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.
Regarding the WFT charts he posted, Nyq Only says:
“Who is driving who?”
Your charts in that comment only show coincidental correlation. They are overlays. They do not show cause and effect, like the charts I posted do. Your simple overlay charts only show that for a very limited time, CO2 and T went in the same direction.
The charts I posted show that from years to hundreds of millennia, ∆T caused ∆CO2. Those are verifiable empirical observations. But as I keep pointing out, there are no similar charts showing that ∆CO2 was the cause of ∆T. That is only your assertion.
You are avoiding thousands of years of empirical [real world] data, and instead arguing that your models are a sufficient explanation for your belief that CO2 is the cause of global warming. But that belief ignores all the empirical data. I think the reason is what Janice Moore pointed out: this has more to do with Dr Salby’s unconscionable treatment than with any scientific evidence.
I am still looking for a chart that shows your claimed cause and effect. I have been asking someone, anyone, to post such a chart for many months now. But no one has been able to locate one. Perhaps that is because any effect from CO2 is too small to measure?
So, will there ever come a time when you will admit that there is no testable empirical evidence showing that the rise in CO2 has any measurable effect on global temperature? If so, when would that time be? Or have you already made up your mind, and decided the question to your satisfaction?
Re Janice Moore says: August 13, 2013 at 3:17 pm
..we can now clearly see your motive for your vehement defense of those who mistreated Dr. Murry Salby who boldly and publicly states…etc”
I’m afraid I’m less adept at the kind of faith based argument you seem to be using here – how does your point work exactly? If somebody doesn’t adhere to a tenet of your faith their arguments on anything (regardless of their content – which naturally you didn’t address) must be wrong? I can see the kind of brilliance within that idea but it isn’t for me. I prefer science and maths.
dbstealey says: August 13, 2013 at 8:16 pm
“Your charts in that comment only show coincidental correlation. They are overlays. They do not show cause and effect, like the charts I posted do.”
A chart can’t show cause and effect. To show cause and effect you need a substantive theory behind the numerical or graphical relation.
“But as I keep pointing out, there are no similar charts showing that ∆CO2 was the cause of ∆T. That is only your assertion.”
Um no – it is my assertion and PHYSICS. We KNOW CO2 is a greenhouse gas – no mystery there. Sure we know that CO2 isn’t the only driver of temperature change – you can knock a strawman down over and over pretending that there are people who claim CO2 is the only factor in global mean temperature (here is a complete list of ‘warmist’ climate scientists of any significance who think that – … erm…that’s it)
“I think the reason is what Janice Moore pointed out: this has more to do with Dr Salby’s unconscionable treatment than with any scientific evidence.”
Wasn’t she saying the opposite? That I defended the Uni’s action because I think CO2 helps drive temperature? You seem to be saying the causality is the other way round. Or is it just crazy argument day? Either way round it isn’t a scientific or logical argument – amusing though, so thanks for the chuckle.
“I am still looking for a chart that shows your claimed cause and effect.”
Which claimed cause and effect?
Theories do not show cause and effect. They explain them.
Bart says: August 13, 2013 at 1:48 pm
“No, that is not it at all. Both natural and anthropogenic inputs are quickly sequestered away. The difference is that the natural inputs are overwhelmingly larger, so they have a much greater impact.”
Sorry but you keep forgetting which kinds of quantities you are considering. Total, seasonal changes and long term changes. Each of these are at different scales.
Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 may be small compared to the overall carbon cycle but they constitute a progressive increase of significance over the 20th century. Again no mystery there and necessarily it has to add to the total and make a net contribution to the net change over the twentieth century.
richardscourtney says: August 13, 2013 at 12:41 pm Nyq Only: “Your reply to me in your post at August 13, 2013 at 12:02 pm http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388712 demonstrates that your opinion is not only blinded by dogma, you are also content to proclaim your ignorance of the subject on which you pontificate.”
Well that answers that question – it IS crazy argument day. So apart from the poorly constructed ad-hominem do you have any rational argument to add?
OK you’ve got a bit of a one: “The annual increase to CO2 in the atmosphere is the residual of the seasonal changes to CO2 in the atmosphere, and the Northern Hemisphere seasonal changes (decrease and increase) each year are approximately an order of magnitude greater than both the total annual increase and the total annual anthropogenic emission. This seasonal change is mostly release then absorbtion of CO2 by the oceans.”
We are talking about the long term increase in CO2 concentration. You are saying that ISN’T anthropoegnic because 1. it is small compared to seasonal changes (which is irrelevant) and 2. because you think the increase is temperature driven. Yet compare the long term increase with fossil fuel consumption and with anthropogenic emissions the relationship is clear. Now perhaps it is all just an amazing coincidence or perhaps you have an explanation. If you’ve got an explanation – great! Let’s hear it and spare us the rants about dogma stuff.
Nyq Only says:
August 13, 2013 at 11:02 pm
“Sorry but you keep forgetting which kinds of quantities you are considering. Total, seasonal changes and long term changes. Each of these are at different scales.”
This is gibberish. The long term trend in the rate of change of CO2 matches perfectly with the long term trend in temperature. You never took any calculus courses, did you? I am afraid it is beyond my power to make up for your lack of training here.
Nyq Only:
I am answering your reply at August 13, 2013 at 11:15 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1389267
to my post at August 13, 2013 at 12:41 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388748
I ask everyone to read my post and your reply: they are both short and I have here provided links which go to them.
Nyq Only, as my post explained, your original post was plain wrong: it was in error by an order of magnitude.
And, it seems you are unwilling to learn from information intended to assist you. I concluded my post saying
That was not an ad hom. It was a statement of fact intended to induce you to think before posting.
But you did not learn from that statement so your reply does it again!
I am deliberately rejecting your request for me to not mention your “dogma stuff” because your reply again proclaims your dogma as an alternative to observed reality. I deal with reality and say when reality denies false beliefs such as yours.
Importantly, I strongly object to your supporting your dogma by posting falsehoods concerning what I have said.
The first falsehood in your reply to me says
NO! How dare you!? I have never said that.
I say the data does not indicate whether that increase is natural or anthropogenic in part or in whole. If you have any information of any kind to disprove my statement then I would be very pleased to hear it.
You do not have such information: nobody does. But you do have your dogma which decrees the increase has an anthropogenic cause.
You perceive a suggestion of doubt concerning the cause of the increase as a denial of an anthropogenic cause because your dogma decrees there cannot be such doubt: any such doubt is heresy.
Indeed, you claim that important information “is irrelevant”.
Well, it is “irrelevant” to your belief but it is very relevant to determination of the cause of the long-term rise.
And you assert another falsehood in your reply when you write
NO! I do not!
See my above post to Ferdinand at August 13, 2013 at 1:35 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388815
That is my clear position;
I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IF ANYTHING DRIVES THE INCREASE because the available data does not enable anyone to know.
But your dogma tells you what must be driving it; i.e. the anthropogenic emission. And, therefore, you ‘know’ it is a heresy to question that belief so you ascribe a different belief to any heretic.
And you explicitly state your dogma in your reply when you write
No! It is NOT ”clear”. Indeed, it requires the data to be processed to force a fit between the two parameters.
Again, this is explained in my above post to Ferdinand at August 13, 2013 at 1:35 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388815
But you ignore all evidence and proclaim your superstitious belief by writing to me
It is to be expected that there is a “coincidence” of your assertions with your dogma but not reality.
And, of course there are several possible explanations for the “coincidence”. For example, parsimony suggests you are an idiot so you are incapable of considering any information which conflicts with your superstitious belief in AGW.
And I don’t “rant”. That is another misperception induced by your superstitious belief.
Richard
“The long term trend in the rate of change of CO2 matches perfectly with the long term trend in temperature.”
Not on this planet http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/derivative/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/trend – but perhaps you didn’t mean what you said.
“You never took any calculus courses, did you?”
I’ve taken several. If you think I have made a mistake in calculus feel free to point it out.
“I am afraid it is beyond my power to make up for your lack of training here.”
Apparently so 🙂
Bart says: August 14, 2013 at 12:38 am
” The long term trend in the rate of change of CO2 matches perfectly with the long term trend in temperature.”
The match is poor. It is much worse than simple quadratic regression against time. The date is a better predictor than temperature!
I’ve written a post here explaining what is wrong with all this.
Bart says:
August 13, 2013 at 1:48 pm
No, your model for the proxy measurements fails. That is what Salby showed.
Ice core CO2 measurements are direct measurements. No model involved, except to calculate the resolution and the time delay between ice age and average gas age. Salby only showed a theoretical calculation of the smoothing, without any physical base, to “prove” his (and yours) theory of a continuous release of CO2 from a sustained temperature difference with an arbitrary baseline. Not only is that circular reasoning, it also implies negative CO2 values for long periods of time. Smoothing does hide fast changes, but it doesn’t change the average over the resolution period…
Handwaving nonsense and circular logic.
Sorry Bart, you know better: there is no difference in behaviour of human CO2 or natural CO2 (except a small one for different isotopes). The near threefold increase in rate of change of the atmospheric CO2 concentration 1960-2012 must be caused by a threefold increase in turnover of natural CO2, if your theory holds, as also the human emissions near tripled in the same period.
Your fit is only in the low frequency region. It is trivial to get affine agreement between two low frequency time series with comparable curvature. In the end, your agreement is merely a 50/50 coin flip. The temperature relationship, however, agrees across all frequencies.
The fit is as good as yours for the high frequency changes based on yearly averages over the period 1960-current. The long term fits all trends, from multidecade to multimillennia. Yours completely fails over the full glacial-interglacial period over 800 kyr up to 1960 without arbitrary changes of the baseline (and coefficients). Just try to show the LGM-Holocene optimum change with the same baseline and factor as in the recent period…
richardscourtney says:
August 13, 2013 at 1:35 pm
The difference between observation and expectation indicates that some natural factor is at least 3 times larger than the anthropogenic factor. Your explanation of this is only a plausible hypothesis.
The natural factor even is 4.5 times larger, if my calculations are right. The point is that the oceans (or any other source except vegetation decay) have the wrong fingerprint: with more CO2 from the oceans (or volcanoes or rock weathering, or…), the 13C/12C ratio would go up, not down. That excludes the oceans as the main cause of the increase.
Of course, the “dilution” by oceanic CO2 theoretically could be additional, not throughput. But then the increase in the atmosphere would be 5.5 times the human emissions to give the same dilution of the human fingerprint, while the real increase is halve the human emissions…
BTW, vegetation is a proven (from the oxygen balance) sink for CO2 (the “greening earth”). Thus also not the cause of the 13C/12C ratio decline…
dbstealey says:
August 13, 2013 at 8:16 pm
The charts I posted show that from years to hundreds of millennia, ∆T caused ∆CO2.
The problem is that there is one period which is an exception…
CO2 lags temperature for seasons to several years with less than a year (and 4-5 ppmv/K).
CO2 lags temperature for multidecades to multimillennia with 50 to several thousand years (and ~8 ppmv/K).
But currently temperature lags CO2 increase over multiyears to multidecades, as there is no known natural physical process that may give over 100 ppmv/K as we now see over the past 50+ years…
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Thankyou for your post at August 14, 2013 at 5:46 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1389641
Yes, all you say is true concerning the carbon isotope ratio change..
But none of that contradicts my point that your post quotes and answers. viz.
Your claim that
is the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’.
Nobody knows the reason for the ratio change. Clearly, something is contributing much more to it than the anthropogenic emission. And that “something” may be responsible for all the change. Furthermore, as you say, you only know what does not have the correct ‘fingerprint’, and nobody can know what unknown unknowns may have the correct ‘fingerprint’.
Simply, you have shown it is possible to attribute A SMALL PART of the change to the anthropogenic emission.
But an ability to attribute a cause to an effect is not evidence that the attributed cause is the true cause in part or in whole. This is especially true when the attributed cause is known to NOT be responsible for most of the effect.
As I said
Richard
Mods:
My posts almost all go into long moderation or vanish. For example, my reply to Ferdinand has gone (I hope and assume) into the ‘bin’.
I wonder if others are having the same experience or my posts have been ‘singled-out; for some reason.
Richard
[Reply: Your posts are not being singled out for any particular reason. But both WordPress rules and Anthony’s rules cause comments with certain key words to be shunted into the spam folder for individual approval. In your case they have all been approved, although there is often a delay of up to a few hours depending on whether there is a mod on duty. Other comments that contain site Policy violations can be snipped or deleted entirely. Mods know the keywords Anthony uses, but WordPress doesn’t tell us their keywords or phrases. In general, we try to avoid censoring comments. — mod.]
Hello Richard and all,
Richard, in response to your question, one of my longer posts went into moderation for a while, although all did appear after a reasonably short time.
I very much appreciated this latest exchange on the “mass balance argument”, etc. Discussions like this will ultimately sort out the truth, and that will be a very good development for climate science.
I cannot agree with Nyq at all – his arguments seems to be religiously-based rather than scientific – he says “we KNOW CO2 is a greenhouse gas”. This is apparently a specious statement, either false or insignificant. There is NO compelling real-world observational evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 causes significant global warming at these concentrations, and there IS compelling evidence that the actual effective “sensitivity of temperature to CO2” is near-zero or even non-existent, since CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, and there has been NO significant global warming for ~10-20 years despite increased atmospheric CO2.
In summary, the evidence strongly suggests that the alleged global warming crisis does not exist. We confidently published this statement more than a decade ago.
Also, it appears that increased atmospheric CO2 is a significant benefit to humanity and the environment, resulting in increased botanic activity, better crop yields, and improved water utilization by plants.
However we do not yet know how much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to natural causes, and how much is due to human activities such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. We do know that the natural seasonal CO2 flux dwarfs the humanmade components, and we also know that at least during the growing season, CO2 emissions seem to be captured quickly close to the source by increased botanic activity. This is an area where more data and discussion could prove beneficial.
Here are some thoughts I have been pondering since about 2008:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/#comment-1041309
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/29/an-observational-estimate-of-climate-sensitivity/#comment-996002
[Excerpt]
Some Thoughts Regarding the Evidence of Longer Cycles and Lags:
We know there is a ~9 month lag of atmospheric CO2 concentration after temperature on a ~~4 year cycle of natural global temperature variation.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
We also know that CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years on a much longer time cycle (ice core data).
… there is probably at least one intermediate lag, and quite possibly several, between these two – perhaps associated with the Wolf-Gleissberg Cycle, Hale Polarity Cycle, etc., AND-OR with the PDO, etc.
The lag of CO2 after temperature observed in these longer cycles is probably mostly physical in origin, related to ocean solution and exsolution of CO2, but also includes a long term biological component.
Willis’s analysis deals with the seasonal (annual) cycle, in which the biological component of the CO2 lag is comparatively much greater.
I have the opinion that we are looking at several natural cycles of varying duration in which there are external natural drivers (Sun, Earth orbits, stars), then some randomization associated with large ocean phenomena (PDO, etc.); these drive Earth’s natural temperature cycles at all time scales, and result in a series of related CO2 lags after temperature.
Finally:
Atmospheric CO2 variation is primarily a result, not a driver of temperature, and human fossil fuel combustion is probably NOT causing the recent increases in atmospheric CO2 – it is more likely the result of the cumulative impact of all these aforementioned natural cycles – for example, the Medieval Warm Period was ~~800 years ago.
Allan MacRae:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me and others at August 14, 2013 at 8:03 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1389751
I agree with all you say.
I only write to draw attention to your post and to respond to your statement saying
I agree and again state my view on this.
I am convinced that increased atmospheric CO2 concentration will result in some rise in global temperature, but I am also convinced any such temperature rise would be too small for it to be discernible and, therefore, it would only have an abstract existence. I explain this as follows.
Before presenting my argument, I again point out that I remain to be convinced human emissions are or are not the cause – in part or in whole – of the observed recent CO2 rise. However, the cause of a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is not relevant to the effect on global temperature of that rise.
My view is simple and can be summarised as follows.
The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be too small to discern. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity obtained by Idso, by Lindzen&Choi, etc..
In other words,
the man-made global warming from man’s emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) would be much smaller than natural fluctuations in global temperature so it would be physically impossible to detect the man-made global warming.
Of course, human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. For example, cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.
Similarly, the global warming from man’s GHG emissions would be too small to be detected. Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1 deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
I hold this view because I am an empiricist so I accept whatever is indicated by data obtained from observation of the real world.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Climate sensitivity is less than 1.0 deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration and, therefore, any effect on global temperature of increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence which has observable effects.
Richard
Nyq Only says:
August 14, 2013 at 2:10 am
‘“The long term trend in the rate of change of CO2 matches perfectly with the long term trend in temperature.”
Not on this planet’
No, not on your planet, where a rate of change is somehow the same as absolute concentration. Clearly, you are not following the conversation. The rate of change of CO2 and the temperature anomaly are affinely similar. Let us have no more denial of this fact.
Nick Stokes says:
August 14, 2013 at 2:27 am
Again, words have a meaning. If you are not following the conversation, how can you hope to make any meaningful contribution to it?
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 14, 2013 at 5:32 am
“The fit is as good as yours for the high frequency changes based on yearly averages over the period 1960-current.”
Not even close. Let us have no more denial of this fact.
Nyq Only says:
August 14, 2013 at 2:10 am
Nick Stokes says:
August 14, 2013 at 2:27 am
I see I was hasty in looking at your two inputs. Nyq tried to match ppmv with degC. How stupid is that?
Nick, your link is idiotic. Of course you can get a better fit of the slightly quadratic curve with a least squares fit. That’s because… wait for it… it’s a zarking LEAST SQUARES FIT, by definition the best quadratic fit there is!!!
But, it has no physical explanation accompanying it, and the derivative of it WILL NOT MATCH the variations AT ALL.
Yeah, integration of GISS is not perfect. Real world data is not perfect. As I mentioned previously, I would get a much better fit integrating the SH temperatures or the satellite temperatures. Why? Because they fit the derivative better, and integrating it produces a unique solution. The closer the derivative, the closer the integration.
This is absolutely pitiful.
Allan MacRae says:
August 14, 2013 at 8:03 am
Atmospheric CO2 variation is primarily a result, not a driver of temperature, and human fossil fuel combustion is probably NOT causing the recent increases in atmospheric CO2
Allan, as I have already said to dbstealey, there are indeed different lags (and different processes) at work for different time frames. And also different ratio’s of CO2 changes vs. temperature changes.
1. For the seasons:
Lag ~3 months; 5 ppmv/K; oceans and vegetation in countercurrent; vegetation dominant.
2. For a few (1-3) years:
Lag 6-9 months; 4-5 ppmv/K; oceans and vegetation in parralel; vegetation dominant.
3. For the past 50+ years
Lag unknown as there is no known temperature effect startpoint; >100 ppmv/K; vegetation about neutral over the whole period, small source until ~1990, increasing sink since then, except during El Niño’s. Oceans are an increasing sink over the whole period. Oceans dominant? But proven more sink that source while levels increase in the atmosphere…
4. For centuries to multimillennia:
Lag ranging from ~50 years (MWP-LIA) to ~800 years (deglaciation) to several thousands (glaciation); ~8 ppmv/K; oceans and vegetation in countercurrent; oceans dominant.
What doesn’t fit in the row of proven natural variability? The third one, with an alleged enormous effect from a small, sustained change in temperature, by coincidence (?) following the accumulation of human emissions at an extremely constant rate, except for the 1st and 2nd natural variability.
A “temperature effect” that again disappears after a century or so (according to the past in ice cores). Not seen in any CO2 proxy in the world or any ice core over the past at least 800 kyrs…
Thus how can the recent increase be a result of a combination of natural cycles?
Bart says:
August 14, 2013 at 10:41 am
Not even close. Let us have no more denial of this fact.
Wood for Trees doesn’t have the emissions in their database, thus I have compared the 12 month averages of temperature and CO2 increase. The short term variability gives a better match than yours. The 5+ decades change gives a better match than yours… Who denies what?
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 14, 2013 at 11:29 am
Show me your plot your plot like this one.
People appear to have some pretty weird ideas about what I have done and what the goal is here.
The goal is NOT to produce the best fit to the data. The goal is to find similarities which indicate where the main action is which produces the CO2 concentration we observe in our atmosphere.
I did not optimize the integration fit of the GISS temperature here. I pulled the coefficients out of a hat based on a rough inspection. It is not important how small the delta is between the observations, it is only important that it is small. I could have gotten a better fit by optimizing the slope and offset parameters. I could have gotten a better fit with different temperature data sets. It would be wasted effort, because it is beside the point.
What we are dealing with here is an approximate relationship, using bulk variables. The real-world system is distributed across the entire globe. What happens in one location is not going to be the same as what is happening elsewhere. The total outcome is going to be the sum total of everything happening across the globe. The best we can hope to do with bulk temperature measures and bulk CO2 measures is an approximation.
What is important here is that it the result of the approximation clearly indicates that what we are dealing with is mostly a temperature dependent pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere. This relationship, whatever it is in its full glory, accounts for ALL of the observed behavior, both in the long term and the short. There is no need to take account of human inputs to explain the behavior to a high degree of fidelity. To include human inputs, we would have to discount the temperature related process and, in doing so, we would deviate from the description of the short term behavior. And, that dictates that the human inputs CANNOT be having a significant impact. There is no significant room for them if we are to match the short term behavior.
It is NOT important, as Ferdinand seems to believe, that we match all the data, including from questionable proxies, back to the dawn of time. The relationship has held steady for the entire interval from 1958 onward in which we have had incontrovertibly good measures of atmospheric CO2. It is umimportant whether the relationship matches the proxy measurements for two reasons:
1) The relationship is not guaranteed, indeed should not be expected, to be fixed in time, and a different relationship could have held in earlier times.
2) Who cares? The major increase in CO2 has been over that 55 year interval, and the relationship has undeniably held during that time. It does not allow for significant human forcing during that interval.
This is really not at all even questionable to a fair minded, unbiased and rational appraisal. The only reason to hold out against the evidence is denial. Humans simply have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.
“It is umimportant whether the relationship matches the proxy measurements for two reasons: “
A third reason is of course that, as Salby showed, the proxy measurements are not a direct measure of the CO2 in the atmosphere. But, whether one chooses to believe Salby or not, the question is moot, because of the above two reasons.
I commented: “I am still looking for a chart that shows your claimed cause and effect.”
Nyq Only then asked:
“Which claimed cause and effect?”
You have commented in various ways that CO2 is the cause of global warming. Since that is your position, I’ve been asking for empirical evidence in the form of a chart showing that claimed cause and effect.
I have posted charts from different sources that clearly show this cause and effect: ∆T causes ∆CO2. All I’m asking for is verifiable evidence showing that the rise in CO2 is specifically the cause of the rise in temperature. That data must be quantifiable; assertions are not adequate.
All I have gotten are chart overlays. But they do not show a cause and effect relationship like the charts I posted do. They only show that at times, CO2 and temperature coincidentally moved in the same direction.
Now, it may be that a rise in CO2 does cause a rise in temperature. But if so, it is too small to measure, because despite repeated requests, neither you nor anyone else has been able to provide any such cause and effect measurements. And if something is too small to measure, it can hardly be called science, can it? At most, it is only a scientific conjecture. It is not even a testable hypothesis, because you cannot falsify something that you cannot measure.
The real question is this: is the recent rise in CO2 harmful? If so, then show us the harm. Identify the global damage due directly to the rise in CO2. Otherwise, the CO2=AGW discussion is pointless arguing over nothing.
The crux of the entire debate is the contention that “carbon” is a problem that must be addressed. If that is so, then show us where the problem is, and show us with verifiable measurements. Show us the global damage from a few ppm of a minor trace gas. Identify the harm caused by “carbon”. Otherwise, the argument is akin to debating the number of angels on the head of a pin.
Bart says: August 14, 2013 at 11:01 am on [Nyq Only says:August 14, 2013 at 2:10 am]
“I see I was hasty in looking at your two inputs. Nyq tried to match ppmv with degC. How stupid is that?”
Not sure what your point is. You stated that ““The long term trend in the rate of change of CO2 matches perfectly with the long term trend in temperature.” and the graph I drew shows the long term trend of the derivative of Mauna Loa interpolated mean with the long term trend HADCRUT4 global mean temperature over the same time period i.e. the long term trend in the rate of change of CO2 with the long term trend in temperature. Exactly what you say “matches perfectly”. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/derivative/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/trend
They don’t match perfectly – not even close. Best we can say is that they both go up. I suspect given your previous graphs you meant something else but I’m not psychic and I’m afraid it is up o you to work out what relation you wish to talk about and what the significance of that relation might be.