Murray Salby: “In significant part, CO2 is controlled by global temperature.”

Posted: June 10, 2013 by tallbloke in Analysis, atmosphere, Dataset, Measurement, methodology, Natural Variation

Murray Salby’s Hamberg Lecture has been posted on youtube by Sebastian Lüning. H/T Pierre Gosselin.

Of great importance is Salby’s finding that in large part, CO2 is controlled by global temperature, rather than the other way round as the warmists claim. Regulars might recall the discussions we’ve had on this issue before. here and here. The final ten minutes of the presentation are devastating to the warmist perversion of climate science. At the very end of the lecture Salby tells us he met Feynman at Caltech many years ago. He quotes the Feynman Chaser to round off the lecture.


Comments
  1. michael hart says:

    Agree about the last 10 minutes, TB. Not had time to watch the rest yet.

    One day, hopefully, the MSM will start to get the message, and not take everything they are spoon-fed as gospel. It is, in fact, much easier than trying to understand what the models are doing or supposed to be doing.

    It looks like a better talk than some of his other ones (which were also good). I think he was speaking more carefully for a non-English audience, which gives a better effect. Also very difficult to make yourself talk slower when addressing an audience.

  2. vukcevic says:

    Most of the top warmista

    know the above to be the fact. Their problem is they were caught driving up the climate motorway in the wrong direction, some might be looking for the nearest exit, but the rest as villains always do, continue speeding regardless of the carnage they may cause to the millions of innocent and mostly poor people around the globe.

  3. mitigatedsceptic says:

    Very persuasive indeed – leaving aside his critique of ice cores, some of his simple messages –

    CO2 varies with surface temperature and ground conditions – satellite demonstrates it arising NOT from the densely populated/industrialised but from the relatively sparsely populated areas of the world.

    Human contribution is negligible.

    in the climate models CO2 is related directly to temperature – in the real world it is related to the integral of temperature.

    If the outcome of your models does not correspond with empirical observations, they are WRONG!

    I would like to hear more about the sinks for CO2 – increased levels should prompt rapid ‘greening’
    and about geothermal sources of climate heating especially suboceanic, that seem to have been ignored entirely and which seem to vary over regions and time.

  4. Stephen Wilde says:

    Dr Salby confirms as follows:

    i) The ice core record is too coarse to accurately reflect natural short term variability in atmospheric CO2. It appears to be far larger than generally supposed.

    ii) There are potential natural sources of low C13 CO2 which are capable of confounding the isotope based diagnosis. I have suggested that one such may be decomposing organic material in the oceans just as decomposing organic matter on land is low in C13.

    iii) CO2 involves only a tiny fraction of the energy absorbed by an atmosphere. I think he understates the role of mass in the presentation but impliedly acknowledges it when he refers to conduction and convection.

    iv) The potential variability of the speed of conduction and convection would provide a negative system response.

    All of those points are confirm my comments here and elsewhere over the years.

    The next step is to get a grip on the way the climate system changes when the effects of forcing elements other than mass, gravity and ToA insolation occur (primarily variations in atmospheric composition) and I think I have given plausible mechanisms in that regard.

    The ultimate truth must be that atmospheric composition changes, including radiative ability of constituent molecules will only ever result in circulation changes which would eventually return the system to the initial equilibrium set by mass, gravity and insolation if everything else remained equal.

    The key to that is climate zone shifting and changes in jet stream behaviour.

    The key diagnostic indicator as to whether the system is gaining energy or losing energy at any given time is global cloudiness and albedo.

    He also strongly implies that water in soil moisture and the oceans is the primary source of more CO2 when temperatures rise.

  5. Part of this interconnection between temperature and CO2 record is discussed also in one of my recent publications:

    Mazzarella A., A. Giuliacci and N. Scafetta, 2013. Quantifying the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) coupling to CO2 concentration and to the length of day variations. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 111, 601-607.

  6. Graham Green says:

    One of the best lectures that I have ever seen. Clearly this man has been greatly influenced by Feynman and I think he deserves to be regarded as of similar calibre (I saw Sydney University and was expecting an ocker bloke – oops). I think his delivery may even be better than Feynman’s.

    I think that the take home message is a great insight here (CO2 following the integral of temperature). The rest of the stuff is the proof.

    How is it possible that no one has noticed this before? Or am I just being thick?

    Salby came across more like an engineer than a science guy and I thought that he set his stall out marvelously well. He presents a truly compelling argument that perhaps one person in a thousand might understand.

    Perhaps if Delingpole studied this sort of material he might not make an arse of himself.

    If the skeptics could find someone with Salby’s brains and (God help us) Brian Cox’s eminently smackable face we might get somewhere with the chattering classes.

    The horrible truth is that he will not be listened to. You need plenty of good hair and very white teeth to get on in science. And perhaps a catchphrase – how about “turned out nice again”?

  7. tchannon says:

    I borrowed time on a computer where I could see the Hamburg video. It was a bad move mentioning Hamburg and video, oh yes, err…

    Saby did well up until he moved out of science, radiation stuff thereafter was terrible. He should have stopped, left things for others. Don’t try and explain everything.

    Surprisingly in this case I could mostly follow his math, smile to self, recognised before he mentioned, not that he did fully. Quadrature, makes sense, also sometimes called dispersive, time/phase relationship.

    He seems to have shown nicely there is dispersal in ice, precisely a fatal flaw in the agw argument where there is no science. Where are the proper experiments? Why are they missing?

    The phase inversion is a new one on me, if true, damn fine trick.

    There is a twist Saby can’t know about, MLO CO2 is tricked up although it probably has a very minor effect on what he has done.

    I’ll think on this, maybe there is more can be done to firm things up.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Graham Green says: great insight here (CO2 following the integral of temperature)

    This basically the same thing as saying that the derivative of co2 follows temperature. Which we showed and discussed on this blog last year.

  9. nzrobin says:

    I thought it was interesting to see so much Fourier in the talk, and talk of convolution. Took me back four decades when studying electrical engineering.

  10. michael hart says:

    “How is it possible that no one has noticed this before? Or am I just being thick?”

    In fairness, Graham, many of the warmist persuasion accept this quite openly. After all, the basic physics and chemistry was known in the lab long before the first IR measurements were ever taken.

    The reluctance to volunteer the information and openly discuss it, is what I find so striking. They say that the easiest secrets to keep are those where the information is in plain sight and everybody thinks they already know the answer.

  11. Konrad says:

    michael hart says:
    June 11, 2013 at 4:49 pm
    “They say that the easiest secrets to keep are those where the information is in plain sight and everybody thinks they already know the answer.”
    —————————————————————————————————————-
    Most sceptics would agree that AGW remains an unproven hypothesis. However the real problem is hiding in plain sight. The radiative GHE hypothesis that is the foundation for the AGW hypothesis is also unproven.

    The radiative GHE hypothesis claims that the net effect of adding radiative gases to the atmosphere is warming. You can test the radiative claims of the hypothesis with a simple experiment –



    – The target plate in chamber 1 will indeed get hotter. Can these findings be applied directly to a moving gas atmosphere? No.

    The role of radiative gases in altering the speed of mechanical energy transfers would also need to be taken into account. Dr. Salby points out in the video that these mechanical transfers of energy are two orders of magnitude greater than any radiative warming by CO2. The speed of vertical tropospheric circulation depends on the quantity of radiative gases in the atmosphere. It has never been proven that the role of radiative gases in atmospheric warming exceeds their role in atmospheric cooling. Much empirical evidence indicates the opposite.

    The radiative GHE hypothesis has yet to be proven. This fact is hiding in plain sight.

  12. Bart says:

    Something to keep track of in the years ahead: the temporary and superficial affine similarity of atmospheric CO2 and emissions is diverging. Atmospheric CO2 is, as Salby says, tracking the integral of temperature anomaly, and its rate of change has flattened out at the same time as temperatures have flattened out. Emissions, on the other hand, keep accelerating. It will not be too much longer before the divergence becomes undeniable even to the hard-core faithful of the AGW cult.

  13. Bart says:

    tallbloke says:
    June 11, 2013 at 8:16 am

    I’d guess that jog at about 1991-1992 is the effect of Pinatubo. Interestingly, the RSS product seems to track better. Anyone have insight into the differences between UAH and RSS?

  14. Bart says:

    Looks like I messed up the link showing the emerging divergence. It is here.

  15. Stephen Wilde says:

    Konrad said:

    “The role of radiative gases in altering the speed of mechanical energy transfers would also need to be taken into account. Dr. Salby points out in the video that these mechanical transfers of energy are two orders of magnitude greater than any radiative warming by CO2. The speed of vertical tropospheric circulation depends on the quantity of radiative gases in the atmosphere”.

    If you were to just amend ‘depends on’ to ‘is affected by’ then you would be in agreement with my long standing contentions.

    Whether the net effect of radiative characteristics of constituent molecules is warming or cooling the speed (or height) of the vertical global circulation changes to negate the effect and thereby keep ToA radiative balance stable.

  16. Konrad says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    June 12, 2013 at 9:13 am
    —————————————————
    I understand we both have differing opinions on the “depends” of “affects” issue. However, the radiative GHE hypothesis can be seen to be in error because they have not solved for the role of radiative gases in changing the speed of mechanical energy transfer simultaneously with linear radiative flux.

    Dr. Salby convincingly demonstrates that the empirical evidence also falsifies radiative GHE hypothesis net warming claim. CO2 levels are driven by temperature. Not the reverse.

  17. tchannon says:

    RSS/UAH, primarily filtering, data is pushed in different ways.

    Volcanic effects seem dubious and is part of what I am looking at in detail. I did show some information recently, here, but this seemed to pass people by.

    As it stands I don’t buy the claims in part based on information coming out of the woodwork to do with turbidity and solar constant. Might be some surprises coming.

  18. michael hart says:

    Having watched the rest of it does anybody know the source of his data such as can be seen in the slides at
    0:39:31
    0:44:39
    0:45:34 ?

    It appears compelling (damning seems closer to my current take on it), but it is a criticism that he gave no reference or indication of source on each slide.

  19. michael hart says:

    The volcano post didn’t pass me by, Tim, I am waiting for the follow up post.

  20. tchannon says:

    I’ve commented on the other thread including a plot of Hadcrut 3 split to hemispheres since there is comment this largest eruption of the 20th century did not cross the equator, therefore there will be severe cooling in the north for years and no effect at first in the south.

    Or maybe not.

  21. Roger’s picture is very similar to those produced here (published last year in June)

    Mazzarella A., A. Giuliacci and N. Scafetta, 2013. Quantifying the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) coupling to CO2 concentration and to the length of day variations. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 111, 601-607.

    http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/CO2-MEI-LOD.pdf

    See figure 4.

    it is a very important relationship that distinguish the case of a climate driven by CO2 (linear relation) from a case of a CO2 driven by the climate (integral relation)

    But the issue needs to be more carefully understood.

  22. tchannon says:

    NS. CO2 phase varies with location through inverted whereas LoD applies to all the earth.

    How does your figure 2 fit with that?

    Mass transfer is the only valid mechanism for short term LoD variation for a free body. A good proxy is polar ice, which fits with a sensible phase. Mass transfer is poleward. This in turn is dominated by isolation variation induced by orbital parameters.

  23. tchannon says:

    LOD change because of mass transfer, as you say.

    But the most important mass transfer is regulated by ocean currents that are related also to climate changes. So, you have a link between climate changes – ocean circulation – LOD.

    For example, you may look at my papers on tides such as

    Scafetta N., 2013. Multi-scale dynamical analysis (MSDA) of sea level records versus PDO, AMO, and NAO indexes. Climate Dynamics. in press.

    Scafetta N., 2013. Discussion on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming. Pattern Recognition in Physics, 1, 37–57.

    see my web-site for the papers.

  24. RichardLH says:

    Nicola Scafetta : I believe that there are strong, natural cycles visible in the UAH data series, These appear to be of 37 moths, 4 years, 7 years(3+4) and 12 years (3^4) that should be accounted for before any longer cycle analysis is sensible.

    http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/RichardLH/story/70051

  25. RichardLH says:

    Mind you, with cycle counts of 10, 3 and a possibly a half any call is towards the human pattern recognition end of statistic science 🙂

  26. oldbrew says:

    Further evidence from Sweden supporting the Salby argument.

    ‘Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom has recently replicated the work of Dr. Murry Salby, finding that temperature, not man-made CO2, drives CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Dr. Björnbom confirms Salby’s hypothesis that the rate of change in carbon dioxide concentration in the air follows an equation that only depends on temperature change.’

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html