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.
Although CO2 was probably lower then, a paper from March shows that Kamchatka was much warmer than now 3000 (much more), 2000 & 1000 years ago than now:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/03/latest-research-eu-russian-scientists-confirm-medieval-period-warmer-than-modern-global-warming.html
Same as in studies from other sites around the world.
There is another comment hung up in the queue by multiple links. When you have a chance, read it again and again until it comes through. For future inquiries to Bart, refer back to my post which will appear at August 20, 2013 at 10:12 am. That post lays out the case as simply and straightforwardly as I can manage.
The linear trend everyone seems fixated upon does not matter. The effect of human inputs is already discounted to insignificance by the quadratic component in overall concentration, which is already accounted for by the temperature relationship.
This is a subtle clue, like one of those seemingly minor details storied detectives latch onto to solve the case. But, it absolutely absolves humanity of the crime for which it has been indicted.
Bart says:
August 20, 2013 at 10:23 am
To whatever extent the rise in CO2 since c. 1850 may be humans’ fault, I’m sure that green plants & other terrestrial photosynthesizers & the animals, fungi & microbes which rely upon them thank us.
Nyq Only says:August 20, 2013 at 2:37 am
“Why do you continue to insist on broadcasting your cluelessness?”
Why do you find my messages so threatening? If I’m in error you should be able to explain my error – if not for me then for the others who seem to think I’m correct and for the people who have pointed out the same issue prior?
If your grasp of mathematics is so much better than mine it should be easy for you to demonstrate to all and sundry the misguided thinking of a silly warmist.
Bart:
I do have disagreement about the interpretation of your analysis. But it seems I have failed to explain my view adequately for you to understand it. I will try to do better here.
Your post at August 20, 2013 at 9:56 am quotes my having said to you at August 20, 2013 at 2:33 am concerning the linear term in your equation
I had repeatedly stated that “basic assumption” including in my post you are replying. It is this
Your response –which I am answering – says in total
Sorry, but in assessing the “human attribution” it DOES “matter”, it is not “moot”, and it is not a “blind alley”. Importantly, there is no relevance to whether it is Ferdinand or anyone else who makes the point (you probably remember getting upset with me on a WUWT thread when I made the point long ago).
Please remember that the hypothesis is yours so it is your responsibility to promote it. Others only have a duty to try to find fault with it. And your analysis is sufficiently sound that people are trying to find fault with it: that is a compliment to your work.
Having swept that dross into a corner, I now deal with the revealed floor.
As you say
OK. I get that. Indeed, it is a rephrasing of our conclusion published 8 years ago and which I have repeatedly reported in this thread; i.e.
something has changed the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle.
But, in the context of your analysis, the known change is the temperature rise which is recovery from the LIA: i.e. a natural temperature rise. Your analysis shows that the CO2 changes other than “that baseline” are induced by temperature and therefore – at this stage – there is no reason to introduce anything additional to temperature change. However, you do need to mention the possibility of other effects (e.g. the CO2 concentration of currently upwelling waters) being responsible for the rising “baseline temperature”.
However, people keep saying that the rising “baseline” need not be a change to the equilibrium state but could be effect of the “human emission”.
Your reply to that says
OK. Show me the maths which demonstrates
(a) the human emission prevents the quadratic form of the curve, and
(b) the rising “baseline” is not effect of the anthropogenic emission.
Do that and you will be applying a push which may force me off my ‘fence’ onto your ‘side’. But merely saying the linear term cannot be effect of the anthropogenic emission is merely arm-waving.
I hope this response clarifies our disagreement and is helpful to you.
Richard
Nyq Only says:
August 20, 2013 at 11:01 am
“Why do you find my messages so threatening?”
Annoying is the word you are looking for.
“…it should be easy for you to demonstrate to all and sundry the misguided thinking of a silly warmist.”
That’s just the point. I have done so, multiple times. You remain clueless. No matter how carefully I explain, you just repeat the same confused talking point.
Bart:
“People… look at the plot again. The value of the scale factor is 0.3. That scale factor matches the variations AND the trend. When you integrate this time series, you get attenuation of the variation, and a quadratic term due to the linear trend in the derivative, which matches the quadratic term in measured concentration.”
Sure if you integrate the temperature series and ALSO ADD some roughly linear growth of the same scale as the roughly linear growth in CO2 (to take account of the steady growth) then you’ll get a reasonable match. How could you not?
[Integral of scaled temperature + linear growth in CO2] is going to look to look an awful lot like [linear growth in CO2]
Integral of appropriately scaled graph of Beethoven’s ninth + linear growth in CO2 will also look an awful lot like the linear growth in CO2.
“I have followed his video and commented on several relevant points from here on:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/21/nzclimate-truth-newsletter-no-313/#comment-1346717”
Thanks Ferdinand. That is useful.
richardscourtney says:
August 20, 2013 at 11:07 am
OK. Show me the maths which demonstrates
(a) the human emission prevents the quadratic form of the curve, and
(b) the rising “baseline” is not effect of the anthropogenic emission.
(a) It does not prevent it, it would add to it.
The observed curvature is a specific amount. When I integrate the temperature relationship, I obtain that specific amount. The term in the temperature relationship which is responsible for that match is the scale factor “k”. The value of “k” which produces the appropriate integrated curvature is the same value of k which matches all the variation in the rate of change of CO2.
That is why I say this specific value of “k” is independently corroborated. It matches both the trend in rate of change, and the variation in rate of change of CO2.
So, my quadratic factor, my curvature, is already accounted for by the temperature relationship. If I now attempt to add in some affine function of human emissions, I will increase that curvature beyond the level which is observed.
(b) the rising “baseline” is a constant in the rate of change for at least the past 55 years. Human inputs have not been constant over that time interval.
Again, I cannot emphasize enough that the passing through of overwhelmingly large natural changes along with the attenuation of human inputs is a very conventional control action. It is how one expects a natural feedback system to behave. The alternative, that the temperature relationship is effectively high pass filtered while the human inputs account for the low frequency behavior, such as Ferdinand suggests, is very exotic and unnatural, the more so because such activity would leave telltale signs of phase distortion between the temperature and the rate of change of CO2, and such behavior is not observed.
There is still comments at this thread! Haven´t time to go through them all but here is an example of how to create a graph and compare the time derivative of CO2 and the temperature anomaly.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1959/mean:12/derivative/detrend:-0.3/normalise/mean:13/normalise/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1959/mean:13/detrend:-0.3/normalise
Nyq Only says:
August 20, 2013 at 11:15 am
“Sure if you integrate the temperature series and ALSO ADD some roughly linear growth of the same scale…”
You see? You hop, skip, and jump over my points, construct your own straw man of what I have said, then attempt to shoot it down. You’re not even wrong because you are not even addressing my argument.
To nobody in particular 🙂
I though I’d reconstruct Bart’s integral to better illustrate what is going on.
It looks like this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3sh/from:1960/scale:0.3/offset:0.1/integral/offset:319
As you can see the match up is nice. Bart used the Southern Hemisphere but if we use the global mean you still get a decent match.
How do we construct this? Smooth CO2, and plot the derivative (chucking out the roughly linear trend), match up temperature by using a scale and offset then find the derivative (the offset then becomes a linear trend – although note that it had no notable relation with temperature) and then I plonked on another offset to account for the baseline of the CO2 emissions.
Here is a fun parlor game. Pick some other WFT data set. I quite like “Random noise test pattern” as an explanatory variable. Use mean samples 12 and derivative on CO2 concentration and then use scales and offsets on the second data set till you get a rough match. Happy with your numbers? Great! With “Random noise test pattern” I’m using a scale of 0.2 and an offset of 0.1.
Now find the integral of the second data set (with its scales and offsets) and add another offset to account for the baseline of CO2
Enjoy the result http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/to:2000/mean:12/plot/noise/from:1960/to:2000/scale:0.2/offset:0.1/integral/offset:318
Here is Antarctic sea ice index (why not!) http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1980/to:2000/mean:12/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1980/to:2000/scale:0.009/offset:-0.0001/integral/offset:340
Bart:
Thankyou for your post at August 20, 2013 at 11:28 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1395493
in reply to my post at August 20, 2013 at 11:07 am.
OK. I understand those arguments which explain your interpretation of “the maths” you have conducted. Thankyou.
But I asked you to “show me the maths”. Are they somewhere you can link to?
This would enable I and others to try to assess them with a view to finding other ways to develop them intended to find alternative results to your model (i.e. equation) which you are defending.
Richard
GregM says: August 20, 2013 at 11:29 am
“There is still comments at this thread! Haven´t time to go through them all but here is an example of how to create a graph and compare the time derivative of CO2 and the temperature anomaly.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1959/mean:12/derivative/detrend:-0.3/normalise/mean:13/normalise/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1959/mean:13/detrend:-0.3/normalise ”
Neat. Fun game – swap Hadcrut for “Random noise test pattern”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1959/mean:12/derivative/detrend:-0.3/normalise/mean:13/normalise/to:2000/plot/noise/from:1959/mean:13/detrend:-0.3/normalise
[WFT Random Noise Test pattern only goes up to 2000 for some inscrutable WFT reason]
Bart says: August 20, 2013 at 11:31 am “You see? You hop, skip, and jump over my points, construct your own straw man of what I have said, then attempt to shoot it down. You’re not even wrong because you are not even addressing my argument.”
So if you don’t address my argument then does that imply that you also are “not even wrong”? I guess so. As for hopping and skipping – well I guess I am trying to cut to the chase. However I do replicate your results and when I do I can see what I am doing and I can see what I am doing has the issues I’m pointing out.
Now as apparently I’m some clueless idiot, blinded by dogma yadda yadda etc you should easily be able to show where I’m going wrong. Genuinely, I’d like to know.
Nyq Only says:
August 20, 2013 at 11:54 am
You’re an idiot. Go back and reread the argument again and again until you get some vague sense of what it is.
richardscourtney says:
August 20, 2013 at 11:55 am
I’m not sure exactly what you mean. I have shown my math model here. Nick Stokes and I had the conversation here in which I explained why adding in an arbitrary trend in rate, such as one might get from human inputs, is a worse fit than the temperature relationship.
I have explained why Nyq Only’s attempt to establish phase delay from a plot of absolute CO2 and temperature was foolish and wrong here. That an integration induces a phase of -90 deg with an amplitude response of 1/(2*pi*f), where f is frequency, is common knowledge.
What, specifically, are you looking for?
Nyq Only says:
August 20, 2013 at 12:05 pm
“Genuinely, I’d like to know.”
Read, this time for comprehension.
Nyq Only:
At August 20, 2013 at 12:05 pm you say to Bart
I assume that if you had an argument then you would make it. Bart is complaining that you have not made one but – instead – have provided a ‘straw man’.
And I assume your lack of argument is the reason for the PlayStation games your recent posts have presented.
Richard
Bart says: August 20, 2013 at 12:11 pm “You are an idiot”
If you like. I’m an idiot.
Bart:
I have tried the two links in your post at August 20, 2013 at 12:11 pm and I don’t find your mathematical analysis (which is what I meant by “your maths”.
Can you help me to find it, please.
Richard
Let me try this.
Suppose that the temperature series has the form
T = a0 + a1*t + f(t)
where t is time, a0 and a1 are constants, and f(t) represents variation. It happens that the rate of change of CO2 is of the form
dCO2/dt = b0 + b1*t + g(t)
where b0 and b1 are constants and g(t) is variation. We observe that
dCO2/dt = k*T + d0
where d0 and k are nominally constant over the time interval of interest. Thus,
b0 = k*a0 + d0
b1 = k*a1
g(t) = k*f(t)
It is because the same value of k scales a1 to b1 as well as f(t) to g(t) that we have corroboration of k.
Now, integrating,
CO2 = C0 + (k*a0+d0)*t + 0.5*k*a1*t^2 + h(t)
The value of k is set. The value of a1 is set. So, the curvature k*a1 is set, and it matches observations.
Now, human inputs have the form
dA/dt = alpha0 + alpha1*t + n(t)
The variation n(t) has no reproduction in observed CO2.
Integrating,
A = A0 + alpha0*t + 0.5*alpha1*t^2 + m(t)
Adding affinely to the above, we get
CO2 = A0+C0 + (k*a0+d0+alpha0)*t + 0.5*(k*a1+alpha1)*t^2 + (h(t)+m(t))
C0 was arbitrary, so the constant offset term A0 does not negate the possibility of significant human influence.
d0 was arbitrary, so the linear trend term alpha0 does not negate the possibility of significant human influence (are you listening, Nyq?)
k and a1 are not arbitrary. We have no room for alpha1 to add in to any level of significance. THAT is what negates the possibility of significant human influence.
Bart:
Thanks for your post at August 20, 2013 at 12:35 pm.
I will ‘play with the sums’ tomorrow.
Richard
Should have said:
Adding affinely to the above, we get
CO2 = A00+r*A0+C0 + (k*a0+d0+r*alpha0)*t + 0.5*(k*a1+r*alpha1)*t^2 + (h(t)+r*m(t))
where A00 and r are the affine parameters. The same argument proceeds. There is no room for significant r*alpha1 in the curvature.
“(are you listening, Nyq?)”
Sure but I’m such an idiot that I got my head stuck in a box of cereal whilst trying to eat breakfast in the middle of the night. It wouldn’t be so bad but then I tried to pour milk into it. I have Captain Crunch in my ears now. Hopefully somebody will help me soon.
Nyq Only says:
August 20, 2013 at 12:48 pm
I would not be so harsh on you if you showed any inclination to follow the argument. When your purpose is to heckle, you should not be surprised when you are heckled in return.