New video: Dr. Murry Salby – Control of Atmospheric CO2

In response to a few earnest pleas above for a transcript, I am posting my 8 pages of notes on Dr. Murry Salby’s 2015 London, United Kingdom, lecture.
For those who so easily toss aside Dr. Salby’s horrendous treatment (his research files have been STOLEN from him), harshly judge him as foolish to not publish anyway, and sneer at his publishing only his slides in a video format, I say: there are, even so, MANY examples of his reasoning and his calculations in those slides. I hope that all intelligent WUWT readers of integrity (with normal hearing/vision) will be inspired from my notetaking (quite simpleminded and not as complete as they should be, to be sure) below to watch or listen and read the slides and graphs in this fine presentation by one of the finest atmospheric scientists in the world.
*************************************************
Dr. Murry Salby, London, 2015 Lecture — Janice’s Notes
Youtube link to lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g9WGcW_Z5 8 {Note: space added between last two chars, the 5 and 8 to prevent video control window from appearing here}
3:00 – During 1990’s, fossil fuel emission increased linearly .08 GtC/year (IF retained in
atmosphere, this = .04 ppmv/year) {“ppmv”: parts per million by volume}
3:22 – After 2002, fossil fuel emission rate increased: .275 GtC/year, an increase of 300%
(Total at end of period nearly 2x greater); atmospheric CO2 increase, IF retained, would be
.14 ppmv/year.
3:45 – 1995 – 2002, atmospheric CO2 increased linearly 2.1 ppmv/year;
— After 2002, atmospheric CO2 increased at the same rate.
4:10 – “The growth of fossil fuel emission increased by a factor of 300%; the growth of CO2
didn’t blink. How could this be? Say it ain’t so.” lol
4:40 – Estimated CO2 Budget (Source: IPCC) {Anthropogenic CO2 emissions = 5 Gt/year;
Natural (150 Gt/year) greater than human by 2 orders of magnitude.}
5:12 — Re: Net Atmospheric CO2 – for human CO2 to dominate, natural would have
remain in nearly perfect balance, i.e., even a minor imbalance in natural CO2 would
either overwhelm the human CO2 emissions or act as a net sink of all the human CO2.
5:50 – CO2 reaching the atmosphere from earth is “conserved,” that is, it is neither multiplied
nor destroyed; CO2 is only rearranged by atmospheric circulation. Thus, to restate,
atmospheric CO2 growth rate = Net CO2 emission from earth.
7:20 – Net global CO2 emission (all sources and sinks, natural and human). Note: it is not
linear, i.e., does NOT resemble IN THE SLIGHTEST human CO2 emission rate.
— Human CO2 and Net CO2 Emission records are incoherent. That is, net global CO2
emission evolves INDEPENDENTLY OF HUMAN EMISSION.
9:12 – Since 1997, global temperature has varied little (constant, except for weak cooling).
9:35 – Natural CO2 emission has strong sensitivity to surface properties (of land and of
ocean) – Human CO2 is independent of surface properties.
10:05 – Correlation of .93 (net global CO2 emission and surface properties).
10:55 – Temperature (the main surface property driver) correlation: .80.
11:05 – Integrating thermally-induced CO2 emission backward, i.e., subtracting therm. CO2 for
each preceding year (year x-1) from current CO2 (year x), repeating this going back to
1980, gives an accurate estimate of net natural CO2 (since most net natural CO2 emission
is thermally induced).
12:20 – Before 1980, there are no observations of global temperature; must estimate from
surface thermometers (limited coverage of earth).
13:50 – Integrating thermally induced atmospheric CO2 backward revealed no human NO
human CO2 component; this means the human CO2 component is not zero, but it is so
small that it cannot be measured. Upper bound for human CO2 emission can be
determined:
15:10 — Using uncertainty range of pre-1980 thermally-induced atmospheric CO2,
integrate forward (from 19th century thermally-induced CO2).
15:30 – 19th c. human CO2 close to zero, i.e., the natural, largely thermally-induced CO2 is
dominant; as you integrate forward, the thermally-induced CO2 should start to
diverge from observed atmospheric CO2 (the discrepancy would reveal the human CO2
component)
18:12 – Upper bound of human CO2 in 2007, (r(A)) <= 33% (corresponding to the lower
Bound for thermally induced natural CO2 of 67%). {Taking 280 ppmv as generally
accepted min.). {See also Salby infra at 40:00}
19:10 – Conservation equation of CO2. dr/dt = E – A.
19:45 – Absorption Time (i.e., exponential rate of decay of CO2 using normalized absorption
rate, α)  which, yields (1/ α) Residence Time of CO2 (i.e., after introduced, how
long CO2 remains in the atmosphere).
21:20 – To find α requires {method #1 in this lecture}: r (Abundance of CO2 in gigatons of
carbon, per IPCC: 750 GtC) and A (absorption rate: per IPCC 150 Gt/year)  absorption
rate (α) is 5 years-1 yielding Residence Time: 5 years).
22:00 – Dr. Salby has “little confidence” in this result for “A is little more than a guesstimate …
highly variable … not observed.” (“r is well-determined)
22:18 – Better method {#2 in this lecture} of determining absorption rate α : cross
correlation of CO2 (itself, not emission) with temperature.
22:50 – Cross-correlation (CO2 – temperature) i.e., how large a change in CO2 results from a
change in temperature along with the relative timing.
23:15 — A change in temperature is followed 10 months later by a change in CO2; thus, like
emission, CO2 is strongly dependent on temperature, lagging behind it; “unambiguous
which is the horse and which is the cart.”
23:42 – Theoretical constraints – the Conservation Equation governs evolution of CO2, thus, it
also must govern CO2’s cross-correlation with temperature; the more CO2, the faster it
is absorbed (i.e., absorption, A, is a function of CO2 abundance, r).
24:17 – Approximating each by a first order Taylor equation reduces the Conservation Equation
to linear dependence on temperature and CO2 abundance (r).
24:45 – Thus, the change in thermally-induced emission is proportional to the change in
Temperature and the change in absorption of CO2 is proportional to the change in
abundance of CO2.
(gamma = the correlation between observed emission and temp.)
(alpha = “normalized absorption rate” value: TBD (to be determined – there are a number
of CO2 evolutions, each with a different absorption rate, alpha).
26:10 – Taking as a given the IPCC’s alpha of 5(to the minus 1) , result is cross-correlation of CO2 and temp.
of (see slide).
26:24 — {Third Way to Determine α – other 2 at: 1) 21:20 and 2) 22:18 — Experiment} – A
Tracer of CO2 in the Atmosphere (goes where CO2 goes). A small, uniquely identifiable
subset of CO2 = good tracer: C14 (only a trace contribution (<1%) to overall atmospheric,
C12 mostly, carbon, so it can change without significantly altering total C in atmosphere).
{27:35} — C14 half-life = 5,000 years; conserved in atmosphere (thus, wherever
CO2 goes, C14 goes – its analysis reveals absorption of CO2.
{See: Gosta (?) Pederson (sp?) of Sweden for similar analysis}
28:00 – C14 Discussion
a. How C14 forms – Cosmic rays
b. How C14 forms – human
1) nuclear bomb fission – NTBT end 1963 –
 in 20 years extra C14 virtually gone from atmosphere (decayed)
 30:00 – C14 decays almost perfectly exponentially (See figure “Absorption of CO2”) – correlation between observed C14 and exponential decay is .996 {32:02} (which means that the first order Taylor series where absorption is proportional to abundance is “not just an approximation, it’s close to exact.”
 Exponential decay means that absorption of CO2 (α) is proportional to the abundance (r) of CO2.
2) {30:50) Nuclear power plants (1970’s and 1980’s = significant increase)
 This artificially extended the apparent absorption time of C14 (from the bomb testing)
 {31:20} IPCC Models use “so called” Bern Model – 200 years – even then, 30% of C14 remains in the simulated world,
32:34 — Fossil Fuel Emission – Conservation Equation {See 45:10 – independent upper bound}
 Easily solved (no supercomputer necessary, heh), i.e., it is completely defined.
 32:55 Anthropogenic CO2 Perturbation – with an initial CO2 level and the subsequent CO2 emission, the evolution of anthropogenic CO2 is entirely determined.
 Fossil Fuel Emission During 1995-2015
Increased linearly – after 2002 rate increased 300%
 35:00 Increased human CO2 abundance ALSO increase its absorption rate, eventually in balance; net human CO2 then, 0.
 35:25 Equilibrium level of human CO2 (equation for when emission = absorption)
 After about 10 years, human CO2 “will disappear.”
 36:45 – At 2002 fossil fuel emission level, human CO2 = 30ppmv
 After 2002, 300% increase in CO2 per year matched by absorption rate, eventually they will be in equilibrium differing only by a constant (two parallel lines) – 37:30 — net emission then becomes a constant, thus, CO2 growth (in abundance) is constant, increasing linearly like emission
 Absorption of human CO2 (equilibrium) drifts higher.
 CO2 at any instant = its equilibrium level 10 years prior (see graph) – “limited memory” (never “catches up” to the equil. Level) – “EMISSION FROM EARLIER TIMES IS INCONSEQUENTIAL.” – any influence has been erased by absorption.
40:00 – Upper Bound of Human CO2 Emission {See also at 18:12 infra} – Note: actual human CO2 less (shaded area in graph)
40:22 – Human CO2 emission increases steadily with population
 41:15 – Re: Ability of government to control human CO2 emission: to date, nearly $2 Trillion dollars has been diverted to “renewable energy.” – it hasn’t made a dent in the above relationship.
 42:25 Conservation Equation solved with exponentially related CO2 emission/historical population level – 42:45 for a direct comparison of atmospheric CO2 Conservation Equation result with human, start in instrumental era, ~1960 (Note: approx.. 20ppmv of T. 30 human CO2 since 19th c. was after, like most pop. Growth, 1960)
 43:35 — In 2007, the human CO2 contribution to atmospheric CO2 was 28% (natural 72%) —
 45:10 The natural CO2 (thermally induced) component must be >= 67%; human, therefore, <= 33% {upper bound on human} – Note: This upper bound is INDEPENDENT of upper bound found from above analysis of fossil fuel emission.
 45:48 Together, these two analyses of upper bound for human CO2 effect a double blind test
46:00 – Two Questions
1) How Would CO2 Emissions Have Evolved Were Human CO2 Absent (post 1960)
 Cuban Missile Crisis example – lesson (Per Salby): American bureaucracy failed Kennedy (mis-information) Moral: even IF gov’t. could control human CO2 emission, can’t control bulk which is natural CO2 emission.
2) 53:00 When Will Fossil Fuel CO2 Emission Reach 50% {53:35 in 2014 < pot. max. 30% (boundary) human – Note: models assume 69!%} of Total CO2 Increase?
 That is: if fossil fuel use down to zero and can’t even eliminate half of CO2 increase (CO2 still increasing), what is the point?
 54:35 The post-2002 300% increase in fossil fuel emission must be mirrored in an increase in atmospheric CO2 — fossil fuel component mirrored, should have increased CO2 >100% more than observed increase – it did not (see graph).
 55:05 Models over-estimate human CO2 (far over (2.5x) observed upper boundary) using Bern model and eventually human CO2 erroneously becomes nearly ALL the CO2 increase.
 56:15 — Per above α analysis (Salby’s), in 2092 is the first year that human CO2 could possibly reach 50% of the total CO2 increase – Note: emissions today are irrelevant (only the preceding 1 or 2 decades’ human CO2 emissions will be relevant, i.e., 2072’s at earliest).
 57:33 – Fossil fuel depletion rates of reserves by 100 years or so {As noted by another commenter, this is likely not the outer limits of world fossil fuel reserves} – models assume fossil fuel emission continues indefinitely
 59:00 – When fossil fuel emission is halved, equilibrium (absorption-emission) is halved
 1:00:00 — THUS, Answer to above Q: Never. {anthro reach 50% of total CO2} {Note: Underlying assumption: before it can, fossil fuel reserves will be exhausted.}
1:00:30 – Atmospheric absorption/opacity (water vapor takes up any extra heat) – CO2 gets “scraps” – increase of total net CO2 increases atmospheric opacity ~6% — but already at 80, opacity has plateaued, so irrelevant beyond that (human % less than 1% – negligible).
1:02:35 – Radiative Equilibrium (calculation of CO2 heat affect, “temperature perturbation,” on earth) – adds (per above calc.) less than .2 of one degree K. It can be amplified or negated by feedback mechanisms which are “countless.”
1:03:10 – A dominant mechanism is Convective Feedback – overturning of air – compared to other feedbacks’ time periods (weeks, months, longer), convective feedback is instantaneous (leaves impact, “horse in race,” in the dust) – 1:04:00 – illustration of Convective Feedback on radiative temperature – 1:07:00 – Radiative Convective Equilibrium reduces the temperature perturbation if increased CO2 (above at 1:02:35) from .2 K to less than .1 K.
1:07:40 – What will temperature perturbation of increase in CO2 be not just for a doubling (from 280 of 19th c. (taking this as a given; not proven, btw) to 560), rather, setting that aside, let’s ask: What would be effect of CO2 emissions of ALL fossil fuels used down to level zero?
Answer: 1:07:50 Around 2100, atmospheric CO2 (if continues on trend) will be around 690ppmv. Atmospheric opacity up by 1.1% (only 40% of that due to CO2 from fossil fuel emission) – surface temp. increased < .6 K, reduced by convective equilibrium, net temp. perturbation: < .1 K.
1:08:35 – Context (graph) for temperature perturbation above – Global mean temp. 1850 – present up .8 deg (due to just 2 decades) – NO systematic change — clearly no systematic relationship to CO2 which increased steadily. 1:11:11 – the “anthropogenic perturbation isn’t even detectible.”
— Conclusion: global temperature is controlled by just about everything BUT fossil fuel emission. — 1:12:00 CO2 is not measurably/detectibly influenced by fossil fuel emission, therefore, even less could fossil fuel emission affect what is affected (which is not much per above) by total atmospheric CO2.
1:12:30 – This subject is closed. There is no rational reason to further analyze CO2. Personal reason became, “by accident” interested in CO2 analysis: writing a new book on atmosphere and climate, 1:13:00 he was struck by fundamental contradiction between “what was being sold versus what the atmosphere was clearly doing.” – 1:13:34 But for the university in Australia taking away his research resources (the only reason he entered into production of that book – all he could do at that point), he would never have done his CO2 investigation:

Lololol Amazing irony. (God’s, imo) 
1:14:00 – 1:40 Questions from Audience (for an American, the accents are DELIGHTFUL)
1) Laudation from Christopher, Lord Monckton
2) Q: When are you going to publish in a respected journal?
A (Salby) 1:15:00 I cannot publish THIS material until I publish the material from which it is derived and THAT material cannot be published until I recover my research files and been reinstated in the field.”
3) 1:16 Q: (…. hm…about pause and explaining, etc… hard to understand questioner)
A: 1:18 (Salby):

“Pause” is a “misnomer.”

YES!!!
#(:))
“cause of so called ‘pause’ = “return to normality” – more interesting question is what caused the warming in 1980’s and 1990’s – models got tuned for CO2 covariance with temp. increase and no reasonable basis for this; not really related – … .
4) 1:25:30 Q: Re: upper bound for residence C14 time.
A: (Salby) I used the longest residence time – if I’d used the shorter of the (est. error bar ranges per questioner 4 – 25) times… I used 3 different ways to explore residence times… did total of 5 and the other 2 methods yielded even shorter res. times. Key: whether it is 1 or 4 or 8… it is not TWO hundred years (as per Bern model IPCC bases models on)
5) 1:28:20 Q: Re: Club of Rome etc… skipped
6) 1:28:42 Q (Monckton): Re: Negative conductive feedback – How did you quantify that feedback? And did you consider another, short-acting, feedback, the evaporative feedback (3 times as strong as models assume)?
A. (Salby) Evaporative feedback is coupled to convection – vertical transport of both water vapor and of temp./heat – the convective feedback I considered has evaporative feedback (i.e., latent heat transfer v. sensible (?) heat transfer) built into it – all is calculated v. a v. saturated (not dry) stability – Quantified by comparing rates of equilibrium structure with rates of convective structure (homogenizing is happening, from “skin” (tropopause at top) to bottom, … reduce by about half at the bottom…
7) Q (really, a little speech) (1:32:09): (Norwegian parliament climate bill – neat accent) — Norwegian politicians say, “is this really true” (ridiculousness of ‘climate change’ arguments)?? Well! They are going to discuss and do something! You do it, too, you British. 
8) Q: 1:35:00 What is your confidence that CO2 emissions will remain positive over the century to come?
A: (Salby) top of ice firns shows CO2 increasing over last century – if temp. stays about where is, temp.-induced (natural) CO2 likely stay about where it is (this is the basis) – on the other hand, if temp. were to “come down substantially” (not like anything seen within record of last century), then, CO2 could stop increasing OR, at least, rate of increase may slow
9) Q: 1:37 We’re told CO2 levels higher than in last 30 million years, any times in past where CO2 higher?
A: (Salby) Absolutely (yes). Higher in other periods. Proxies ( but, with careful damping and the like calculations can better estimate) can grossly underestimate the CO2 level when formed.
10) Q: ~1:39 — So it is natural, NOT human CO2 which is responsible for the net increase in CO2?
A: Yes. Slide at 1:39:45 used to answer this.
End.
I hope this is helpful to some of you!
Janice

I suggest it is more likely that that the increase in the use of fossil fuels is the cause of the population increase.
=================
population density is directly related to available energy. our modern cities would be impossible without transportation of food and water in, and waste materials out.