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:
jimmi_the_dalek:
I remain on the fence because I am not convinced that either Bart or Ferdinand is wholly right.
I now write to draw attention to your post at August 17, 2013 at 5:01 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1393536
which clearly states why Bart is not cogent.
The limitation of Bart’s analysis seems to have been lost in debate with Ferdinand. They may both be right to some degree, or either one of them may be wrong. Allan’s work suggests Bart is probably more right than Ferdinand but neither is completely right.
Richard
This chart has been posted here often. But once more won’t hurt.
CO2 has been up to twenty times (20X) higher in the past, with no runaway global warming — the central prediction of the alarmist crowd to higher atmospheric CO2. As we see, even if all the available fossil fuels were burned, CO2 would be far lower now than in the geologic past.
The more we learn, the more we see that CO2 simply does not have the predicted effects. Yet some people are still trying to convince us otherwise.
jimmi_the_dalek says: August 17, 2013 at 5:01 pm
“Nyq Only has a valid point.”
Thanks Jimmi but you said it much better. I take back all the mean things I said about Skaro – lovely planet 🙂
dbstealey says: August 17, 2013 at 5:22 pm
You are right – I don’t think anybody said “all” and several people defending yours and Bart’s claims have said that there could be some effect due to anthropogenic emissions. However in many messages strong claims have been made that any influence other than temperature is minimal, improbable or both.
dbstealey says:
August 12, 2013 at 6:52 pm
You probably know more than I do about this, but when I look at this 50+ year chart, I see that CO2 levels appear to be entirely temperature dependent — both rising and falling ∆CO2 levels. CO2 follows ∆T, both up and down, no?
Bart says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:35 pm
The simplest explanation that we stay anchored to the ground is that the Earth is flat. Occam’s Razor does not demand the simplest explanation, it recommends the simplest explanation consistent with theory and observations.
The hypothesis that we are responsible for a significant portion of the atmospheric CO2 rise is inconsistent with those.
e.g.
Bart says:
August 12, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Occam’s Razor comes down very hard on the simplest explanation which fits the data: atmospheric CO2 is the result of a temperature dependent process which is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and that process is effectively independent of human activity.
Allan MacRae says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:42 am
Ferdinand, it would not surprise me greatly if there is indeed a humanmade component to the increased atmospheric CO2. And indeed it could be partly due to the combustion of fossil fuels, not just deforestation. But as Richard correctly states, the fossil fuel component is a small part of natural global CO2 flux.
Allan MacRae says:
August 14, 2013 at 8:03 am
Atmospheric CO2 variation is primarily a result, not a driver of temperature, and human fossil fuel combustion is probably NOT causing the recent increases in atmospheric CO2
Bart says:
August 14, 2013 at 12:14 pm
What is important here is that it the result of the approximation clearly indicates that what we are dealing with is mostly a temperature dependent pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere. This relationship, whatever it is in its full glory, accounts for ALL of the observed behavior, both in the long term and the short. There is no need to take account of human inputs to explain the behavior to a high degree of fidelity.
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.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says: August 17, 2013 at 12:32 pm
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.
__________
Hello Ferdinand, your response to me initially concerned the Warmists, and now you have extended your comment to include the Skeptics.
My above comments addressed your original post, and referred to the utter lack of credibility of the Warmist camp.
The failures of the leading Warmists and their acolytes are not limited to their highly exaggerated estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2, where they have been discredited by about 10-20 years of no significant global warming..
In fact, the Warmists have many more scientific and technical failures, such as their false allegation that increased atmospheric CO2 leads to more extreme (wilder) weather, their support for wasteful and ineffective grid-connected “green energy” schemes, carbon taxes, carbon trading exchanges, skyrocketing energy costs, etc.
The Warmist narrative keeps changing as it is discredited, from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change“ aka “Wilder Weather“ to their latest, “Sustainability“.
Then there was the evidence of reprehensible Warmist behaviour in the ClimateGate emails, which clearly indicated that the global warming movement (acolytes call it “the Cause”) is controlled by a cabal closely related to the IPCC that routinely practiced scientific misrepresentation, vicious academic intimidation, and criminal avoidance of FOI requests.
Warmist scientific and ethical failures included the Mann hokey stick, the Divergence Problem, Mike’s Nature Trick, Hide the Decline, the intimidation of the editors of scientific journals and the firing of skeptics from universities – a long history of thuggish behaviour.
Contrary to IPCC projections, there has been NO net global warming for 10-20 years, and no evidence of wilder weather, more hurricanes, or tornados. “Green energy“ technologies have failed to produce significant amounts of useful net energy.
Every major conclusion written by the Warmists has proven false and some were clearly fraudulent.
Against this background of Warmist incompetence and infamy, you seem to be suggesting that raising legitimate questions about the huge and complex Carbon Cycle is hurting the credibility of the skeptics. I have heard this argument before, but sorry, I just do not accept it as reasonable, given the scientific facts and the sordid history of the false global warming crisis.
Furthermore, as I stated above, the origin of the increased atmospheric CO2 is scientifically important, but not that critical to the practical considerations that should be foremost in a rational discussion of climate science:
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, then within the next several centuries.
Best personal regards, Allan
Allan MacRae:
I write to add a point to your excellent summary of issues concerning carbon cycle research which you provide at August 18, 2013 at 2:20 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1393739
I agree with you when you say
Furthermore, as I stated above, the origin of the increased atmospheric CO2 is scientifically important, but not that critical to the practical considerations that should be foremost in a rational discussion of climate science: …
True, but that ignores what is happening in the public (n.b. not the scientific) arena where what “should be foremost” is not foremost.
It is being assumed that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and that assumption is being used as an excuse to attempt imposition of harmful changes to energy and economic policies world-wide.
The assumption may or may not be correct. But if it is not correct then the imposed policies are a serious mistake.
Also, and importantly, the existing AGW scare is but the latest in a series of false scares. It is important that scares only be founded on reality and not false assumptions.
It can be anticipated that as the AGW scare assuages it will be replaced by another scare. If the the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is assumed to be caused by the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 then that future scare can be based on the assumption.
The true cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration will become known eventually. If it turns out that the rise is natural and not significantly affected by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 then any future scare (such as ‘ocean acidification’) would be avoided if it were based on the fact of those emissions.
Furthermore, if the emissions are not causing the rise then the public respect for science will be harmed when the truth of the matter is determined. And that future harm will increase as the time taken to resolve the truth of the matter increases.
In summation, the needs of public policy and the reputation of science require that we resolve the true cause – anthropogenic or natural – of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Richard
All,
I may react on more details why human emissions are the main (over 90%) of the CO2 increase over the past 50 years (and longer), but that would divert from the attention that Nyq Only draws on the non-compliancy of the temperature-CO2 relationship that Bart expected.
Besides that Bart’s theory violates about all observations, the increase of CO2 doesn’t follow the increase in temperature over the past 50 years. I would like to hear the comment of Bart on that point…
Allan MacRae,
I have never read the whole global warming scam put so concisely.Well done.
That sentence needed some editing, sorry. 🙂
Nyq Only says:
“I don’t think anybody said “all”…”
See, this is the problem with trying to educate the alarmist crowd. Even things that can be verified by a verbatim cut and paste are claimed to have never been said. For example:
“…the graphs cannot be used to claim that all the CO2 rise over the last 50 or 60 years is due to temperature.”
The folks arguing interminably about whether or not T has zero effect on CO2 always avoid answering the question of whether there is a problem. And that is the central question. Nyq Only has stated that he would show global damage from anthropogenic CO2. But we’re still waiting for any verifiable evidence of that.
This arguing over whether the added CO2 is due to human activity, in whole or in part, is like arguing over how many angels can dance on a pinhead. What does it possibly matter, if there are no adverse effects from CO2? The fact is that seriously beneficial effects result from more CO2, therefore on net balance, more CO2 is a good thing. CO2 is harmless. It is beneficial to the biosphere. I have repeatedly challenged anyone to try and falsify that easily testable hypothesis, but no one even refers to it — and we all know why: because the hypothesis cannot be falsified.
THAT should be the argument. But that argument is studiously avoided, because based on the evidence, more CO2 is an unmitigated good. As such, everyone should be cheering the rise in CO2. The fact that they don’t means they are arguing to protect their precious egos; because admitting that skeptics are right when we say there is nothing to worry about is more than alarmists can bring themselves to do. Climate alarmists simply cannot admit that scientific skeptics have been right all along about the “carbon” false alarm.
Either document solid evidence of global damage due to human-emitted CO2, or show us that you can admit that there is no problem with a little more of that beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere.
dbstealey says: August 18, 2013 at 9:29 am
“This arguing over whether the added CO2 is due to human activity, in whole or in part, is like arguing over how many angels can dance on a pinhead. What does it possibly matter, if there are no adverse effects from CO2?”
No offense intended but you’ve been arguing about this issue in this thread. This was a major topic and you appeared to have strong opinions about it.
I think Ferdinand and Jimmi and others have now shown that your argument was not correct. Your argument was a good argument and well put but in the end not actually correct for the reasons I’ve outlined which in the end were not very complex.
You now say I have to do more – that I have to show CO2 does harm. Well it has taken this long to at least begin to convince you that the rise in CO2 was not caused by temperature. To convince you that the rise was anthropogenic will take at least as long. To convince you that the anthropogenic rise caused the late twentieth century rise in temperature will take even longer. That the temperature rise will continue will also take some substantial amount of argument and persuasion. The effects on human society of that temperature rise itself will be multiple lines of argument – each one longer that what it took to get people to notice what happens when you find the derivative of a linear function. Seriously! Have a look at how long it took to get that one point over!
So baby steps dbstealey.
“Nyq Only has stated that he would show global damage from anthropogenic CO2.”
No I didn’t. I said that I can answer this point of yours – “If the alarmist crowd cannot show global harm from the rise in CO2, then they have no credible argument.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1393527
Convince you that damage will occur will take much more work than that – and I would imagine the heckling from some quarters will make the amount I got in this thread seem somewhat tame.
“he fact that they don’t means they are arguing to protect their precious egos; because admitting that skeptics are right when we say there is nothing to worry about is more than alarmists can bring themselves to do.”
Hmm don’t you just hate it when people can’t bring themselves to admit somebody they disagree with was right all along? 🙂
Allan MacRae says:
August 18, 2013 at 2:20 am
The problem I see is that you are lumping all believers in (some) influence of CO2 on temperature (harmful or not) together with the extremists in that camp. That are the Mann’s and other manipulators of data in this world. But there are others, the “luke warmers” like Roger Pielke Sr, Hans Von Storch and others, who genuinely believe that there may be some harm from increased CO2 levels, but who at the same time warn against the extreme “projections” of the extremists and even (Von Storch) admit that their own (low sensitivity) model at this moment fails.
There may be reason to question a lot of science in that field, but the questioning must be based on very solid evidence and fit all observations, if one want to fight a lot of evidence from the other side, which already fits all observations… If not, then you weaken your more solid objections on other items like the non-compliance of climate models with reality…
Nyq Only says:
“…don’t you just hate it when people can’t bring themselves to admit somebody they disagree with was right all along?”
Since you have been wrong all along, I will let you answer your own question. For just one example that you are wrong, here is your quote regarding CO2:
“…damage will occur…”
You are speculating based on your Beliefs. To presume that something “will occur” shows that it has not occurred. You are hoping, and pretty desperately so, that some sort of global damage will result from the rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2. So far, there is no quantifiable evidence of any global damage from the rise in CO2.
Your assertion from yesterday stated that you would be presenting verifiable evidence of such global damage. That has now gone by the wayside, replaced with your new assertion that damage “will occur”. I knew you would not be able to post verifiable, testable evidence showing global harm from CO2, because no one else has been able to post such evidence, and smarter people than you have tried. As a matter of fact, CO2 is every bit as beneficial and necessary to life on earth as H2O. That shows you how ridiculous the “carbon” scare is.
In fact, there is no verifiable evidence of global harm from the rise in the tiny trace gas CO2. So now your fallback position is that damage “will occur” at some future time. That is a climbdown from your previous assurance that you would be coming back here with testable evidence showing that CO2 has caused global harm.
Really, all you are doing is moving the goal posts again — a failed tactic of the runaway global warming cult. But that is certainly not science. It is just more false alarmism.
Finally, like others before you, you try to paint me into a corner when you claim that I disagree with Ferdinand Engelbeen. On the whole, we are in agreement. In fact, my only dispute [if you can call it that] with Ferdinand is that he does not point out often enough that there is no evidence showing global harm from the rise in CO2. However, he has stated that fact in the past. Also, possibly he and I may disagree on the exact percentage of CO2 attributable to human activity. But that is only nitpicking. Ferdinand convinced me long ago that the recent rise in CO2 is caused by humans, and we have discussed that. So you are really not up to speed on any of this.
dbstealey says [” … “]:
August 18, 2013 at 2:04 pm
IMO 4-8% of present CO2 concentration is attributable to human activity. That equates to 13-27% of the rise from ~280 to ~400 ppmv of dry air since c. 1850. But even if half of the increase is man-made, which I doubt, then people are responsible for only 15% of the present total. In any case the increase has been beneficial.
milodonharlani says:
August 18, 2013 at 2:18 pm
IMO 4-8% of present CO2 concentration is attributable to human activity.
It is about 9%, but no problem with a lower figure.
That equates to 13-27% of the rise from ~280 to ~400 ppmv of dry air since c. 1850.
No, that equates to 95% of the rise since 1850. The remaining fraction of the human contribution and the cause of the increase have little to do with each other. The fraction is largely influenced by the dilution from the other reservoirs, mainly the deep oceans. But the fraction of the human contribution and the change in total mass due to the human contribution are (near) completely independent of each other.
The following plot shows the decay of a 100 GtC pulse of human emissions, if that happened at once 160 years ago:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/fract_level_pulse.jpg
where FA is the fraction of human emissions residing in the atmosphere, FL the same in the ocean surface (not relevant here), tCA total carbon in the atmosphere and nCA natural carbon in the atmosphere. After some 60 years, most of the human CO2 disappeared out of the atmosphere while still 40% of the original pulse in mass is present. All what happened is that the original human CO2 was replaced by natural CO2, without affecting the total mass of CO2, which height over equilibrium still is caused by the original pulse.
For the real emissions over the past 160 years, that gives:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/fract_level_emiss.jpg
Where the fraction of the human contribution is about 9%, but 95% of the increase is caused by humans, the remaining 5% is from the temperature increase over the same period.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 18, 2013 at 3:34 pm
I appreciate your effort to make a valid estimate. You may well be right, but IMO science doesn’t know enough about carbon sinks to achieve such precision. Nor is it really known with a high degree of probability what CO2 concentrations have been in prior interglacials. But I could be wrong.
milodonharlani says:
August 18, 2013 at 3:55 pm
There are a lot of estimates for the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. These give an average of slightly over 5 years for any molecule of CO2 (whatever its origin) in the atmosphere (800 GtC in the atmosphere, 150 GtC throughput = 5.3 years residence time). That makes that human induced low-13C CO2 is exchanged with 13C rich(er) CO2 from other reservoirs with such a relative fast decay time.
The decay time for an excess amount of CO2 in the atmosphere back to equilibrium is known with relative high accuracy, whithout any knowledge of any part of the carbon cycle: Today, there is an excess of ~100 ppmv CO2 (212 GtC) over the pre-industrial equilibrium. That results in a yearly removal of ~4 GtC CO2 in whatever sinks. That gives an “excess decay” time of 212/4=53 years. Or a half life time of ~40 years.
Modern ice core measurements via sublimation and cryogenic separation of all constituents are accurate with a repeatability of samples in the same part of the core to ~1.2 ppmv (1 sigma) for cores going 800 kyr back in time. Between ice cores from different places under very different conditions of temperature, snow accumulation and resulting pressure in the ice column, the results are within 5 ppmv for the same average gas age…
dbstealey: “For just one example that you are wrong, here is your quote regarding CO2:
“…damage will occur…””
Well the quote actually is “Convince you that damage will occur will take much more work than that ”
And you are saying that I’m wrong on this? That implies that it would take LESS work – and I’m sure you didn’t mean that. Here is a link that might make it easier to follow the text http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1393988
Also you can use control+ on your browser to zoom into the text – it will make it a bit easier for you to read.
“Your assertion from yesterday stated that you would be presenting verifiable evidence of such global damage. ”
No it didn’t. Again you might want to read the words I wrote – may help you follow the discussion.
Here is an excerpt from the message:
You:“If the alarmist crowd cannot show global harm from the rise in CO2, then they have no credible argument.”
Me: Well tell you what. Next open thread ask again and I’ll give an answer to that specific point. Deal?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1393527
Nyq Only,
Either your memory is shot, or you are intentionally obfuscating. I suspect the latter.
Up thread I asked for solid evidence showing global damage due to anthropogenic CO2, saying:
“If the alarmist crowd cannot show global harm from the rise in CO2, then they have no credible argument.”
You responded:
“Well tell you what. Next open thread ask again and I’ll give an answer to that specific point. Deal?”
Yeah, yeah, deal. As if you could give a credible answer when no one else ever has. As I stated: if there was verifiable global harm due to the [natural] rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2, then the alarmist cult would have been beating scientific skeptics over the head with that evidence 24/7/365. Instead, whenever I challenge them to put up or shut up, they shut up. In your case, you pushed your ‘evidence’ off into the future.
Why won’t you just post your so-called “evidence” right here and now? That reeks of game-playing, just like you future tense, unprovable claim that “damage will occur”. Needless to say, your wild-eyed predictions don’t count for squat. The alarmist crowd has been 100% wrong in its predictions so far, so basing your argument on vague future predictions lacks any credibility. You are still just speculating based on your Beliefs.
Let’s see your ‘credible argument’ showing global harm due specifically to anthropogenic CO2 right now. Make it verifiable and testable, and make sure it shows that human CO2 emissions are the direct cause of global damage. Not “possible”; but direct, traceable to human emissions, and verifiable. Quit beating around the bush. Show your putative ‘global damage’ from CO2. Then trace it directly back to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Good luck with that.
Finally, you still avoid the hypothesis I continually post, which in effect says the same thing: at current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. Falsify that easily testable hypothesis, if you think you can. It amounts to the same thing as saying there is no verifiable, testable global harm due to the rise in anthropogenic CO2. And unlike your alarmist beliefs, it is based on the Scientific Method.
dbstealey: “Up thread I asked for solid evidence showing global damage due to anthropogenic CO2, saying: “If the alarmist crowd cannot show global harm from the rise in CO2, then they have no credible argument.”
Your statement is a proposition saying that *IF* the alarmist crowd cannot show global harm from the rise in CO2 THEN they have no credible argument. I believe that proposition is false. i.e. even if the “alarmist crowd” cannot show global harm from the rise in CO2 then they still have a credible argument.
If you meant to write something else with that proposition then I’m sorry but I can only go off what you have actually said.
Seems now you want to play some illogical game on that point. Sorry db, if you want a rational debate you have to offer a rational debate. You now seem to be engaged in fighting a fantasy argument with a fantasy opponent.
In the meantime I’ll pick and choose what I discuss and when – just as you do.
Nyq Only says:
Translation:
“I got nothin'”.
dbstealey:
re your post at August 19, 2013 at 11:47 am.
Sorry to be pedantic but it is not true that Nyq Only “got nothin’”.
In this thread – as I and others have pointed out – Nyq Only has repeatedly demonstrated he has his superstitious belief in AGW.
Other than that, he “got nothin’”.
Richard
dbstealey says: August 19, 2013 at 11:47 am
“I got nothin’”.
LOL – thanks I needed a chuckle. I get that you are a little upset about me demonstrating where you went wrong with the link between CO2 and temperature but you need to think what is the effective way of responding to that. Even richardscourtney eventually ended up conceding that Bart’s reasoning was in error.
The very first comment on this post was this from ferdberple: “If the facts support your case, argue the facts. If the facts support your opponent, argue the man.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1387014
It seems some people took that as an instruction rather than as warning. If you (or Richard) wish to portray yourselves as people uninterested in scientific debate then by all means spend your time writing posts about how much you don’t like me. It advances your cause not one jot.
Friends:
I draw attention to an excuse by Nyq Only for his/her/their refusal to answer a scientific question from dbstealey until some future data. Nyq Only says at August 19, 2013 at 12:13 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1394706
Now that’s funny! Really, really funny!
Richard
Oh how we laughed and laughed.
Comedy gold.
The fact is nothing is forthcoming to show how man made CO2 has made things horrible. I have watched how Nyq Only has tried to avoid this but he has failed. We are still in that awkward zone where no evidence for the disaster that man made CO2 is supposed to have wrought has been presented.
Thanks Richard and Bart and Dave, those alarmists still have no anchor.
Oops! date not data. Sorry.