• Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Science and Technology
  3. Prof. Murry Salby falsifies the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis

User Info: Reichmaster01

Reichmaster01
7 years ago#1
About Professor Salby:

http://www.envsci.mq.edu.au/staff/ms/research.html

His falsification:

http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/podcast/global-emission-of-carbon-dioxide-the-contribution-from-natural-sources/

Here are some excerpts (these are from14:00 - 30:00):

"The difficulty is that co2 is coupled to other properties of climate, the changes in one, induces changes in other climate properties. Ideally we would evaluate how net emissions of CO2 changes, through a controlled experiment, wherein we perturb the climate system in a known way, an observe its response. unfortunately, we haven't that capacity. only one party can perform that experiment - mother nature. And she has. For over 30 years,

It mirrors the growth of human population., with deviations of only a couple of percent. By contrast, observed deviations of net emission exceed 100% . They are uncorrelated with human emissions. That is, net global emission of CO2, changes independently of the human contribution.

The record of net emission does however resemble surface properties of the general circulation. During 1991-92, net emission decreased by 70%, it gradually rebounded over the following three years, that episode coincides with the eruption of mount pinatubo, which decreased global temperature in the same fashion. During 1997-98, net emission increased, by 200%, that episode coincides with el nino event, which increased global temperature. the correspondence during these events, indicates the net emissions is shaped by internal elements of the climate system which categorise the general circulation. the observed correspondence is infact consistent with field measurements of co2 emission. they reveal strong sensitivity to temperature supported over continent by soil moisture. An increase of either, these two increase the emission of CO2 from natural sources.

From the observed behaviour, it is clear, that net global emission of CO2 depends intrinsically on temperature, human emission does not.

The popularised view has been that CO2 is driving the bus, and climate is along for the ride. The observed behaviour reveals just the reverse. Climate is at the wheel, and to significant degree, CO2 is at the back of the bus.

Climate projections rely on an ability to predict Co2. It's the one thing believed to be known, because of the presumption that we control it. Namely, future atmospheric CO2 is determined entirely by human emissions. That is what is specified in climate models, which then predict how climate will respond, in so-called climate scenarios. The observed behaviour reveals that - as much as we might like it - the real world does not work that way. Net emission includes a substantial contribution of natural sources. If you don't control Co2, you can't predict it. And if you can't predict Co2, you can hardly predict how the climate will respond.

The climate modeling framework just described is the cornerstone of the IPCC, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I USED TO BE A REVIEWER. Much of the debate stems from the IPCC's last report. Warranted, the IPCC could not have drawn the sweeping conclusions that it did."


The reason why? 30:00 onwards.

User Info: Bahamut

Bahamut
7 years ago#2
Hey, what do you know? Another old tired argument repackaged as something fresh and different. What a surprise...

It mirrors the growth of human population., with deviations of only a couple of percent. By contrast, observed deviations of net emission exceed 100% . They are uncorrelated with human emissions. That is, net global emission of CO2, changes independently of the human contribution.

Yeah, when looking over time spans of *one to three years*. Over such short time periods there can be significant moderation of net CO2 concentration increase by certain elements of the climate system (e.g., ENSO, volcanic activity). However, this moderation is not permanent - the biosphere and climate system will spit out the absorbed excess CO2 a few years after absorption (e.g., dying plants, ocean up/downwelling), and vice versa for natural emission. The important thing is that over multi-decadal time spans, carbon content increases in the biosphere and climate system. This manifests as increased atmospheric CO2 concentration over multiple decades. This is not invalidated at all by transient noise in the data record. Dr. Salby is drawing conclusions from noise, a common climate "skeptic" tactic.

From the observed behaviour, it is clear, that net global emission of CO2 depends intrinsically on temperature, human emission does not.

Isotopic measurements of atmospheric CO2 shows a clear trend over multiple decades of increased fossil fuel CO2 concentration. This is not explainable through any natural means, other than volcanic emissions - and there is no evidence that volcanoes emit nearly as much CO2 as is necessary to cause the 30% increase in CO2 concentration in a single century. Perhaps Dr. Salby has another explanation for the isotope ratio measurements, but we can't accept his argument until he presents them in his upcoming paper...

The observed behaviour reveals just the reverse. Climate is at the wheel, and to significant degree, CO2 is at the back of the bus.

Oh, I see. Correlation IS causation if and only if it discredits ACC/AGW.

Climate projections rely on an ability to predict Co2.

No they don't. Climate *prediction* might, but climate *projection* only needs knowledge of the physical links between CO2 concentration and climate.

Namely, future atmospheric CO2 is determined entirely by human emissions.

What's funny is that Dr. Salby hits on a legitimate concern of climate scientists, but gets the implications exactly backwards (as usual for climate "skeptics"). It is fairly certain that given a large enough temperature increase and a long enough time, the climate system will respond to rising temperature via increased natural CO2 emission. This additional CO2 will enhance the anthropogenic contribution even further, resulting in more natural CO2 emission, and so on. This sets up a positive feedback loop that could easily escape human control. The correct understanding of the implications is anthropogenic CO2 emissions are even more dangerous than most people realize because of them potentially triggering a natural feedback loop. Thus, we have an additional impetus to curb anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the near future, so we don't risk such an event.

The reason why? 30:00 onwards.

Given the quality of your other sources "disproving" ACC/AGW, I am not inclined to listen to a 30+ minute lecture - which I can't even *see* - unless I have reason to believe it contains truly compelling information. Given what you have presented thus far, I am currently still in search of such a reason. Just summarize the thrust of his argument.
What makes a Greek tragedy a tragedy is that you can see it coming.

User Info: Bahamut

Bahamut
7 years ago#3
Real Climate is currently discussing the Salby lecture in their current open thread. It may be worth a read:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/unforced-variations-aug-2011/

As they say, what Dr. Salby wants us to believe is that humanity emits on average about twice the amount of CO2 every year that accumulates in the atmosphere. All of this CO2 is absorbed by the biosphere and oceans, which then spit out an equivalent amount of CO2 for completely unrelated reasons. It will be quite entertaining to get his paper and read what kind of mental gymnastics he had to perform to wrap his brain around that one.
What makes a Greek tragedy a tragedy is that you can see it coming.

User Info: Reichmaster01

Reichmaster01
7 years ago#4
Bahamut posted...
Hey, what do you know? Another old tired argument repackaged as something fresh and different. What a surprise...

Oh dear. I have noticed that you have cherry-picked the quotes quite shamelessly. And look, we have a professor who used to be a reviewer of the IPCC actually is claiming that the hypothesis is flawed. So, does this mean the science is settled? Or does this also mean that the AGWH is in fact not a hypothesis at all, but actually just a mathematical conclusion (that is not backed up by evidence and is plagued by consistently failed predictions) of the laws of physics?

Yeah, when looking over time spans of *one to three years*. Over such short time periods there can be significant moderation of net CO2 concentration increase by certain elements of the climate system (e.g., ENSO, volcanic activity). However, this moderation is not permanent - the biosphere and climate system will spit out the absorbed excess CO2 a few years after absorption (e.g., dying plants, ocean up/downwelling), and vice versa for natural emission. The important thing is that over multi-decadal time spans, carbon content increases in the biosphere and climate system. This manifests as increased atmospheric CO2 concentration over multiple decades. This is not invalidated at all by transient noise in the data record. Dr. Salby is drawing conclusions from noise, a common climate "skeptic" tactic.

I can see now why you try to deny the peer-reviewed hiatus in warming, because that would just completely throw what you say out the window, wouldn't it? You are using circular reasoning here. Stop it.

Isotopic measurements of atmospheric CO2 shows a clear trend over multiple decades of increased fossil fuel CO2 concentration. This is not explainable through any natural means, other than volcanic emissions - and there is no evidence that volcanoes emit nearly as much CO2 as is necessary to cause the 30% increase in CO2 concentration in a single century. Perhaps Dr. Salby has another explanation for the isotope ratio measurements, but we can't accept his argument until he presents them in his upcoming paper...

So you have to wait for his upcoming paper to assess his claim, but only for this point? You say there is no evidence to say whether the CO2 from volcanoes is nearly as much as necessary to cause a 30% increase in a single century. Where is your evidence that states the contrary? And why do ignore the point he makes just previously to that? In fact, you ignore most of the points yet again.

the correspondence during these events, indicates the net emissions is shaped by internal elements of the climate system which categorise the general circulation. the observed correspondence is infact consistent with field measurements of co2 emission. they reveal strong sensitivity to temperature supported over continent by soil moisture. An increase of either, these two increase the emission of CO2 from natural sources.

Oh, I see. Correlation IS causation if and only if it discredits ACC/AGW.

A typical tactic of the alarmist. Falsification does not require the presentation of an alternative hypothesis. Were you not taught this at the warmist factory?

No they don't. Climate *prediction* might, but climate *projection* only needs knowledge of the physical links between CO2 concentration and climate.

So by not being able to predict CO2, we can make accurate projections? Sure you can still make projections, but they become worthless.

Oh and those "projections" of the IPCC are made in the light as fact, does that not make them "predictions"?

User Info: Reichmaster01

Reichmaster01
7 years ago#5
Bahamut posted...
What's funny is that Dr. Salby hits on a legitimate concern of climate scientists, but gets the implications exactly backwards (as usual for climate "skeptics"). It is fairly certain that given a large enough temperature increase and a long enough time, the climate system will respond to rising temperature via increased natural CO2 emission. This additional CO2 will enhance the anthropogenic contribution even further, resulting in more natural CO2 emission, and so on. This sets up a positive feedback loop that could easily escape human control. The correct understanding of the implications is anthropogenic CO2 emissions are even more dangerous than most people realize because of them potentially triggering a natural feedback loop. Thus, we have an additional impetus to curb anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the near future, so we don't risk such an event.

Do you not see what he actually said? Future atmospheric CO2 is determined entirely by human emissions. He is criticising this outlook.

You then go on to say that you have found a way to blame ANY natural CO2 increase on human activity. Amazing, but typical of the warmist. You completely dismiss the effect of natural CO2 production, but now you admit that it is there, but is actually caused by humans.

I think it is very telling when you write:

sets up a positive feedback loop that could easily escape human control

Yes, the typical arrogance of the warmist shines through here. You actually believe that we can CONTROL the climate? Well I suppose that is good that we can. Can you turn the temperature up a couple of degrees to help solve the world's food shortage? Take your time, the next decade should do.

The reason why? 30:00 onwards.

Given the quality of your other sources "disproving" ACC/AGW, I am not inclined to listen to a 30+ minute lecture - which I can't even *see* - unless I have reason to believe it contains truly compelling information. Given what you have presented thus far, I am currently still in search of such a reason. Just summarize the thrust of his argument.

That's right, keep your head in the sand. And you continually seem to think falsifying a hypothesis involves presenting a water-tight scientific theory as an alternative. Whoever taught you the principles of scientific method needs to rethink how they teach it, because you clearly have no idea. Or maybe it just wasn't a part of your education.

Also why did you constantly ignore the points I was making in the other topics? I even listed some of them in point form to make it easier for you to respond. Is it because you can not? Here is just one - How do consistently failed predictions made under a hypothesis not debunk said hypothesis when the methods of conclusion are not altered?

User Info: Reichmaster01

Reichmaster01
7 years ago#6
Bahamut posted...
Real Climate is currently discussing the Salby lecture in their current open thread. It may be worth a read:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/unforced-variations-aug-2011/

As they say, what Dr. Salby wants us to believe is that humanity emits on average about twice the amount of CO2 every year that accumulates in the atmosphere. All of this CO2 is absorbed by the biosphere and oceans, which then spit out an equivalent amount of CO2 for completely unrelated reasons. It will be quite entertaining to get his paper and read what kind of mental gymnastics he had to perform to wrap his brain around that one.


Real Climate? Is that the same website that defended the use of the Mann Hockey Stick and praised Al Gore's error filled political documentary? I believe it is.

Maybe I missed it, but where do they mention that he suggests that it is warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa - which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.?

User Info: blazeluminous

blazeluminous
7 years ago#7
Excellent, yet another round of verbal jousting between Bahamut and Reich. This is going to be highly entertaining.
Good for the soul

User Info: Reichmaster01

Reichmaster01
7 years ago#8
blazeluminous posted...
Excellent, yet another round of verbal jousting between Bahamut and Reich. This is going to be highly entertaining.

Exciting, isn't it? The most entertaining part will be when Bahamut avoids the same questions I keep posing to him.

User Info: warfreak

warfreak
7 years ago#9
Reichmaster01 posted...
blazeluminous posted...
Excellent, yet another round of verbal jousting between Bahamut and Reich. This is going to be highly entertaining.

Exciting, isn't it? The most entertaining part will be when Bahamut avoids the same questions I keep posing to him.


The most entertaining parts will be you using every single logical fallacy and making completely unsubstantiated claims (anyone and their dog can take quotes out of context), in order to 'beat' Bahamut.

I can already see how this topic will progress. Everyone will point the bleedingly obvious, Reich here will not take any notice of it all, completely ignore it, and then selectively choose quotes that 'attempt' to bolster his case. Everyone will give up, ignore him, and he will start a new topic.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is my hypothesis. Now, go forth, and let it be proven.
Your opinion on the subject matter has been noted, and has been summarily ignored and dismissed. Have a nice day. - RaptorLC

User Info: Bahamut

Bahamut
7 years ago#10
I have noticed that you have cherry-picked the quotes quite shamelessly.

The reason for this is because...

And look, we have a professor who used to be a reviewer of the IPCC actually is claiming that the hypothesis is flawed. So, does this mean the science is settled? Or does this also mean that the AGWH is in fact not a hypothesis at all, but actually just a mathematical conclusion (that is not backed up by evidence and is plagued by consistently failed predictions) of the laws of physics?

...you parse your ideas quite poorly. Streams of consciousness do not make for good essays.

I can see now why you try to deny the peer-reviewed hiatus in warming, because that would just completely throw what you say out the window, wouldn't it?

You are criticizing me for attempting to build a coherent understanding of climate science using consistent reasoning and thinking? Yes, attempting to use a few years of data to understand multi-decadal climate change is just as problematic for the CO2 record as it is for the temperature record. I don't see why this consistency is worthy of criticism. If anything, your schizophrenic approach to the discussion is far more problematic than mine. The "Earth isn't warming/the warming is natural/its the sun/it's natural CO2/it's not CO2/climate is too complex to understand/a single professor understands climate/GRRDESTROYAGW" approach isn't helpful, unfortunately. It's kind of annoying, really. And very childish.

So you have to wait for his upcoming paper to assess his claim, but only for this point?

Yeah, because his other points are highly contingent on his invalidating the isotopic evidence.

You say there is no evidence to say whether the CO2 from volcanoes is nearly as much as necessary to cause a 30% increase in a single century. Where is your evidence that states the contrary?

Careful measurements of volcanic CO2 emissions, of course.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

"Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year."

But what does the USGS know? Bunch of parasitic hippies, that bunch.

Also, consider that the CO2 time series does not correlate strongly with volcanic activity. If volcanoes were a major cause of the atmospheric CO2 concentration increase, then because of their highly sporadic nature, we would expect to see major jumps in the record corresponding with major volcanic eruptions - Pinatubo, Agung, El Chichon. Even with moderation from internal climate dynamics, the CO2 time series would be much more jumpy than it currently is.

[EDIT] A recent Real Climate article on volcanic emissions:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/volcanic-vs-anthropogenic-co2/

Falsification does not require the presentation of an alternative hypothesis.

That is entirely not the point I made.
What makes a Greek tragedy a tragedy is that you can see it coming.
  1. Boards
  2. Science and Technology
  3. Prof. Murry Salby falsifies the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis
  • Topic Archived