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:
Bart says:
August 21, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Without conceding your calculation, which I believe is based on questionable ice core data, this isn’t what I am claiming anyway. I am not claiming the atmospheric increase is temperature driven, but rather temperature dependent.
Nothing to do with ice core data, but with basic process reactions: whatever the increase in upwelling (mass and/or concentration), an increase in temperature of 1 K will increase the partial pressure of the ocean surface at the upwelling with ~16 microatm, thus the driving force, the partial pressure difference between ocean surface and atmosphere increases with 16 microatm. That will increase the outgassing. The opposite happens at the sink site: a decrease in uptake by the oceans. But as the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the opposite happens with the partial pressure differences. With an increase of 16 ppmv in the atmosphere, the effect of temperature on the outgassing and uptake is back to what it was before the increase of 1 K…
Just because you cannot think of any does not mean the subject is closed.
Several persons beside me have shown that Dr. Spencer was wrong on that item. In the case of d13C, the oceans simply can’t be a source of decreasing levels. Vegetation decay is the only alternative, but vegetation is a proven net sink for CO2, not a source…
Bart:
I have had another day to reflect on your calculations and what they do – and do not – indicate. I now write to report my conclusion.
In reply to me, at August 21, 2013 at 9:01 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1396197
you say
I recognise that others have not understood the point you are making, and I am addressing what I understand you to be saying.
I understand you to be claiming those variables do not contain an anthropogenic proportion because
(a) your calculations indicate the “observations” ARE related to temperature
but
(b) the anthropogenic emission IS NOT related to temperature.
However, I conclude that your claim is a logical error.
I will try to spell this out.
1.
The natural emission and sequestration dwarf the anthropogenic emission.
2.
The natural emission and sequestration are affected by temperature.
3.
The variation from a linear trend in the anthropogenic emission is small.
4.
Therefore, observed variations in the observations will be dominated by variations in the natural emission and sequestration which are affected by temperature.
5.
Point 4 does NOT indicate there is no anthropogenic contribution to any of the variables: it probably indicates that the VARIATION in the anthropogenic emission is much smaller than the VARIATION in the natural emission (which is much the larger flux).
Anyway, that is how I see it.
Hence, I am disappointed. Both you and Ferdinand make good arguments which cannot be rejected. I had hoped that – after all these years – I would be able to ‘climb off the fence’ on to one side. And I cannot.
Unless, of course, you can show me where or how I am wrong.
Richard
I see that the opponents of the non-anthropogenic change in atmospheric CO2 are still attacking the temperature change strawman. Again, it’s not the temparature change but temperature level (dCO2 = f(Ta)). Possible explanation is that the seasonal (annual) temperature cycle is pumping CO2 into/outa the Earth’s atmosphere (depending on the annualy averaged temperature). If the exchange coefficients during warming and cooling phases of the annual cycles are different, then CO2 doesn’t return to its starting point when one cycle is over, even if the temperature does.
Nature will conduct the experiment. With the cooling we should see a reduction in annual CO2 change, in spite of the rising ACO2. Since the continuous measurements started, dCO2 closely followed Ta and I don’t see why the behaviour should stop.
Let’s try this again.
Bart starts from experimental data. The experimental data is from the real world, so it contains the results of anything which actually affects the answer. It is not a model.
But when Bart writes and equation like,
dCO2/dt = b0 + b1.t + higher order terms
he is using a (mathematical) model. As such it is only useful if the physical meaning of the terms is clear. Now Bart says (aug 20 at 12:35) that b0 and b1 are constants, but of course they are not. CO2 depends on many things – it may depend on temperature T, it may depend on the anthropogenic contribution A, the contribution from the biosphere B, input from volcanoes V, and probably other terms. So b0 is a function b0(T,A,B,V,etc), and so is b1(T,A,B,V,etc) where the etc is for all the terms not identified. Now at time t, b0 and b1 have particular values, but they are not constants, they are functions. You do not know the relative magnitude of the various terms, but they all have to be there in the functional dependence. You cannot a priori leave them out.
In the temperature record Bart writes,
T= a0 +a1.t + higher order terms
but again, a1 is not a constant. It must be a function of all the things that the temperature depends on, so that includes in sun, S, the CO2 concentration, natural cycles N in the ocean eg ENSO etc etc. So a1 is a function a1(S,CO2,N,etc etc). And actually it is more complicated because CO2 is itself a function. so a1 is really a functional A1[S,CO2(T),N, etc etc]. So now we have T depending on CO2 and CO2 depending on T i.e. there is a feedback, as of course there is in the real world.
Now Bart scales the curves with a parameter k and an offset d0 and writes
dCO2/dt =k.T +d0
and finds that for particular values of k and d0 the relationship holds quite well. Of course k and d0 are actually functions which depend on all the factors that b0 and b1 depend on.
Now he integrates his equation to get
CO2 = b0.t +(1/2)b1.t^2 + integration constant + higher order terms.
He writes it in a more complicated form, but really this is all there is.
Then as a final step he takes and expression for the anthropogenic factor, adds it to the above equation, and says that because it does not improve the fit, then the anthropogenic terms must be zero.
Major fallacy. Bart has started out by assuming that b0 and b1 are independent of A. In other words he has assumed what he is trying to prove. But obviously if there is a non-zero A, then it is already included in the actual values of b0 and b1. The reason that his adding his A term has no effect is not because it is zero, but because it is already there. Unfortunately there is no way to deconvolute the data to get the relative magnitudes of the various contributions by this approach. It quite literally says nothing about the magnitude of A. To get at that you have to approach from a different angle as Ferdinand has been doing.
Edim says:
August 22, 2013 at 6:25 am
Again, it’s not the temparature change but temperature level (dCO2 = f(Ta)).
If dCO2 is a function of Ta, why are there so many changes in function parameters: 10 ppmv/K/yr for the seasonal cycle, 5 ppmv/K/yr for interannual variations, 2 ppmv/K/yr for the recent 5 decades, 0.12 ppmv/K/yr for the MWP-LIA cooling and ultimately 0.002 ppmv/K/yr for a deglaciation…
If dCO2 is a function of dT, then life is much simpler: from seasons to glacials/interglacials, the factor changes from ~4 ppmv/K to 8 ppmv/K. The only outlier is the current period with >100 ppmv/K, which is highly probable not natural…
Allan MacRae says:
August 22, 2013 at 3:05 am
I concur. Gail has provided a nice list of info which I have bookmarked.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 22, 2013 at 3:35 am
You are arguing beside the point. If the surface waters have a continuous increase in partial pressure coming from upwelling waters, then the atmospheric concentration will also continuously increase.
richardscourtney says:
August 22, 2013 at 5:15 am
You seem to be missing the point that the trend in dCO2/dt is fully accounted for by the trend in temperature. Therefore, the contribution to the trend in dCO2/dt from human emissions must be small. If that component from human emissions is having little effect, then overall it must be having little effect.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
August 22, 2013 at 7:17 am
Jimmi, you are simply way off the mark. I regret that I cannot explain it to you more clearly. The coefficients are what they are, regardless of how they come about. Matching them to the phenomena which could produce them is then the goal. When you do that, you find anthropogenic forcing cannot be a major player.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 22, 2013 at 8:59 am
You keep arguing beside the point.
I don’t know what more can be said. I have done my best to enlighten, but it appears many people are dug into their comfort zones, and are simply too resistant to the idea because of ingrained thought that we simply must be having an impact.
But, I am being proved right even as we speak. The emissions and measurements are diverging. Keep an eye on those variables. The reality will become all too apparent in the next few years.
Bart says:
August 22, 2013 at 10:12 am
You are arguing beside the point. If the surface waters have a continuous increase in partial pressure coming from upwelling waters, then the atmospheric concentration will also continuously increase.
That is right, if the upwelling increases over time, but that has nothing to do with a sustained difference in temperature. Independent of the upwelling, a temperature increase of 1 K gives an increase of ~16 microatm in the ocean surfce waters. That is what temperature does on the solubility of CO2. An extra increase of 16 ppmv in the atmosphere above the increase from the upwelling fully compensates for the temperature increase, that is Henry’s Law. Thus there may be a continuous increase caused by increasing upwelling, but that is only temporarely influenced by a temperature increase.
Gail Combs says:
August 20, 2013 at 1:13 am
I hadn’t read your comment, but you repeat an obvious blunder made by the late Beck to include the Barrow data in his compilation without a quality check:
Scholander got more than a 100ppm swing at Barrow over a year’s time.
If you should have taken some time to look at the micro-Schollander method in use at Barrow in 1942, then you should have noticed that the accuracy of the instrument was +/- 150 ppmv.
That was not a problem for its purpose: measuring CO2 in exhaled air of the researchers (at around 20,000 ppmv). Big problem for measuring CO2 in ambient air: completely worthless.
Which is a pitty, as Barrow today is one of the “baseline” stations, showing a seasonal variation over a year of +/- 10 ppmv… Far from the 100 ppmv swings from an inaccurate device…
And please don’t use Glassman as your reference, he is a master in misinterpreting what others say:
So what the Consensus has done is to “calibrate” the various records into agreement.
I don’t know what the laboratory does where you work, but I prefer that my regular blood tests (diabetic) are done by lab’s which intercalibrate their methods and equipment with proven standards. That is all what NOAA (that is NOT the IPCC) does: they deliver the standard gasmixtures that are used to calibrate the CO2 measuring equipment worldwide, besides that some other institutes (like Scripps) still use their own standards.
That has nothing to do with aligment of the records, as these still show local, seasonal and hemispheric differences.
So IF NOAA want to manipulate the data, they need to deliver standard gasmixtures which are different for different stations and all show a similar increase in the atmosphere, thus a standard that adapts itself to show an increase of ~0.005 ppmv/day…
Do you really think that Glassman is a reliable source of information?
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 22, 2013 at 10:26 am
“Thus there may be a continuous increase caused by increasing upwelling, but that is only temporarely influenced by a temperature increase.”
That is incorrect. If there is a continuous inflow to the oceans, then the rate of its release into the atmosphere is going to be modulated by temperatures.
Bart:
In reply to my post at August 22, 2013 at 5:15 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1396966
you say
Oh, dear. NO!
You have COMPLETELY IGNORED MY POINT which was
Please note that I am saying the variation in the anthropogenic emission is near-random around a linear trend but the variation in the natural emission and sequestration is affected by temperature.
Your response makes no mention of the variation in the data.
I would like what I have observed to be shown to be wrong.
I do not like what I have observed being ignored as not worthy of consideration.
Richard
Bart says:
August 22, 2013 at 11:31 am
That is incorrect. If there is a continuous inflow to the oceans, then the rate of its release into the atmosphere is going to be modulated by temperatures.
Only temporarely. If the temperature increases with 1 K, that gives an increase in pCO2 difference of 16 microatm above the pCO2 difference from the upwelling. That gives more CO2 influx, higher CO2 levels and a decreasing pressure difference, thus a reduced CO2 influx.
The same btw for the extra upwelling: if that is a constant extra inflow, that will be compensated sooner or later by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, which reduces the inflow back to equilibrium.
Both are going assymptotic to a new level of CO2 in the atmosphere for a sustained increase of temperature and/or upwelling.
Bart:
I think at this stage the argument has certainly progressed but most of the same sticking points remain.
Returning to CO2 = c0 + (k*a0+d0)*t + 0.5*k*a1*t^2 + h(t)
c0 – essentially a baseline level of CO2 concentration. Probably not relevant or contentious in this discussion.
(k*a0+d0)*t – the term where the action is in terms of potential scope for anthropogenic influence on levels of CO2
0.5*k*a1*t^2 – I suspect most of us haven’t fully grasped the significance one way or another of this term. How close are the linear trends in dCO2/dt and the temperature anomaly? How much scope is there their for values not found by observing the fit between dCO2/dt and the temperature anomaly with appropriate scaling and offset.
h(t) – uncontroversial. Temperature at some level has some impact on CO2.
Numbers would help. I know you have given some but a summary would be useful. in particular the size of K*a0 compared to d0 would seem to be important.
Nyq Only
“0.5*k*a1*t^2 – I suspect most of us haven’t fully grasped the significance one way or another of this term.”
since k.a1 = b1 this is just the integral of the b1.t term in dCO2/dt = b0 +b1.t
Nothing either mathematical or physical has been added. It is simply the curvature of the CO2 series. Introducing k into it is obfuscation.
Bart,
If you cannot see that your argument ‘proving’ there is no anthropgenic term only works if you assume that from the beginning, then I am afraid there is nothing I can do about it.
richardscourtney says:
August 22, 2013 at 11:38 am
I still do not see your point. My point is, the same scale factor which matches the variations in the rate of change of CO2 with the variations in the temperature also matches the trend in the rate of change of CO2 with the trend in temperature.
There are thus corroborating evidences that all components of the rate of change of CO2, to within an additive constant, are accounted for by the response to temperature.
Since the rate of human emissions has not been constant, there is no room for it. The trend in the rate of change of CO2 is already accounted for by the temperature relationship.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 22, 2013 at 11:55 am
“Only temporarely.”
No, not only temporarily. There is a constant flow of new CO2 coming in, and every new increment of CO2 added to the system is subject to additional outgassing due to the rise in temperature.
Nyq Only says:
August 22, 2013 at 12:08 pm
I appreciate your thoughtful input at this stage. There is a little play in that slope. You might be able to reduce it by, I don’t know, maybe 30% to grab a number out of the air, and make way for a 30% anthropogenic contribution. But, since the observed rise is 50% of the anthropogenic sum total, that means you only have 15% of the anthropogenic input actually remaining in the atmosphere. And, that’s just about the best you can do. Whether 15% would be considered significant or not is a matter of personal judgment – I would say it is pretty small. But, there is another consideration.
What is more likely, that the CO2 regulatory system takes out nearly all the anthropogenic CO2 and is almost entirely influenced by the temperature relationship, or that it allows a small amount, say 15%, to stay, and the rest is determined by the temperature relationship? The former, most definitely. The latter requires careful balance, whereas the latter merely requires powerful sinks, and powerful natural sources to balance them.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
August 22, 2013 at 2:44 pm
Jimmi, your argument is just plain wrong. If you cannot see it, I am afraid there is nothing I can do about it.
Bart’s trick for making the derivative of one function look like a different function (as explained on Aug 20th at 12:35) This works for anything so I will just illustrate with cubics.
Take,
f = a0 + a1.x. +a2.x^2 +a3.x^3
g = b0 + b1.x + b2.x^2 +b3.x^3
differentiate g.
g’ = b1 + 2.b2.x + 3.b3.x^2
scale f with a scale factor k and an offset d to give k.f + d
where
k=2.b2/a1 and d = b1 – (2.b2/a1).a0
Result k.f +d = b1 +2.b2.x + (2.b2/a1).a2.x^2 + …
The first two terms of the scaled series k.f+d therefore match the first two terms of the derivative g’
Mathematically trivial. Physically meaningless.
I’m going to try one more time to make this point, because it seems to have sailed by several folks.
To repeat from above, I have a series
T = a0 + a1*t + f(t)
and another series
dCO2/dt = b0 + b1*t + g(t)
It is found that there is a value k such that, to a high degree of fidelity
g(t) = k*f(t)
Great, so I have this value of k. But, now I look and I note that, this k is also the ratio of b1 to a1.
Ah ha, says I. So, to within an additive constant, dCO2/dt is proportional to temperature, and the constant of proportionality k matches both a1 to b1 AND f(t) to g(t)
BOTH. Read it again. BOTH. It matches the trend to the trend, AND it matches the variation to the variation.
Now, jimmi_the_dalek would be correct IF I were claiming that k was the ratio of b1 to a1 and that was all. Then, my claimed match would be circular logic. But, that is NOT what I am claiming. k is special and unique because it matches BOTH the trend, AND the variation. That is what I am claiming.
I am frankly offended that Jimmi would so easily assume that I had made such an elementary mistake as he imagines.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
August 22, 2013 at 4:37 pm
“The first two terms of the scaled series k.f+d therefore match the first two terms of the derivative g’”
So what? You haven’t matched all the terms. This is nothing like the case before us.
Bart
Your claim that g(t) = k*f(t) is not proven. Produce graphs of these residuals and you may make progress.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
August 22, 2013 at 5:22 pm
Oh, for crying out loud. Look at it! The temperature goes up, dCO2/dt goes up. The temperature goes down, dCO2/dt goes down. Long term, short term, whatever term you like. The tracking, given all the observational errors which can creep in, is exquisite.
The residual Bart, produce the residuals.
Problem is that you can match the first two terms, but a series expansion has to match all coefficients at all orders for the two series to coincide. Your scaling specifically cause the third term not to match. Look at my two cubics and see what happens to the third term. You have to show that the higher terms match otherwise in your own words “IF I were claiming that k was the ratio of b1 to a1 and that was all. Then, my claimed match would be circular logic”
Actually Bart, though your claim that there is something special about the choice of scaling factor k is unproven, it is your (mis)use of the affine transformation in your argument that is the clearest circular path – to use it as you have you would have to prove that your dCO2/dt was free of anthropogenic factors before you started.
NSF has responded to the question of why the report was on the OIG web site
jimmi_the_dalek says:
August 22, 2013 at 6:49 pm
All right, jimmi, I’ve had enough. This is just silly misdirection and argumentation on your behalf, and I want nothing more to do with it.
OK Bart, So you have been unable to prove your case. We will leave it at that.