April 18, 2013
Presentation of Prof. Murry Salby in Hamburg, Germany, with the title: Relationship between Greenhouse Gases and Global Temperature.
Salby concludes the IPCC’s claim that carbon isotope ratios to prove burning of fossil fuels caused the increase in atmospheric CO2 is false. His reasons are (a) human emissions are only 5/150 of natural emissions, making human emissions relatively insignificant to natural emissions, and (b) natural emissions also contain carbon isotope rations similar to fossil fuels.
Murry Salby discusses this issue on pages 23-25 of his book “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate“. He also explains his interpretation in his video beginning at 34 minutes.
Dr. Murry Salby’s comprehensive new textbook, “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate” explains the reasons for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration in excruciating detail on pages 250 to 255. He concludes ocean surface temperatures are the primary driver of atmospheric CO2 concentration and human contributions are minor.
Have you done a critical review of this video and Salby's new one from London in July 2016? I believe this is the most important refutation of the CO2 catastrophe hypothesis but have found only limited in depth review of his talks. The reviewers I trust have good things to say for him and no real problems with his methods or results. SkS have multiple comments that even I can see are erroneous. I would appreciate your or some other qualified persons critique .
Raw deal for Greenhouse Gasses
I ask people – greenhouse gasses are bad for you, RIGHT? Most people when askes say yes. Next question – what is the most abundant greenhouse gas? Every time I get CO2. Water vapour or clouds is the right answer. Water vapour is the most significant greenhouse gas source and is responsible for roughly 96% of all greenhouse gasses. Without our greenhouse gasses we would be like the Moon. Greenhouse gasses keep us warm and protect us from dangerous x-rays, gamma rays, solar flares and solar winds. This is well known among climatologists and is common knowledge, but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.
CO2 is under 1% of all natural and manmade greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Of that one percent manmade CO2 makes up roughly four one hundredths of a percent. Half of the CO2 that comes from natural sources like volcanos or decay goes into the ocean and feeds the plankton to make half of our oxygen, and most of the rest feeds all the plants in the world with the help of photosynthesis that also gives us our oxygen. CO2 is good for life and at 400 parts per million is at one of its lowest levels in global history. Early man breathed 3000 parts per million and people that go down in submarines breath 8000 parts per million or more and they have their hand on the nuclear button.
This is only a small part of the complex climate science issue and as a duel citizen I voted for Trudeau – Hillary Clinton and do not watch Fox news.
Professor of creative studies retired Bob Evermon – Chairman ecology society 60s and worldwide member of the International Program on Climate Change (IPCC) 2009
Hello Dr Ed Berry,
in his presentation, Prof. Murry Salby exhibits a cross-correlation diagram (see video at 9:19) based on the last 40 years of CO2 and T measurements.
Prof. Salby uses the right part of the diagram to make the assumption that the global temperature is a strong driver of the CO2 concentrations (with a supposed lag of some 10 months) he then develops a theory which explains why, based on the conservation law and the surface conditions.
But the left part of the cross-correlation diagram is also very interesting :
– this part shows that there is no positive correlation between CO2 and T and if anything, a (weak) negative correlation, with a lag of some 16 months. So, if anything, this part of the diagram could lead to the assumption that CO2 act as a negative feedback with respect to T variations.
Based on this observation, how can one even make the hypothesis that CO2 concentration increase is a driver of the T increase since the data analysis show, if anything, rather the opposite ?
Worse of anything :
– How can a “theory” be proposed (and billions spent !) to “explain” an assumption that is already known to be inconsistent with actual physical data analysis (Mauna Loa CO2 concentrations and Earth’s global Temperatures at 2 meters altitude) ?
As Prof. Salby said the “CO2 drives T” theory is nothing else than pseudo-science.