Stop Press – Climate Talk on cable today

Anne Henderson has sent out an email to announce that the talk at The Sydney Institute last night will be on cable today. Intended to trash the post this evening but will leave up in case people want to comment on the show.

Channel 648 (Foxtel) will be showing Murry Salby’s talk at 3pm this afternoon and 7pm this evening.

PROFESSOR MURRY SALBY

Chair of Climate, Macquarie University

Atmospheric Science, Climate Change and Carbon – Some Facts

Carbon dioxide is emitted by human activities as well as a host of natural processes. The satellite record, in concert with instrumental observations, is now long enough to have collected a population of climate perturbations, wherein the Earth-atmosphere system was disturbed from equilibrium. Introduced naturally, those perturbations reveal that net global emission of CO2 (combined from all sources, human and natural) is controlled by properties of the general circulation – properties internal to the climate system that regulate emission from natural sources. The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.

  Professor Murry Salby holds the Climate Chair at Macquarie University and has had a  lengthy career as a world-recognised researcher and academic in the field of Atmospheric Physics. He has held positions at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado, with invited professorships at universities in Europe and Asia. At Macquarie University, Professor Salby uses satellite data and supercomputing to explore issues surrounding changes of global climate and climate variability over Australia. Professor Salby is the author of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate due out in 2011. Professor Salby’s latest research makes a timely and highly-relevant contribution to the current discourse on climate.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Stop Press – Climate Talk on cable today

  1. Eyrie

    Obviously the warmist cabal had a failure here in appointing this bloke to this position.

  2. But I thought the science was settled?? Malcolm and Julia and Greg and Penny and Tim and Clive said so!

  3. Rafe

    Very impressive presentation.

    FWIW even before this I was convinced the warming alarm is toast so far as the science is concerned. The question is, how did the scam get so far down the pike? I think the answer lies with the tactics that were developed in the anti-nuclear protest movement of the 60s to 80s, documented by John Grover in “The Struggle for Power”. No promises but I hope to convey some of the sense of that if the warming mafia don’t catch up with me.

  4. Pingback: Niche Modeling » Natural CO2 isotope changes mimic the burning fossil fuels

  5. I found it next to impossible to follow his points clearly when you couldn’t see his charts. He also seemed quite maddeningly evasive – certainly not clear – in the way he handled questions, if you ask me.

    Didn’t he say he had give a similar talk to that geoscience conference in Melbourne last month? If so, it appears to have made no splash whatsoever in blogs or the news as far as I can tell. Were the people listening underwhelmed? It is very hard to find anything much about the Professor on the net, in fact, although it appears he most known for work (non controversial, I gather) on the ozone hole.

    There was, I think, no mention of the journal it is to be published in. There was mention of a book: a popular one, or a science text?

    I thought that the area of climate science he talked about was well understood, and it is not clear to me what new satellite information he was basing this all on.

    On the whole, I am left with a suspicion that he might be a scientist who has jumped the shark; certainly the vehemence with which he spoke about how he “gagged” when he heard people talk about the science being settled suggested to me someone who just might have an ideological bent against climate change politics, as we see with some of the climate change skeptic scientists in America (Roy Spencer in particular.)

    I could be wrong, of course, but my hunch is this is not going to go anywhere when other scientists get to look at it in detail.

  6. Rafe

    It is too new and too technical to make a splash on blogs.

    I think he was as clear as he could be given the technical nature of some of the talk. There was no problem with the way he handled questions. What you call “evasion” I would call “sensibly qualified” replies to avoid being pushed into a policy stance that goes beyond his brief as a scientist.

    In my opinion the science of climate change is
    not very controversial, it is just about settled, game set and match in favour of the people who see the prospect of a degree or two of warming over the next century with benefits as well as adverse effects.

    The controversial issue is to account for the durability of the Green/ALP “consensus”.

    What is the matter with having an ideological bent against the Green wreckers?

  7. Many of the ‘facts’ that AGW is based on stem from a core paper that people have taken as true, but turn out to be over-reaching. The same thing happened to me in 2005 with a biodiversity paper. I never really questioned it. Then you find results, or a paper in an area you understand is so obviously false, but has been used to promote the prominence of CO2, it can turn you into a skeptic. The papers are almost never are followed up with more critical, detailed work: “On we go”. You can’t judge how settled something is from reading the abstracts or even the papers. You have to work it through in this field, and it usually comes up lacking.

  8. Professor Rafe has spoken.

    Look, one thing the Flood Commission did point out was that Queensland just had the wettest year on record. We know humidity has increased by (I think) 4%.

    I do not know what that might increase to with another 1 – 2 degrees.

    But you just blithely carry on as if the risk of much more frequent recurrent floods as widespread as those in Queensland last summer are just a minor inconvenience. And don’t tell me they can all be cured by more dams.

    You are ignorantly wanting to gamble with the future, and you have no reservations about it.

    Grow up.

  9. jacko

    I thought he was clear that this is a long process and his work may be overtaken by better research and that this wasnt thew end of the story. In an area of extremism he was being cautious I thought if a little opaque but as early posters have said the disgrams may have helped. Sydney Institute rarely show the diagrams in a speech due to one of lack of extra camera/attention to detail/speakers veto etc …

  10. Al Lowi

    Professor Salby could have helped this reader open up to his argument had he mentioned that most of the CO2 surrounding the surface of the Earth is dissolved in sea water where the bulk of it has resided since well before human activity. Thus, the origin of this CO2 is volcanic. The atmospheric CO2 that has a minor greenhouse effect on the Earth’s temperature is in equilibrium with the CO2 dissolved in the ocean. Warming of the ocean drives some solute CO2 into the atmosphere along with some water vapor shifting the equilibrium concentration toward the atmosphere. Atmospheric warming shifts the concentration in the opposite direction. Human activity is irrelevant in this affair. The idea of anthropogenic Earth warming is fantastic. That mankind is at fault for such climate change outrageous.

  11. Orson

    THIS is very very BIG news.

    Clearly, this impinges upon the CO2 atmospheric residence time problem. Orthodox physical chemistry sing isotopes, through over 30 studies, has come up with an average half-life of about 5 years for CO2.

    But IPCC science changed this to 30 to 200 years or even longer, despite the absence of any measurements.

    (SEE precise by Lawrence Solomon on Tom Segelstad, here http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=433b593b-6637-4a42-970b-bdef8947fa4e)

    Apparently, Salby presented these results at the IUGG in Melbourne less than one month ago.
    http://www.iugg2011.com/program.asp

    I believe his results will turn the tide in Prof. Segelstad’s favor. As Salby put it, man-made CO2 is not the climate driver the IPCC has long assumed it was. Instead it is along for the ride.

  12. wreckage

    The fact that warming models contradict reality with regard to the longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere, reverse the actual role of clouds, and fail to predict historical reality given historical data, has been known for years and has made not one jot of difference.

    Human beings are wired to respond to threats. Make the threat big enough and they’ll believe it.

  13. we already knew that year-to-year changes in atmospheric CO2 can temporarily either double (during a strong El Nino) or cancel out (during a strong La Nina) human CO2 emissions.

    But it is unlikely, from what I’ve seen, that the *long term increase* has more than a 15-20% natural source.

    I would love to be wrong, but I just don’t see it based upon the evidence.

    Besides, I’m not convinced more CO2 won’t be a good thing for life on Earth.

  14. we already knew that year-to-year changes in atmospheric CO2 can temporarily either double (during a strong El Nino) or cancel out (during a strong La Nina) human CO2 emissions.

    But it is unlikely, from what I’ve seen, that the *long term increase* has more than a 15-20% natural source.

    I would love to be wrong, but I just don’t see it based upon the evidence.

    Besides, I’m not convinced more CO2 won’t be a good thing for life on Earth.

  15. The discussion at Judith Curry already indicates there is a long line of scientists who think Professor Salby has made a big mistake here.

    Time will tell.

  16. Pingback: The Emily Litella moment for climate science and CO2 ? | Watts Up With That?

  17. Pingback: NASA admits Global Warming a Hoax - Political Forum

  18. Pingback: Man-made CO2, Cant Control The Climate, As A Matter of Fact It Can’t Even Control the CO2 Leves « Tarpon's Swamp

  19. Pingback: Salby, M. 2011 Presentation: Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources | The Drinking Water Advisor

  20. Pingback: Game changer for carbon dioxide emissions « Reasonable Doubt on Climate Change

  21. Pingback: Teo-ingegneria » Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it

Comments are closed.