Joshua has pointed out that Judith Curry has written a post about Murry Salby’s recent presentation in London. There was some hope that Judith might actually express some views about his ideas, but she just seems to find it interesting.
For those who don’t know, Murry Salby has been suggesting that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is natural, and not anthropogenic. This is so obviously wrong, that I can’t really be bothered going through all the details again. Tom Curtis has a very nice post explaining the different lines of evidence as to why it is anthropogenic. I’ve written some posts about Murry Salby. Eli has a couple of posts too. Stoat has a lengthy post, and a much shorter one. Tom Curtis has another post about the Salby Ratio. There’s a lengthy Bishop Hill Discussion Thread (Gavin Cawley’s comments are worth reading).
The bottom line is that Murry Salby’s suggestion that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is natural, not anthropogenic, is clearly wrong. You would like to think that he’s simply confused, but some of what he presents is so obviously wrong and – in the case of the Salby Ratio – rather deceptive, that it’s hard to conclude that someone with his background, doesn’t realise his error. I think anyone with a basic understanding of data analysis and a basic understanding of the carbon cycle should recognise that his suggestions are wrong. I think it’s unfortunate that Judith Curry seems comfortable promoting his presentation without commenting on the scientific credibility of what he suggests.
Update: Richard Telford’s posts are also good (H/T Dikran).
...and Then There's Physics 
Why did you write such a long blog post about this?
I struggle to keep it short 🙂
Can Salby explain why modern warming of 1 C has lead to 120 ppm more “natural” CO2 in the atmo, when 8 C of warming after the last glacial period only lead to a 100 ppm increase.
David,
Exactly. I forget who it was (someone might remind us), but someone pointed out that if Salby were right, atmospheric CO2 should have dropped to zero during previous glacial periods. Since this is obviously not the case, his suggestion is nonsense. As I understand it, this is one reason why some found it so bizarre that they couldn’t even really bring themselves to comment further.
Here’s longer (1:40)video, including introduction (Salby says “thanks for the kind introduction Philip”), so I think that’s Philip Foster.
This includes Q&A from various folks I don’t recognize offhand, except our favorite Viscount.
Please, can’t we have Salby come visit the US? Many would love to see him.
It might be worth to emphasise that his new argument against the anthropogenic origin of atmospheric CO2 is different from his previous one, although related. Salby argues now that the growth in fossil fuel emissions should translate 1:1 to the atmosphere, neglecting the influence of the natural carbon cycle.
The latter tends to lower the CO2 growth rate during La Nina years of which we had quite a few up to 2013 or so, so it is not a surprise that the growth rate during those years did not increase as much as expected. If Salby would include the most recent two years he would see the increase and on decadal time scales anthropogenic emissions and the atmospheric CO2 growth rate match nicely. Actually, thanks to NOAA anyone can see this
It is disturbing that this is known since the 1970’s but that Salby somehow doesn’t grasp it. And obviously that he neglects all the other lines of evidence as you point out.
Guido,
Thanks, I did notice that Judith highlighted that aspect of his talk. The plot you link to is good. I think Nick Stoke’s post is also relevant (although this more explains why the airborne fraction remains constant, which isn’t quite the same).
Oops, sorry wrong link, that was 2015 talk.
See Lecture Professor Murry Salby. Atmospheric Carbon: Why its not pollution and why humans cannot regulate it.
On CO2 going negative: John Nielsen-Gammon heard Salby talk in 2011, at conference where Salby gave a talk completely different than the one accpeted.
2011.07.05 Murry Salby, IUGG, Melbourne 06/26-07/07/11
Call for Abstracts closed 02/01/11, acceptance by 03/28/11.
According to the program, he spoke at this session:
‘Tuesday, 5 July 2011 1330-1500 MR103 IAMAS
JM04 Stratosphere-Troposphere-Ocean coupling in weather and climate
1330 # 3751. Invited Stratospheric Planetary Wave Reflection
And Its Influence On The Troposphere – N. Harnik, J. Perlwitz, T. Shaw.
1345 As above.
1400 # 1559. Invited Dynamical versus Radiative Timescales in Stratosphere-Troposphere Coupling
P. Hitchcock, T. Shepherd, S. Yoden, M. Taguchi.
1415 As above.
1430 # 3902. A Dynamical Mechanism for Southern Hemisphere Climate Change Due To The Ozone Hole
A. Orr, T. Bracegirdle, S. Hosking, T. Jung, J. Haigh, et al.
‘1445 # 1582. Rebound of Antarctic Ozone
M. Salby, E. Titova, L. Deschamps. ’
Although his accepted talk fit that session, the actual talk did not.
Instead, with no advance notice he spoke on his unrelated CO2 ideas, to an audience unlikely to include many carbon-cycle specialists, but such were unnecessary to refute him. John Nielsen-Gammon heard Salby, talked with him.
Then see
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/unforced-variations-aug-2011/comment-page-1/#comments
82 John N-G says 5 Aug 2011 at 12:59 PM
“I was lucky enough to attend Murray Salby’s talk at the IUGG conference in Melbourne. The thesis is not quite so simple as a correlation between CO2 rise and short-term temperature variations, because he found corroborating evidence in the change of CO2 slope over time. This made the argument not so easy to dismiss out of hand, although Salby was extremely careful not to draw any conclusions in his public presentation.
It was quite good sport to play “spot the flaw” in real time. Fortunately, the talk was the last of the session, and both Alan Plumb and myself chatted with him right afterwards. Aside from whether a statistical argument makes physical sense, it also must hold water statistically by being applicable beyond the time frame of model development. In discussing what his model would mean for past variations of temperature and CO2, it eventually became clear that he believed all paleoclimate data that supported his statistical analysis and disregarded all paleoclimate data that countered his statistical analysis, even though the latter collection was much larger than the former.
Eventually I realized that if 0.8 C of warming is sufficient to produce an increase of 120ppb CO2, as Salby asserted, then the converse would also have to be true. During the last glacial maximum, when global temperatures were indisputably several degrees cooler than today, the atmospheric CO2 concentration must have been negative.
That was enough for me. “
JM,
Thanks, that’s the one I was thinking of.
Oh no, not again!
Poor Murry. He has come up against the same rotten cabal of ‘reviewers’ and ‘scientists’ that I have.
My groundbreaking hypothesis that under typical ice sheet conditions (i.e., cold, dark, dampish and squishy) the fissiochemical reaction CO₂ → 2 D₂O + He goes surprisingly far to the RHS would revolutionize climate studies.
But do they care? No.
Regarding Salby’s 2011 talk, I might remind people that in my experience, conference organizers tend to like people to give talks that match their abstracts and actually fit into the session for which they are accepted. I can’t recall ever attandign a conference where somebody gave a totally unrelated talk.
John, the General Theory of Advertising runs contrary to that of scientific conferences, and predicts Salby will need to materialize at a GWPF or Heartland awards dinner in this hemisphere to recharcge his credit card, before reverting to his antipodean ground state to recharge his soft coal battery.
Readers in London & Chicago are invited to keep us informed.
I found Gavin Cawley’s efforts in that BH thread very useful.
Watching somebody illustrate flaws in arguments can be a good way to learn a little about the subject.
This post by Richard Telford is also worth being aware of Dissembling with graphs: Murry Salby edition.
Dikran,
Thanks, I’d forgotten about Richard Telford’s posts.
Perhaps I am being dense*, in Salby’s slide at 51:59 how does he get from (at equilibrium)
En = An = alpha*rn
and
Delta E = alpha*Delta r
and
Delta Ea >= alpha*Delta ra
to
ra/r <= Delta Ea / (alpha * Delta r)
Looks to me like there is a problem with subscripts or missing deltas
* Quite possibly, after watching most of Salby's talk and trying to understand how he came to those conclusions I have rather less mental energy than when I started, so some help would be appreciated.
Actually this first step is incorrect anyway, as at equilibrium all sources are balanced with all sinks, not just the natural ones, so the first line should be something like
En + Ea = An = alpha*r
where rn is natural carbon, ra is anthropogenic carbon and r = rn + ra.
To be quite honest, I’ve watched that a few times and it doesn’t really make any sense. I suspect that you’re right, that he’s ignored Ea and made the entire calculation nonsense.
FWIW, I’ve given the video a brief fisking at Prof. Curry’s blog, in a series of comments, starting here. I suspect there won’t be a great deal of constructive reaction to them.
Dikran,
I saw those. I suspect you’re right.
I’m quite impressed with ristvan’s comments. I think I once suggested – to him – that most of what he said was nonsense. I think I have to that back.
Fully agree with dikranmarsupial, I just put together a few graphs showing that he compares apples and oranges, and that in fact the CO2 growth increases just like one would expect (unless one cherry picks start and end point…)
Please see this graph
Guido,
Excellent, thanks.
Indeed, this was spot-on. Given that Ekholm was aware of the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect back in 1901 is is a pity that atmospheric science Profs. are still making that mistake in 2016 (or not picking up on it).
rats, messed up the tags again, I really have done too much typing today! 😦
cor, pressed the submit button and they were already fixed! Cheers!
Service with a smile 🙂
“You would like to think that he’s simply confused, but some of what he presents is so obviously wrong and – in the case of the Salby Ratio – rather deceptive, that it’s hard to conclude that someone with his background, doesn’t realise his error.”
Is it possible that Judith Curry is duped by this guy? Either way, I cannot find a flattering way to reconcile her implicit support of Salby with her claimed aversion to advocacy.
It could be that Prof. Curry really dislikes Prof. Salby, that is also consistent with the observations. ;o)
lerpo –
==> Either way, I cannot find a flattering way to reconcile her implicit support of Salby with her claimed aversion to advocacy. ==>
I can think of one, theoretically, that I suppose can’t be objectively dismissed…which is that there is no implicit support simply because she writes a post that focuses on Salby’s science but takes no position on its validity.
Judith is criticized from both sides, respectively, on a variety of issues on the basis of presumed implicit support…something which is always a tricky derivation.
I don’t agree that Judith is clearly advancing the cause of”skeptics” simply by putting up her Salby post, as in the task world the impact is very limited.
And judgement of “motivation” is something that is inherently subject to the influence of biases. There are many potential explanations. Maybe Judith indeed dis find Salby’s work “interesting” and lacks the knowledge to do her own analysis (her statement that she is “very busy” looks to me like thin gruel, particularly considering that she criticized Ander’s comments in Salby’s along exactly those lines without providing ANY substantiation fur that criticism ).
Maybe she just wants to drive traffic for her site and knows that a post on Salby is easy red meat..resulting in a lot of traffic with hardly any effort.
Maybe she is just committed to promoting as comprehensive a discussion on climate change as might be possible.
Certainly, we can all make our own assessments of the plausibility of various explanations, but in the end no one but Judith is in a position to know.
In the end, I have found the discussion at her site (and follow-on here) interesting and educational (to the extent I can understand any if it). Certainly, the discussion would likely have been more interesting if Judith had contributed even an iota of analysis, and it does seem to me to be reinforcing of sameosameo for her to write such a vacuous post after saying many months ago that she should put up a post on Salby’s work, but, well, it seems to me that Judith has been stuck for years in contributing to sameosameo rather than elevating the discussion…although I don’t think that there’s any reason to conclude that is her intent rather than a reflection of her inability to control for her own biases and a failure to hold herself accountable for her own advocacy
From Judith two years ago:
–snip–
curryja | August 24, 2014 at 6:20 pm |
I read ATTP on salby, his response is pretty thin gruel
–snip–
Notice the lack of substance argument. AFAIK, there has been no substantive analysis in the intervening two years.
Also note:
–snip–
curryja | August 24, 2014 at 8:59 pm |
I stated a few comments back that I am planning a future thread on salby
–snip–
I suppose that the recent post, two years later, might be that thread she was referring two. I suppose some might argue that a post with no analysis, two years later, might be “thin gruel,” but I guess the viscosity of gruel is always in the eye of the beholder.
Joshua,
The main problem is that much of what Salby presents is obviously wrong to anyone with even a basic understanding of the topic. It’s really hard to interpret Judith’s apparent reluctance to comment on what he presents positively.
Joshua wrote “which is that there is no implicit support simply because she writes a post that focuses on Salby’s science but takes no position on its validity. “
I don’t think that is necessarily any less unflattering. Promulgating contentious views that have already been shown to be wrong (and indeed would overturn a whole field of research if correct) without proper caveats is a bit irresponsible for a climatology Prof. (IMHO).
“And judgement of “motivation” is something that is inherently subject to the influence of biases.
Generally best to leave motivation out of it, except perhaps for the odd spot of wry humour (see above).
“Maybe Judith indeed dis find Salby’s work “interesting” and lacks the knowledge to do her own analysis “
No, Prof. Curry ought to be able to spot that Prof. Salbys argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the greenhouse effect actually works. Anybody who has really studied the physics of climate change (even a non-specialist like myself) ought to be able to spot that. Also the counter arguments have already been explained to her on her blog, and they are not exactly rocket science. The mathematical errors are a little more difficult to spot, but not that much more difficult as similar errors to do with correlations of rates and amounts have cropped up before a number of times. This is mostly Carbon Cycle 101 stuff, so I would expect Prof. Curry to have a more than adequate background.
I was going to watch this to see if Salby had made any progress since I last watched him spout drivel. Alas, he is such an awful speaker, I gave up after ten minutes. Presumably other lectures from the pseudo conference are online. Are any watchable?
Anders –
==> It’s really hard to interpret Judith’s apparent reluctance to comment on what he presents positively. ==>
Climateball is rather allergic to interpretation.
Richard,
I think it was just a single lecture. See here.
Joshua,
Indeed 🙂
“Climateball is rather allergic to interpretation.”
Perhaps it would be better to say that lacking the knowledge to perform the analysis of Salby’s work is inconsistent with being a Prof. of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences? The level of material involved really is that basic. There isn’t really any interpretation needed.
Ah. I thought Salby was speaking at the Independent Committee on Geoethics conference that we have all so been looking forward to. But that is still to come. I can hardly wait.
Yes, that is still to come. I got sent an invitation, which started with “Dear Douglas”. I think it was meant to go to Douglas Keenan.
An outline of Murry’s scientific reasoning as to “why CO2 is not the harmful gas it is claimed to be” would have been nice, if only because we could then say that harmfulness can be established via scientific means alone.
Willard… that hurts my feelings.
I don’t think that is necessarily any less unflattering. — dikranmarsupial
Full points for effective use (I think…) of a triple negative plus a hedging adverb in the grammatical gymnastics short program.
It comes naturally, I am English, I could have been more direct, but only at the risk of deportation.
Richard telford says: “Ah. I thought Salby was speaking at the Independent Committee on Geoethics conference that we have all so been looking forward to. But that is still to come. I can hardly wait.”
Salby would have fitted very well in that line up.
VV: “fit”
I somewhat disagree, because once upon a time, Salby was a credible atmospheric scientist, author of textbook widely respected by serious people, Prof at CU (good school), coauthor with NCAR folks, etc.
Admittedly, if you study his publications and citations, it was pretty much downhill since 1996, and his career had pretty much faded before he ran to Australia.
(Of course, in middle of that, he’d filed complaints against his dept hesd Peter Webster, Judith Curry’s husband .. both of whom were earlier Ack’d on Salby papers.
But, it’s not the layer papers were crankery, just apparently less interesting to researchers … and his 2012 book was OK but for about 20-30 pages.
Many of the ICG folks have never been much besides fringers, or else went there ling ago.
Salby got so heavily promoted because he actually was once a credible scientist, unlike most that spout nonsense.
I still hope he comes back to US to speak. If he returned to CO, i might even fly over.
I strongly urge reading What I learned as a hired consultant to autodidact physicists, as among other things, if it works in physics, it might work in climate science to help some postdocs earn some extra money.
“As long as you have funding, quantum gravity is basic research at its finest. If not, it’s pretty much useless knowledge. Who, I wondered, could possibly need someone who knows the ins and outs of attempts to unify the forces and unravel the quantum behaviour of space-time? I thought of all the theories of everything in my inbox. And I put up a note on my blog offering physics consultation, including help with theory development: ‘Talk to a physicist. Call me on Skype. $50 per 20 minutes.’ …
“My callers fall into two very different categories. Some of them cherish the opportunity to talk to a physicist because one-to-one conversation is simply more efficient than Google. They can shoot up to 20 questions a minute, everything from: ‘How do we know quarks exist?’ to ‘Can atoms contain tiny universes?’ They’re normally young or middle-aged men who want to understand all the nerdy stuff but have no time to lose. That’s the minority.
The majority of my callers are the ones who seek advice for an idea they’ve tried to formalise, unsuccessfully, often for a long time. Many of them are retired or near retirement, typically with a background in engineering or a related industry. All of them are men. ”
H/T neuroskeptic, who has sometimes been quite helpful, as in Magnetism: From Neuroscience to Climate Change?
(i.e., real skeptic, in the classic positive sense, not the distorted sense used by pseudoskeptics).
Anders, Dikran –
FWIW –
==> The main problem is that much of what Salby presents is obviously wrong to anyone with even a basic understanding of the topic ==>
and
==> No, Prof. Curry ought to be able to spot that Prof. Salbys argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the greenhouse effect actually works. Anybody who has really studied the physics of climate change (even a non-specialist like myself) ought to be able to spot that ==>
Dikran, you and I have had a somewhat related discussion recently. Not being able to evaluate the science myself, these types of explanations only go so far. I don’t dismiss, at all, that both of you say that the flaws in Salby’s work are obvious and fundamental…but neither can I take those statements (at least completely) as something that enables me to reach a definitive conclusion for myself.
Consider that… some of the people I see arguing that Salby is obviously wrong have themselves, in any variety of contexts, been absolutely certain in presenting arguments (in contexts where I can make an evaluation) that have seemed obviously wrong to me (e.g., Rud Ivstan, to pick just one of quite a few). Further, I have seen those same people show poor reasoning skills and a lack of insight and openness to evaluating their own analytical process. Further still, I have seen some of those people, in turn, picked apart by yet other people who have claimed that the flaws in their arguments were fundamental and obvious…but those “other people” have themselves presented arguments that I have seen to be fundamentally flawed, lacking in insight, etc. (for example, I once saw Rud’s arguments picked apart at Lucia by the sorts of folks there who have inspired little confidence for me in the veracity of their evaluation process, ability to control for bias, openness and insightfulness, etc.)
So if it’s a matter of playing probabilities, I could say with good confidence that it is likely that there’s something very odd going on, in that Salby’s work is obviously flawed and Judith’s lack of acknowledgement of those flaws is hard to explain from a purely logical standpoint. But in the back of my mind, I need to play that against the reality that I am likely biased to accept your expert viewpoint and discount those of someone like “AK” or Mike Flynn – who seem technically skilled but who might argue that Salby is right and you’re arguments are fundamentally and obviously flawed – due to tribal affinities.
So if I had to bet, I would put my money on something fishy going on, and that indeed, Judith should be able, with relatively little effort, to spot the flaws in Salby’s work but for some odd reason won’t acknowledge those flaws…but I find arguments based on absolute “authority” weak. If I didn’t, then why would I not have accept Rud’s arguments the many, many times he claims his analysis to be absolutely and certainly and authoritatively correct?
Here’s a good example:
–snip–
stevefitzpatrick | August 11, 2016 at 7:35 am | Reply
dikran,
We at least agree that Judith should never have posted Salby’s tripe, since a minute of thought makes it clear he has not a clue what he is talking about. Arguing about Salby’s ‘analysis’ is beyond boring, it’s a foolish waste of time.
–snip–
So what do I do with something like that? It seems to me that Steve is technically knowledgeable and capable of sophisticated reasoning, but I’ve also seen him make arguments that are laughably bad and completely lacking in the qualities of a careful analyst.
So what does it mean when you and he agree that Salby’s work is fundamentally bad and that Judith “should never have posted Salby’s tripe?” It’s usually a pretty good rule of thumb that when I see Steve confidently presenting an argument, the probabilities are that the contrasting argument is the one more likely to be correct.
But on the other hand, maybe if people who disagree as much as you and he about so many things come to agreement about Salby’s work, that should be a rather dispositive indication that Salby must be obviously wrong?
Joshua,
In a sense what you’re highlighting is why I think Judith is being irresponsible in not saying something more definitive about Salby’s ideas. They are obviously wrong. Take this as a simple illustration of why. By not making some kind of more definitive statement about his ideas (while still promoting them on her blog as interesting) it means that some may actually think that there might be something there. There are some scientific ideas that are worth considering even if a majority regard them as wrong. This is almost certainly not one of them.
Anders –
Yes, I found that comment by John quite persuasive (in no small part because I’ve found John N-G to be one of the more reliable and confidence-inspiring participants in the climate wars).
==> In a sense what you’re highlighting is why I think Judith is being irresponsible in not saying something more definitive about Salby’s ideas ==>
And I do agree with that. Under the circumstances, (in particular that she said she critqued your analysis with making any substantive arguments and in that discussion said she was going to post two years ago about Salby’s work and then after two years, and quite a few reminders from your truly, offered a completely vacuous post), her lack of analytical comment does seem irresponsible from a “honest-broker” standpoint. It seems to me that the most logical explanation is that her post was nothing other than easily affordable red meat to throw up and drive traffic.
Joshua,
What is interesting is how many on Judith’s comment thread are agreeing that it’s mostly nonsense. That seems like progress of sorts.
By the way, it is instructive to review My review of Salby’s 2012 book, which is an exceprt from a yet-unpublished longer dissection.
This generated *246* comments, much of which was dikran’s valiant, patient efforts to induce thought, including by people with strong beliefs, like Morgan Wright, who also did a review (“the bible of atmospheric physics”),
“This is the bible for all that is currently known about the atmosphere. The math is a little over my head unless I study it carefully,”
As it happens, Mr. Wright is a retired optometrist who runs a disc golf course in upstate NY.
Then , of course, there is the UK’s own Lucy Skywalker.
“Caveat Lector. Reviewer John Mashey is involved in the anti-climate-skeptics DeSmogBlog, which cross-references with Skeptical Science. SkS have identified 232 claims of climate skeptics so far; and have done a hatchet job on each one. Google “skeptical science fixednum”.
” …
“Mashey and friends are weighing in with ferocity against this magnum opus. But does it deserve such opprobrium? A sharp polarization of views into those who are strongly for and those who are strongly against, always suggests to me that the “official” side has gone corrupt. Look at the quality of responses. Which side appears to be the more courteous, comprehensible, factual, knowledgeable? Which side appeals more to emotions? Which side is more concerned with putting people down?”
Joshua, may you could simply not see these comments as arguments (aimed at you), but simply as people with technical knowledge holding the opinion that Salby is obviously and fundamentally flawed and that it is not credible for someone who became professor for her work on Arctic clouds not to see this. Feel free to include me in that group. Sometimes people just want to go on record with an observation or share it with like minded people with technical knowledge. Not everything has to be an argument, especially not an argument that everyone can follow.
VV?
The world doesn’t revolve around me? I don’t understand.
No, I mixed two lines of argument.
1. It is not just that when you (and people similar to you) cannot follow an argument, that argument is thus not valuable.
2. But also not every communication is an argument. Sometimes someone just says “those stars are beautiful” or “Salby is obviously wrong” or “I like cats”.
Joshua, in a technical discussion of e.g. biblical hermeneutics, I know I am not able to draw any strong conclusions as my knowledge base and understanding is limited, so I assign my belief according to the apparent merits of the arguments/evidence presented, but will end up with a rather weak distribution of belief on almost all matters. I am not going to gain any meaningful information about technical correctness from the manner of the contributors, and I don’t think there is much to gain from trying. At the end of the day, you really do need to get a grounding in the technical detail to have any confidence in understanding who is right. Sadly sufficiently advanced bullshit is indistinguishable from science to a lay audience (just as it would be for me on many humanities subjects)..
Being able to speak convincingly is a technical skill, and isn’t necessarily evidence of being right.
I reall think that one problem with Salby’s argument (and illustrated by John Nielsen-Gammon’s comment) is that it is so obviously wrong to those who understand this, that they can’t even really be bothered rebutting it – especially, as it hasn’t been published anywhere.
Yes, and it is worth reading the whole comment thread at RealClimate where John N-G’s comment is. It was an open thread, so interleaved with other discussions.
See especially 37, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 54, 55, 56-62, 74, 77, 80, 81, 82 (John N-G), 83, 86, (87, 88, 93, 98, 99, 101, 102, 109, 111, 113, 114-118 (7 August))
Then it stopped. RealClimate never even bothered with a top-level post.
Within days, knowledgeable professionals and others had identified major flaws in Salby’s arguments, most just via podcast … and stopped caring. Only a few bothered to debunk it, given how wrong he was.
Dismissive sites promoted Salby heavily, sometimes for 5+ years.
JM,
It is worth reading. Eric Steig’s (?) comment (#86) rather makes the point I was making earlier
@ John Mashey 8:03 pm
The article What I learned as a hired consultant to autodidact physicists was well worth reading, thanks. I think I’ve dealt with more stubborn types than Hossenfelder was discussing, but perhaps I’ll ease up a little on some of them in future.
Yes, “knowledgeable professionals”. When the RC foks comment, Gavin often leaves his name off, but the others don’t, so Eric = Eric Steig.
I mean, suppose you hear of a talk saying the sun is iron? 🙂
ATTP indeed. My hope in writing the comment on Essenhigh’s residence time paper for Energy & Fuels was that a real carbon cycle researcher wouldn’t be tempted to spend time on it (as it was carbon cycle 101 stuff). I didn’t realise at the time it wouldn’t do anything stop blogs recycling the argument anyway, but at least on the most recent example, support for Salby’s theory seems somewhat scarce.
Over at the Georgia Tech Institute of Flummery and Finagling, in the comments, luminaries such as Istvan and Eli agree that Salby is blowing smoke, Wonders.
Guido, Salby’s analysis of the different rates of increase of CO2 emissions and CO2 concentrations suffers from a fundamental error in that CO2 concentration is a linear function of accumulative CO2 emissions. Therefore to make a comparison of the changes of trends of CO2 concentration, he ought to have compared with the change in the trend of accumulative emission. Alternatively, if he wanted to compare the trend of annual emission, he ought to have compared with the annual change in concentration. For what it is worth, the trends from 1995-2004 and 2005-2014 for accumulative emission (FF & LUC) are 8.15 and 10.04 GtC per annum respectively. For CO2 concentration (Mauna Loa) they are 1.85 and 2.07 ppmv per annum respectively. The ratio between the two periods is 1.23 for accumulative emission, and 1.12 for concentration.
The ratio for the increase in annual emissions is 2.81, close to the “three times faster” claimed by Salby but it is the wrong ratio to compare. The ratio of the annual growth in CO2 over the two periods is 1.34, the difference being due to differences in temperature as you point out.
I have told this elsewhere:
I am reminded of a math joke told to me years ago by a mathematician friend. (Yes, I know. “math joke” is an oxymoron. Don’t ask me to tell you the one about Noah and the snakes.)
Two mathematicians are in a bar, arguing about the general math knowledge of the masses. They end up deciding to settle the issue by seeing if the waitress can answer a math question. While mathematician A is in the bathroon, mathematician B corners the waitress and tells her that when his friend asks her a question, she should answer “one half X squared”. A little later, when the waitress returns to the table, A asks her “what is the integral of X?”. She answers as instructed, and mathematician A sheepishly pays off the bet and admits that B was right. As the waitress walks away, she is heard to mutter “pair of idiots. It’s one-half X squared, plus a constant“.
[I’m not sure how much of the joke is a dig at mathematicians who forget some of the basics (the constant), or a dig that mathematicians can only find jobs working as a waitress in a bar.]
…but to get back to the subject at hand, Salby forgets that integration is not complete without adding a constant – a moot point if you are just doing the integration symbolically, but absolutely critical if you want to put actual numbers on it. CO2 does track the integral of temperature – as long as you don’t forget to add back in the constant that dominates the correlation. Without the constant, there is no correlation, which tells us that the short-term variations in temperature are not affecting the long term buildup of CO2. Because Salby sees a correlation between the noise in T and the noise in CO2, he mistakenly assumes that integration will entirely reverse the differentiation without reference to the constant.
Salby needs to review Calculus 101.
I see Judith has guest post by Guido, which addresses a key issue with Salby’s latest presentation.
Indeed. The joke seems very apt 🙂
ATTP, it is a shame that Prof. Curry ends the article with a little barb: “This is exactly the sort of thing that I hoped my post would elicit (but didn’t expect).” which is rather ironic as the flaws in Salby’s arguments have been explained on her blog repeatedly, in detail.
Thank you to Guido though, much appreciated!
Dikran,
I saw that. I decided to take the moral high ground, and ignore it. Be thankful for small mercies, in other words 🙂
Bob Loblaw, the joke is indeed spot-on.
Maths Joke: Why did the mathematician name his dog “Cauchy”? Because it left a residue at every pole!
I took it as an opportunity to point out the mass balance argument (again) and the problem with the corellation (again) and also Richard Telford’s point about the 14C data. ;o)
Salby first presented this mid-2011 (reported by John N-G).
Salby has published many papers, and in the last few years there have been claims that papers would soon be published on this groundbreaking work.
That they have not appeared is a hint.
Should use the term ‘Vapourpaper’ (as in vapourware)..
Any ‘ground breaking’ paper that will cause a revolution in the field ‘real soon’.
ATTP writes “What is interesting is how many on Judith’s comment thread are agreeing that it’s mostly nonsense. ”
sadly normal service has been resumed, especially on the new thread. 😦
VV –
==>
No, I mixed two lines of argument.
1. It is not just that when you (and people similar to you) cannot follow an argument, that argument is thus not valuable.
2. But also not every communication is an argument. Sometimes someone just says “those stars are beautiful” or “Salby is obviously wrong” or “I like cats”.
==>
1. I know if you got it, but I was attempting a self-deprecating joke. Yes, the value of arguments is not a function of my understanding or opinion.
2. Those analogies don’t work for me in that they are statements of opinions whereas the other statement is one of fact. That is the heart of the problem, IMO.
sadly normal service has been resumed, especially on the new thread dikranmarsupial
It’s like a book club for illiterates.
Magma… I know just what to sell them;
Here’s the transcript (courtesy of Firebug filtering trick and angech’s accounting):
thank you
fill up
climate is a subject of limited
understanding insignificant part
because observations are
inadequate
yet it is a subject on which
almost everyone has an opinion
tonight's presentation concerns
carbon in the atmosphere
almost all of it is in the form
of carbon dioxide
i will first review existing
evidence of the human
contribution to increase co2 if
you want the details
they're out there I'll then
present new evidence which
isolates role of fossil fuel
mission in the 20th century
increase carbon dioxide
I'll close with the retrospect
that places the treatment of the
subject into historical context
before we turn to the main
subject
I promised to show you why co2
cannot be a pollutant
how many of you seen an image
like this right
it's a favorite of the media
this image has become the poster
child of co2 emission
there's just one complication in
the vernacular Mark Twain never
let the truth get in the way of
a good story
these are cooling towers
what's emerging from them isn't
co2
it's wawa a cloud of microscopic
droplets that have condensed
from water vapor
it's no different than those
fluffy white makes up in the sky
exhaust from combustion of
fossil fuel emerging from the
tower to the left the combustion
flu but even that plume is not
co2
what is it close inspection
provides a clue
immediately above the slim the
emission plume is invisible
the visible part is likewise
water droplets that condense
after water vapor is cooled
through mixing with surrounding
air from where did that water
vapor com
it has the same art as Steve in
car exhaust on a cold morning
combustion is a form of
oxidation the same process
powers the human body in it
co2 cannot be produced without
simultaneously producing water
vapor co2 and water they are the
products of perfect combustion
they are produced even when
there are no by-products no real
pollutants their role is
illustrated by simple fuel
meh thing
for every co2 molecule produced
its combustion produces two
molecule of water maker more
complex fuel is illustrated by
Appalachian call
for every three co2 molecules
its combustion produces two
molecules of water vapor in
regard to climate whether the
ratio of water vapor to see him
too
it's two to one or two to three
really doesn't matter
here's why plotted here is the
atmospheres opacity at
wavelengths of infrared
radiation collected over all
greenhouse gases
it's what traps reading Heat if
your surface
it's also the premise for the
EPA's finding of endangerment by
co2 notice over almost all
wavelengths the opacity is
already a hundred percent the
maximum possible
in grain is the contribution
from co t it represents less
than ten percent of the overall
opacity what provides the rest
almost all of it comes from
water vapor including derived
cloud makes its contribution
even greater notice even if
those wavelengths or co2 absorbs
radiation water paper absorbs
over half of the maximum that's
possible
only what remains less than half
is influenced by changes of co2
in this plume water vapor that's
emitted with co2 is produced the
same process that produces co2
if he trapping capacity vastly
exceeds the heat trapping
capacity of co2
co2 will be a pollutant the
David water vapor the pollution
it follows that energy sources
which circumvent co2 emission
are not a cleaner more greener
they're just different
now to this evening's main
subject
what role does such fossil fuel
emissions of co2 play in the
increase of atmospheric co2 the
IPCC's position is simple
all of it what is reality
a clue comes from changes the
fossil fuel emissions of co2 and
contemporaneous changes of
atmospheric co2
during the decade before the
turn of the century fossil fuel
emissions increased almost
linearly during the subsequent
decade
it also increased linearly but
three times faster
the area under the curve
represents the co2 that was
emitted into the atmosphere
far more was emitted during the
second decade and during the
first decade
two hundred percent more
during the same . atmospheric
co2 also increase linearly in
the first decade
it increased by about 20 parts
per million by volume ppmv
during the second decade
it's increase virtually
identical
fossil fuel emissions during the
second day was three times that
during the first decade and its
impact on the increase of
atmospheric co2 was virtually
zero
where the additional
anthropogenic co2 ended up
cannot be said
where did not end up is
unambiguous the premise of the
IPCC that increased atmospheric
co2 results principally from
fossil fuel efficient is
impossible if fossil fuel
mission represented as little as
ten percent of the increase in
atmospheric co2 the atmospheric
increase during the second
decade would have been thirty
percent greater than during the
first decade
it wasn't even close
the disconnect between fossil
fuel emissions of co2 and
atmospheric co2 should hardly
come as a surprise
this is an estimate of the co2
budget by the IPCC itself of
total emission human emission
accounts for only a couple of
percent the rest over
ninety-five percent
I'm from natural mission even a
minor change of natural mission
would overshadow human emission
the result of all of these
contributions is net emission
the net rate at which co 2 is
introduced into the atmosphere
it must equal the instantaneous
growth rate of atmospheric co2
that property follows from the
observed record in green is a
net global emissions of co2 from
all sources
it has an appt about 1.6 ppmv
per year but between years
it changes by as much as a
hundred percent local
observations of the mission
all we have revealed strong
sensitivity to the surface
properties especially
temperature the same dependence
is manifest in global emissions
of co2 perturbations and
temperature for example
associated with El Nino and
volcanic eruptions introduce
perturbation in co2 emission
they do so by modulating
physical and chemical processes
behind co2 emission but only the
natural part of co2 emission
human emission is independent of
temperature
the strong coherence between
surface temperature and co2
emission determines the
thermally induced component of
atmospheric co2 much of the
natural component a change of
temperature corresponds to a
change of co2 emission that
determines the annual increment
of thermally induced co2 adding
those increments over successive
years
yields the evolution of
thermally induced co2 in green
is be observed evolution of
atmospheric co2 it has an upper
trend of 1.6 ppmv per year the
average of Nana mission
shaded is the range of thermally
induced co2 that's possible in
light of observational
uncertainty
we're interested in the increase
of co2 from values in the 19th
century about 280 ppm v
apart from thermally induced co2
lies somewhere in the shaded
area
it's discrepancy from observed
co2 then isolates anthropogenic
co2 smallest possible increase
thermally induced the OT
corresponds to the largest
possible increase of
anthropogenic co2 it provides an
upper bound on the antigenic
increase of co2 the
anthropogenic fraction of
increased co2 must be smaller
than thirty three percent
as we saw the increase of
atmospheric co2 follows from net
emission
the rate of net emission equals
the rate of global mission into
the atmosphere
– the rate of global absorption
from the atmosphere
mathematically
the rate of change of co2 mixing
ratio R that's the time
derivative on the left-hand side
equals the rate of global
mission he –
the rate of global absorption a
this equation describes
conservation of atmospheric co2
it's the global average of the
three dimensional continuity
equation used in climate models
conservation equation
is a fundamental physical law
which must be satisfied by co2
in the atmosphere
if this law is not satisfied
you might as well turn out the
lights and go home
the grasped its implications
it's instructive to consider
mechanical analog a feature of
the Australian coast line is the
sea baths a saltwater enclosure
for you to surf and shark
Australia has many species of
shark
not all of which are in the sea
to limit bacterial growth the
sea bass is continuously
ventilated with seawater what
goes in eventually goes out
that's what we just saw for the
atmosphere in the budget of co2
in the Sea bath water is added
at the rate of volume in flow
and removed at the rate of
volume outflow the water level
solace from the result of these
opposing influences the volume
growth rate equals the net rate
at which volume is added that
equals the rate of volume inflow
minus the rate of volume of flow
mathematically the rate of
change of water body
that's the time derivative on
the left-hand side equals the
volume in flow rate minus the
volume outflow rate this
equation describes conservation
of water
it's a fundamental physical law
that governs water in the sea
baths
now the rate of outflow is
proportional to the bottom
pressure which forces water
through the drain it in turn is
proportional to the height H of
the water column overhead
the deeper the water
the Creator the bottom pressure
and the faster the water leaves
the drain
conservation lock and therefore
be rearranged into the following
form the rate of change of
height H equals rate of emission
into the bath
e- rate of absorption from the
bath
a where a mission is
proportional to the in flow rate
and the absorption is
proportional to the waters
height sorption could then be
expressed as height times the
absorption efficiency alpha
alpha is proportional to the
area of the drain
the bigger the drain the faster
the water leaves alpha has
dimensions of inverse time 1
over alpha defines the
absorption time
it reflects the residence time
characteristic time their water
spins in the bath before leaving
through the drain the
significance of alpha is
illustrated by eliminating
inflow the evolution that
satisfies this conservation law
is exponential decay at rate
alpha after one absorption time
height is decreased to
thirty-seven percent of its
initial value
suppose the bath begins empty
absorption from the bath is in
less than a mission into the bad
waters hike must increase so –
then there's absorption from the
bath eventually height will
increase efficiently for
absorption to just equal
emission height then becomes
constant
it represents the limiting value
and upper bound on height the
height which achieves this
limiting condition is the
equilibrium height
it's just the quotient of the
opposing influences on water
volume admission / the
absorption efficiency alpha
suppose now the equilibrium
state is perturbed by adding
auxiliary emission of perturbing
source with the mission be prime
absorption from the bath is
again less than admission into
the bath
the height must increase that
increases the absorption from
the bath
eventually the perturbed
absorption will increase
efficiently to again just equal
the perturbed emission the
perturbed by then becomes
constant achieving a new
equilibrium a fractional
increase of equilibrium height
then equals the fractional
increase of a mission into the
bath
information is increased by five
percent equilibrium height is
increased by five percent
notice instantaneous height
never exceeds the equilibrium
high which represents its
limiting value perturbation of
height
depends inversely on the
absorption efficiency alpha
its absorption is twice as fast
perturbation of height is only
half as large
the faster the absorption
the smaller the perturbation of
height suppose now the
preservation of the mission is
eliminated the perturbing source
is switched off absorption is an
unbalanced it exceeds emission
height must then decrease it
does though until height has
returned to the unperturbed
equilibrium
whereupon absorption again
equals emission the perturbation
of height decays exponentially
great alpha restoring hi to the
unperturbed equilibrium
after one absorption time the
perturbation has decreased to
thirty-seven percent of its
initial value
notice the response the
perturbation revealed what
cannot be measured directly the
absorption dive how fast water
is removed from the bath
back to the atmosphere
co2 a basic conservation law of
the same for like height in the
sea bad co2 mixing ratio R is
determined by competition
between admission into the
atmosphere
II and absorption from the
atmosphere a co2 has an
equilibrium mixing ratio equal
to the quotient of global
emission and absorption
efficiency alpha alpha is just
the absorption skilled by co2
mixing ratio
are we know are we don't know
global absorption a the IPCC
thinks it does a is 150 and
gigatonnes of carbon per year
r is 750 in gigatonnes of carbon
the absorption efficiency is
then five years to the minus 1
and absorption time of five
years in truth a here is a
little more than a guesstimate
observations of global
absorption do not exist
it should therefore come as no
surprise that IPCC estimates
have made your contributions
change by as much as a hundred
percent
there's another way to determine
the source as in the sea bat
absorption is revealed by the
response to perturbation a
tracer of atmospheric co2 is
carbon 14 which comprises a
small fraction co2 molecules
during the nineteen fifties and
sixties nuclear bomb tests
elevated c14 the nuclear source
was removed in 1963 by the
nuclear test ban tree
c14 and decayed to on balance
absorption just like height in
the sea bad when the perturbing
source was removed
the decay is almost perfectly
exponential with an absorption
time just under a decade for
reference in mob is absorption
of co2 in climate models
the IPCC even after 200 years
almost thirty percent of co2
president initially remains for
comparison here's the observed
absorption
atmospheric co2 is perturbed by
fossil fuel efficient analogous
to the perturbing source in the
sea baths
it introduces an anthropogenic
component of co2 ra ra a basic
conservation law of the same for
conservation law is forced by
anthropogenic emission with
fossil fuel efficient and alpha
known conservation law
completely determines the
antigenic component ra an upper
bound falls from the slowest
absorption observed sorption
time of a decade which is
apparent in the decay of
carbon-14 plotted here is fossil
fuel efficient which forces the
conservation law will focus on
years after nineteen sixty an
observation of co2 in the free
atmosphere began by then
how much anthropogenic co2 would
have accumulated in the
atmosphere
an upper bound followed by
presuming that for all years
before nineteen sixty fossil
fuel efficient was equal to its
maximum namely the fossil fuel
mission in nineteen sixty recall
the perturbation never exceeds
its equilibrium level which is
the limiting level of
anthropogenic co2 in 1962 fossil
fuel perturbation must therefore
be smaller than 10 ppm vco2 in
nineteen sixty was 320 pnb about
40 PMV above 280 at the
projected fraction of increased
co2 must then be smaller than
twenty-four percent
but after nineteen sixty
antigenic co2 follows by solving
the conservation law for direct
comparison to the observe record
we consider changes of co2 but
also to us reference state in
nineteen sixty in red is the
evolution of anthropogenic co2
over the last half-century it
increased by about 20 ppm p
in green is the evolution of
observed see on –
in 2007 the antigenic fraction
of increased co2 must be smaller
than twenty eight percent
remember the thermally induced
component of co2 the part
coherent with temperature
it provided an upper bound on
the 20th century
increase of anthropogenic co2
one that is independent of the
president analysis applying that
treatment after nineteen sixty
recovers an upper bound of
thirty-three percent
what does this antigenic
fraction mean for global
temperature here again is the
opacity of the atmosphere it
increases with increasing co2
but because the opacity is
already a hundred percent at
most of these wavelengths the
impact of additional co2 is
limited plotted here as a
function of co2 is the opacity
collected over all wavelengths
because opacity at most
wavelength is already saturated
the collective opacity has
plateaued even 40 co2 they're
collectible pacity is already
75% increasing co2 – 80 BPM v
has only six percent increasing
it further
all the way to 400 ppm d ads
only another half a percent as
we've seen less than thirty
percent of that increase is the
fossil fuel perturbation before
application to feed backs like
water vapor
it introduces a temperature
perturbation of less than a
tenth of a degree
now the projected life fossil
fuel reserves is about a hundred
years at the current growth of
co2 the opacity then we'll have
increased by another one percent
even then the fossil fuel
perturbation represent less than
forty percent of the increase it
introduces an additional
temperature perturbation of less
than three tenths of a degree
the cumulative fossil fuel
perturbation is less than half
degree
and
plotted here is the evolution of
global temperature over the 20th
century at least the proxy for
1979
when satellites began actual
global observations the range of
natural variability is half a
degree to one degree that's
considerably larger than the
fossil fuel burning vacation
just see
without major amplification
2feedback the fossil fuel
perturbation is not even
detectable
it's smaller than the noise of
natural variability
lastly notice over this record
there is no relationship
whatsoever between co2 which
increases monotonically in
temperature which did not
and with that we'll take a
ten-minute break to enable you
to grab a coffee or something
cool and the speaker wet his
whistle
everything you've seen until now
is an upper bound the fossil
fuel perturbation cannot be
greater
it can however be smaller turns
out
it is
seeing that requires a more
definitive treatment of
absorption
as was a parent for the Seeb at
the system's absorption is
revealed by its response to
perturbation a perturbation to a
mission is temporarily
introduced and then removed
readjustment to the unperturbed
equilibrium then reveals the
time scale of absorption and in
the laboratory we would perturb
the system and then monitor its
response
that's what was accomplished
with carbon 14 by the nuclear
test ban treaty recall co2 is
perturbed by changes of
temperature which modulate its
emission
perturbation in the mission is
then proportional to the
perturbation in temperature
conservation law is this force
by changes of temperature
imposing an oscillation in
temperature with frequency Omega
will produce an oscillation in
co2 with the same frequency
but lag behind temperature which
is continually changing
intermediate to these limiting
forms of co2 response is a lag
of 45 degrees it can be shown
that the frequency which
achieved this lag is equal to
alpha the absorption efficiency
in the lab we would vary the
frequency of the oscillation in
temperature until the resulting
oscillation in co to assume the
lack of 45 degrees
unfortunately this experiment is
a luxury we don't have only one
party can perform this
experiment
mother nature she has
interannual disturbances like El
Nino lamiya and volcanic
eruptions for term global
temperature which we've seen
perturbs co2 emission such
perturbations are represented
spectrally as a synthesis of
frequencies like those
you've just seen the
interdependence of co2 and
temperature is then registered
frequency by frequency in the
coherent spectra
plotted here is the coherence
between co2 and temperature as a
function of frequency where
coherence extends above the
shading
it's strongly significant the
relationship between co2 and
temperature is in real
in green is the respective phase
of co2
it's lag behind temperature
between those extremes is a lag
45 degrees the frequency at
which this leg occurs
corresponds to an absorption
efficiency of nine months to the
minus 1 and absorption time of
nine months
how can this be
that's 10 times faster and
what's a parent in the decay of
carbon-14
the short answer is carbon 14
lies but not intentionally from
the apparent and true forms of
the conservation it can be shown
that actually absorb can be only
faster that apparent carbon 14
with an absorption time of less
than a year you had the
projected fraction of increased
co2 isn't just smaller than
thirty percent
it's more than three percent
yeah
nature perturb co2 through
another mechanism one that's
independent of the interannual
perturbations just considered
each year
co2 increases and then decreases
during an interval of eight
months from september's I'm a
co2 increases by seven and a
half ppmv during the subsequent
interval for months
co2 then decreases by about six
ppl vco2 decreases then for one
reason
on balance absorption just like
height in the sea bad when the
perturbing source was removed
each year
co2 goes up five steps of one
and a half ppmv then down four
steps 5 steps up four steps down
one more time five steps up four
steps down
you have just mastered the co 2
cha-cha-cha
yeah
notice the residual have two
peach cycle of the annual cha
it's 1.6 ppmv ring a bell
it's identical to the trend co2
if we can understand one we
probably understand the other in
the sea bad
removing the perturbing source
reveals absorption through the
time scale of decay one
absorption time perturbation in
height decreases to thirty-seven
percent of the initial
perturbation in the atmosphere
perturbation and co2 doesn't
decrease the thirty-seven
percent of its initial level it
decreases
to only twenty percent
four months eighty percent of
the motivation has been absorbed
the absorption time could be
only shorter
notice
were the absorption time as long
as 10 years there would be no
cha cha co2 would then increase
monotonically five steps up
hesitate
another five steps up and so
forth
the trend then wouldn't be 1.6
ppm people year it would be
seven and a half PP&E per year
during the last half century ce
o– to increase would have been
five times greater
the observed evidence reveals
the possible range of absorption
time
recall in the sea baths the
slowest absorption produce the
largest perturbation in water
height to be conservative will
consider the slow absorption
possible we'll do one step
better use alpha of 1.5 years to
the minus 1 and absorption time
of eight months actual
absorption can be only fast
the simplest treatment of
anthropogenic co2 follows from
its instantaneous equilibrium
level recall equilibrium co2
represents the limiting value of
RA and upper bound on how much
at the majestic co2 is actually
present it provides an upper
bound on the antigenic fraction
of increased co2
in 1960 and the agenda
Commission was equivalent to one
pp mb per year relative to 280
ppm be sealed to increase then
was 40 PMV he had to eject
fraction of this increase must
be smaller than one point six
percent
in 2010 antigenic emission
increased to three and a half
ppmd per year
the CEO to increase then was a
hundred PMP the and represented
fraction of this increase must
be smaller than two-point-three
percent
a more detailed analysis
considers the increased since
nineteen sixty we have actual
observations of atmospherics in
2010
the antigenic fraction of
increased co2 must be smaller
than two point eight percent
there's a fifth way to establish
the antigenic fraction and this
will be brief
rather than accumulating
emission consider the change in
the mission across the 50 year
period at extrema of its annual
cycle co 2 passes through
equilibrium at the minimum in
1960 and the maximum in 2010 its
rate of change vanishes their
conservation law reduces to
emission equals absorption the
change in total emission is then
proportional to the change in
co2 and much the same for the
antigenic component dividing the
two provides an upper bound on
the 50-year increase of
anthropogenic co2
and the projected fraction of
increased co2 must be smaller
than two point six percent
the fossil fuel perturbation is
my note
where have you seen that
remember the sharp increase in
fossil fuel mission after the
turn of the century during the
decade after the turn of the
century
fossil fuel emitted three times
the co2 that it emitted during
the preceding decade get the
increase of co2 in the
atmosphere was virtually
identical
is now clear why
and only a couple of percent
fossil fuel perturbation is too
small to even be detectable
what about the resulting
perturbation of global
temperature
it's now academic at less than
one-tenth of a degree
the fossil fuel perturbation is
buried in the noise of natural
variability
the fossil fuel perturbation is
presently not detectable you
will not be detectable ever
here's how we can be certain the
fossil fuel perturbation is too
small to be distinguished from
natural changes
you can't distinguish it nor can
feedback mechanisms
consequently whatever influence
they exert on the pathogenic
component
they must simultaneously exert
on the natural component ergo if
the fossil fuel perturbation is
buried in the noise before
feedback
it will remain buried in the noi
the size the fossil fuel burn
nation evokes a slogan which
became the anthem of the climate
change movement
in retrospect
never has so much in claim on
the premise of so little
yeah
as you know the climate change
movement culminated in the
recent international agreement
in Paris is protected cost just
under three hundred and sixty
trillion dollars that's twenty
thousand dollars for every man
woman and child on earth and to
be rhetorical many of those
humans won't even earn twenty
thousand dollars
the harsh reality is this cost
is borne disproportionately by
the disadvantage in more ways
than one
last winter in Europe along
40,000 poor in elderly perished
through hypothermia is under
sparkling costs to feed green
ideologies they could no longer
afford to heat their homes
my god what an indictment of
this hero
even the Olympic humans could
heat their homes
in light of its cost to the
public what will the Paris
agreement achieve the
perspective benefit can now be
evaluated
it's revealed by turning back
the clock in green is the
observed evolution of co2 during
the last half century had fossil
fuel emissions been eliminated
entirely co 2 1 then it evolved
in blue
yeah
appropriate to close with a
retrospective place the
treatment of this subject in the
historical context of our
science has advanced at the core
of the debates are in climate is
a struggle between scientific
rigor which is accountable to
nature vs pseudo science which
is not distinguishing the two
isn't brain surgery once it
excludes evidence by declaring
its conclusions are beyond
question
the science is settled its
advocates know this because they
took a vote
the others fear relies on reason
continually testing its
understanding against new
evidence
accordingly it holds that
science is never settled the
struggle between these opposing
interests has happened before
one of the benefits of modern
civilization is medical science
if you become ill you have every
expectation of competent
treatment by a practitioner who
operates in the reality of human
physiology
it wasn't always so
early medical treatment was a
cross between superstition and
pseudo science
if illness didn't kill you The
Cure likely would the tools of
the trade would make a trip to
the dentist
look inviting
and of course the procedures
were conducted before the advent
of anesthesia they relied upon
the theory of the roman
physician Claudius gallon asst
or simply gallon gallon is very
postulated that will being was
controlled by for bodily fluids
or humors one of which was blood
in gallons theory blood motion
was one way
blood was continually produced
by the liver then transmitted by
the heart to the rest of the
body where it was consumed an
imbalance of the humors produced
illness from this belief spring
the practice of bloodletting
removing blood would rebalance
the universe supported by the
belief that blood was
continually replenished by the
liver
so influential was gallons
theory that it guided medical
treatment for nearly 2000 years
enter William Harvey
hi Pete conducted extensive
dissections which revealed the
mechanics of blood on gallons
theory
Harvey was suspicious there i
say skeptical
in light of his observations he
was increasingly confronted with
the obvious they demonstrated
Harvey performed a fundamental
calculation from dissections
he knew the volume of the heart
he knew also the pumping gains
the number of beats per minute
combining the to determine the
volume of blood which under
gallons theory would have to be
produced each day
Harvey knew he'd be bucking the
establishment
so he intentionally low-balled
the calculation
he chose value so that the true
blood by could be only greater
Harvey's calculations showed
that gallons there would require
a daily production of blood
exceeding a quarter of a ton
more than a 55-gallon drum to
produce this blood
that's how much a human would
have to consume in one day
gallons theory went the way of
the dodo
as we now take for granted
what is not consumed but
recirculated despite Harvey's
clear in validation gallons
theory continue to be practice
for nearly 200 years among its
victims
George Washington the treat of
throat infection
Washington's physicians drain
his blood
eighty percent of it 72 hours
later
Washington was dead after being
invalidated
why did gallon series continued
to be practice
the answer is simple and
enterprise will never
voluntarily relinquish that upon
which it drives
George Washington was priority
over the mic of the british
empire was destroyed by the in
competence of pseudo science
Harvey's findings vitiate the
foundation of medical practice a
belief that had prevailed nearly
2,000 years
Harvey describe the reaction was
findings as an uproar to his
critics Harvey responded as
follows
I profess to learn and teaching
at not from the tenants of the
loss / but from the fabric of
nature
for hundreds of years that has
been the objective of science to
understand nature contracting
fundamentally is the new
environmental science
climate science more there now
with the answer but determined
by government bureaucracy onto
the ages of the UN
its objective has become an
exercise in social engineering
to predict and control
the undetectable
had resources been invested to
better understand this complex
system fallacy might have been
discovered sooner
Mainly in passing…
Here:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/12/week-in-review-politics-edition-6/#comment-802955
Rud does a nice job of underlining why, given such a display of evidence-based reasoning, it’s a real head-scratcher to know what to think when you guys agree are impressed by his self-authority-based analysis of Salby.
@ willard
That could be a simple formatting issue, but that has inspired me to copy and paste Salby’s talk into Excel as a single 1132 row column. Next, I will generate a second column of random numbers, then sort in ascending order, then descending order, and see how it reads. I have every confidence it will be just as good scrambled as not.
Joshua says: “2. Those analogies don’t work for me in that they are statements of opinions whereas the other statement is one of fact. That is the heart of the problem, IMO.”
The statement “Salby is obviously wrong” can be a fact or just an opinion. Depends on the context.
“Salby is wrong” would be a fact regardless of context though. I’d venture that “a randomly selected professor of atmospheric science would be able to show that Salby is wrong with high probability” is also a fact.
Fully agree dikranmarsupial, and many thanks to you and others here for addressing some of the things brought up on Curry’s blog, much appreciated. Keep up the good work.
Interesting to see that the other “skeptic” blogs haven’t picked up on this story, which I regard as progress. The discussion at Judiths has reached the point where most of those still discussing it are being insultingly dismissive. There is little point in continuing the discussion after that (as they have made it impossible for them to admit they are wrong without looking utterly ridiculous for having been so insultingly dismissive), so I’ve made my last post on those threads.
It is interesting that Prof. Curry wrote that she “was asked to review one of his papers” . Perhaps she declined the request (as they had previously been colleagues in the same department, that would be entirely reasonable), but if not, one wonders why she is apparently unable to clearly state her view on the validity of the science.
==> but if not, one wonders why she is apparently unable to clearly state her view on the validity of the science. ==>
I’ve been thinking about her explaining that she’s too busy and won’t be bullied.
So here we have a climate scientist who in addition to whatever research she does, runs a blog focused on climate science and engaging with the public on new, non-mainstream research findings in the field…and someone comes up with a theory that would completely overturn the existing predominant conventional wisdom about the major mechanism of how CO2 enters the atmosphere and affects the climate, and render practically all other research in the field irrelevant, and have drastic impact on vitally important public policy development…and she discusses that theory on her blog, but doesn’t have the time, over they coarse of TWO YEARS to evaluate the scientific viability of that theory?
Doesn’t add up, IMO. Something’s fishy.
Make that five years. Also the major flaws in Salby’s work have been explained more than once on her blog (and elsewhere and brought to her attention), which ought to make the evaluation rather less time consuming.
We all have our blind spots, but this one is rather less explicable than most.
The real problem with Prof. Curry’s blog is that it is an echo chamber, she seems to take very little part in the discussions (at least the ones I have sampled), compared to e.g. ATTP (who gives the impression of actually being interested in the discussion, as well as in presenting his own view ;o). That is why it is IMHO rather irresponsible to promulgate Salby’s ideas without providing a scientific evaluation (it is not as if the errors are subtle in this case), all it does is decrease the signal-to-noise ratio.
Yeah. Five years. Forgot About that.
From Judith five years ago:
–snip–
If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science.
–snip–
So is the logic that after five years, she hasn’t had time to evaluate a theory that would revolutionize her field, and she would only have done so if she had given in to bullies?
@ Joshua
Don’t rush her, she’s thinking. Pondering, even.
Judith Curry is a world-leading expert on epistemic wait.
Anyone who takes on an ideological view against mainstream climate science would never actually evaluate Salby’s “science”, as it is far more valuable as a prop for doubt, or for a while, Salby as martyr’d Galileo. For example, in UK you have Ruper Darwall, who wrote An Unsettling Climate
Global-warming proponents betray science by shutting down debate, for the US think tank Manhattan Institute, with some help from Jo Nova.
I took the time to dissect one (of all too many) chunks of nonsense in Cheshire Claim: Rupert Darwall Copies Satellite CO2 Nonsense From Murry Salby
I find the observation salby makes about 27:00 that the concentration of c14 dropped negative exponential after the nuclear test ban treaty, marking the half life of newly introduced c14 in the atmosphere at 5 to 7 years. and after 20 years it is all essentially gone. This can be measured very exactly. – one of the few really convincing data points about the lifetime of CO2,
Lawrence,
What do you find about that? It’s well known that the residence time for a molecule of CO2 into the atmosphere is probably a few years. This is not the same as the time it would take for an enhancement in atmospheric CO2 to decay (much, much longer).
It’s a bit depressing that at the end of 2021 WUWT are still arguing that the rise in CO2 is natural and Salby’s work still being used in the comments to defend the undefendable.