Discussion > So where are Salby and Darwall wrong .... precisely?
Gavin
Thank you for your contribution especially that fisking of my last post.
I think most contributors here will draw their own conclusions about how it relates to the science of climate change as practised by the Consensus Supporters.
My own view is that the science is weak and always has been and that "climate change" as a political imperative is what has driven the science since the 1970s.
I have always been reasonably reasonable and am still happy to be convinced that catastrophic anthropogenic warming is real but I am not holding my breath and every day that passes serves to convince me that even the "supporters" of cAGW are struggling to convince themselves.
Mike Jackson
I have to admit, when a person starts using terms such as “forcings”, as if elements of the system are somehow not part of the system, but affect the other parts, I get suspicious. Similarly, the claim that CO2 is THE driving factor in “climate change” (once known as “global warming” until…well… it stopped the warming bit) – except when it isn’t. It would appear that other “forcings” come into play, for whatever reason can be made up at the time. So which is it? Is CO2 the sole driving factor, and control of CO2 will control the temperature, or is it not? If it is the only driving factor, how can other “forcings” downplay its effects? (And it is interesting to note that these other “forcings” invariably downplay its effect, they never seem to boost it.) I stand by the comments made at 3:26 PM, particularly the latter half of the second paragraph: “ I doubt that there is one single controlling factor in the climate; I would not be surprised if we never fully understand the dynamics of the system…” It is a chaotic system; would it ever be possible for humans to understand or predict in such a system?
Radical Rodent
Radical, the fact that you have seen the 4000 figure around but can't say where is exactly how myths are propagated. You've seen it and you repeat it. Others will have seen you use it and will remember it from this thread, forgetting the context or the objections. They will then repeat it elsewhere as 'fact' that they may well believe to be true, just as you do (did?).
Martin, yes CO2 is being described as a control knob as you say. But consider the timescales. Everyone agrees (I hope) that there are many influences on climate over geological timescales. The "CO2 as the main control knob" idea comes about when we start talking of human timescales as the other influences are insignificant. It is the fact that we have altered a control (CO2) that hitherto operated at geological timescales towards human timescales that has everybody so worried.
Raff
Salby's theory is nothing but an absurd epicycle when there's a perfectly unabsurd explanation that fits all the data.
Markus
Markus - what do you think (in one or two lines) "Salby's theory" is? Why do you say it "is nothing but an absurd epicycle"?
To be frank, your comment gives the impression you haven't a clue what he is on about or why it might be considered incorrect - other than you have read adverse comments about him somewhere. What do you think that readers of this blog think of people who make comments like yours?
Martin A
+1 Martin A
diogenes
Time to have a look at Chen & Tung 2014, I think.
Science has it here
Judith Curry has it here
Oh, and another +1 to Martin A. Stop making yourself look silly, Markus.
Mike Jackson
Aug 21, 2014 at 7:47 PM | Mike Jackson
I generally agree with that. My fall back position has always been
1. Has it been cooler globally in the recent past (1million years ago max)? = Yes
2. Has it been warmer globally in the recent past? = Yes
3. Has it been cooler with more CO2 in the recent past? = Yes
4. Has it been cooler with less CO2 in the past? = Yes
5. Has it been warmer in the past with more CO2? = Yes
6. Has it been warmer in the past with less CO2 = Yes
question 7 to n repeat 3 to 6 for more active/less active sun, Vulcanism, Supernovas, Deserts, Ice, Snow, Tectonic plate movements (e.g. Mountain Uplifts) and anything else you can think of.
Last question are there any Noes in the previous answers? No, not that I'm aware of.
Therefore what has changed and why is CO2 the cause? Answers on a postcard
SandyS
Okay, I confess… I can find nothing to support my earlier figures for CO2, so either my memory is faulty, I misread graphs given, someone fed me dodgy information or it was all part of some huge international plot to make me look silly. Of those four, the first two are the more likely.
However, I did find some interesting snippets in my search, like here and here.
Radical Rodent
Raff
Radical, the fact that you have seen the 4000 figure around but can't say where is exactly how myths are propagated. You've seen it and you repeat it. Others will have seen you use it and will remember it from this thread, forgetting the context or the objections. They will then repeat it elsewhere as 'fact' that they may well believe to be true, just as you do (did?).
You've just described how alarmist press releases to the MSM work.
SandyS
Sorry just noticed typo that should read
<1. Has it been cooler globally in the recent past (100 million years ago max)
SandyS
Yes, Raff, I see what you mean.
It would have been good if climate science could explain and accurately model the medieval warm period, the little ice age, and explain what combination of factors caused them. And the other, older warm and cold periods well known to archeologists.
"It is the fact that we have altered a control (CO2) that hitherto operated at geological timescales towards human timescales that has everybody so worried." No question that some people are worried.
The ongoing increase in atmospheric CO₂ seems to have got under way well before the heavy use of mineral fuels started in the twentieth century. Here's Salby's slide. A result of the warming that followed the still ongoing exit from the little ice age?
This discussion has got me interested in understanding better what Salby is really saying about the relation between climate and natural CO₂ emissions. And understanding Gavin Cawley's argument that what Salby says is invalid. (Obviously a correlation coefficient does not depend on the mean values of the things you are correlating but I need to get my head round the connection between that and why that means that what Salby says about natural CO2 emissions is wrong.)
You asked why Salby has not yet published his work with, if my antenna detected right, an implication that his work not having yet been published implies there is a problem with its validity. I don't think you can read anything whatever into the fact that his work has not yet been published - there are a whole set of possible reasons why it has not yet appeared - not least the disruption to his life of last year's events, not overlooking the loss of facilities and the apparent firing of his Russian research assistant. I've known academics, who were really on to something, take years to get it all together before finally revealing in detail what they had produced. For someone of Salby's stature it would be out of character to publish his work in an un-refereed medium such as blog somewhere as you suggested. That is something you can be certain won't happen.
Martin A
Touché, SandyS!
Now, why can’t I come up with ripostes like that…?
Radical Rodent
Aug 22, 2014 at 12:19 AM diogenes
Markus is a bad boy. I shall have a stern word with him.
He's actually a BH regular who used used a false pseudo to make visitors from "…and Then There's Physics" look silly by posting that comment and knowing that readers would assume it was someone from ATTP who posted it.
Markus's Mum
Martin, "A result of the warming that followed the still ongoing exit from the little ice age? " there's a graph here that shows it better. Salby's started his at 1830 to show a nice smooth curve, but it was a bit bumpy before then. " For someone of Salby's stature..." - does he still have this stature? Does he still attend conferences and speak? Would any scientific conference invite him to speak now? They would not know what he would decide actually to speak about (as opposed to what he promised to speak about).
To me this whole thread addresses the wrong question. I would formulate it with this statement:
CO2 emissions are at twice the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2. Is the increase of atmospheric CO2 anthropogenic? Well, duh! Of course it is!
How does anyone get beyond, well, duh! (no need to bring in correlations, isotopes or whatever else)?
Raff
Raff - and here's a temperature graph that seems to show high correlation with the CO₂ graph you quoted. High in the MWP, low in the LIA, rising rapidly before the major use of mineral fuel.
Obviously Salby is in bad odour with the Priesthood but that does not diminish his record of accomplishments. Perhaps I should have used the word calibre, instead of stature?
On CO₂, you see evidently things clearly. It's not absolutely as clear as duh! to me. Complicated dynamic systems which are only partially understood are .... complicated. To me there is a big difference between something being plausible (aka as 'obvious' to some other people) and something being known for certain.
To me this whole thread addresses the wrong question. I would formulate it with this statement:
CO2 emissions are at twice the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2. Is the increase of atmospheric CO2 anthropogenic? Well, duh! Of course it is!
Don't overlook that Salby said a number of other things in his presentation - not just about the origin of atmos CO₂
Martin A
Like Salby, Radical Rodent can't seem to be able to add to the list the possibility that he may have been talking out his ass. ANYBODY could invalidate a statement that ludicrous.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
And to further illuminate how clueless the denier clique is here, a simple six word google search IMMEDIATELY yields the source of Radical Rodents ill founded delusion.
DavidG says:
August 16, 2013 at 4:26 pm
At the height of the last glaciation C02 was at 4000 ppm. That means of course that most f the commentary on carbon is absolutely wrong.
I leave it to the reader to find the source blog article. It was the first item on my search list.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Thank you, Thomas Lee Elifritz; please read what I said – while I would not use the lingo you choose, that is more or less what I said. Not sure why you should get so upset I couldn’t express it in your terminology, but feel free and gloat away.
Whatever… the simple fact is, the evidence is such that there is no link between CO2 and temperature rise.
Radical Rodent
"Like Salby, Radical Rodent can't seem to be able to add to the list the possibility that he may have been talking out his ass."
Didn't you notice the rodent had already conceded they could not sustantiate what they had recollected?
Thomas Lee, do you have any idea how you come across to others?
I think that the rodent is a she-mouse.
Martin A
Thank you, Martin, though I do like to consider myself more than a mouse – and I do try to conceal my gender, colour or sexual preference to avoid suppositions and prejudice, which was the intention of my parents, Mrs, Mrs, Mrs and a Petri dish Rodent naming me thus. Five wise people, I have always thought.
Radical Rodent
And I dredged up a WUWT comment by some guy on the internet that more or less proves that Radical Rodent was talking out his ass when he made the most laughable statement I have ever heard on a blog that purports science. What is remarkable is that Radical Rodent was not even willing to concede that he MIGHT have been talking out his ass.
Really, his laughability index is off the scale, much greater than even Mack's flat Earth solar irradiance statements over at Sou's. Make of it what you will. I can provide links to the actual WUWT comment if you like, not that it will help you at all.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Martin, that's an odd graph. The Lamb graph I've seen before is much smoother, has no scale and stops some time last century (presumably around 1965 when he published).
The "well, duh!" would apply equally if some little ancient species of bacteria started giving off oxygen into an atmosphere initially lacking O2 and atmospheric levels went up slower than the rate at which the bacteria were producing. Do you think it might have been the bacteria were responsible for rising O2 levels? Well, duh! Of course!
Raff
Hmmm… I do seem to have rattled your cage, haven’t I, Tommy Boy? Please tell me what is wrong with being wrong in science? Unless, of course, you are not prepared to accept that you are wrong, which is truly not scientific. I have admitted that I was wrong, and the fault was entirely my own; what is it about my posting(s) that is getting you into such a frenzy? Is it that I am not prepared to use the terminology you seem to find so attractive?
Mind you, I am somewhat flattered by my comment being the funniest thing you have ever heard on a blog. You are almost making me blush.
Radical Rodent
Radical,
?Not a problem. Not insulted by being confused with Gavin :-)
I think this discussion has rather diverged from the original issue, so am not sure there's much point in carrying on much further. I still think it would be good to clarify the issue related to whether or not CO2 concentrations 22000 years ago were around 4000ppm, or nearer 180ppm. Up to you though.
Shub,
Huh?