Global warming discussion IV

[Haig]

Someone pays you to waste our time, don't they? How can you sleep at night?

No sane human being would grovel in such obvious ******** and continue to pretend to believe it, unrelentingly making a spectacle of themselves.

Shame on you.

Stop embarrassing yourself, Haig. It's sad.

Pathetic response, try this

In this video Dr. Salby makes strong points against the AGW case. if you look him up in Google Scholar you can easily see he has myriad peer-reviewed and heavily cited articles in climate science.
In addition he has a 1996 book "Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics". This guy is a heavy hitter in climate science.

Don't bother with the ad homs but can you guys respond to the science case he makes?

In particular the points referenced in the list below here ...


Relationship between Greenhouse Gases and Global Temperature

Dr. Murry Salby In his Hamburg, 2013, lecture

[35:41] AGWers claim that human CO2 dilutes atmospheric Carbon 13; for this to be true, native sources of CO2 must NOT dilute C13;

[36:34] Native Source of CO2 – 150 (96%) gigatons/yr — Human CO2 – 5 (4%) gtons/yr

[37:01] Native Sinks Approximately* Balance Native Sources – net CO2
*Approximately = even a small imbalance can overwhelm any human CO2

[native = 2 orders of magnitude greater than human]

[37:34] Since many native sources also involve Carbon 13, leaner than in the atmosphere, “ALL BETS ARE OFF.”
– What controls atmospheric CO2 is net emission from ALL sources and sinks [33:47]

[39:14] CO2 being conserved in the atmosphere, it is homogenized, i.e., evenly distributed, over long time periods (as observed, for land levels only, via satellites).

[39:40] High CO2 values (per SCIAMACHY satellites) are big CO2 sources – Note: they are not in industrialized nor highly populated regions (they are in Amazon basin, tropical Africa, and SE Asia)

[41:20] Observed deviations of global mean (natural) CO2 deviate widely, sometimes more than 100% from year to year, decade to decade – they are INcoherent with human CO2 emission rate, i.e, net global natural emission evolves independently of human emission.

[42:35] Observed global (land or ocean measurements) CO2 emission has strong sensitivity (.93 correlation [43:41]) to surface properties (mostly temperature, c = .8, and also soil moisture), i.e., increase in either increases CO2 native emissions.

[44:28] C13 has strong coherence with temp. and soil moisture, but inversely, temp. up = C13 down.

[45:15] Opposite changes of C13 and CO2 are the same ones seen in the ice proxy.

[45:22] Satellite record shows that the emissions are clearly NOT human, unless human emissions cause volcanic eruptions and El Nino.

[45:37] Re: Methane, CH4, record suffers from the same limitations as that of human CO2, but it’s even shorter. Note: human methane sources are independent of human sources of CO2. — Observed global CH4 emission has strong sensitivity (.94 correlation) to surface properties (mostly temperature, and also soil moisture), i.e., as with CO2, increase in either increases CH4 native emissions (this is what was seen in the proxy record).

[52:25] IPCC Claimed in 2007: “All of the increases [in CO2 concentration since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity.” Given the observed sensitivity of native emission of CO2 and C13,
the IPCC’s claim is IMPOSSIBLE.

H/T to Janice Moore November 25, 2015 at 8:50 am

 

[Haig]

You can't keep a good AGW skeptic down Care to answer his latest science points too ????

Climate Scientist Murry Salby Returns! - Presents NEW SCIENCE

Published on 24 Jun 2015
Author of the seminal book on climate; "Physics of the Atmosphere & Climate" Professor Murry Salby is without doubt one of the best Climate Scientists on the planet.
In a lecture in London on the 17th March, 2015, he reveals new work which shows that;

1) The climate sensitivity is below 0.2c - confirmed by 3 independent methods.
2) Most of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic.
3) CO2 movements and concentrations are largely determined by nature, not man; consequently, any cuts we make to our CO2 emissions will not have the desired effect, and are a costly waste of time.
4) CO2, whether man-made or not, does not 'drive' the climate system.

Professor Murry Salby has been vilified by enviro-alarmists and the left for his scientific results. Salby was disenfranchised and exiled from academia in Australia for daring to speak such “sacrilege.”
In a case similar to many others we have seen in Australia, and across the west, he was the subject of University hate and was finally sacked while he was on a lecture tour in Europe; his employer, Macquarie University of NSW, sacking him from his position as Professor of Climate Science. The University board cancelled his return ticket home, stranding him in Paris. All Salby's work was confiscated and has still not been returned to him.

The pursuit of genuine Science in the field of climate - and free speech are Dead in most Western Universities:
Other cases where top scientists were vilified and sacked or demoted by a University for the results of their science or for their views on the climate include;
Bob Carter, Murry Salby Lennart Bengtsson, David Legates, George Taylor, Caleb Rossiter, Bjorn Lomborg, Henk Tennekes, Askel Winn-Nielsen, Alfonso Sutera, Anonio Speranza and scores of others.

 

[lomiller]

You wish !

I linked to the Journal Nature, you responded with a link to "hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk". Somehow I don't think you understand how science vs wishful thinking works

 

[lomiller]

Pathetic response, try this


In particular the points referenced in the list below here ...

Youtube video repeating well debunked woo. If you need to post this I suggest the science forum is not the appropriate place.

 

[Belz...]

Stop embarrassing yourself, Haig. It's sad.

Pathetic response, try this

I see you didn't take my advice.

 

[asydhouse]

I think everyone here can see which responses are pathetic.

 

[Reality Check]

You wish ! ...

Citing a list about an fairly imaginary event is really ignorant, Haig. As people have found out that "hiatus" is an exaggeration propagated by climate change deniers and unfortunately addressed as if it were real by climate scientists. There was a normal variation in global surface temperatures while global warming actually accelerated.
A stupid quote from somewhere is even worse.

Haig's first 18 parroted ignorance and lies from climate change deniers dating from 11 May 2015 with the list continuing to grow.
To which we have to add

1. Missed 9 September 2015 Haig: Finds another astronomer who is ignorant about climate science knowledge about the effect of the Sun on climate!
2. Missed 9 September 2015 Haig: Links to a political [URL="http://realclimatescience.com/"]blog ranting about climate change. e.g. the insanity of the White House faking climate data pops up a couple of times.[/URL]
3. 16 November 2015 Haig: What you quote from the image is Anthony Watts lying by repeating Monckton's cherry picking!
4. 16 November 2015 Haig: What you cite is Anthony Watts lying abut the data that the Heartland Institute may or may not produce at the United Nations’ COP 21 summit in Paris.
5. 23 November 2015 Haig: Cites Monckton's lies again as parroted by another climate change denying web site
6. 23 November 2015 Haig: The ignorant fantasies of Ben Davidson about climate change are not scientific evidence
7. 23 November 2015 Haig: Cites a political rant by a guest blogger on WUWT!

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Still does not know that YouTube videos are not scientific literature

Relationship between Greenhouse Gases and Global Temperature

A pathetic video from the dubious (according to Wikipedia !) Prof. Murry Salby.
Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural

Multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions.

This is an analysis of the errors in a 2011 podcast.

From what is quoted from the video, Salby is lying. There is no such thing as "AGWers". Climate scientists have multiple lines of evidence that our emissions of CO2 are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
26 November 2015 Haig: Still does not know that YouTube videos are not scientific literature and that personal opinions are not science !
26 November 2015 Haig: Ignorant enough about climate science to link to Murry Salby denying climate science.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Repeats his ignorance that YouTube videos are not scientific literature

Climate Scientist Murry Salby Returns! - Presents NEW SCIENCE

Wow repeating your ignorance, Haig.
26 November 2015 Haig: Repeats his ignorance that YouTube videos are not scientific literature and that personal opinions are not science !

You also did not recognize the lies that you quote from that video such as the cherry picking of unnamed "3 independent methods".
How sensitive is our climate?

Some global warming 'skeptics' argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1°C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about. However, values this low are inconsistent with numerous studies using a wide variety of methods, including (i) paleoclimate data, (ii) recent empirical data, and (iii) generally accepted climate models.

The climate sensitivity confirmed by every study that existed in 2013 is

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized climate sensitivity as "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values."

26 November 2015 Haig: Salby lies about climate sensitivity being below 0.2C by cherry picking unnamed studies.

How sensitive is our climate?

In other words, if you argue that the Earth has a low climate sensitivity to CO2, you are also arguing for a low climate sensitivity to other influences such as solar irradiance, orbital changes, and volcanic emissions. In fact, as shown in Figure 1, the climate is less sensitive to changes in solar activity than greenhouse gases. Thus when arguing for low climate sensitivity, it becomes difficult to explain past climate changes. For example, between glacial and interglacial periods, the planet's average temperature changes on the order of 6°C (more like 8-10°C in the Antarctic). If the climate sensitivity is low, for example due to increasing low-lying cloud cover reflecting more sunlight as a response to global warming, then how can these large past climate changes be explained?

26 November 2015 Haig: Salby reveals his ignorance about the implications of low climate sensitivity.

"2) Most of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic."
Basically denial of climate science s Salby should have known for years, e.g. see the 2011 blog post Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
26 November 2015 Haig: Salby is in denial of valid climate science that has multiple lines of evidence that our CO2 emissions are increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

3) is just a repeat of that denial of science.

"4) CO2, whether man-made or not, does not 'drive' the climate system."
This looks like the insanity of the greenhouse effect does not exist !
26 November 2015 Haig: Salby may be so in denial of AGW that he is willing to deny the greenhouse effect!

 

[aleCcowaN]

You can't keep a good AGW skeptic down Care to answer his latest science points too ????

Climate Scientist Murry Salby Returns! - Presents NEW SCIENCE

You always trying to sell something, Haig (it's obvious, good products don't need salesmen)

 

[macdoc]

A skeptic is informed Haig.....you are not. Don't try and use the skeptic badge to hide ignorance of the science.

 

[Haig]

A skeptic is informed Haig.....you are not. Don't try and use the skeptic badge to hide ignorance of the science.

We are NOT talking about me we are talking about Dr. Murry Salby and his science. Care to actually answer all/some of his listed points here?

Relationship between Greenhouse Gases and Global Temperature HERE

Dr. Murry Salby In his Hamburg, 2013, lecture

[35:41] AGWers claim that human CO2 dilutes atmospheric Carbon 13; for this to be true, native sources of CO2 must NOT dilute C13;

[36:34] Native Source of CO2 – 150 (96%) gigatons/yr — Human CO2 – 5 (4%) gtons/yr

[37:01] Native Sinks Approximately* Balance Native Sources – net CO2
*Approximately = even a small imbalance can overwhelm any human CO2

[native = 2 orders of magnitude greater than human]

[37:34] Since many native sources also involve Carbon 13, leaner than in the atmosphere, “ALL BETS ARE OFF.”
– What controls atmospheric CO2 is net emission from ALL sources and sinks [33:47]

[39:14] CO2 being conserved in the atmosphere, it is homogenized, i.e., evenly distributed, over long time periods (as observed, for land levels only, via satellites).

[39:40] High CO2 values (per SCIAMACHY satellites) are big CO2 sources – Note: they are not in industrialized nor highly populated regions (they are in Amazon basin, tropical Africa, and SE Asia)

[41:20] Observed deviations of global mean (natural) CO2 deviate widely, sometimes more than 100% from year to year, decade to decade – they are INcoherent with human CO2 emission rate, i.e, net global natural emission evolves independently of human emission.

[42:35] Observed global (land or ocean measurements) CO2 emission has strong sensitivity (.93 correlation [43:41]) to surface properties (mostly temperature, c = .8, and also soil moisture), i.e., increase in either increases CO2 native emissions.

[44:28] C13 has strong coherence with temp. and soil moisture, but inversely, temp. up = C13 down.

[45:15] Opposite changes of C13 and CO2 are the same ones seen in the ice proxy.

[45:22] Satellite record shows that the emissions are clearly NOT human, unless human emissions cause volcanic eruptions and El Nino.

[45:37] Re: Methane, CH4, record suffers from the same limitations as that of human CO2, but it’s even shorter. Note: human methane sources are independent of human sources of CO2. — Observed global CH4 emission has strong sensitivity (.94 correlation) to surface properties (mostly temperature, and also soil moisture), i.e., as with CO2, increase in either increases CH4 native emissions (this is what was seen in the proxy record).

[52:25] IPCC Claimed in 2007: “All of the increases [in CO2 concentration since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity.” Given the observed sensitivity of native emission of CO2 and C13,
the IPCC’s claim is IMPOSSIBLE.

Climate Scientist Murry Salby Returns! - Presents NEW SCIENCE HERE

Published on 24 Jun 2015
Author of the seminal book on climate; "Physics of the Atmosphere & Climate" Professor Murry Salby is without doubt one of the best Climate Scientists on the planet.
In a lecture in London on the 17th March, 2015, he reveals new work which shows that;

1) The climate sensitivity is below 0.2c - confirmed by 3 independent methods.
2) Most of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic.
3) CO2 movements and concentrations are largely determined by nature, not man; consequently, any cuts we make to our CO2 emissions will not have the desired effect, and are a costly waste of time.
4) CO2, whether man-made or not, does not 'drive' the climate system.

Professor Murry Salby has been vilified by enviro-alarmists and the left for his scientific results. Salby was disenfranchised and exiled from academia in Australia for daring to speak such “sacrilege.”
In a case similar to many others we have seen in Australia, and across the west, he was the subject of University hate and was finally sacked while he was on a lecture tour in Europe; his employer, Macquarie University of NSW, sacking him from his position as Professor of Climate Science. The University board cancelled his return ticket home, stranding him in Paris. All Salby's work was confiscated and has still not been returned to him.

The pursuit of genuine Science in the field of climate - and free speech are Dead in most Western Universities:
Other cases where top scientists were vilified and sacked or demoted by a University for the results of their science or for their views on the climate include;
Bob Carter, Murry Salby Lennart Bengtsson, David Legates, George Taylor, Caleb Rossiter, Bjorn Lomborg, Henk Tennekes, Askel Winn-Nielsen, Alfonso Sutera, Anonio Speranza and scores of others.

 

[macdoc]

His being disbarred had nothing to do with his "science" .....

A CLIMATE sceptic professor fired from his Australian university for alleged policy breaches had previously been banned for three years from accessing US taxpayer-funded science research money.

Dr Murry Salby, sacked in May by Macquarie University in Sydney, was the subject of a long investigation by the US National Science Foundation.

The investigation (pdf), which was finished in February 2009, concluded that over a period when Dr Salby was working at the University of Colorado, he had likely fabricated time sheets in relation to research paid for through NSF money.

We conclude that the Subject (Dr Salby) has engaged in a long-running course of deceptive conduct involving both his University and NSF. His conduct reflects a consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit. This supports a finding that the Subject is not presently responsible, and we recommend that he be debarred for five years.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/1...niversity--banned-national-science-foundation

followed by unethical behaviour in Australia

Salby's employment at Macquarie was terminated in 2013; his return ticket from Paris was cancelled by Macquarie, stranding Salby in Europe. Macquarie University stated that he was not dismissed because of his views on climate change, but for refusing to fulfill his teaching responsibilities and for inappropriate use of university resources including a corporate credit card.[3][10]

Your post is nothing but conspiracy propaganda and does belong in this thread.

 

[macdoc]

Meanwhile in the real world....it's getting much hotter and we're responsible...

On the heels of the news from NASA that October’s global temperature this year spiked more than any other month in 135 years, virtually assuring that 2015 will be the warmest year on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Wednesday that their data showed similarly remarkable numbers.

The arresting October heat is a sign of both the steady upward march of global temperatures from warming as well as the strong El Nino boosting global heat this year.


10 Nasty Surprises From Climate Change
By NASA’s calculations, October was more than 1°C, or nearly 2°F, above the 1951-1980 average for the month — the biggest departure for any month in their archives and the first time any month has exceeded a full degree Celsius. NOAA put the departure at 0.98°C (or 1.76°F) compared to the 20th century average. This was also the highest departure in NOAA’s records, extending back 136 years. The small differences are due to the slightly different ways the two agencies treat the data, though overall their estimates are in broad agreement.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/u-s-agencies-agree-october-was-crazy-warm-151118.htm

 

[Belz...]

That pause is coming any second now.

 

[Pixel42]

That pause is coming any second now.

IIRC Haig has actually been predicting an imminent ice age for several years.

 

[beelzebub]

On climate sensitivity.
It looks like global temperatures this year will reach, or even exceed, 1°C above pre-industrial global temperatures. This with only a ~43% increase of CO².

(400ppm - 280ppm = 120ppm, which is 120/280 * 100 = 42.857%)

So, with a 1°C increase in global temperatures for ~43% increase in CO², that would give a climate sensitivity of

100/43 = 2.3 * 1°C = 2.3°C

Now, I know this is a very simple and un-nuanced approach, but I think this does give a reasonable ballpark estimate of climate sensitivity.
What do you think?

BTW, Please feel free to correct any misconceptions or errors I may have committed

 

[Belz...]

IIRC Haig has actually been predicting an imminent ice age for several years.

Yeah. We call it "winter", up here.

 

[Trakar]

On climate sensitivity.
It looks like global temperatures this year will reach, or even exceed, 1°C above pre-industrial global temperatures. This with only a ~43% increase of CO².

(400ppm - 280ppm = 120ppm, which is 120/280 * 100 = 42.857%)

So, with a 1°C increase in global temperatures for ~43% increase in CO², that would give a climate sensitivity of

100/43 = 2.3 * 1°C = 2.3°C

Now, I know this is a very simple and un-nuanced approach, but I think this does give a reasonable ballpark estimate of climate sensitivity.
What do you think?

BTW, Please feel free to correct any misconceptions or errors I may have committed

The issue is that it takes multiple decades for even the short term equilibrium between CO2 and Climate to be reached and real, effective climate sensitivity is generally based on the medium (centuries) or total (millennia) scale timeframe. So even if you are looking at short-term climate sensitivity, what we are seeing isn't equilibrium at current conditions, but what equilibrium would have looked like if we had completely ceased emissions back in the late mid nineties. Back when our atmospheric contribution was more on the order of ~360ppm - 280 = 80ppm. Plugging that into your equations we get about 3.5C per doubling. Concerning given that even several optimistic estimates are looking 750 - 1200ppm by early next century under what are considered by many as draconian climate change restriction methods and measures.

 

[beelzebub]

Trakar,
Quite right - alas the 'Deniers of Science' continue to pretend that climate sensitivity is low, and therefore nothing to worry about.

What does worry me, is that global temperatures were flat for about 30 years, in the 20th Century, due to particulates. Without that, the rise in temperature up to today would be even higher.
Barring a really major volcanic event, I don't see anything that could cause such a 'hiatus' for the rest of this century, so perhaps even your estimate is a bit low - oops!