anomaly we don’t see a neat relation.
“The cause and effect is clear, and the charts verifying that cause and effect are based on ample empirical evidence. If we can’t agree on that point, there is no reason to continue the debate.”
I can agree that you’ve shown a notable relationship between temperature and SOME changes in CO2. I can *SEE* that you have definitely not shown any relation between temperature and the overall growth in CO2. Indeed you’ve effectively demonstrated that it probably isn’t caused by temperature. Which is interesting.
“But if you can accept that point…”
Well we could go from here to discuss all the aspects of both global warming science and possible policy response to it and to what scale they should be at etc but I think that may be a tad too much to do in one hit. Lets stick to the issue at hand. Has the late twentieth century growth in CO2 been caused by temperature? The answer can be “no” without anybody having to become a devotee of Al Gore or whatever.
The problem is that you claim an increase in the global temperature and an increase in CO2. Now the link seems to be broken you need secondary effects in the deep ocean to make up for your model failure. You claim that man made CO2 will warm the planet yet here we are 16 years down the road and no unnatural changes your vigorous mathematical management could expose.
Even the total inability of the warmists to predict Arctic ice changes should be a big alarm regardless of the sign. The models synthesise all that is currently known about the climate and they are all wrong. Give it up and admit that you have no clue as to what will happen to our climate. Energy makes us healthy, wealthy and wise why do you want to control and ration that energy?
I don’t believe the greens have the best interests of ordinary people at heart when they protest against more, cheaper and more reliable power. Why is energy being rationed?