Swedish scientist replicates Dr. Murry Salby's work, finding man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom has recently replicated the work of Dr. Murry Salby, finding that temperature, not man-made CO2, drives CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Dr. Björnbom confirms Salby's hypothesis that the rate of change in carbon dioxide concentration in the air follows an equation that only depends on temperature change, detailed in his report Reconstruction of Murry Salby's theory that carbon dioxide increase is temperature driven [Google translation].

Dr. Björnbom discusses his findings in this post from The Stockholm Initiative [Google translation + light editing]:

Murry Salby, climate science innovator who challenges established views

Murry Salby is a highly qualified and well-respected professor, academic teacher, and climate scientist. He has a series of innovative talks challenging the leading circles representing the IPCC sanctioned culture of consensus in climate science. He presents startling research that fundamentally questions the established views of the IPCC consensus. An important hypothesis that he advances is that the atmospheric CO2 rate of change is a function of only the global temperature changes and that this may explain the increase in carbon dioxide from pre-industrial times. This result was I able to reproduce, in a report given here.

One of the big talking points in climate science circles is interest in Murry Salby's lecture in Hamburg recently:

It is in this lecture he presents the hypothesis that the rate of change in carbon dioxide concentration in the air follows an equation that only depends on temperature change . There is enough information in the preferred order to be able to reconstruct Murry Salby's theory in detail, as I have done in the report Reconstruction of Murry Salby's theory that carbon dioxide increase is temperature driven . My reconstruction can be summarized in the following figure where the projected path of carbon dioxide compared with the observed from Mauna Loa since 1959 and before that carbon dioxide levels from an ice core.

The correspondence between the calculated and observed values ​​is excellent if not perfect. It should be noted that Murry Salby made ​​a much more detailed analysis than me with a thorough discussion.

The Murry Salbys theory agrees well with the observed data is of course no guarantee that the theory is also consistent with reality. But this shows that the arguments given in the IPCC reports are not as solid as is often claimed. I have considered these arguments in a previous blog post Is the IPCC argument for carbon dioxide increase due to human emissions sustainable? . There are other theories that give similar results as in the figure above, such as that of Dr. Gosta Pettersson.

What my reconstruction, however, quite clearly shows is that Murry Salby's reconstruction results are reliable. Murry Salby is on firm ground when he says that his hypothesis agrees with observations of how carbon dioxide levels have increased since 1850.

This is not the impression you get when you read the title of a blog post by a Swedish professor of climate blog UI, by a layman in climate science, as he is a specialist in artificial intelligence: "Salbys strained relationship with the truth." But reviews the blog post closer you get to say that the professor in question throw stones in glass houses. None of the professor's points of attack on Salbys lectures in Hamburg audit Salby's analysis. One, on a published map , I have included in annotating # 30 in last week's blog post . The second point of attack argues that Professor Murry Salby's criticism of climate models are inaccurate. But, unfortunately for the professor, the same day he published his blog post  so it came very known German climate scientist Hans von Storch with a similar criticism as that of Dr. Salby.

Murry Salby is Professor at the Department of Environment and Geography - Environmental Science from Macquarie University in Australia. He has a formidable list of publications , especially the part related books:

Books

Salby, M., 1992: The Atmosphere. In Climate Systems Modeling, K. Trenberth Ed. Sponsored Jointly by UCAR and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Cambridge University Press, 53-115.

Salby, M., 1996: Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics. International Geophysics Series, Academic Press, pp. 628. 2nd Printing (2005)

Salby, M., 2002: Planetary Waves. in Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, P. Crutzen Ed. Academic Press, 12, 357-371.

Salby, M., 2003: Fundamental Forces and Governing Equations, Chapter 2, in Handbook of Weather, Water, and Climate: Dynamics, Cliimate, Physical Meteorology, Weather Systems, and Measurements, T. Potter and B. Colman, eds. (Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken NJ, 2003), 7-20.

Salby, M., 2009: Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics. International Geophysics Series, Academic Press, 2nd Edition (In preparation)

The latter book is now published, the list is not fully updated. I myself have read the textbook at postgraduate level Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics in 1996 which is very respectable. Murry Salby appears to be very knowledgeable and competent.

From the beginning, in 2011, there was only one audio output (a podcast) from Murry Salby's lecture. But his thinking was so startling that it led to publicity. Judith Curry wrote a blog where she discusses a news article in the Herald Sun Andrew Bolt about this lecture.

Judith Curry begins her blog post:

I just finished listening to Murry Salbys podcast on climate change and carbon. Wow.

She then takes up the published summary and enters Andrew Bolt's article about the lecture. Her as usual pithy concluding remark is:

JC comments:  If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science.  Salby and I were both at the University of Colorado-Boulder in the 1990′s, but I don’t know him well personally.  He is the author of a popular introductory graduate text Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics.  He is an excellent lecturer and teacher, which comes across in his podcast.  He has the reputation of a thorough and careful researcher.  While all this is frustratingly preliminary without publication, slides, etc., it is sufficiently important that we should start talking about these issues.  I’ll close with this text from Bolt’s article: 

He said he had an “involuntary gag reflex” whenever someone said the “science was settled”. 

“Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.” 

Judith Curry obviously got a lot of criticism on her blog for her acclaim of Murry Salby's lecture, which she took up in her subsequent blog posts. Here she responds to a comment:

JC

Can you please provide for "the record" what you * especially * found that is "sufficiently important" in this, "we should start talking about" it?

Thanks in advance.

JC comment:  The fact that Murry Salby is a former colleague of mine and definitely a scientific straight shooter initially caught my attention on this.  If correct, his hypothesis has far reaching implications on both AGW science and policy.  His presentation was extremely lucid and well done (even without availability of the plots.)   The topic he addresses was one that I thought was squarely in the “what we know with confidence” category; this presentation synthesizes and opens up issues at the knowledge frontier on this topic.   Fascinating stuff.  So if you are irritated that “deniers” will use this talk (and the fact that I featured it on my blog) as ammo in their war against CO2 stabilization policy, well that is too bad.  I for one am not going to let your irritation get in the way of having a good discussion here where we all stand to learn something.

This is well said by Judith Curry, as probably everyone who has a sincere interest in climate can agree with.

References

Pehr Björnbom, 2013. Reconstruction of Murry Salby's theory that carbon dioxide increase is temperature driven

Atmospheric physicist Dr. Murry Salby: Man-made CO2 could only cause warming of 'a few tenths of a degree, if at all'

A recent seminar presentation by atmospheric physicist & professor Murry Salby in Germany strikes another huge blow to climate alarm, demonstrating:

• The man-made share of CO2 in the atmosphere is only a maximum of 30% (0-30%). The remainder is related to temperature changes, natural outgassing from the oceans, and to humidity. 
• The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4-7 years, not hundreds of years as falsely claimed by the IPCC Bern model.
• Man-made CO2 emissions increased a whopping 350% faster since 2002, yet the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere remained steady at ~2.1 ppm/yr, a "strong indication that anthropogenic emissions can not have a significant or even dominant share."
• His conclusion: "Because of the saturation effect in the energy absorption of CO2 molecules with increasing concentration and short residence time, the further increase in temperature could be therefore only at most a few tenths of a degree, if at all. However, the known fossil reserves would be exhausted by then."

Google translation from German + light editing:

New study on CO2 concentration: Anthropogenic share somewhere between 0 and a maximum of 30% 

Seminar presentation by Professor Murry Salby on 13.3.15 in Essen

By Michael Limburg, EIKE

Professor Murry Salby, author of two textbooks on physics of the atmosphere, is one of the most renowned atmospheric physicists in the world. His research work began many years ago at the University of Colorado, then Macquarie University in Sydney brought him much scientific and public recognition- up until he made the mistake of publicly calling the climate doctrine into question. From then on he was bullied by many agencies, with baseless accusations marring the funding of his research and was finally "forced to retire" after 56 years of his academic career.

Professor Murry Salby on 13.3.15 in Essen

Fig. 1: History of change of the total global CO2 concentration per year (green) and only on the surface properties (temperature + humidity dominant parts) induced change in CO2 concentration (blue). Correlation coefficient of 0.93. In contrast to the natural CO2 emissions depend on the "surface properties", do not have the anthropogenic emissions. Graphic M.Salby 

What was the crime of Murry Salby? Well, Salby had methodically by strict and well supported theoretically by such observations and therefore very well argued that almost 80% of the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are driven by temperature (outgassing) [1]. Not vice versa. The remaining 20% are driven in the main by the moisture. They both work together on the biosphere and the other sources and sinks of the CO2 cycle. Another important aspect of these results is that the residence additionally injected CO2 is  about 4-7 years. Although the IPCC expects some 100 or more years, motivated by, because of the long-term effects, including the call for an immediate stop of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but the calculations of Salby (and other such as Humlum et al) agree and not the assertion of the IPCC (Fig 2)  That the  Global Carbon Budget Project comes to completely different results, shows that the research also on this important aspect to the driver of temperature is far from "settled".

Fig. 2: the IPCC for the carbon cycle in Gt C / year. Substituting the values ​​specified correctly correlated results in a residence time of 4.1 years, not hundreds of years. (Fig. 3) Figure V IPCC report

Fig. 3: the IPCC Berne model with residence times of hundreds of years (red) vs. Observations (green) and math. Function of the gradient. (Blue). Graphic Salby

After these still very new and important results, Salby turned to in his presentation on how high because of anthropogenically induced share of CO2 is the atmosphere and how it could be determined if necessary. This part of the presentation was very extensive and very theoretical, but always starting from the actual observations. The first of these relates to the fact that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions increased by a whopping 350% faster since 2002 than in previous years. Scoffers would say that this is probably an unintended side effect of the Kyoto Protocol, and a bad omen for the upcoming climate conference in Paris. Yes, and that is the point, the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration was total over the same period, constant at the previous rate of 2.1 ppm / year. To Salby this is a strong indication that anthropogenic emissions can not have a significant or even dominant share.

Fig. 4: Comparison rise in fossil CO2 emissions generated (above) with the total concentration of CO2 below.

Now these two developments he investigated using the known isotopic mixing ratios, and other parameters, and came to the determination that one can only determine the basis of the available data and methods, which currently could be due to the total concentration of the upper limit of CO2 produced by humans. And this limit it to certain complex calculations on the basis by which he led the audience but step by step, with maximum 30%.

His conclusion: Because of the saturation effect in the energy absorption of CO2 molecules with increasing concentration and short residence time, the further increase in temperature could be  therefore only at most a few tenths of a degree, if at all. However, the known fossil reserves would be exhausted by then.

Remains to complete and this was his final note that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions almost 1: (Fig. 5) 1 correlate with the development of the world's population.

Fig. 5:. Development of the world's population and CO2 emissions from fossil fuels  graphics Salby

Unspoken the consequence that no general availability of cheap alternatives to fossil fuels, as you currently may only be provided by nuclear energy, which demanded, reduction of fossil CO2 emissions must lead to a drastic reduction in living standards. And this would have led especially in the poorer countries to a massive increase in the death rate. One or the other listeners felt it perhaps the words of the very famous conservationist and diver Jacques Yves Cousteau recalls, in 1991, was allowed to issue an official UN Brochure . We must "In order to stabilize the planet eliminate 350,000 people per day It's terrible that to say, but just terrible not to say it, " Jacques Cousteau, the UNESCO Courier, November 1991st

---

[1] For the purists among our readers: Salby determines the correlation coefficient = the net emissions increase of CO2 concentration for the temperature, with almost 0.8 and together with the moisture to 0.93.

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.

Professor Salby also explains in the 2012 edition of his textbook, Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate, why changes in global temperature control CO2 levels, not man-made CO2. Salby's findings corroborate the works of Humlum et al, Frölicher et al, Cho et al, Calder et al, Francey et al, Ahlbeck, Pettersson, and others demonstrating that man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or global temperatures.

As stated by Professor and Climate Chair Dr. Judith Curry,

"If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science."

Selected slides from Dr. Salby's lecture: 

CO2 lags temperature

  

d13C levels have declined due to increased temperature, not due to man-made emissions

Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present in relatively uninhabited and non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions.

Net global emissions correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes. d13C is inversely related to surface temperature. 

Methane is also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions.

  

 

The IPCC claims that "All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity," but Salby demonstrates this is impossible.

  

You don't even need a climate model to show what climate models predict - projections are based upon a single  independent variable - CO2

Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 2 decades.

   

 

H/T The Cold Sun [Google translation from German]:

Video recording of the lecture by Prof. Murray Salby in Hamburg on 18 April 2013

10 June 2013 | 07:30

Professor Murry Salby, Chair of Climate Research at Macquarie University in Sydney, made ​​in a European lecture tour on 18 April 2013 held in Hamburg. Professor Salby is the author of the standard works "Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate" (Cambridge University Press) and "Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics" (Academic Press) and is recognized worldwide as an atmospheric physicist. He has attracted attention recently with new findings on the relationship of the isotopes 12C and 13C, and the development of CO₂ concentrations. It is concluded that anthropogenic emissions have little effect on the global CO₂ concentration. They were mainly a result of temperature change. This relationship  was previously known only from the warming phase of the last ice age. Professor Salby extended this relationship to our current climate.

The video recording of the presentation is now available on YouTube. The opening words of the host Helmut Schmidt University are German, the lecture itself is in English.

See also our following blog posts with additional information on the topic:

• CO 2 -increase of the last 160 years by degassing from the ocean?
• Cause and effect to the test: CO 2 -change in the atmosphere lags the temperature curve today at nearly a year afterwards

Evidence warmth produces more CO2, rather than vice versa

Following the Mt Pinatubo eruption in 1991, change in CO2 dropped dramatically. Conversely, following the natural warming of the 1998 El Nino, change in CO2 increased dramatically. Sources: Climate4you.com & The Climate Scam SE

In his recent lecture, Professor Murray Salby notes that changes in CO2 levels due to natural variation are so large that man-made CO2 becomes irrelevant. As we await publication of his paper, the graph above from climate4you.com may offer a taste of how Dr. Salby arrived at his conclusions. Dr. Salby notes that when temperatures dropped following the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, a dramatic decrease in the rate of change in CO2 followed in 1992-1993. Subsequently, the increase in temperatures due to the El Nino of 1998 was followed by a dramatic increase in the rate of change in CO2. These natural variations are independent of and overwhelm human emissions of CO2, and show that warmth produces more CO2, rather than vice-versa.

As stated by Professor Judith Curry,

"If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science."

Salby notes his results are new and did not exist when the IPCC's latest report was prepared. The IPCC assessments and climate models are based on the erroneous assumption that the climate is controlled by human emissions of CO2. According to Salby, this is not the case and the ability to predict and control what future carbon dioxide levels will be, and to anticipate and influence future climate, is poor.

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not control climate

In a highly recommended lecture, Dr. Murry Salby, professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia, debunks the popular myth that man-made CO2 controls global temperature. Dr. Murry proves from observations the opposite is true: natural changes in global temperature instead control CO2 levels and that man-made emissions do not control either atmospheric CO2 or the climate. Dr. Salby also debunks the notion that changes in greenhouse gases control ocean temperatures, showing that the huge heat capacity of the ocean means that a tiny ocean cooling of < 0.0005C could cause all atmospheric warming of < 1C observed since pre-industrial times. Dr. Salby shows why nature, not man, is the cause of the increase in CO2 by demonstrating that only the integral of temperature changes explains the changes in atmospheric CO2, not a slow steady rise in man-made emissions.

Significant slides from the presentation are below:

Popular myths

A cooling of the ocean of < 0.0005C could alone account for a 1C rise in atmospheric temperature

A change in radiative forcing due to doubled CO2 is much smaller than the errors in Earth's energy budget assumptions

 

Change in surface temperature ["surface conditions"] causes changes in atmospheric CO2, not the opposite

Real world observations show atmospheric CO2 levels result from natural temperature changes not man-made emissions. CO2 does not cause changes in global temperature 

 

Dr. Judith Curry on a prior talk given by Dr. Salby

Debunking the essentially truthy climate claims of 'And then there's physics'

Our warmist friend "Anders," proprietor of the "And then there's 'physics'" blog [formerly "Wotts up with that" blog] is taking a semi-permanent hiatus* allegedly because "he is depressed by the futility of it all, trying to have a discussion with people, who are blathering from bad faith or ignorance."

*interesting choice of words since he doesn't believe there is a global warming 'hiatus' and over 50 publications acknowledge the 18-26 year 'hiatus' in global warming

In his excuses for his personal 'real hiatus' post, he proclaims, 

"So, I think there are certain things that we can regard – given the evidence we have today – as essentially true."

and then proceeds to list the certain things he thinks are essentially true. I've quoted each of these followed by just a few of the Hockey Schtick posts which debunk each one of Anders' essentially truthy claims:

• "The rise in atmospheric CO2 since the mid-1800s is virtually all a consequence of anthropogenic emissions. If you want to know why, you can read this."

Temperature leads CO2 on all timescales: short, intermediate, and long. The cause does not follow the effect [mathematical proof]. Mathematical & observational proof that CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming

Swedish scientist replicates Dr. Murry Salby's work, finding man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

Evidence warmth produces more CO2, rather than vice versa

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not control climate

Single graph demonstrates man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming

Climate textbook explains why man-made CO2 does not control atmospheric CO2

• There have been numerous millenial [sic] temperature reconstructions using a variety of different proxies and a variety of different techniques. They almost all produce a hockey stick-like shape and indicate that temperatures today are probably higher than they’ve been for more than a thousand years and the rate at which it has risen is faster than for more than a thousand years. You can read more here."

Not true on 3 levels:

1) All of the dozen or so millennial temperature reconstructions that allegedly find a "hockey stick" shape have been debunked by Steve McIntyre et al, including PAGES, Kaufmann, Gergis, Briffa, Steig, Marcott, et al, in many cases for using the same upside-down data and biased screening as Michael Mann did with his original hockey stick, in addition to other statistical trickery.

2) "They almost all produce a hockey stick shape" is blatantly false. There are well over 1000 published non-hockey sticks in the peer-reviewed literature worldwide vs. only a couple dozen [debunked] hockey sticks.

3) "They almost all"..."indicate that temperatures today are probably higher than they’ve been for more than a thousand years and the rate at which it has risen is faster than for more than a thousand years" is false since the Medieval Warm Period project tallies temperature reconstructions over the past millennium from over 1000 scientists and finds less than 10% indicate the current warm period as warmer than the Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago. 

4) The rate of warming is not at all unusual or unprecedented during the 20th century, during the Holocene, and during prior, warmer interglacials.

• The instrumental temperature record has been replicated/reproduced by numerous different groups. All the different records show that we’ve warmed by more than 0.8 degrees since 1880. Homogenization is a crucial part of generating these temperature records and is not an indicator of data tampering, or because scientists want to show that it’s warming faster than it actually is (e.g., here).

According to the HADCRUT3 dataset [from which the GISS and BEST data originates], the globe has warmed/recovered only 0.7C since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, not "more than 0.8 degrees." Homogenization is important, but unfortunately has been misapplied/misused to often result in an artificial warming trend not found in the raw data. 

Further, just because the globe recovered 0.7C since the Little Ice Age does not imply all or most of this recovery is due to man, the false attribution fallacy. 

• Our understanding of climate change is not primarily based on global climate models (GCMs). They provide some evidence for how our climate may change if we continue to increase anthropogenic forcings. Also, claiming that climate models have failed because they didn’t specifically predict the so-called “pause” is like suggesting that you can’t be sure the river will flow downhill because you can’t predict the winner at pooh sticks(H/T Richard Betts).

Not true because:

1) Computer model output is not "evidence" of anything. Observations are evidence, never models. It's the scientific method, look it up. 
 
2) Climate models are not based upon physics, they consist almost entirely of parameterizations/fudge factors, which is one of many reasons why they do not properly simulate the most fundamental aspects of climate including convection, clouds, gravity waves, atmospheric circulation, ocean oscillations, indirect solar amplification mechanisms, etc. This is why recent papers have called for scrapping the current crop of failed numerical models and replacing them with a whole new approach of stochastic modeling. 

3) "claiming that climate models have failed because they didn’t specifically predict the so-called “pause” is like suggesting that you can’t be sure the river will flow downhill because you can’t predict the winner at pooh sticks" is a non-sequitur and ridiculous claim. Comparing water flowing downhill from gravity is in no way the same as pointing out the climate models have been falsified as overheated at 98%+ confidence levels. If a model said that water flows uphill, then that model would be falsified as well based upon observations.

• We may not know, precisely, the equilibrium climate sensitivity and the transient climate response, but we do have evidence that provides a range for each of these quantities. Claiming that it will probably be on the low side of these ranges, is simply wrong. The probability distribution tells us the likelihood of each portion of these ranges, and deciding that a particular interval is more likely than this probability distribution suggests, is simply ignoring some (or most) of the evidence.

Not true and "we may not know, precisely" is the understatement of the year. The range of climate sensitivities suggested by various scientists is huge, ranging from < 0.5C to well over 6C. The climate sensitivities based upon observations [i.e. the scientific method], not falsified climate models, show very low climate sensitivities and show that IPCC model-based estimates are exaggerated by ~7 times. Further, several papers have demonstrated that climate models cannot be relied upon to determine climate sensitivity to CO2, despite what Anders truly believes.

There are probably more, but the point I’m getting at is that it really isn’t possible to have a good faith discussion with anyone who dispute the points above. 

Anders thinks all of the above rebuttals are "not in good faith," just like when @hockeyschtick1 pointed out to him on twitter that his claim of sea level rise in the past was off by a factor of only 60 times and he claimed correcting his error was in "bad faith."

Happy "hiatus" Anders