His new research applies observed changes of climate and atmospheric tracers to resolve the budget of atmospheric carbon dioxide. It reveals the mechanisms behind the evolution of CO2, including its increase during the 20th century. Thereby, the analysis determines the respective roles of human and natural sources of CO2, with an upper bound on the contribution from fossil fuel emission.
Watch the video from London, 17th March 2015
h/t to Andrew Montford and Philip Foster
Mosher said:
Until such time as he publishes (anywhere I might add) no one is under any rational obligation to refute, believe, question, or even view his advertisement.
******************************
I say (all from memory, I have limited time this morning):
One of Salby’s early graphs in his 2015 presentation is dCO2/dt versus time. This is verified with ALL the data and calculations in a spreadsheet as follows:
I used UAH temperatures and global CO2 data back to 1979. I later (unpublished as I recall) verified dCO2/dt versus time back to 1958 using Hadcrut3 temperatures and Mauna Loa CO2 data.
This is one core element of Salby’s argument and it was demonstrated to be true seven years ago.
In 2008 I wrote that dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature and CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months. I consulted with several competent parties before I published. My paper is located at:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
My paper was peer reviewed with considerable opposition on Climate Audit and withstood all critiques. The lag of CO2 after temperature was later verified by Matt Briggs by completely different analytical methods. I subsequently was made aware of Pieter Tans’ similar paper that reportedly was presented a month or two before mine, but his graphs were published after mine, and he provided no data or calculations. Tans and other warmists, as I recall, called this dCO2/dt relationship a “feedback effect” which I suggest is a Cargo Cult argument.
I did not reproduce Salby’s analysis that concludes that most (70%) of the atmospheric CO2 growth is natural. This question has been ably debated for years by Richard S Courtney and Ferdinand Engelbeen via Ferdinand’s Mass Balance Argument, and anyone can read their debate on wattsup.
Salby also concludes that ECS is near-zero, and I suggest this is now self-evident from the data – while atmospheric CO2 has increased steadily for many decades, since ~1940 global average temperature trend has decreased for ~35 years, then increased for ~25 years, and now remained relatively flat for about ~18 years.
Claims of ECS greater than 1C require strong positive feedbacks for which there is no evidence. These feedbacks, if they exist at all, are negative. If ECS exists at all, it is very small, so small that the alleged global warming crisis does not exist.
So, in summary, I disagree with those who are dismissive of Salby because they say he has not published his work. If you have the ability and time (one or two big if’s), you should be able to reproduce Salby’s work. I do not have the time.
Regards, Allan
Allan,
interesting post.
I repeat again my post that shows 3 significant periods up to 40 years where the temperature declined although CO2 increased continuously.
Someone needs to explain these deviations to convince me that they know how CO 2 increase increases temperature with such arrogance the the Science is settled.
“Ferd…
I probably have not made my point clear.
Looking at the plot below, there are 3 significant periods up to 40 years long where the temperature declined although CO 2 was increasing significantly. No one has explained adequately the lack of linkage claiming CO 2 increase causes increase in temperature especially since the alarmists recently claimed that CO 2 rules over natural forcing functions..
I’m an engineer, no engineer would use such a lack of correlation to design a component that is expected to be safe and reliable.
Also I find it amusing that climate scientists argue constantly about the sensitivity to temperature rise versus CO 2 increase when we have adequate data to show it is actually all over the place including negative.
To claim any linkage one would need to admit that other forces such as natural are significantly stronger and variable.”
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MW_NJp28Udc/VNS3EAEqpOI/AAAAAAAAAUs/hjhuLZFkdoM/s1600/hadcrut4%2Bhiatuses.png
Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria
Aerosol have less impact on cooling than claimed.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/31/scientists-say-new-study-is-a-death-blow-to-global-warming-hysteria/
“A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.
“A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.”
What do aerosols have to do with anything? Well, aerosols are created from human activities like burning coal, driving cars or from fires. There are also natural aerosols like clouds and fog. Aerosols tend to reflect solar energy back into space, giving them a cooling effect that somewhat offsets warming from increased CO2 emissions”
FYI Catcracking:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/28/models-fail-land-versus-sea-surface-warming-rates/#comment-1432696
Reposted below regarding evidence of aerosol fudging of climate models, from DV Hoyt.:
[excerpt]
Meanwhile, back at the aerosols:
You may ask why the IPCC does NOT use the aerosol historic data in their models, but rather uses assumed values (different for each model and much different from the historic data) to fudge their models (Oops! I guess I gave away the answer – I should not have used the word “fudge”, I should have said “hindcast”).
.
[excerpt from]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/15/one-step-forward-two-steps-back/#comment-1417805
Parties interested in the fabrication of aerosol data to force-hindcast climate models (in order for the models to force-fit the cooling from ~1940 to ~1975, in order to compensate for the models’ highly excessive estimates of ECS (sensitivity)) may find this 2006 conversation with D.V. Hoyt of interest:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=755
Douglas Hoyt, responding to Allan MacRae:
“July 22nd, 2006 at 5:37 am
Measurements of aerosols did not begin in the 1970s. There were measurements before then, but not so well organized. However, there were a number of pyrheliometric measurements made and it is possible to extract aerosol information from them by the method described in:
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. The apparent atmospheric transmission using the pyrheliometric ratioing techniques. Appl. Optics, 18, 2530-2531.
The pyrheliometric ratioing technique is very insensitive to any changes in calibration of the instruments and very sensitive to aerosol changes.
Here are three papers using the technique:
Hoyt, D. V. and C. Frohlich, 1983. Atmospheric transmission at Davos, Switzerland, 1909-1979. Climatic Change, 5, 61-72.
Hoyt, D. V., C. P. Turner, and R. D. Evans, 1980. Trends in atmospheric transmission at three locations in the United States from 1940 to 1977. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1430-1439.
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. Pyrheliometric and circumsolar sky radiation measurements by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory from 1923 to 1954. Tellus, 31, 217-229.
In none of these studies were any long-term trends found in aerosols, although volcanic events show up quite clearly. There are other studies from Belgium, Ireland, and Hawaii that reach the same conclusions. It is significant that Davos shows no trend whereas the IPCC models show it in the area where the greatest changes in aerosols were occurring.
There are earlier aerosol studies by Hand and in other in Monthly Weather Review going back to the 1880s and these studies also show no trends.
So when MacRae (#321) says: “I suspect that both the climate computer models and the input assumptions are not only inadequate, but in some cases key data is completely fabricated – for example, the alleged aerosol data that forces models to show cooling from ~1940 to ~1975. Isn’t it true that there was little or no quality aerosol data collected during 1940-1975, and the modelers simply invented data to force their models to history-match; then they claimed that their models actually reproduced past climate change quite well; and then they claimed they could therefore understand climate systems well enough to confidently predict future catastrophic warming?”, he close to the truth.”
_____________________________________________________________________
Douglas Hoyt:
July 22nd, 2006 at 10:37 am
MacRae:
Re #328 “Are you the same D.V. Hoyt who wrote the three referenced papers?”
Hoyt: Yes
.
MacRae: “Can you please briefly describe the pyrheliometric technique, and how the historic data samples are obtained?”
Hoyt:
“The technique uses pyrheliometers to look at the sun on clear days. Measurements are made at air mass 5, 4, 3, and 2. The ratios 4/5, 3/4, and 2/3 are found and averaged. The number gives a relative measure of atmospheric transmission and is insensitive to water vapor amount, ozone, solar extraterrestrial irradiance changes, etc. It is also insensitive to any changes in the calibration of the instruments. The ratioing minimizes the spurious responses leaving only the responses to aerosols.
I have data for about 30 locations worldwide going back to the turn of the century.
Preliminary analysis shows no trend anywhere, except maybe Japan.
There is no funding to do complete checks.”
Catcracking – I did not see your earlier post – thank you for your comments.
I agree with you. Your analysis suggests that Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is so low as to be insignificant.
The 9 months lag of CO2 after temperature also implies that ECS is so low as to be insignificant or even nonexistent.
There is no global warming crisis.
Best, Allan MacRae, P.Eng.
As a final note on this whole discussion:
Where is Dr. Salby?
WUWT is the forum to defend your theory with fellow skeptics and guest “warmers”.
His absence here is striking. The critiques Willis, others and I have are about his interpretation of data which are publicly available, thus no need to hide behind the data retention by his former employer…
I would like very much for Dr. Salby to publish his work, either here or elsewhere. It is also, as Ferdinand says, an excellent form to defend his theory. I invite Dr. Salby to come and let us know where we’ve misunderstood or misrepresented his work.
Thanks to all,
w.
I posted above:
1. “In 2008 I wrote that dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature and CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months.”
I suggest this is now accepted as fact, after receiving considerable opposition when published.
This does NOT necessarily mean that temperature is the primary driver of increasing atmospheric CO2. Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion and/or land use changes could dominate the ~2ppm annual increase in atmospheric CO2.
I also posted above:
2. “I did not reproduce Salby’s analysis that concludes that most (70%) of the atmospheric CO2 growth is natural. This question has been ably debated for years by Richard S Courtney and Ferdinand Engelbeen via Ferdinand’s Mass Balance Argument, and anyone can read their debate on wattsup.”
Point 2 is the critical unproven issue in Salby’s work, and while it is of great scientific interest, this issue is unnecessary to resolve the question of whether humanmade global warming is serious or dangerous. The important question for global warming is the magnitude of climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 (ECS), and I suggest that there is convincing evidence is that ECS is below 1C and probably much less than 1C, and so there is no real global warming crisis. Two approaches are presented above to support the contention that ECS is very low.
Regards to all, Allan