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.
Allan MacRae says:
“…I am increasingly convinced that since atmospheric dCO2/dt changes almost contemporaneously with temperature, and CO2 lags atmospheric temperature by about 9 months, this is compelling evidence that CO2 drives temperature – not the reverse as the popular consensus falsely dictates.”
Then how do you explain this? It is clear that ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2.
==========================================
Nick Stokes,
I suggest you read Jo Nova’s summary. If you’ve read it, read it again. Among other things, it reports: By 2003 it reached the stage where the NSF launched a criminal investigation into Colorado University for misappropriation of research funds. The investigation stopped when $100,000 was returned to Salby’s group. Sounds like a win to me. But then it’s clear your mind is made up. So maybe re-reading the summary would be a waste of your time.
Nick Stokes:
You reply to dbstealey and Gail Combs at August 12, 2013 at 5:25 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1387541
In reply to dbstealey having said
you say
Firstly, there is a misunderstanding (or deliberate misrepresentation) in what you have written.
It is clear that when Salby writes that, “Macquarie was well informed of the circumstances. It was more than informed”, then the “circumstances” he mentions are his absence and the reason for it. He was NOT referring to his informing the Hearing about the matters it was to investigate.
Importantly, Salby was attending a Speaking engagement that could only have been arranged months in advance. As Gail Combs says: August 12, 2013 at 4:26 am
Your reply to that says
Frankly, that is ridiculous. The commitment would have been long before the disciplinary matter arose. Either they agreed to it then, or they were malign by refusing it then (attendance to speak at such conferences is normal for an academic in his position), or they were malign when they withdrew the permission. The only way their refusal could not have been malign was if Salby had recently attended many similar conferences, and I can find no evidence that he had.
And you make presumptions; viz.
“The committee would have been going for weeks at that stage. It may well have finished.”
Your suppositions are noted but I observe that Macquariehas made no statement which supports them, and it is strange that Macquarie has made no such statement if your suppositions are true. Frankly, your suppositions are not credible in the absence of such a statement.
So, Salby had an existing commitment to attend the conference. And insistence on holding the Hearing prior to his return could only be malign: either Salby is discredited by failing to fulfil the commitment together with a public statement at the Conference of his reason (i.e. attending a Disciplinary Hearing), or Salby is prevented from defending himself at the Hearing.
dbstealey wrote
And you have replied in total saying
Really?
Dbstealey and Jo Nova make no reference to “court actions”.
Jo Nova refers to his defence against the NSF accusations in which it seems he was successful. She provides this link to his account of that
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/salby-murry/re_nsf_r.pdf
Indeed, if the NSF had found that Salby was guilty of false accounting and improper tax returns then there would have been “court actions” AGAINST HIM. Are you claiming there were such “court actions” but they were withdrawn? If so, then he could not have “abandoned” them.
Richard
Thanks Allan for your kind response. I agree with what you say.
I’ll say this about Ferdinand Engelbeen’s amateurish and nasty attacks on the dead Beck and Jawarowski and the whole body of pre-1983 chemical (Pettenkoffer etc) CO2 measurements going right back to the 1850s.
Abstract
Criteria minimizing differences in operators, location, and time of observation are established for selecting comparative data on atmospheric CO2 concentration during the past 100 years. The resulting selection showed in all cases the period 1907–1956 to have a higher mean than 1857–1906. The difference between means was not statistically significant for 5 unweighted comparisons. Weighting by estimates of reliability resulted in a significant difference for yearly and summer non-urban values, but not for the other 3 comparisons. Additional comparisons of all values in the study, of six entire distributions, and of five paired studies with closely comparable data showed increases in a more recent period, with one exception. The magnitude of the increase for weighted yearly non-urban data was 25 ppm (from 294 to 319) for the quarters 1857–1881 to 1932–1956. Several possible explanations for the increase include: 1) an actual atmospheric increase, 2) a coincidence of the influence of micro-atmospheres, 3) improvement (or change) in chemical technique. Need for further sampling is emphasized and suggestions made for considering local influences in this sampling.
Published my good friend and excellent scientist Roger Bray in Tellus, 1959.
The assertion that the old 1992 David Etheridge et al paper discredited all Jawarowski’s criticisms is also nonsense when it contained a 10 year hiatus (fall even) in CO2 between 1935 and 1945 subsequently found to be methodological is simply laughable.
Engelbeen’s comments show no real understanding of the nature of the CO2 and 13C data produced from the sublimation method between just after Alex Wilson seminal paper of 1997 and the final perfection of the method around around 2010, some 13 years later.
Steve Short:
I write to thank you for your defense at August 12, 2013 at 6:40 am of my late good friend (Jawarowski) and late associate (Beck).
They are far, far to maligned on the web. Both did excellent scientific work.
Richard
I think in the end the entire stranding him at the airport thing is going to bite them in the butt. That kind of childish antics are rather uncalled for and obviously its grounds to prove that they had malicious thought and actually attempted to railroad him without using the proper channels. If you think about it, they fired him when he was out of the country. Someone had to time it like that and they had to realize that he was using the University Credit Card. The simple fact that they left him stranded goes to motivation. If they were going to fire him, you normally fire someone not through distance but through sitting down and talking to them. That is what grown-ups do. And yes, you often use security so that they can take their personal belongings out of their office, but you never simply fire them from afar. That is childish to the extreme.
This speaks volumes about the university. They fired him while he was out of the country. Its a remote possible they had no idea that he couldn’t get home, but in their attempt to be subtle and clever they end up looking childish, arrogant and of course rude. I guess they thought they could be more clever than most employers and fire the guy without even telling him so. A cancelled university credit card and a call home would have done the trick with the person informing them being some low-level bureaucrat who has no idea what is going on. Childish really. And I bet the person who did the firing STILL believes they are clever to do it like that. Its a power trip more likely than not with some over-promoted incompetent basically making sure the unversity gets a nice lawsuit out of the deal. All because they refused to follow proper ettiquete. Most times, lawsuits can be avoided if you simply stay civil to someone you are firing and treat them with respect.
The Australian university that sacked Salby while he was traveling on their own university business was shameful and wrong on its face. I’m not a fan of the Australian university system in general, as they appear to promote CAGW almost blindly, and have produced leading lights like Gergis and Karoly’s Southern Hemisphere Hockey Sticks, and are responsible for Lewandowsky’s crap.
I’m generally inclined to give Prof. Salby every benefit of doubt. But the back story of conflicts over his work at Colorado University is too obtuse and convoluted to interest me. Salby should make a brief summary (abstract, timeline) of those events, before jumping into the deep minutia, as he has done in his PDF. Brevity… soul of wit… major editing or rewrite needed…
Allan MacRae says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:48 am
But if temperature primarily drives atmospheric CO2, not the reverse, why has atmospheric CO2 continued to increase even as there has been no significant warming of average atmospheric temperatures for the past ~10-20 years?
Allan,
I think the point is that d(CO2)/dt is proportional to temperature.
This means that CO2 levels are proportional to the integral of temperature.
I think you will find that even tough the instantaneous temperature has recently flattened out, the integral of the atmospheric temperature with time is still rising. Hence, you would expect CO2 levels to still be going increasing.
Steve Short says:
August 12, 2013 at 6:40 am
////////////////////////////////////////
I have never fully understood the reasoning for disregarding the old chemical CO2 measurements.
I have on a number of occassions suggested that before the results of those experiments be disregarded, they should today be replicated (ie., same equipment, same methodolgy, same geographical location, same season/time of year/time of day sampling etc) and see what results would be achieved today using that approach to the assessment of CO2 levels.
In my opinion, it would be interesting to compare results achieved today with the results which were achieved when those experiments were conducted all those year back, and to see whether there is some relationship with today’s levels of CO2 measured at ML etc., for example, are the results now achieved greater in some proportionate manner to which CO2 levels have increased in the latter part of the 20th century?
As I posted on Jo’ site, where is the contract between Salby and MQ? That alone will move this whole issue away from all this emotional theater and name calling into factual reality. I’ve wondered this from the first time I read about Prof Salby’s quandry.
Davet916
Steve Short says:….
Dr Short, Thank you for the defense of Beck and Dr Jawarowski. If there is any true justice in the world both will go down in history as heroes.
As an industrial chemist I find the assumption that “CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere” completely laughable but Engelbeen continues to cling to this very important assumption for CAGW like a ship wreck survivor clings to a floating plank.
Without that assumption the whole edifice of CAGW crumbles because Callendar’s cherry picking of historic atmospheric CO2 analysis loses all credibility. As does all the present Mauna Loa data because of the “data selection criteria”
In otherwords they use the “CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere” assumption as the reason for cherry picking the results they want.
Before data selection: graph
After data selection graph
@ferdinand meeus Engelbeen says:
August 12, 2013 at 2:11 am
//////////////////////////
There may well be merit in much you say, although to some extent it suggests that CO2 is not a well mixed gas.
It may well be the case that the results from the old chemical method experiments were polluted and distorted by the local factors that you raise. However, if that be the case, if those experiments were today replicated (see my post of 08:17am) the results achieved today would be similarly polluted/distorted save that on top of that pollution/distortion we should see overlaid, the signal from the increase in CO2 levels that took place post mid 20th century.
Of course, I accept that the local environmental conditions may not be exactly the same as they were in the past (eg., there may have been intervening land change, development, de-forestation, agricultural changes etc) and some further interpretation to take account of such changes may be necessary. But that said, before I would dismiss those old result out of hand, I would like to know what results would be achieved today, if those experiments were replicated as best possible.
Personally, I am surprised that papers dealing with those old results and dismissing them as not being representative did not attempt to replicate those experiments since that would certainly strengthen the position taken by the authors of the paper(s).
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 12, 2013 at 2:11 am
“One can make the same fit for every combination of temperature influence and human emissions.”
That is completely untrue. The human emissions have been increasing in rate over the time interval. There is no significant room for such a term to be added in. The temperature relationship already accounts for the acceleration in atmospheric CO2.
“Then it becomes interesting: human emissions fit all observations, temperature doesn’t.”
Temperature does. It’s right here. As far as the relationship to proxy data before 1958, Salby has explained how it is manifested.
“For short term reactions temperature is the main cause, while for the increase pressure related processes are at work…”
It is impossible for nature to work in this fashion.
Nick Stokes says:
August 12, 2013 at 2:45 am
“He shows the derivative of pCO2 against temperature, but with a fudge number, which aligns the graphs.”
The only arbitrary value in the model is the constant offset which defines the baseline temperature with respect to which the temperature anomaly is measured. So, you would be correct that I had a gap IF the rate of human emissions had been constant. But, the rate of human inputs (top plot) has most definitely and decidely NOT been constant.
Any influence of the trend in human emissions is already accounted for by the temperature relationship. Ergo, human emissions can have little effect.
Allan MacRae says:
August 12, 2013 at 3:48 am
“BTW, this is not originally Salby’s theory…”
What Salby has done is answered Ferdinand’s complaint above about how the relationship extends into the proxy record.
TO ALL:
Discussions of Salby’s alleged behavioral deficiencies have no place in a discussion about the science. Those of you pushing this angle clearly have an ulterior motive.
Gail Combs says:
August 12, 2013 at 8:39 am
Gail, this is the second time that I see that you are dishonest: the two graphs that “prove” that the CO2 data are “selected” are from different stations, as the title above the graph clearly shows. One station is Neuglobsow, near Berlin midst a forest, thus completely unsuitable as “background” station. The other data are from Mace Head, coastal Ireland, which gives nice background data without any “selection”.
If you want to show the “manipulation” of the data, then plot the same data before and after selection and show what difference that gives in average, trend and variability.
richard verney says:
August 12, 2013 at 8:47 am
although to some extent it suggests that CO2 is not a well mixed gas.
In 95% of the atmosphere, CO2 is quite rapidely mixed. That is everywhere over the oceans and above a few hundred meters over land. Only in the first few hundred meters over land, fast sources and sinks can mess up things, especially under low wind conditions and inversion.
There is no need to revive the old instruments. The accuracy of most was around 3%, or +/- 10 ppmv. But one can use modern instruments to measure CO2 variability at the same spots as the historical measurements. Fortunately we have a few such places already in use.
Beck’s compilation shows a “peak” of about 80 ppmv around 1942. Besides the fact that that implies a change in CO2 release and uptake in the order of 1/3rd of all carbon contained in land vegetation, such a “peak” doesn’t show up in any other proxy (including stomata data and coralline sponges) or ice cores of high resolution (less than a decade).
When I searched all the papers that the late Ernst Beck used for that period, I saw that the “peak” was mainly caused by two long series: Poonah, India and Giessen, Germany. The former measured CO2 below, inbetween and above growing crops and only few were ambient. Not the slightest correlation with CO2 in the rest of the atmosphere. Giessen (a small village, semi-rural) is more interesting, as there is a modern station, not far from the historical site. Here a few days of measurements in summer with nightly inversion conditions, compared to actual “background” stations data:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/giessen_background.jpg
Most of the historical measurements were taken three times a day, where two were at the flanks of the largest change of morning and evening. So even with the best equipment of the world, such data are worthless for knowing the CO2 levels in the bulk of the atmosphere of that time…
Even today quite problematic, as the monthly averages show more or less the same trend as the Mauna Loa trend, but some of the averages are skyhigh:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/giessen_mlo_monthly.jpg
Bart says:
August 12, 2013 at 11:12 am
That is completely untrue. The human emissions have been increasing in rate over the time interval. There is no significant room for such a term to be added in. The temperature relationship already accounts for the acceleration in atmospheric CO2.
The human emissions do fit the increase over time over the full period 1960-2011, even slightly better than your fit and certainly before 1960. There is no room for temperature in the accelleration of atmospheric CO2.
Main point: different processes at work, as vegetation reacts in opposite ways to short and longer time temperature changes.
BTW, I have changed the plot from direct effect from human emissions to the effect of the total CO2 above equilibrium. That makes that the small variations in year by year increasing human emissions have little effect on the decay speed.
Temperature does. It’s right here. As far as the relationship to proxy data before 1958, Salby has explained how it is manifested.
That is the only thing temperature fits, thanks to an arbitrary baseline. All other observations don’t fit the theory. Salby’s backcalculation of diffusion in firn and ice cores is pure theoretical to fit his hypothesis, but has no bearing in any known or observed migration.
It is impossible for nature to work in this fashion.
As in nature so many different, even opposite processes are simultaneously at work, I shouldn’t bet that nature doesn’t hold a lot of such suprises…
“Discussions of Salby’s alleged behavioral deficiencies have no place in a discussion about the science. Those of you pushing this angle clearly have an ulterior motive.”
It was Prof Salby who brought up the issue of his sacking and made it into a public issue. Are you saying HE had an ulterior motive or that HE was the one wanting to distract from the science?
FerdiEgb says:
August 12, 2013 at 12:27 pm
“The human emissions do fit the increase over time over the full period 1960-2011, even slightly better than your fit and certainly before 1960.”
No. They don’t. They cannot account for both the short and the long term like the temperature can.
“As in nature so many different, even opposite processes are simultaneously at work, I shouldn’t bet that nature doesn’t hold a lot of such suprises…”
Not this one. It is impossible to perform causal filtering in a natural system with no phase delay or distortion. You are inserting epicycles where none are needed. The temperature relationship explains all of it.
Nyq Only says:
August 12, 2013 at 12:39 pm
“Are you saying HE had an ulterior motive or that HE was the one wanting to distract from the science?”
No, I am saying YOU do and are.
Steve Short says:
August 12, 2013 at 6:40 am
I’ll say this about Ferdinand Engelbeen’s amateurish and nasty attacks on the dead Beck and Jawarowski and the whole body of pre-1983 chemical (Pettenkoffer etc) CO2 measurements going right back to the 1850s.
Steve, in general I had friendly discussions with Ernst Beck during several years, including a personal discussion at the home of Arthur Rörsch in Leiden, The Netherlands.
I had not the slightest problem with Ernst as person, admired the tremendous amount of work he has done to recover all the old data, but I have a lot of objections against his compilation.
The main problem I had is that he lumped everything together: the good, the bad and the ugly data, without much quality control.
E.g. the data of Barrow, quite interesting as that is currently a “baseline” station for global CO2 data. Unfortunately the micro-Schollander equipment was accurate to +/- 150 ppmv, as the equipment was intended to measure CO2 in exhaled air. It was calibrated against outside air. If the values read were between 200-500 ppmv, the equipment was ready to use. The calibration figures were used by Beck in his compilation.
Something similar happened with the seawater data of Wattenberg: Beck interpretated the data of 0 meter depth in the tables as being from the atmosphere, while these were from seawater at the surface.
About Jaworosky, I never met him, but had some personal correspondence with him. It seems that he was a very nice person. Of course no problem with that, but problems with his science.
I had asked him why he persisted that there was an arbitrary shift in the ice core data to match the Mauna Loa data, while he obviously had used the wrong column in the table by Neftel (the ice age instead of the average gas age). He responded that there was no difference between gas age and ice age, as all ice was immediately sealed by remelt layers (there was mention of only one remelt layer at near closing depth in Neftel’s work).
But what closed the door for me was his story that because of cracks in the ice, due to drilling, transport and storage, the levels of CO2 in the ice cores would go down, while the ambient air was 100-200 ppmv higher than what is measured in the bubbles.
If anyone can explain to me how CO2 can migrate from 180 ppmv within an ice core to 370 ppmv in ambient air, I may change my opinion.
Bart says:
August 12, 2013 at 12:42 pm
No. They don’t. They cannot account for both the short and the long term like the temperature can.
Temperature is responsible for the short term CO2 rate of change variability, the emissions (via the increase in the atmosphere) are responsible for the longer term change. No need for curve fitting via an arbitrary baseline.
Not this one. It is impossible to perform causal filtering in a natural system with no phase delay or distortion. You are inserting epicycles where none are needed. The temperature relationship explains all of it.
There is no filtering at work in either case. There is a similar CO2 response to short term temperature changes for a permanent or temporary difference in temperature.
FerdiEgb says:
August 12, 2013 at 1:29 pm
“No need for curve fitting via an arbitrary baseline.”
Of course there is. You have an offset yourself in the beginning CO2 concentration. That offset has been assumed based on a model for the capture of CO2 in the ice. A model which, BTW, Salby has shown to be erroneous.
“There is no filtering at work in either case.”
Any process which removes the long term leaving the short term is a filtering process.
“There is a similar CO2 response to short term temperature changes for a permanent or temporary difference in temperature.”
In that case, you have contradicted yourself. Because your previous claim very specifically states that the processes which induce short term changes in CO2 from temperature are attenuated over the longer term.
The bottom line:
A) the temperature relationship holds across all frequencies – the rate of change of CO2 with temperature matches in phase in both the long term trend and in the short term variation. That’s all you need to fit it the whole thing.
B) For your idea to work, there has to be high pass filtering of the temperature related processes, and blending with low pass filtered human inputs. It is, in the first place, absurd that the one would be high passed and the other low passed – the same processes are operating on both. In the second place, high pass filters in the natural world always induce phase distortion at the crossover frequency. There is no observable phase distortion anywhere in the record. The rate of change of CO2 is always coincident with the temperature for every trend or bobble in the record.
So, what you are arguing for is something very exotic and unnatural. That just doesn’t happen in the real world. 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.
Bart says:
“Occam’s Razor comes down very hard on the simplest explanation which fits the data: “
Yes it does. The extra CO2 is there because we put it there.
Nyq Only says:
“Are you saying HE had an ulterior motive or that HE was the one wanting to distract from the science?”
I think the issue was raised after his sacking. What was he supposed to do? Turn the other cheek? Would you?
=================================
Nick Stokes says:
“The extra CO2 is there because we put it there.”
We agree on that. Humans have added CO2 to the atmosphere. I also agree with Bart that ocean outgassing causes a rise in CO2. There is solid empirical evidence showing that to be an observed fact over many years.
Now would you also agree that the added CO2 has been harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere? Because that is what the evidence [and the lack of any evidence of global harm from CO2] shows.
Bart says:
August 12, 2013 at 2:19 pm
Of course there is. You have an offset yourself in the beginning CO2 concentration. That offset has been assumed based on a model for the capture of CO2 in the ice. A model which, BTW, Salby has shown to be erroneous.
A small difference: CO2 levels are measured in ice cores, only the average age of that level need some modelling, but as the error in average age in this case is not more than a few years, that is no problem at all. In your case you need to tune the baseline to fit the longer term increase.
And Salby has nothing proven, he only calculated a non-existing diffusion of CO2 in firn and ice to fit his theory…
Any process which removes the long term leaving the short term is a filtering process.
In my “model” there is no filtering as the short term effect of temperature is a different process (with no long term effect) than for the long term effect. The former regulates the fast processes in ocean surface and vegetation. The latter influences the equilibrium setpoint for the slower process of deep oceans uptake and more permanent uptake by vegetation.
“There is a similar CO2 response to short term temperature changes for a permanent or temporary difference in temperature.”
In that case, you have contradicted yourself. Because your previous claim very specifically states that the processes which induce short term changes in CO2 from temperature are attenuated over the longer term
Again, different processes at work: the fast processes have a limited capacity, thus have no long-term effect. These result in the fast responses (1-3 years) to temperature changes. The slower processes go on near forever, but are far less influenced by temperature changes.