Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

Quote from gwb-trading:

What specifically in the video is incorrect? Spell it out.

Go through the last 20 minutes of the video and provide us what is wrong with the charts and presentation.

This is your opportunity to show you know more than the doctor.
More...
I spelt it out. What he says has not stood scientific scrutiny.

You go through the last 20mins of his video and tell 'us' what's right with it, and what is correct about his 'model'.
Ironic seeing AGW deniers are always saying it's the 'models' that are wrong.

It's no good being under the delusion that making a plea to authority as you do above is going to be convincing enough to science, when your authority 'the doctor' , dismisses co2 ice core measurements by saying he simply "believes" they are proxies.

Salby is denying those 'doctors' in glaciology research who produce factual scientific evidence precisely measuring the presence of co2 in ice cores, rather than relying as Salby says on his "beliefs" .

Maybe you'd do better being more skeptical of AGW skeptics' videos.
 
Quote from stu:

I spelt it out. What he says has not stood scientific scrutiny.

You go through the last 20mins of his video and tell 'us' what's right with it, and what is correct about his 'model'.
Ironic seeing AGW deniers are always saying it's the 'models' that are wrong.

It's no good being under the delusion that making a plea to authority as you do above is going to be convincing enough to science, when your authority 'the doctor' , dismisses co2 ice core measurements by saying he simply "believes" they are proxies.

Salby is denying those 'doctors' in glaciology research who produce factual scientific evidence precisely measuring the presence of co2 in ice cores, rather than relying as Salby says on his "beliefs" .

Maybe you'd do better being more skeptical of AGW skeptics' videos.
More...

It is not the video that matters, and his work won't be judged on the video, it's the paper that counts. He has undoubtedly already submitted it, and it will take a long time to review. Probably several rounds. Stay tuned for the result. There are not enough details in the video to allow others to check his work carefully. There will be much more detail in the paper. I thought his approach to ice core analysis was correct, so far as I could tell. I am totally unfamiliar with how others have approached the problem of CO2 diffusion in ice (I hope this hasn't been ignored in the prior analyses!) I have a background in solution diffusion studies, but never worked in solid state diffusion.

Salby's work is going to make waves, one way or the other. He is not a shrinking violet. And he is most definitely qualified. He is not a quack, but that of course does not mean he can't be wrong.
 
Here they speak of 5 sources of uncertainty in ice core data...
this is one I found interesting.



"Quantitatively representing the effects of possible changes in the relationships between
the proxy variables measured, and the climate variable they are supposed to represent,
is far more problematic. A case in point is the relationship between sea ice and MSA,
which is often supposed to arise from the greater production of MSA in water stratified
by melting sea ice. Abram et al. (2007) concluded that at least in one location, the
“…relationship is most likely due to variations in the strength of cold offshore wind
anomalies ... which act to synergistically increase sea ice extent while decreasing MSA
delivery to the ice core sites.” Beside purely empirical studies (e.g. statistical
calibration/verification residuals), the only way to address this kind of uncertainty is
with process-based studies – in particular, coordinated measurements in the atmosphere
and snow to better understand air-snow transfer relationships – combined with the
incorporation of ice core proxy variables into atmospheric models. In particular, the
inclusion of ice core proxies, in addition to the water isotopes, should be encouraged in
the modeling community (e.g. Field et al., 2006, for
10
Be). To the extent that ice core
observations can be shown to validate these model predictions (an exercise that is just
beginning to be realized), uncertainties can be quantified by conducting model runs to
examine the sensitivity of the resulting proxies to various changes in climate; Schmidt et
al. (2007) provides a useful example."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/reports/trieste2008/ice-cores.pdf
 
here is a summary of some of the statements made by Salby... show us how these statements have not lived up to scrutiny.
(by the way, don't be an idiot fc and blame the blog...
deal with the statements made by salby)

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/06/climate-scientist-dr-murry-salby.html



Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change
Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby, Professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia explains in a recent, highly-recommended lecture presented at Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany, why man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or climate change. Dr. Salby demonstrates:
CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales
The IPCC claim that "All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity" is impossible
"Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels"
Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions
96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made
Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions
Methane levels are also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions
Climate model predictions track only a single independent variable - CO2 - and disregard all the other, much more important independent variables including clouds and water vapor.
The 1% of the global energy budget controlled by CO2 cannot wag the other 99%
Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 15+ years
Climate models have no predictive value
Feynman's quote "It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the data, it’s wrong" applies to the theory of man-made global warming.



Quote from stu:

I spelt it out. What he says has not stood scientific scrutiny.

You go through the last 20mins of his video and tell 'us' what's right with it, and what is correct about his 'model'.
Ironic seeing AGW deniers are always saying it's the 'models' that are wrong.

It's no good being under the delusion that making a plea to authority as you do above is going to be convincing enough to science, when your authority 'the doctor' , dismisses co2 ice core measurements by saying he simply "believes" they are proxies.

Salby is denying those 'doctors' in glaciology research who produce factual scientific evidence precisely measuring the presence of co2 in ice cores, rather than relying as Salby says on his "beliefs" .

Maybe you'd do better being more skeptical of AGW skeptics' videos.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top