No disinvitation so far.
Both the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) and Die kalte Sonne sites have announced that renown scientist Murry Salby will be speaking on climate in Hamburg.
Salby at a presentation in Sydney. Source here.
Professor Salby of the Macquarie University in Sydney has been invited by the Helmut Schmidt University and is scheduled to speak at 11 a.m. on April 18th. The precise location: Helmut-Schmidt-Universität; Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg; Fakultät für Elektrotechnik, Mensa Thomas Ellwein Saal.
Unfortunately I can’t attend. But if anyone else does, your report on the event may be published here at NoTricksZone.
Admission is free. Here is the announcement in English:
Relationship between greenhouse gases and global temperature!
Interpretations of climate revolve about changes of atmospheric composition, which involve an increase of greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide and methane are each emitted by human activities, as well as a host of native processes. Their relationship to global temperature is central to understanding current climate and how it will evolve.
Atmospheric composition and temperature are found to obey a clear two-pronged relationship in the proxy record from ice cores, which represents ancient changes that operate on time scales longer than several thousand years. A similar relationship is found to be obeyed in the observed record of actual atmospheric measurements, which represents modern changes that operate on time scales shorter than a century. Supporting analysis shows that the two relationships are connected. It reveals a common physical mechanism behind changes of composition in the two records. The physics common to the records provides unified insight into recorded changes of greenhouse gases, those apparent in the proxy record of ancient composition as well as those actually observed during the 20th century. The governing relationship is then compared against the relationship that prevails in climate models, in their simulation of future changes.”
Watch Professor Salby here in a youtube presentation in Sydney.
Peter,
I believe Salby’s first name is Murry [Thanks, fixed! -PG]
There is also another presentation dated July 24, 2012. Slightly different, better sound and image, but same criticism of the settle science.
I found it in Pensée unique, one of the rarely scientific french language site for those interested. (http://www.pensee-unique.eu/)
Here is the link to this Youtube video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVCps_SwD5w&list=PLILd8YzszWVTp8s1bx2KTNHXCzp8YQR1z&index=3&feature=plpp_video
If you are having problems while viewing, remember that there are 2 other small videos (see upper right corner of the screen : it must be settle to 3/3)
Enjoy
Papy Boomer, Chelsea, Québec
If the presentation at Helmut Schmidt University is uploaded to UTube, can you please post the link on Notricks zone.
Thanks
Unfortunately, Salby is wrong on several points.
– Indeed there is little difference in 13C/12C ratio of recent plant decay and fossil fuel use, but there are two points which make a difference: recent plants contain 14C from cosmic rays and from the 1950’s nuclear bomb tests. Fossil fuels don’t, as much too old. That needed corrections for carbon dating from about 1870 on. The second point is even more decisive: both fossil fuel use and organic decay need oxygen. The oxygen use of fossil fuel use can be calculated from sales and burning efficiency. The reduction of oxygen over time can be measured. That shows that slightly less oxygen is used than expected from fossil fuel use. Thus the biosphere as a whole (plants, animals, microbes,…) produces slightly more oxygen than it uses and thus is a net CO2 sink, not a CO2 source and leaves slighlty more 13CO2 in the atmosphere than 12CO2. Thus the biosphere is not the cause of the steady decline in 13C/12C ratio as seen over the past 1.5 century.
See: http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
Neither are the oceans: any substantial additional release of CO2 from the (deep) oceans would increase the 13CO2/12CO2 ratio in the atmosphere, but we see a continuous decrease…
– Temperature and CO2 levels:
According to Henry’s Law, the equilibrium between CO2 in the atmosphere and in the oceans changes with about 16 ppmv/°C. That is all. Thus the change of maximum 1°C since the LIA should have given maximum 16 ppmv increase in the atmosphere. Not the more than 100 ppmv we see sinds 1850 or 70+ ppmv since the accurate measurements at the South Pole and Mauna Loa started. The rest is human made… In fact more, as increased temperatures in general increase plant growth/area. The real short-term CO2 dependence on temperature (seasons to decades) is 4-5 ppmv/°C the very long term dependence (multi-decades to multi-millennia) is 8 ppmv/°C.
What Salby confuses is the short time temperature induced variability in SINK capacity of nature around the trend with the cause of the trend itself. But in the past 50+ years, nature was a net sink for CO2, not a source…
See further:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html#The_mass_balance
That humans are the cause of the increase is far beyond doubt, but that doesn’t say anything about the effect of the increase in CO2 on temperature. That is a complete different item where the whole discussion should be centered…
[…] at 11.00 I visited the lecture of atmospheric scientist Murry Salby in Hamburg at the Helmudt Schmidt University, the military […]
As Ferdinand explains above, Prof. Salby is indeed mistaken on a number of key points. I wrote an article for SkepticalScience explaining in detail the flaws in Prof. Salby’s reasoning, which can be found here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html
The fact that atmospheric CO2 is rising faster than cumulative anthropogenic emissions establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the natural environment as a whole is a net carbon sink, removing more CO2 from the atmosphere each year than it puts in. Thus it seems more reasonable to suggest that the natural environment is opposing the rise in atmospheric CO2, rather than causing it.
“The fact that atmospheric CO2 is rising faster than cumulative anthropogenic emissions establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the natural environment as a whole is a net carbon sink”
Did you mean “rising slower” here?
On 4/18/2013, Ferdinand Engelbeen misunderstands Henry’s Law and its dominance over atmospheric CO2 to the exclusion of human emissions.
1. Neither Salby nor the IPCC refers to the solubility of CO2 in water, or to Henry’s Law. In trying to rehabilitate the Revelle Factor for AR4, an IPCC author showed that it was temperature dependent, and as can be seen, resembling Henry’s coefficient for CO2 in water. Expert reviewer Nicolas Gruber explained that this dependence was a “common misconception”. Thereupon the IPCC editor deleted the figure for the final report “in order not to confuse the reader”, supposedly with uncomfortable solubility effects. Cf. Second Order Draft, Fig. 7.3.10(a)) and AR4, Fig. 7.11.
2. While laboratory values for Henry’s coefficients require approximating thermodynamic equilibrium, Henry’s Law does not predict thermodynamic equilibrium, and its coefficients must therefore be used advisedly. Neither climate, the ocean, the surface layer, nor Earth’s primary heat source, the Sun, is ever in thermodynamic equilibrium. IPCC and Salby refer to equilibrium, which is false if they mean thermodynamic equilibrium, and otherwise they supply no definition for their peculiar meaning of equilibrium.
3. Henry’s Coefficient for CO2, g/100g, varies by a factor of over 5 (0.06 to 3.3) with temperature of the solvent, water. This is a constant of proportionality for the dissolution of CO2 caused by its partial pressure. So the ocean uptakes more CO2 as the partial pressure of CO2 increases or as ocean temperature drops. Applying Henry’s Law with respect to air temperature, without more, is an error.
4. In the Vostok record, however, air temperature and CO2 records vary according to Henry’s Law, and certainly with no human contribution. Vostok air temperature deduced from oxygen and deuterium fractions appears to provide a proxy for sea temperature, too. The Law remains as applicable today for forecasting atmospheric CO2.
5. The peak-to-peak variation of CO2 at Vostok is about 120 ppmv, while the similar variation for air temperature there is about 12K, yielding a sensitivity of about 10 ppmv/K.
6. As Salby rediscovered, paleo CO2 lags temperature with a peak at about one millennium. He does not mention having investigated a cause for the lag. Regardless, comparing CO2 and air or sea temperature with data over the industrial era or over any common period is irrelevant. Measured CO2 is a result of ocean temperature changes from centuries past.
7. The dominant observed lag in CO2 with respect to air temperature and possibly water temperature is about the same as the estimate for the period of the Meridional Overturning Circulation. This current, also known as the Great Conveyor Belt, draws nearly freezing water at the poles, saturated in CO2, down to the ocean bottom, around the globe and up to the surface at the Eastern Equatorial Pacific about a millennium later. There old waters, still saturated in CO2, warm to tropical temperatures to outgas. Now depleted, the old waters circulate poleward across the surface, cooling to recharge with CO2 along the way. This submodel accounting for the lag reinforces the model from the curved correlation between CO2 and temperature at Vostok. The conclusion is that atmospheric CO2 follows from Henry’s Law applied to the ocean.
8. Natural CO2 fluxes today are SWAGs, good to maybe one significant figure. The fluxes are about 91 GtC/yr from the ocean, 120 GtC/yr from land (Salby used an obsolete value half as big), and another 270 GtC/yr from leaf water, a parameter that IPCC estimated but never applied. Man’s emission of CO2 is a tiny number lost in the noise of the other fluxes, worse than Salby suggests. IPCC’s models, the GCMs, are small-signal simulations where the natural world is falsely presumed to have a zero net effect.
9. Selby also re-discovered that ice core data underestimate atmospheric CO2, in particularly that from the Keeling Curve. That curve is a heavily filtered, reconstituted record for MLO, the “master time series”, a reference IPCC experts use to calibrate other stations into a false global agreement. This makes MLO data appear global, makes atmospheric CO2 therefore long-lived, and so causes anthropogenic CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere for maximum effect. CO2 is fixed in the ice core once the firn closes, and this may require between 600 and 2000 years maximum (estimates vary). Also Vostok samples have an average period of about 1500 years. So the Vostok samples are averages over as much as 600 to 2000 years, and the chances of even sampling an event like the 50 year long Keeling Curve is about one in 30. And even if it happened to be sampled, it would be lost in the noise due to the extended aperture time. By contrast, Keeling samples have a window of at most one minute in the manual mode, and normally much less. The long aperture time causes an indelible loss in information.
10. Like IPCC, Salby relies on data from ice cores that blend smoothly into the instrument record in the same chart. See “Evolution during the 20th Century”, 4/18/2013, time 34:08; and AR4, Summary for Policymakers, Figure SPM.1. In these charts, the underestimation by ice cores has vanished, contradicting both Salby’s model and the actual cause: ice core data is a low pass filter with a time constant of about half a millennium. The graph is but another example of IPCC’s chartjunk.
11. Salby’s conclusion is correct that human emissions are insignificant in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The observed record is natural.