Dr. Salby Explains Why CO2 Does NOT Drive Climate

[futurecurrents]

Wow, very impressive and technical. He must know what he's talking about.

**************************************************

Except there are multiple problems. One the most obvious indictments of his lack of credibility is his presentation of this chart..

What we are interested in with regards to CO2 forcing global warming is the heat content of the earth. This means measuring the heat content of the oceans as well as the air. The oceans being far more important as they contain 94% of the earth's heat. He should know this. So what does he do? He uses atmospheric temperature which due to the influence of the oceans is highly variable around the mean. Why does he do this? Because he may be a shill. Shill...from the German word Schieber (“black marketeer, profiteer”) via *shi-la-ber. Then there is also the issues of the time period chosen, how he scales the temp chart and which data set he is using for air temps but those are secondary points. He is probably using Had-Crut which underestimates the temp rise. Had he used this data his argument would not look as good.

It is true that most of the models are labeled as modeling atmospheric temperature. That is however an unfortunate and inadequate label and were the climate modelers asked they would agree that their models are really more accurately measuring the earth's total heat content of which the air temp is a crude proxy for. Trying to predict the oceans influence on air temps over short periods of time is very difficult.

If one were to place the chart of the oceans heat content alongside the models one would see that the models do predict quite well.

Now the above is what leaped out at me immediately but there is much more that can be criticized about his presentation. I don't have the time to do that right as I have work to do, but others have done so here...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm

and here....

http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/09/...the-helmut-schmidt-university/#comment-459459


This is just another in the never-ending line of junk science and disinformation that is being promulgated by the fossil fuel fed denial machine to help confuse the issue and sow doubt. The tobacco companies did the same thing when the science about the harm from tobacco came out. What Salby's motivations are, I do not know, but suffice it to say that there is big money behind the denier machine.

 

[pspr]

LOL. Nonsense, FC.

It's only going to get worse for you after 2013 as it looks like we will be on the downside slide in global temperatures.

The sun is expected by scientists (including NASA) to be going into a cooler phase after being more active since the little ice age.

<img src=http://www.green-agenda.com/images/sunspot1.gif>

Also, the PDO/AMO are going into a cooling phase and they correlate well, much more closely that CO2, to global temperature changes.

<img src=http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/amopdo_regression.png>

With these two climate drivers going into cooling phases, we are going to experience cooler global temperatures.

CO2 is negligible in predicting climate change. One only needs to look at the failure of the IPCC models to see this.

 

[pspr]

<font color=blue size=4><b><I>“The influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.”</b></I>
~ Richard Lindzen, MIT Atmospheric Physicist</font>

 

[pspr]

To John Cook – it isn’t ‘hate’, it’s pity, – pity for having such a weak argument you are forced to fabricate conclusions of epic proportions

Proving that crap can flow uphill, yesterday, John Cook got what one could consider the ultimate endorsement. A tweet from the Twitter account of the Twitterer in Chief, Barack Obama, about Cook’s 97% consensus lie.

<a href=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/to-john-cook-it-isnt-hate-its-pity-pity-for-having-such-a-weak-argument-you-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/><b>The 97% Consensus - A Lie Of Epic Proportions</b></a>

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from pspr:

<font color=blue size=4><b><I>“The influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.”</b></I>
~ Richard Lindzen, MIT Atmospheric Physicist</font>

That does sum it up pretty well doesn't it?

 

[jem]

its funny now that bozo realizes he can't deny temperature is no longer going up... he switches to ocean heat.

although all his models were about surface temperature.

yet I am am willing to bet all the data shows co2 trails ocean heat not lags... since the oceans release co2 when they warm and consume co2 when they cool.

bozo has a huge cause and effect problem.

 

[pspr]

Quote from Lucrum:

That does sum it up pretty well doesn't it?

You would think FC would accept an MIT expert and his dramatic conclusion.

As jem said he is just grasping at straws with this 'ocean warming' thing. That was just the end of the PDO and AMO warm cycles if anything.

I guess when you put your ideology ahead of the science that is what you come up with. Contrived data and conclusions.

 

[stu]

Quote from pspr:
As suspected, this analysis is over the heads of futurecurrents and stu since they don't seem to have any comment.

The video blows your AGW science up with real science.

As a full time troll with an obsessive posting disorder on anything and everything, your suspicions are badly flawed much like your reasoning. Of course you would expect everyone to be constantly loitering around the place to make immediate responses just because you are.

Real science Lol. You mean anything that fits with your preconceptions is real science.

It's a great talk. An excellent presentation. Exactly what the debate needs. In -real science- that's what happens.

He basically is stating that largely, fluctuations in the bulk of CO2 is driven by temperature not the other way around. Pointing the cause to natural not man made. As CO2 emissions are actually measured in the real world, something else he quite rightly advocates above 'models', it still leaves the problem that the increase in temperature is of the same sort of magnitudes as are man made emissions. It may be that extraordinary coincidence is the case, but again, going on observed evidence, it's very unlikely.

That's why -real science- is scrutinized hypothesis, and not a jumped up conclusion you want to believe in.

 

[jem]

very subtle bullshit right there, you are a tricky one.

please point to a change in temperature outside natural variation using appropriate statistical methods..

The MET office recently had to admit to Parliament it was not using the best statistical methods when it claimed there was warming outside natural variation.

You also left out all the other far more likely drivers of temps...
such as the Sun, the Tides or as recent studies have suggested aerosols.

Quote from stu:

As a full time troll with an obsessive posting disorder on anything and everything, your suspicions are badly flawed much like your reasoning. Of course you would expect everyone to be constantly loitering around the place to make immediate responses just because you are.

Real science Lol. You mean anything that fits with your preconceptions is real science.

It's a great talk. An excellent presentation. Exactly what the debate needs. In -real science- that's what happens.

He basically is stating that largely, fluctuations in the bulk of CO2 is driven by temperature not the other way around. Pointing the cause to natural not man made. As CO2 emissions are actually measured in the real world, something else he quite rightly advocates above 'models', it still leaves the problem that the increase in temperature is of the same sort of magnitudes as are man made emissions. It may be that extraordinary coincidence is the case, but again, going on observed evidence, it's very unlikely.

That's why -real science- is scrutinized hypothesis, and not a jumped up conclusion you want to believe in.

 

[pspr]

Quote from stu:

As a full time troll with an obsessive posting disorder on anything and everything, your suspicions are badly flawed much like your reasoning. Of course you would expect everyone to be constantly loitering around the place to make immediate responses just because you are.

It would be most likely that you would be a troll. A one trick pony turning his second trick. However, you are not a person with a grounding in science as is obvious to all.

Real science Lol. You mean anything that fits with your preconceptions is real science.

It's a great talk. An excellent presentation. Exactly what the debate needs. In -real science- that's what happens.

He basically is stating that largely, fluctuations in the bulk of CO2 is driven by temperature not the other way around. Pointing the cause to natural not man made. As CO2 emissions are actually measured in the real world, something else he quite rightly advocates above 'models', it still leaves the problem that the increase in temperature is of the same sort of magnitudes as are man made emissions. It may be that extraordinary coincidence is the case, but again, going on observed evidence, it's very unlikely.

As I suspected, you didn't understand the presentation. The flawed concept was first introduced and then the observation was presented that debunked the concept. SOP for scientific analysis and way over your head.

Unfortunately, you are unable to understand the arguments and your statements indeed do not meet scientific verification.

That's why -real science- is scrutinized hypothesis,...

That is EXACTLY what was presented, you moron!