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.
Jimmi and possibly some others:
You seem to be asking Bart to produce a Grand Unified Climate Theory of Everything (“GUC-TOE”), and then commenting on his failure to do so to your satisfaction. I suggest that you are asking too much.
Here is a more reasonable question for YOU to respond to:
“Atmospheric dCO2/dt varies almost contemporaneously with global temperature T, and CO2 lags T at all measured time scales, from about 9 months in the modern data record to about 800 years in the ice core record. Do you have any logical explanation for this factual observation, other than the conclusion that Temperature DOES Drive CO2, and CO2 DOES NOT Drive Temperature?”
And please do NOT say this is a “feedback mechanism”. That response, which seems to be the best the warmists can come up with, is just too lame for polite discussion
jimmi_the_dalek says:
August 22, 2013 at 8:11 pm
No, your arguments are just stupid, and I am out of patience.
Allan,
The answer to your question
““Atmospheric dCO2/dt varies almost contemporaneously with global temperature T, and CO2 lags T at all measured time scales, from about 9 months in the modern data record to about 800 years in the ice core record. Do you have any logical explanation for this factual observation, other than the conclusion that Temperature DOES Drive CO2, and CO2 DOES NOT Drive Temperature?”
is, it is not on all timescales. It is true on very long timescales ~100000 years, it is true on short timescales ~1-2 years, it is not true on medium timescales, at least it has not been demonstrated to be so.
Oh, by the way, I am not a “warmist”. I just like people to use correct arguments. Bart’s is false, it is a circular argument which presupposes the conclusion he wishes to reach.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
August 22, 2013 at 8:33 pm
“Bart’s is false, it is a circular argument which presupposes the conclusion he wishes to reach.”
You’re wrong. Every term in the equation is matched. Every. Term.
Dear, Persevering, Brilliant Bart,
You have fought the battle for truth above mightily and with GREAT patience and rock-solid arguments. There is nothing more you can say. You have said it all (and most of it at least TWICE). No one could argue the case for temperature driving CO2 emissions better. Those of us looking on were convinced by your evidence long ago. Those who will not be convinced never will be. Let them natter on here, alone, listening intently to the echoes of their own babblings, mistaking them for wisdom. You have earned a well-deserved sabbatical!
APPLAUSE! APPLAUSE! APPLAUSE!
Way to go, O Hero for Truth!
You are the intellectual equivalent of one of King David’s “Mighty Men” of valor.
Gratefully yours,
Janice
jimmi_the_dalek says on August 22, 2013 at 8:33 pm
“The answer to your question … …is, it is not on all timescales. It is true on very long timescales ~100000 years, it is true on short timescales ~1-2 years, it is not true on medium timescales, at least it has not been demonstrated to be so.”
__________________
Jimmi, I said all MEASURED time scales. Your answer is an irrelevant deflection – an apparent cop-out.
The fact is we that do not have reliable data, especially of CO2 concentrations, at medium time scales. So what have you said? Not much. You have essentially answered a question with another question.
I was expecting an answer to my question, so how about trying to provide one?
BTW, I did not assume you were a warmist – I do not claim to know your politics.
And thank you for not saying the lag of CO2 after temperature is a “feedback effect”.
Regards, Allan
Bart “You’re wrong. Every term in the equation is matched. Every. Term.”
Now explain how you did the adding anthropogenic term, and then deciding it made no difference.
“The fact is we that do not have reliable data, especially of CO2 concentrations, at medium time scales”
Allan, well neither you nor I defined “medium”. But if you mean the last 60 years or so, that is probably the most accurate of all data in the climate area.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
August 22, 2013 at 10:29 pm
g(t) = k*f(t), by inspection. You seem to want perfection, where there is none possible. These data are uncertain and corrupted, and they are bulk measurements of global distributions. There is never going to be a perfect match. But, this is as good a match as one could reasonably expect, and as needed to make reliable inference. If you do not see the amazing correlation in that plot, you must have very poor eyesight.
You have crossed the line into willful obtuseness, and bludgeoning nitpickery. Just admit you didn’t understand the argument at first and jumped to conclusions which you now recognize to have been trivially wrong, and we can move on.
Janice Moore says:
August 22, 2013 at 9:51 pm
Thanks. Glad someone is not searching for reasons to justify ignoring what is right in front of their eyes. It never ceases to amaze me the cockamamie reasons people will invent to maintain belief in what they want to believe.
I thought we had stopped but if you insist….
” g(t) = k*f(t), by inspection. ”
Yes I thought that is what you would have done … all done by eye.
However that was not what my last question was about. I asked about the affine transformation which you say proves there is no anthropogenic term. Was that done by eye too? Or was there some real maths. What did you actually do?
Bart says: August 22, 2013 at 4:16 pm
“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.”
The fit of the linear trend of dCO2/dt with the linear trend SH temp anomaly with your scaling factor and offset still isn’t that great.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1959/scale:0.3/offset:0.1/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/trend/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1959/scale:0.3/offset:0.1/trend
Using 0.22 instead of your value of 0.3 gives a better fit http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1959/scale:0.3/offset:0.1/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/trend/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1959/scale:0.22/offset:0.1/trend
That suggests your ‘k’ factor is not such a great fit with the linear term and hence with the quadratic term in the integral. Note this is also using your best fit with the Southern Hemisphere figures instead of global. And we still have the linear trend in CO2 which seems largely unaffected by your temperature parameters.
I think we are back to where we started.
Janice Moore says: August 22, 2013 at 9:51 pm
“You have said it all (and most of it at least TWICE). No one could argue the case for temperature driving CO2 emissions better. Those of us looking on were convinced by your evidence long ago. Those who will not be convinced never will be. Let them natter on here, alone, listening intently to the echoes of their own babblings, mistaking them for wisdom. You have earned a well-deserved sabbatical!”
Well that is a very kind offer you’ve made for Bart to take a rest. I am sure with your comprehensive grasp of Bart’s argument you will be able to stand in for him.
On that note perhaps you can show how an anthropogenic influence can be eliminated from the linear term in CO2 concentration in Bart’s integral?
Allan MacRae says: August 22, 2013 at 10:22 pm
“The fact is we that do not have reliable data, especially of CO2 concentrations, at medium time scales. So what have you said? Not much. You have essentially answered a question with another question.”
The fact is that for the time period that we have the most sustained and accurate measurements of CO2 concentrations and temperature that CO2 does not lag temperature except at higher frequencies. Which is pretty much what the AGW hypothesis would suggest.
If I wasn’t a ‘warmist’ I don’t think I’d argue to loudly that CO2 lags temperature in all periods and timescales except during the late twentieth century. That arguments sounds more like a smoking gun for human influences than some fundamental victory against it.
jimmi_the_dalek says on August 22, 2013 at 10:31 pm
“The fact is we that do not have reliable data, especially of CO2 concentrations, at medium time scales”
Allan, well neither you nor I defined “medium”. But if you mean the last 60 years or so, that is probably the most accurate of all data in the climate area.
Jimmi, I suggest that most informed people would define the “modern data record” as extending back to 1958 when systematic CO2 measurements commenced. The close dCO2/dt vs T relationship and the (approx.) 9-month lag of CO2 after temperature extends back to 1958. I stated this factual observation in January 2008. This 1958 definition requires the use of surface temperature data such as Hadcrut, which contains obvious weaknesses, including very poor sample distribution and an apparent warming bias of ~0.07C/decade. If you prefer, one can use 1979 when modern satellite temperature data was initiated, but I prefer 1958 for this discussion.
Medium time scales are hereby defined as the (approx.) 1000 years prior to 1958, to include the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
Jimmi, you have one more chance to actually answer my question rather than continuing to avoid it:
“Atmospheric dCO2/dt varies almost contemporaneously with global temperature T, and CO2 lags T at all measured time scales, from about 9 months in the modern data record to about 800 years in the ice core record. Do you have any logical explanation for this factual observation, other than the conclusion that Temperature DOES Drive CO2, and CO2 DOES NOT Drive Temperature?”
______
[[ Note that my question deliberately sidesteps the issue of the “mass balance argument” so please do not further deflect down that path. Whether humankind is significantly contributing to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 or whether this increase is primarily natural is outside the scope of my question. I suggest that the only known result of increased atmospheric CO2 is that CO2 is excellent plant food, and thus that current reality is beneficial to humankind and the environment, since atmospheric CO2 is now at low, and perhaps dangerously low levels. ]]
Allan,
regretably this statement ” The close dCO2/dt vs T relationship and the (approx.) 9-month lag of CO2 after temperature extends back to 1958.” is not as solid as you think. The graphs that have been touted as showing this, in fact show that the short term variations (1-2 years) away from the mean are probably temperature driven. This is what the graph that dbstealey kept showing demonstrates. This is what Bart’s graphs demonstrate, and if he had stuck with that there would have been no problem. This is what your graphs demonstrate. The problem is that people are extrapolating to say that all the growth in CO2 of the modern era must be temperature driven, and that is not established. Even less established is Bart’s claim that the graphs prove there is no anthropogenic contribution. So sorry, but I disagree with the premise – it is not a “factual observation”, it is a hypothesis still being evaluated. And that is an answer to your question.
Sorry Nyq but I do accept your argument.
You effectively say
“We KNOW that CO2 drives Earth’s temperature
and therefore CO2 drives Earth’s temperature
and therefore CO2 drives Earth’s temperature
and therefore CO2 drives Earth’s temperature
and therefore CO2 drives Earth’s temperature…”
(please continue to repeat this mantra for as long as it gives you satisfaction)
Your global warming alarmism is a ‘cargo cult” religion, in my opinion.
Your faith-based argument relies upon theory and circular logic and ignores all the factual observations.
JImmi, I asked you not to stray down the path of the “mass balance argument” and that is what you have done, and you have again avoided a direct answer to my question.
Richard Courtney and I have stated here and elsewhere that we do not know the answer to the question “what is the primary source of increasing atmospheric CO2 – is it primarily natural or humanmade?”. You have just essentially said the same thing.
The “mass balance argument” and the true source of increasing atmospheric CO2 is not that important to society or the environment IF, as I believe, this increase in CO2 is beneficial to both.
Resolving the mass balance argument remains a very important academic question for climate science to resolve in its own time. I suggest that the data collected during a future global cooling period could provide the answer.
Bart may be correct or incorrect in saying that the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is primarily natural, but the importance of that question is moot from a societal/environmental standpoint if this increase in CO2 is beneficial to both, which I suggest it is.
jimmi_the_dalek :
I am ‘stealing’ time I cannot afford to comment here and will probably not be able to respond to any reply to this post for a day.
But your reply to Allan MacRae at August 23, 2013 at 3:43 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1397998
is so evasive and illogical that my astonishment has induced me to comment.
Your reply begins by saying
It is rock solid. It could not be more solid.
You continue
YES! That is part of the evidence for the coherence of T following CO2 bein rock solid.
You then say
SOME people may be doing that, but I don’t. a qualifier would have been appreciated.
And you follow that with
I agree.
Then you conclude
NO! IT IS NOT!
It has no relation to the question Allan MacRae again put to you at August 23, 2013 at 3:26 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1397992
It was
Your reply evades answering that and obfuscates by providing only irrelevance.
Hence, I am forced to conclude that your true answer which you cannot bring yourself to provide is that
You DO NOT HAVE any logical explanation for this factual observation, other than the conclusion that Temperature DOES Drive CO2, and CO2 DOES NOT Drive Temperature
because if you had such an explanation then you would have provided it.
Richard
Allan,
I diid not mention “mass balance”. And I said that your question cannot be answered at the present time as it contains an unproven premise, namely that CO2 lags temperature at all times. How can I give a direct answer to your question when I have no proof of the included premise? I would not be a skeptic, in the true sense of the word, if I accepted unquestionably unproven premises, would I?
Richard,
Why do you think those graphs show that?
jimmi:
This is an abrupt answer – not to be rude – but from lack of time.
You ask me,
“Richard,
Why do you think those graphs show that?”
As I said, coherence.
If you don’t understand this then refer to my above post at August 14, 2013 at 1:27 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1390083
Richard
Richard
Nominate a particular graph, if you have time
J_t_D
jimmi_the_dalek:
I have ‘escaped’ for a short while and write to answer the request you put to me at August 23, 2013 at 5:09 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1398059
Firstly, I need to apologise for my necessary curtness in my previous reply. I have now made time and I will try to give a more proper response to the follow-up request you have put to me.
You ask me
I understand the graphs under discussion are those you mention in your post at August 23, 2013 at 3:43 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1397998
and which you describe as “the graph that dbstealey kept showing” and “Bart’s graphs”.
Further, the purpose of the nomination is to support the contention which I and others have repeatedly made in this thread that, in the words of Allan MacRae, is stated as being
I admit some surprise that you would dispute this statement. The coherence of changes in temperature following changes in atmospheric CO2 was first reported by Kuo, Linberg and Thomson (Nature) in 1990. It has been confirmed by several others using different data sets since then. Allan MacRae made an independent determination of that coherence in 2008, and he has not reported failure of the coherence since then.
However, in your post at August 23, 2013 at 3:43 am you say concerning graphs of those parameters
I understand that when you say “variations” which are “temperature driven” then by “variations” you mean ‘variations in the CO2’.
If the variations in the CO2 are “probably temperature driven” then changes in CO2 must follow changes in temperature; i.e, the opposite of what the graphs show.
You may be right when you contend that short-term variations in the CO2 are probably temperature driven, but that is NOT what I see when I look at the graphs, and it conflicts with all the published literature on the subject.
So, in this circumstance, I choose to nominate whichever graph you think most supports your surprising contention, and I request you to explain how that graph indicates what you contend.
Richard
I regret that others here are not technically adept enough to fully understand my argument, but it is sound. When the history is written some years from now, remember that I told you so. And, it was obvious.
I have done all I can. Until we meet again…