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.
Bart says:
August 25, 2013 at 3:45 pm
No, it isn’t. As I explained really very simply with the fizzy drinks example. The more cups there are on the counter, the more outgassing will result from a temperature increase.
Give it some serious thought, Ferdinand. It really is quite obvious when you do.
Bart, I have given a real calculation, based on the measured solubility of CO2 in water for different pressures and temperatures, which shows that the temperature is irrelevant for the amount of CO2 released from a Coke bottle when left open for sufficient time. The difference in CO2 release between near frozen and 20°C is a fraction of a %.
Of course, if the upwelling quantity doubles, the same increase in temperature will double the instantaneous extra release of CO2 caused by the temperature increase. That only results in a doubling of the speed to reach the new equilibrium at 16 ppmv extra in the atmosphere, where the extra CO2 inflow caused by temperature is reduced to zero. Here the difference in influx from 40 GtC/yr and 80 GtC/yr (at the 5 year mark) with the same 1 K increase in temperature (at the 10 year mark):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_incr_temp_2.jpg
Again, neither the doubling in upwelling, nor the increase in temperature give an unlimited continuous increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Both give, independent of each other, an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere where influxes and outfluxes are again in balance.
Thus please, show me your calculation based on all variables (up/downwelling, temperature, pCO2 of atmosphere and water at maximum upwelling and downwelling places) which influence the incoming and outgoing fluxes between oceans and atmosphere where the increase in the atmosphere is maintained because of a sustained temperature difference…
dbstealey: “CO2 is rising. Who disputes that? The problem for the alarmist crowd is that T is not rising.”
You know that is a bit of a sticky wicket – but in case you hadn’t noticed that puts both you and Bart in a bit of bind too. If global temperatures have not increased for over 15 years and carbon dioxide has been rising regardless then either the lag you claim is a VERY long lag or the rise is essentially unrelated to temperature.
I can’t wait to find out your rationalization.
dbstealey: “White is Black, Down is Up, War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength,”
That reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
e.g. CO2 rise follows temperature v. CO2 is rising and temperatures aren’t.
😉
Friends:
I write to point out the – as usual – logical disconnect between reality and what Nyq Only says.
At August 26, 2013 at 1:13 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1400171
he writes
I ignore the obvious fact that Nyq Only failed to recognise the quotation which dbstealey had presented, and I write to address his factual error; i.e.
in reality, CO2 rise is following temperature rise and the discussion is about why the CO2 is following temperature.
The point repeatedly made – and discussed – in this thread is that empirical data shows CO2 rise follows temperature AT ALL TIME SCALES. At the shortest time scales the lag is ~9 months and at the longest time scale the lag is ~800 years.
Temperature has been rising from the LIA for centuries. During this rise the fluctuations about the temperature rise are observed to induce fluctuations of CO2. However, the argument (e.g. between Ferdinand and Bart) concerns what effect the long-term temperature rise from the LIA has on the CO2.
The long-term rise from the LIA must induce a long-term rise in the CO2, and that CO2 rise will continue for ~800 years after the long-term temperature rise reverses.
The debate concerns the magnitude of the long-term rise in CO2 and its cause.
1.
Ferdinand says the temperature rise cannot induce a long-term CO2 rise that has the observed magnitude of the present CO2 rise. Hence, he attributes the anthropogenic emission to that rise.
2.
Bart says the temperature rise is inducing a long-term CO2 rise that has the observed magnitude of the present CO2 rise. Hence, he refuses to agree that the anthropogenic emission should be attributed as being part of that rise.
3.
I am saying I want to know whether Ferdinand or Bart is right.
4.
Nyq Only says his warmunist dogma does not allow him to think about the subject.
Richard
Well one more time around:
Dogma: CO2 rise follows temperature AT ALL TIME SCALES
Reality: Except when it doesn’t. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1959/to:2013/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1959/to:2013/normalise
ALL times scales? Well 1959 to 2013 is a time scale.
CO2 rise FOLLOWS temperature? Nope. not over THAT time scale. Gee – I wonder why not?
Witness: dbstealey “CO2 is rising. Who disputes that? The problem for the alarmist crowd is that T is not rising.”
Meanwhile back on the ranch: richardscourtney says August 17, 2013 at 1:11 pm “This will be my last post in reply to any more of your prattle.” – I guess he couldn’t even get that right…
Friends:
My post at August 26, 2013 at 2:28 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1400184
had as a conclusion
At August 26, 2013 at 2:49 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1400191
Nyq Only has replied to that.
Quad Errat Demonstrandum.
Richard
Richard
I see you are back. Perhaps you could have a go at explaining how this graph explains that CO2 follows T on all timescales . And please don’t just say that it is because the CO2 peaks lie to the right of the T peaks – it needs a bit more thought than that.
Perhaps you can try just the CO2 part and say what dbs has failed to do, which is what the positive and negative sections actually mean.
And as a footnote, before anyone tries any more distractions, can I point out that the statements “CO2 does not follow T” and “T does not follow CO2” are not mutually exclusive. In fact the only honest position to hold at the moment is that neither of those is unambiguously established.
Nyq Only:
I am making an exception by replying to some of your prattle.
Please note there is a difference between ‘replying’, ‘commenting on’, and ‘laughing at’.
Except for this post – intended to clarify matters for you – I have not replied to your prattle.
Richard
jimmi_the_dalek:
At August 26, 2013 at 3:00 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1400200
you say to me
No more “thought” needed unless, of course, you have a time machine.
Please read my post at August 26, 2013 at 2:28 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1400184
And now I have to leave here for some more hours.
Richard
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1950/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1920/to:2013/scale:500
say wut?
“Quad Errat Demonstrandum.”
Er, either
1) Nyq Only cannot spell erat
or)
2) he was making a joke in Latin
As written the phrase means, thus the error is demonstrated, rather than, thus it is demonstrated (quod erat demonstrandum)
“No more “thought” needed unless, of course, you have a time machine.”
Sorry that won’t do – you need to know what the quantities displayed in the graph are.
jimmi_the_dalek:
I am rushing out the door so this reply is curt.
re your post at August 26, 2013 at 3:11 am
It will do. It does do. Do you have a time machine?
Richard
Sigh…
Everybody just looks at the peaks…..does it never occur anyone to ask what the troughs do? Does it never occur to ask what is the net effect of a set of deviations from a mean?
richardscourtney says:
August 26, 2013 at 2:28 am
The debate concerns the magnitude of the long-term rise in CO2 and its cause.
1.
Ferdinand says the temperature rise cannot induce a long-term CO2 rise that has the observed magnitude of the present CO2 rise. Hence, he attributes the anthropogenic emission to that rise.
2.
Bart says the temperature rise is inducing a long-term CO2 rise that has the observed magnitude of the present CO2 rise. Hence, he refuses to agree that the anthropogenic emission should be attributed as being part of that rise.
3.
I am saying I want to know whether Ferdinand or Bart is right.
The data shown by stealey and Bart shows that the noise in CO2 correlates with the fluctuation in temperature but that the annual trend in CO2 does not follow the trend in temperature, rather it follows the trend in CO2 emissions. Thus the data shows that CO2 is increasing as a result of fossil fuel consumption with approximately half of those emissions being absorbed by the ocean (Henry’s law) and the biosphere. As that absorption is temperature sensitive this results in a small scale modulation of the CO2 which is seen as the noise in the signal.
Thus Ferdinand’s explanation is the correct one.
QED, I suggest you stick to the abbreviation Richard as your latin is execrable.
j_t_d says that he doesn’t comprehend what his CO2 graph means. It means that he is incapable of showing a cause and effect relationship that supports his Belief. Once again: his graphs do not show cause and effect. And that is the central question here. They cannot show cause and effect. Skeptics can, and have. Repeatedly.
Nyq says: “ALL times scales? Well 1959 to 2013 is a time scale.CO2 rise FOLLOWS temperature? Nope. not over THAT time scale. Gee – I wonder why not?”
For the umpteenth time: that chart is nothing but a simple overlay. It does not show cause and effect like the charts I posted do. Nyq wonders because his Belief is overwhelmed by cognitive dissonance. He cannot hold the two contradictory thoughts in his mind simultaneously. So he goes with Belief. It is easier than thinking rationally.
So ‘wonder’ all you want, Nyq. That is the response of someone whose religious Belief does not allow you to accept the plain fact that the cause — changes in CO2 — have no measurable relation whatever to the claimed effect: changes in temperature. The fact is that no one has been able to show that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. In fact, the opposite effect is true: ∆T causes ∆CO2. But that creates dissonance in your mind. That tells rational folks that CO2 does not have the claimed effect — and thus,that their entire argument is deconstructed. QED
I have repeatedly provided consistent and verifiable proof that delta T is the cause of ∆CO2. You have provided baseless verbiage. My proof is ignored by the alarmist clique, who use excessively verbose language in their failed attempt to support their Belief that “carbon” is a problem. In fact, they will not even debate that question, hoping that their pathetic rationalizations and cherry-picking [eg: 1959 – 2013] wil be overlooked.
The alarmist crowd has lost every debate in this issue. Every one. Planet Earth is deconstructing their misguided Belief in a mythical runaway global warming scenario. So once again:
Who should we listen to? Planet Earth? Or Nyq, or the dalek, or the rest of the fact-challenged alarmist contingent? Readers should make up their minds about who is right: Planet Earth? Or these religious “carbon” fanatics? Because they cannot both be right.