Posted By: JoinerHas anyone except Paul, Bot and me actually LISTENED to the podcast AND read the paper linked to by Paul?http:///forum114/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/cry.gif" alt="" title="" >

There is no paper linked to, just a poorly written blog article on a climate sceptic blog.

I've read that and have now listened to all 32 minutes of the very smug sounding professors speech, and I'd really like that 32 minutes of my life back tbh.

Without actually seeing the graphs used it's hard to know exactly what he's on about, but it seems like the following is what he's done...

Demonstrated a correlation between global temperature and soil moisture content fluctuations, and the size of the annual fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It's already well established that this is the case, so his work on this may add some detail to that knowledge, but is hardly revolutionary as it confirms what mainstream climate science already knew to be the case.

If I'm understanding him right, he then seems to have extrapolated from this to show that the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 150 years or so correlates well with atmospheric temperature rises, and that it is therefore the temperature rise that's driving the CO2 rise. This would seem to be where he's made his basic error of judgement, by ignoring the maxim about correlation not proving causation. This is particularly the case in a situation where there is a huge amount of feedback between both factors - ie rising CO2 levels will cause global temperatures to rise, which in itself would cause the correlation he's showing, so this correlation doesn't really tell us anything at all (or more precisely, it tells us that there is a likely link between CO2 and global temperature, but not what that link actually is).

He also makes a major thing about atmospheric CO2 concentrations not being highest over industrialised areas, which is hard to discuss properly without seeing the actual picture he was using. As he points out himself though, the CO2 concentrations are a product of both human and natural sources, so it's entirely possible that some industrialised areas will have lower levels of natural CO2 sources / higher levels of absorbtion (less likely) than some none industrialised areas and that local CO2 concentrations will be higher in these areas at various points in the year. This tells us little about the responsibility for the rise in global CO2 concentrations.

Having said that though, all the images available on NASA's AIRS website flatly contradict his assertions, and clearly show higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations around most of the major industrial CO2 sources. I'd therefore suggest that either he or NASA are being highly selective about which images they use, and given that NASA have released a short animated clip showing every monthly image from the last decade that clearly shows the major rises occur first in the northern hemisphere around the industrialised areas each year, I'd suggest it's Prof Salby who's being selective in his use of the imagery.

Satellite imagery of atmospheric CO2 concentrations around the world available here...
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003600/a003685/AIRSCO2_MLOComposite_small.wmv
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003600/a003685/index.html

this comment from that scienceblogs piece is interesting as well...

"In discussing what his model would mean for past variations of temperature and CO2, it eventually became clear that he believed all paleoclimate data that supported his statistical analysis and disregarded all paleoclimate data that countered his statistical analysis, even though the latter collection was much larger than the former

Eventually I realized that if 0.8 C of warming is sufficient to produce an increase of 120ppm CO2, as Salby asserted, then the converse would also have to be true. During the last glacial maximum, when global temperatures were indisputably several degrees cooler than today, the atmospheric CO2 concentration must have been negative.

That was enough for me."

so he's cherry picking the data to support his hypothesis, and ignoring the vast bulk of the research that refutes his hypothesis... great use of the scientific method there professor, and a sure fire way to ensure your academic reputation ends up getting deservedly trashed around the world as people point out the glaring holes in your argument. Still, at least you'll be able to flog a lot of books to the sceptics, so that's ok then isn't it?

Posted By: bot de pailleIf you listen to the podcast, he explains why this notion that CO2 levels being stable before the industrial revolution is a fallacy. In fact C02 levels are in constant flux.

The words you're looking for are 'dynamic equilibrium'. There undoubtedly were huge flows of CO2 both into and out of the atmosphere from natural sources, however they basically balanced each other out other than some relatively minor short term fluctuations. There certainly wasn't any significant upward trend as there has been since the industrial revolution / start point for the mass burning of fossil fuels.

Simple fact of the matter is that the total volume of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by significantly less than the total volume we've added to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, which dictates that the net balance of natural emissions vs sinks has been negative, and that the increase therefore can not possibly be caused by natural sources.

This really is such a silly argument that it makes me seriously question how this guy has ended up as a professor. It seems he's american though, and IIRC pretty much all american lecturers are called professors, which may help explain things a little.

I would just like to make it clear that I am a flat earther, climate change denier, holocaust denier, dont believe in smoking causing cancer, I receive large checks from Exxon every month and was regularly sleeping with the entire Bush family. oh and I don't like dolphins or baby seals

Gavin- your entire input to this thread has been smug

Deleted

Posted By: bot de pailleGavin- your entire input to this thread has been smug

it's dealing with blatantly wrong headed nonsense like this that brings it out in me.

now, if you've done with the personal attack, would you care to accept or rebut any of the substance of my posts?

Mike, aren't you being a bit off-target with your comment? Nobody has rubbished anyone and it was bot's attempt at irony that introduced "flat-earthers".

Whilst I would be the first to agree with you that Paul usually brings wisdom and common sense to this forum, it does not mean that we should accept everything he says without testing its veracity. And I believe he would concur.

As to authority, how about a consensus of nearly 100% of climate and associated discipline scientists that AGW is now beyond reasonable doubt?

Murry Salby has a book to sell and there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Posted By: marktimeAs to authority, how about a consensus of nearly 100% of climate and associated discipline scientists that AGW is now beyond reasonable doubt?

This consensus viewpoints is one of the criticism of the IPCC, it does not mean that the data is correct, the methodology is correct, the scope is correct or anything really, it is just the way they work. Now in their case I tend to agree with it but it is open to abuse by a strong leader, political pressure or buddy pacts. Last year the IPCC got pulled up over some data about glaciers in the Himalayas, was an article in my favourite comic that was the source and was only about 1 glacier, the source was correct but it should never have been put in to an IPCC report, but it got there. This is one of the problems with the IPCC's editing and an over reliance on third party peer reviewing. Now I do not think that it was done on purpose, Climate Scientists are as pushed for time as the rest of us and it is easy to make mistakes, we all make mistakes, it is how we then deal with them that is important, think Phil Jones and the emails.

Wasn't aware that I HAD changed my mind, especially given: "As it happens, even with my very limited understanding I got the same impression as other critics and would indeed have used the word "extrapolation" and questioned the baseline assumptions, if not the actual figures. I just needed confirmation in an authoratitive form."

In other words, Gavin, I was looking for precisely the response that you gave once you'd actually read the "blog" and listened to the podcast. My concern was over the apparent (very apparent) offhand dismissal of someone who was throwing a spanner into works I thought had been finalised. But the criticisms are now legitimate because they're NOW based on a reading/listening of what the guy's actually said, rather than an assumption followed by an offhand dismissal on the basis of a knee-jerk reaction to a few introductory words - by your own admission Gavin.

Whenever I hear the word "extrapolation" I look askance at whoever's uttered it and if I don't see a smile playing around the edge of their mouth I tense and only relax when the following words are accompanied by heavy qualification. I am deeply suspicious of assumptions based on assumptions, it's a situation akin to that implicit in the difference between criminal and civil trials; in the former the case against the defendant must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the latter the case needs only to have been proved within the bounds of probability.

The nature of the podcast meant that I couldn't see a smile around Salby's mouth. Strike one. I didn't hear any heavy qualification either. Strike two. Gavin's rebuttal was comprehensive enough and aligned with what I already knew and believed to be true. Strike three.

Makes me a happy bunny. Just have to get my head around why grown up people feel the need to get so bloody personal now. That's the hardest part.

Posted By: JoinerIn other words, Gavin, I was looking for precisely the response that you gave once you'd actually read the "blog" and listened to the podcast. My concern was over the apparent (very apparent) offhand dismissal of someone who was throwing a spanner into works I thought had been finalised. But the criticisms are now legitimate because they're NOW based on a reading/listening of what the guy's actually said, rather than an assumption followed by an offhand dismissal on the basis of a knee-jerk reaction to a few introductory words - by your own admission Gavin.

tbf, I had read the article linked to before commenting at all, and the podcast merely confirmed what the article had said. The flaws in this line of thinking are so apparent that I really didn't need to listen to half an hour of his waffle to work out that he must be wrong, as his basic premise just doesn't fit with any of the other facts that are known about the situation.

According to the comment posted from someone who discussed this with him after the presentation, he's managed to square this circle by deciding that all the inconvenient facts that don't fit with his hypothesis must be wrong, which is a somewhat unusual approach to take.

My main attack on him personally actually refers to his decision to hype up the results of this research well in advance of publication in that way that he has. Given that anyone who's paid even the slightest bit of attention over the last 15 years will realise that such pronouncements will be seized upon by the like of Fox news, wattsupwiththat and the rest of the echo chamber and splashed around the world as the next big thing to discredit AGW in their eyes, thus further confusing the general public into thinking there's far less certainty about this issue than there actually is. 6 weeks down the line when the actual paper is released and it becomes clear either that it's far less conclusive than he's making out, or that he's simply made a basic error in his calculations / deductions it will be too late, the damage will have been done and the echo chamber will simply move on without acknowledging they've got it wrong at all. Maybe he was just being naive, but really people in such positions ought to take more care over the way they present such work IMHO (unless it is a hoax of course, in which case I'd congratulate him on his success).

Once all the polar bears have drowned we can just paint the black ones white any way, so it doesn't matter.