Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for murry salby

Comments matching the search murry salby:

Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels

Bob Loblaw at 06:44 AM on 13 January, 2023

A follow-up to my comment @ 69, which was a response to EnderWiggin @ 68.

On Tuesday, I did a search for the title and author (Salby) that EnderWiggin provided. I was able to find parts 1 and 2 on a site hosted at scc.klimarealistene.com - but by Wednesday, that domain name had disappeared and could no longer be reached.

klimarealistene.com does still exist, but has no signs of the papers. A bit of searching on their web page found a link to scienceofclimatechange.org. Eventually, the two papers were found on this page (Volume 1.2 December 2021).

A bit of background. Klimarealistene is a well-known Norwegian climate "science" contrarian group. The "journal" Science of Climate Change is their creation. I suspect the change in web location has to do with reorganization of the journal's online pages. The old "scc" portion of the klimarealistene link was undoubtedly short for Science of Climate Change.

On the main SCC page, they say:

4 November, 2022

The journal Science of Climate Change was funded by Klimarealistene in Norway in September 2020, and the first issue appeared in August 2021. Several additional articles have been published in 2021 and 2022, but due to a heavy work load on the Editor they have not been collected into Volumes before now. A few articles have also been delayed in being published. The Scientific Council of the Norwegian Climate Realists is at the moment working on a plan for the management of the journal from 2023. In the mean time I have stepped in as Editor to handle the backlog…

The list of authors on their Volumes and Issues page reads like a who's-who of climate science contrarianism in Norway. Standard names such as Salby, Humlum, Harde, and Solheim dominate.

So, the "obscure" journal, as EnderWiggin refers to it, looks like it is basically just a mouth-piece for Klimarealistene, so they can "publish" stuff and make it look like a journal. Credibility factor approaching zero.

The two CO2 papers in question are co-authored between Salby and Hermann Harde. Interestingly, Salby is listed with an affiliation of "Ex Macquarie University" -a university he was fired from in 2013, after only 5 years. Not an inaccurate claim - he's clearly no longer there - but rather reeks of resume padding. (Of course, Salby is now "Ex Earth", having passed away in 2022.)

Part 1 basically looks at C14 fluxes and argues that it can be used to estimate carbon uptake rates. Part 2 follows to look at recent (nothing older than 1956) variations in CO2 and temperature, to claim that anthropogenic contributions to the rise in CO2 are negligible.

I didn't try to evaluate their math in detail, but basically it looks like yet another case of taking the short-term variation in CO2 concentrations and temperature, and making erroneous statistic correlations that mislead them about long-term trends. Same dog, same old tricks.

In my comment above, the most applicable debunking is probably the one in this SkS post:

https://skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html

Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels

Bob Loblaw at 04:31 AM on 11 January, 2023

EnderWiggin:

First, you've posted the same question in three locations. That is bad form. In the main menu under the masthead, the "Comments" link will show any new comments on any thread, so posting your question once will allow it to be found easily.

As for Salby, without a link to the papers I can't tell what that particular version of Salby's wanderings are wrong, but his name has been a frequent occurence here. You can use the search function at this site to find more, but in roughly chronoogical order here are several posts that discuss errors in Salby's work. I don't think he's come up with anything new in many years, so even old posts will probably cover any "recent" errors.

https://skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm

https://skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html

https://skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html

https://skepticalscience.com/salbyratio.html

Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels

EnderWiggin at 04:19 AM on 11 January, 2023

Greetings, I'm new here. I was directed to Murry Salbys 'C-14 proof', apparently 'Control of atmospheric CO2 Part 1&2' in the obscure 'Journal' 'Science of Climate Change'.

Does anybody has any informations about where exactly he goes wrong in his proof?

CO2 has a short residence time

EnderWiggin at 04:17 AM on 11 January, 2023

Greetings, I'm new here. I was directed to Murry Salbys 'C-14 proof', apparently 'Control of atmospheric CO2 Part 1&2' in the obscure 'Journal' 'Science of Climate Change'.

Does anybody has any informations about where exactly he goes wrong in his proof?

Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural

EnderWiggin at 04:16 AM on 11 January, 2023

Greetings, I'm new here. I was directed to Murry Salbys 'C-14 proof', apparently 'Control of atmospheric CO2 Part 1&2' in the obscure 'Journal' 'Science of Climate Change'.

Does anybody has any informations about where exactly he goes wrong in his proof?

There's no tropospheric hot spot

MA Rodger at 19:23 PM on 23 August, 2022

Cedders @33,

And having had a read of that PDF...

Cedders @33,
Having examined the PDF (16 pages not 24), it is quite evident that it is a pile of utter nonsense, a "welcome to the lunatic asylum" message and not anything in any way scientifically-based.

The author is Piers Corbyn, a well-kown denialist and an elder brother of Jeremy Corbyn (a long-serving left-wing Labour MP who bizarrely gained the heady position of Leader of the Labour Party for 4½ years).

Piers Corbyn is described in Wikithing as "an English weather forecaster, businessman, anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist" and does feature here at SkS being (1) Cited within a spot of denialism of 2015 in the Daily Express tabloid/comic, (2) The main source of a pile of climate nonsense of 2013 from the then Mayor of London Alexander Boris von Pfiffle Johnson, a man now renowned throughout the known world for not being particularly truthful, (3) Listed here at SkS as a denialsit with zero peer-reviewed writings.

The 16 page thesis linked up-thread @33 is a 2019 thesis presented to the Reading University Debating Journal and sitting at the top of a list of 24 such theses posted 2018-19, top of the list because it is the most recent (the journal lasted less than a year), a list which addresses such important topics as 'Why Self-Service Checkouts are the Invention of the Devil' and 'The Great University of Reading Catering Con: Man Shall Not Live off Sandwiches Alone' and an anonymous piece 'Why I Support the Conservatives: The Most Successful Party in British History'.

The Piers Corbyn thesis begins by citing David Legates' dismissal of the 97% AGW consensus before dismissing that because "it is about facts; and no Global-Warming Inquisition is going to prevent me exposing their nonsensical theories."

Corbyn then kicks off by asserting anthropogenic CO2 comprises 4% of atmospheric CO2 (thus confusing FF carbon with naturally-cycled carbon) and that CO2 is not the main controller of global temperature (here presenting a graphic which confuses the US temperature with global temperature - shown below in this comment).
A further assertion is then presented, that CO2 is the result of warming oceans with six references/notes provided in support which seem to all point back to crazy denialist Murry Salby.

So, a la Salby, the present rise in CO2 is claimed to result from the good old Medieval Warm Period. A graphic is presented comparing a denialist 1,000y temperature record (based on the schematic FAR Fig 7c) with the much-confirmed scientifically-based Hockey Stick graph.
This brings us to the halfway page of Corbyn's denialist rant.

The thesis continues with pageful of misunderstanding of how the GH-effect works, ending with accusations that this misunderstood 'theory' breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (or it does if you misinterpret the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).
Happily, this misunderstanding is considered to be not supported by "better scientists" who consider the lapse rate. And this indeed is a 'better' consideration. But here Corbyn perhaps confuses the tropical 'hot spot' (which is caused by increased tropical rainfall transporting more latent up into the troposphere) with some CO2 effect. (The 'hot spot' results from a warmer tropics and not per se any enhanced GH-effect.) And he fails to address the reasons why there is difficulty detecting this tropical 'hot spot'. Indeed he brands it as a 'coldspot' that he seems to say is caused by "more CO2 & other GHGs" which cause a diurnal fluctuation in the IR "heat-exit height" to become greater and, due to the 4th-power in the SB equation, this causes cooling. Whether such a phenomenon extends beyond the tropics (thus globally more-than negating the 'hot spot') is not properly explained but, due to the lapse rate this phenomenon can apparently also negate "the original expected surface warming."

A first graphic box is presented with three unsubstantiated bullet points explaining "Why CO2 theory does not work" alongside two similar "apart from"s.
A second graphic box also titled "Why CO2 theory does not work" states:-

In the real atmosphere there are day/night temperature fluctuations (eg in upper atmosphere). They are larger with more CO₂ because CO₂ (infra red absorber / emitter) gains & loses heat easier than N₂ & O₂ and so enables all the air to adjust quicker.

This is a fundamentally different explanation from the previous fluctuation in IR "heat-exit height" explanation described earlier, and it is still wrong.
(A packet of air with X concentrations of CO2 will both emit and absorb an IR photons of quantity P. With absorb=emit, it is thus in equilibrium. Add CO2 so the concentration is doubled to 2X, and the emitting photons will double to 2P and the absorbed photons will also double to 2P so absorb=emit and the same equilibrium is maintained. The main result is that twice the level if IR emission has half the pathlength before absorption so at any point the IR flux remains unchanged. And CO2 does not "gain & lose heat easier than N₂ & O₂" when it remains thermally coupled to the N₂ & O₂. )
The remainder of this second graphic box on PDF page 9 is a little too confused to rebut with any confidence. A diurnal range of "about 5 or 6 deg" is given which is apparently a temperature range yet whatever “deg” means (presumably Kelvin), the bulk of the troposphere has a far smaller diurnal range than even 5ºF. The mechanism for the enhanced cooling from the "heat-exit height" is presented as due to a fluctuating temperature losing more heat (by radiating IR) than a constant temperature (which is true). A rather dodgy-looking equation is followed by the note "Detail subject under research" but no reference is given and three-years-on there is no sign of such "research."
And a third graphic box is shown on the next page also titled "Why CO2 theory does not work," this third such graphic mainly presenting a pair of images from Australian denialist David M. W. Evans who has his own SkS page of climate misinformation.

The thesis then turns to the proposition that it is not CO2 but solar forces that "rules climate temperature" with the dotted line on the graphic below described as such a ruling influence. It apparently shows how the "9.3yr lunar-nodal crossing & the full 22yr solar magnetic cycle" allegedly shift the jet stream and "many circulation patterns." The graphic's 60-yr periodicity is less than convincing,being fitted to US rather than global temperature which, when extended beyond the 1895-2008 period shows itself to be simple curve-fitting (eg the Berkeley Earth US temperature record 1820-2020 does not show it, even to a blind man). The graphic was presented by Corbyn at the Heartland Institute's 2009 conflab in NY in which Corbyn [audio] insists other findings demonstrate “something is going on” but why it is this graphic being reused in this 2019 thesis is not clear – perhaps the forecast of world temperature dropping to 1970s levels by 2030 is too evident on other slides he used in that Heartland presentation.
To support his thesis Corbyn mentions an alleged cover-up by the likes of the BBC in reporting only global warming when the 'true' data shows cooling, the reported support for all this Piers Corbyn craziness from oil companies who shy away only because they want to use AGW to "make higher profits" and how these AGW-inspired mitigation agendas are already directly responsible for needlessly killing "millions" annually.
The thesis ends with a challenge:-

It is for this reason that I, Piers Corbyn, challenge whoever is willing in Reading University or other appropriate institutions to a debate on the failed Global warming scam vs evidence-based science.

So I interpret the thesis as a "welcome to the lunatic asylum" message from Piers Corbyn.
Piers Corbyn graphic

How weather forecasts can spark a new kind of extreme-event attribution

Bob Loblaw at 00:03 AM on 13 January, 2022

The problem I have with the "it's not climate change, it's greenhouse gases" narrative is that the chain of causality never ends. And at each step of the chain, the contrarians will come up with an excuse to ignore it.

After "it's greenhouse gases", the contrarians wll come up with one of the following bogus arguments:

It's not CO₂, it's water vapour.

Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas.

Climate sensitivty is low.

CO₂ lags temperature

etc.

Once you successfully argue that it is CO₂, then you get

Human CO₂ emissions are minor

Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans

CO₂ is coming from the ocean

The rise in CO₂ is natural

etc.

and then if you manage to establish that the rise in CO₂ is due to burning fossil fuels, you get all the "it's not bad", "technology will save us", "you'll hurt the poor", etc arguments.

There are many such arguments on the Skeptical Science "Arguments" page. I have only linked to a few.

Climate's changed before

Eclectic at 09:17 AM on 8 May, 2018

Mkrichew @604 , your Mike Krichew theory was previously called the Murry Salby theory. To see why Murry Salby was wrong, please read Climate Myth #142 (and elsewhere).

The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change

Tom13 at 00:04 AM on 28 September, 2017

#24 eclectic

(A) in April 2015 : "Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change" (unquote)

A reasonable acknowledgement that natural causes play a significant role (perhaps dominant role ) in climate change - to deny otherwise is anti science.

(B) also in 2015 at a Congressional hearing, she stated about the global warming [of the past 200 years] : "And that's not human" (unquote)

Do you have a citation and the full statement - the 4 word quote ilacks the full context of her statement.

(C) in 2014 speaking at the National Press Club : "We just don't know [what's going to happen]. I think we are fooling ourselves to think that CO2 control knob really influences climate on these decadal or even century time scales." (unquote)

A reasonable acknowledgement that Co2 may not play the dominant role which is consistent with the earth's past history. Note that not once does her statement say that CO2 is not a factor.

(D) in November 2015 [please specially note this very recent date, Randman] she supported the existence of the so-called hiatus or pause : "global average surface temperature ... has shown little or no warming during the 21st century" (unquote)

Based on the scientific data available at that time, this is a reasonably accurate statement. While the 2015/2016 el nino started in early summer of 2015, the data showing showing a more than a little warming since 1998 wasnt strong until very early 2016.

(E) in 2011, she supported Murry Salby's crazy/nonsensical "hypothesis" that oceanic-origin CO2 is the real cause of our modern rapid Global Warming.

Ths statement seems completely out of context with her other statements and writings. J curry has repeatedly stated that the oceans play a key role in climate change and has repeatedly stated that OHC will play a huge role future climate change, including the build up of ohc.

The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change

Eclectic at 20:59 PM on 27 September, 2017

Randman @22 , about your quote: "she was" (unquote)

She was . . . what? What are you talking about? Please be precise! Readers here don't wish to bother second-guessing what you intend to mean.

Regarding Judith Curry :- the sources are her own comments :

(A) in April 2015 : "Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change" (unquote)

(B) also in 2015 at a Congressional hearing, she stated about the global warming [of the past 200 years] : "And that's not human" (unquote)

(C) in 2014 speaking at the National Press Club : "We just don't know [what's going to happen]. I think we are fooling ourselves to think that CO2 control knob really influences climate on these decadal or even century time scales." (unquote)

(D) in November 2015 [please specially note this very recent date, Randman] she supported the existence of the so-called hiatus or pause : "global average surface temperature ... has shown little or no warming during the 21st century" (unquote)

(E) in 2011, she supported Murry Salby's crazy/nonsensical "hypothesis" that oceanic-origin CO2 is the real cause of our modern rapid Global Warming.

Now, Randman, consider each of the above 5 statements. If you yourself had issued them, then it would be evidence that you were grossly ignorant about climate science. If they had been made by a scientist (a scientist not specializing in climate related matters), then that would count as intellectual dishonesty. Issued by a climatologist, that would rise to the level of gross intellectual dishonesty.

Individually, each of the above statements cannot be justified, for they are individually & severally false and/or misleading. Randman, I could add others to the list . . . but (to paraphrase an Einstein quote) :- "It only takes one" !

$$$$$$$

Randman, I do not in any way suggest that Curry receives money illegally from the Oil industry & other anti-science propagandists. Arguably, what money or other benefits she receives from such groups is immoral but not illegal.

~ In 2006, Judith Curry [climatologist] and Peter Webster [meteorologist] set up a private company "Climate Forecast Applications Network". Judith Curry is President (not an unpaid job, I gather!). Curry herself said (in an interview with Scientific American) : "I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry ... [per my company] since 2007." (unquote). Please note, Randman, that that sort of thing is not illegal — it is simply one of the many ways that the Oil industry slush funds operate.

Perhaps you are innocently unaware, Randman, that the fossil fuel industry slush fund money percolates all around the place. [Though I had to laugh when I saw that Peabody Energy's filing for bankruptcy in 2016 had "stiffed" the prominent science-denier Richard Lindzen, for a USD$25,000 "consultancy fee" that they owed him — though I don't know whether that $25,000 was a one-off or an annual stipend.] Stipends, expenses, etc are paid in various ways — sometimes by "sinecure" payments, sometimes by propaganda "fronts" like Heartland or GWPF, sometimes by other under-the-counter indirect methods e.g. payments to a company (not to the individual).

As to other benefits [in non-monetary form, not in cash] there are the examples of Curry appearing at least three times in front of Congressional-level hearings. I am sure that even you, Randman, are not so naive as to believe that Curry paid for travel accommodation & incidental expenses, out of her own purse — if you act as a prominent stooge for Big Corporations, then they look after you in the premium style. That's just the way the business world is, Randman. (But it's not in any way illegal for her to be on the Big Oil teat.) And then there's the purely psychological benefits she receives — definitely an ego boost for a mediocre climate scientist, to appear (and often) in the national Congressional limelight (etc).

Then there are other benefits in cash e.g. in January and February this year [her academic retirement onto a teacher's pension, being at the end of December 2016] Judith Curry authored two reports, one for Koch Brothers and one for the British propaganda machine GWPF. I don't know whether she was paid directly into her personal account or indirectly via her CFAN company, or by other means — but it would have been a generous*-sized benefit. Again, not illegal — but of doubtful morality. ( *Randman, it is extremely difficult for denialism-pushing Big Corporations to find any scientist with more than a shred of repectability/reputation who can be relied on as a stooge who will play the "Doubt & Uncertainty" game, in the face of all the overwhelming evidence that proves "D&U" is unjustified/dishonest.)

In Summary :

So, all in all, Randman, your own phrasing: "her scientific reasoning is dishonest, biased and she is funded by the oil companies" . . . is a fairly good summation of the situation.

Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural

grindupBaker at 07:03 AM on 6 September, 2016

He's back. Talk at University College London on July 18, 2016 so the "1000frolly" shill thing says. Can anybody tell me where Murry Salby gets this "Thermally-induced component of atmospheric CO2" graph he presents. I want to find the source and ponder it. Searching those phrases on the internet and sks isn't yielding any relevant results.

Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser

ryland at 07:54 AM on 6 December, 2015

Philip64@26

You comment "But in 15 years of following this subject quite closely I can't remember a single instance of someone losing their job in a significant scientific institution or failing to secure one becauser of their views about climate change or any aspect of it."

Perhaps you need to follow it a bit more closely. Bjorn Lomborg was denied a university position here in Australia because of his views of climate change. He is not a "denier" but believes the dangers of climate change are overstated and there are more pressing problems. (see here)

You will note no doubt that the vice president of the Academic Staff Association states

"This isn't about censorship at all ... Lomborg is not a climate [change] denier; he believes the scientific evidence which overwhelmingly shows that climate change is happening, he just debates the economics of how we should deal with it," Mr Bunt said. But he would say that wouldn't he?

A more telling quote is from Greens Senator Rachel Sieweret who is reported as saying:

"It was very clearly the Government's design to get someone in place that was running a different argument on climate change, to try and suggest that climate change isn't as significant an issue as it is," Senator Siewert said.

"It was bad science, and I'm pleased that UWA has realised that.

"[The Federal Government] clearly had a political agenda, and it was a mistake for the University of Western Australia to go along with it."

As you can see Bjorn Lomborg's views cost him a position at UWA, which is where I got my PhD from. I do not support the actions of UWA in this instance.

You also may not of heard of Murry Salby and Bob Carter both climate change sceptics. Salby was dismissed from his position and Carter was not re-employed. You can read about it here and here. The two references, the second of which is by Dana Nuccitelli give quite different views

Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural

Tom Curtis at 06:48 AM on 2 December, 2015

InnocentSmithReturns @17, I have a very low opinion of Murray Salby's honesty, for reasons partly explained here and here. He immediately shows, in this new video, why that low opinion is justified. He begins by referring to is sacking by Macquarie University (0:30). He says:

"If I am in retirement, let there by no doubt, it is forced retirement. After being prohibitted from teaching climate, and then having my research files confiscated."

He must have had a sense of deliberate mischief in making that claim, which makes it appear as though he was prohibitted from teaching prior to his dismissal. In point of fact, he was dismissed, in part, because he refused to teach:

"Professor Salby’s employment was terminated firstly, because he did not fulfil his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach. After repeated directions to teach, this matter culminated in his refusal to undertake his teaching duties and he failed to arrive at a class he had been scheduled to take."

Salby demonstrates incredible chutzpah in accusing the University of preventing him from teaching, whereas in fact he was dismissed because he refused to teach.

Of coure, that was only part of the reason. A further reason was his undertaking a trip to Europe when his class schedule required him to be in Australia, and paying for that unauthorized trip through the unauthorized use of university funds. Nor was that misappropriation the first by Salby, who ceased employment in the US because he had been found to undertake conduct that "...reflects a consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit."

Fast forwarding to 1:06:06 on the video, Salby shows a graph the obsolute HadCRUT3 data set. Leaving aside why he uses the obsolete data set rather than the current HadCRUT4 data set, he shows two apparent trend lines on the graph at that point. Careful examination shows that they are not in fact trend lines, but pseudo-trendlines. They are intended to look like trend lines, but are not. The periods are from 1877-1910 (actual trend: - 0.0089 C per annum), 1910-1945 (actual trend: 0.0159 C per annum). This gives a mean change in temperature between start point and end point of the intervals of -0.3 C and 0.4 C respectively. Salby shows them as -0.7 and 1 C instead, inflating the values by 133% and 150% respectively.

Earlier, in discussing the HadCRUT3 data he asserted that the warming post 1910 was "just as long and even faster" (1:05:00) than the warming post 1976. His highlighted area for post 1976 actualy ends in 1998, but I have taken it to 2001 to cover the same period ("just as long"). That reduces the trend for the period. Nevertheless the trend from 1976 to 2001 is 0.0172 C per annum, 8% faster than the earlier period. That difference may not be statistically significant, but that does not justify claiming the period with the lower nominal trend had the higher nominal trend which is a direct falsehood. Even that leaves aside the fact that Salby cherry picked the earlier period to give the maximum trend, but excluded years ('74 and '75) that would have resulted in an increased trend for the later period.

(Analysis made using the Wood for Trees resource. All trends calculated from January of the initial year through to December of the final year.)

Clearly Salby has not abandoned the dishonest presentation of data on which so much of his argumenation depends in earlier videos.

This may seem like shooting the messenger. It is not. The paradox of internet "experts" is that they seek tirelessly to convince the generally uniformed and inexpert public that what they say is true, while scrupulously avoiding putting their arguments before genuine experts who are long familiar with the relevant arguments, and the relevant data. Specifically, while rusing to convince the uninformed public, they avoid peer review. Somebody truly convinced of their theories would take the opposite approach. There confidence in the soundness of their arguments should result in equal confidence that they will be able to persuade the majority of domain experts as to the truth of what they say. Conversely, when a supposed expert insists in presenting their "revolutionary" theories time again to an uncritical public, while avoiding opportunties to present them before the well informed - you should take that as in indication of their confidence, or rather their lack of confidence, in the soundness of their arguments.

That is particularly the case when they repeatedly (as Salby does) choose obsolete data over current data, cherry pick, use misleading presentations of the data, apply statistical tests to theories they oppose while avoiding similar tests for their own theories, and repeatedly misrepresent the nature and substance of the theories they criticize. (The later is very evident in this video in Salby's complete failure to acknowledge the many other forcings other than CO2 that the IPCC recognizes and discusses, in addition to more pointed examples I may discuss later.)

The scope of Salby's video is so broad that your request for a point by point rebutal amounts to a request to be given a free Climate Science 101 course; with the added onus on your respondents that they have to correct Salby's misleading presentations of data and theory at the same time. It is a big ask. It is not something I am inclined to do unless I see clear evidence of good faith in the form of an ability to recognize Salby's shoddy practise for what it is.

What you need to know about the NOAA global warming faux pause paper

shoyemore at 04:06 AM on 10 June, 2015

ryland, #22,

Professor Murray Salby was dismissed by MacQuarie University for "not fulfilling his contract obligations", and for repeated overseas travel when he had been asked to stay and teach. Salby would still be at the University, climate views and all, if he had played ball with the administration.

A Salby defender steps back

FWIW, it subsequently emerged that in 2005, the US National Science Foundation opened an investigation into Salby's federal funding arrangements and found that he had displayed "a pattern of deception [and] a lack of integrity" in his handling of federal grant money.

Wikipedia on Murray Salby

CO2 lags temperature

MA Rodger at 20:41 PM on 19 December, 2014

davytw @447.

I have to say that your denialist has a pretty poor graph. There is a far better one, also from Wood-for-trees, up-thread @391.

As folk here describe, there is a tiny CO2 effect due to rising global temperature but also due to ENSO which wobbles temperature & CO2 both, small (or perhaps more correctly very small) effects when compared with the direct anthropogenic inputs of CO2.

These tiny wobbles are used by some, with added smoke and mirrors, to 'demonstrate' that rising CO2 is natural. I think Murray Salby takes the saddo prize in these works of lunacy as he has actually managed to line all his mirrors up to link this modern-day lagging of CO2 with the measured lags in CO2 in the ice core data. (If you can cope with such madness, there is a 68 minute video of his presentation here. I think it helps if you wear tin-foil hat, just to get into the spirit of the thing.)

Encountering such mind-blowing nonsense once too often prompted me to produce this graphic (usuallt 2 clicks t 'download you attachment'). I forget whose equasion it was, possibly Humlum's. And I'm pretty certain there is a SkS version as well, somewhere.

Dinner with global warming contrarians, disaster for dessert

KR at 01:41 AM on 17 October, 2014

Hermann Harde has commented regarding his paper on the EIKE website (German climate denial lobbying group), which has been promoting his paper. My German is quite poor, so I'm relying on Google Translate for this - I expect fluent readers to have more clear information. Some notes and statements from that comment:

Harde is retired, writing on climate in his spare time.
"...but generally about the greenhouse effect. It is almost nonsense, of a self-heating mechanism or Perpetuum Mobile to talk..." -this is Gerlich & Tscheuschner level nonsense, and in fact a term straight from G&T; the greenhouse effect is not invalidated by thermodynamics.
"That the CO2 concentration increases delayed (by Prof. M. Salby about 9 months) due to heating caused mainly by increased solar activity, no one disputes in this county. This has only effect that so climate sensitivity is additionally influence as a feedback or gain to the solar sensitivity." - No, it's not the sun, CO2 increases over the last century are _not_ due to the warming ocean, as oceanic concentrations are rising too, and Salby's nonsense is demonstrably just that.
"...GCMs turns out here so great that all were not able one and all and to indicate the climate evolution of the last 17 years and also for the near future..." - Ah, the inevitable 'hiatus' comment...
"Limitations to this, it is only at a underlying thermally induced cloud feedback in the superimposed oscillations and can change the feedback coefficients." - The only feedback in his model appears to be a fixed cloud scaling with temperature. I cannot find any reference to water vapor or specific humidity.
"Circulation and exchange between different zones I do not treat as a global ECS and no climate sensitivities of individual zones are considered here." - A _very_ simple model.

His starting point is rather worse than I had expected, loaded with climate denial myths. And while his radiative model is quite complex (228 layers - as I understand it line by line radiative code converges asymptotically after about 40 layers), his climate model and it's response to CO2 changes is clearly inadequate to the task.

The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We're Going to Need a Bigger Graph

Rob Painting at 16:39 PM on 12 February, 2014

howardlee - "I don't see how we can get heat into the deep oceans without also getting CO2 into the deep oceans."

When the wind-driven ocean circulation is intense, such as during the negative phase of the IPO & La Nina, there is strong upwelling of cold deep water along the equator, and along the eastern coasts of the continents. This is known as Ekman suction. This cold deep water is high in dissolved CO₂, and therefore there is a large flux of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from the ocean. During the positive phase of the IPO, and during El Nino, the circulation winds down. This shuts down the upwelling and flux of CO₂ to the atmosphere.

Contrary to your assertion, there is a greater uptake of CO₂ into the global oceans during the positive phase of the IPO & El Nino. Note the graph below from Keeling (1995) - taken from the SkS rebuttal on Murry Salby & CO₂. The bottom figure (b) is the oceanic exchange of carbon and the blue colour denotes La Nina periods. Note how the oceanic flux is negative - indicating loss of carbon from the ocean.

Of course the oceans are storing more CO₂ over the long-term - this is why the oceans are acidifying at most likely the fastest rate (outside of an asteroid impact) in the last 300 million years. I'm just pointing out some of the complexity.

As for strong subsurface ocean storage giving more time for humans their act together, that really depends how much longer this (cool surface) phase of the circulation lasts. The recent unprecedented intensification of the trade winds may simply be shortening the length of the cycle - meaning that this negative phase may be much shorter than the previous one. We shall see.

Temp record is unreliable

Tom Curtis at 06:22 AM on 18 October, 2013

dvaytw, in response to the statement that:

"... if anyone wants to claim that CO2 levels in the upper atmosphere are causing ground level increases in temperature, there would need to be much greater warming there, which is demonstrably not happening"

I would point out that, first, "skeptics" greatly exagerate the expected amount of warming due to CO2 (and other anthropogenic factors); second, scientists have always expected that other short term factors will cause fluctuations in the increase of temperature so that, over short periods it may be much less than is expected over the long term, or even negative; and that third, a very powerfull short term factor is known to be depressing the rate of temperature decrease, and in fact accounts for nearly all of the discrepancy between the actual temperature increase and that predicted by the models.

With regard to the exageration of the expected rate of warming, this is typically done with graphs such as this one by Murry Salby:

Such graphs may be created in ignorance, by simply scaling the (smoothed) CO2 and Temperature graphs to have a common standard deviation. Such a scaling ignores the fact that annual fluctations in CO2 concentration are too small to significantly effect global temperature, and so on short times variations in CO2 are not expected to match variations in temperature. As a result the scaling does not reproduced the expected temperature increase. That mismatch is exagerated if the match is done between annual (or worse, monthly) temperature variations and a smoothed CO2 curve as done above.

In some instances, however, including that of Salby, the exageration must be deliberate. That is because the same authors show graphs of the expected temperature increase as a function of CO2 concentration over the coming century. As a result, when they show the short term "prediction", they must know that they have changed the relative scales of CO2 concentration and temperature, thereby mistating the predicted increase in temperature from the increase in CO2. This can be seen by comparing the prediction at the scale used for centenial predictions with that used over the last few decades:

As can be seen, with an honest scaling, recent temperature increases have closely matched those predicted by the IPCC Assessement Report 4 (AR4). To avoid any misunderstanding, however, it should be clear that the "prediction" above is produced by simply using the same scale ratio between CO2 and temperature as is used in Salby's centenial comparison, and slightly understates the actual AR4 short term prediction, which was for 0.2 C per decade. Salby's graphic manipulations are discussed in more detail here.

With regard to the expected short term fluctuations, that can be seen in the temperature record up to 2005 (when the short term temperature trend met or exceeded IPCC predictions). During that period, however, there are many short term periods with zero, or slightly negative growth:

Climate scientists are not utter fools. They can read temperature graphs as easilly as anyone else; and could see, therefore, that a prediction of temperature increases without faltering (ie, monotonic increase) was already falsified, and would not be so foolish to frame their predictions in a fashion that was already falsified. The assumption that a short term low trend in temperature increase somehow falsifies AGW, however, tacitly assumes that they were such fools, for it assumes a "hiatus"not greatly different from "hiatuses" that occured before the predictions will falsify AGW.

Nor do climate scientists predict short term fluctuations merely to save appearances. In the CMIP5 model intercomparison for IPCC Assessment Report 5, using the scenario with the strongest warming (RCP 8.5), over 8% of 15 year trends with a start year of 1970 or later, and and end year of 2015 or earlier are smaller than the HadCRUT4 trend since 1998. Indeed, 4.48% are negative and there is one 15 year trend of negative 0.15 C per decade. The prediction of short term fluctuations and hiatuses comes from the models themselves. They are not ad hoc afterthougths. They do not typically show up in statements about predictions because they represent short term chaotic factors that have no influence on the long term trend. Consequently they do not coordinate in position across all models in the ensemble, and do not appear in the ensemble mean. Indeed, the lowest 15 year trend in the ensemble mean over that period is more than twice the HadCRUT4 trend since 1998; but that is because the ensemble mean has eliminated short term non-forced fluctuations while the real world has not. Climate scientists know this, indeed insist upon it. So-called "skeptics", however, blur the distinction whenever possible.

In this regard, it is worthwhile noting that the peak temperature of the 1997/98 El Nino was 0.6 C warmer than the La Nina years on either side of it (see first graph). That is the equivalent of three decades global warming. With ENSO introducing such large fluctuations into short term temperature trends, it is impossible that trends of less than thirty years should consistently show trends near to the long term trend.

Finally, there is, in fact, a known short term non-forced factor that accounts for nearly all of the discrepancy between predicted and observed short term trends. Given the comment in my last paragraph, it will come as no surprise that it is ENSO:

Very clearly, ENSO has had a strong negative influence on the temperature trend since 2006, and arguably since 1998. That ENSO is the major driver of the recent temperature "hiatus". In fact, three very clear lines of evidence demonstrate that beyone reasonable doubt IMO. They are the fact that if you only examine the trends in ENSO equivalent years, all trends are nearly the same and close to that predicted by the models; that if you adjust temperatures for known ENSO states,the result is a trend close to that predicted by the models, and finally, if you constrain a model to match the historical ENSO pattern, it reproduces the historical temperature record. I discuss these points in detail here.

It should be noted that ENSO is not the only known factor that helps explain the reduces recent trends. Tropical volcanism is known to have increased the aerosol load, a factor that should induce cooling if not for a countervailing warming trend. We are also experiencing unusually weak solar activity, which should also have the same effect. Other factors may also have influence, and scientists are examining these factors, and others to determine the relative importance of different factors. But ENSO is the main factor, without doubt. It is sufficiently strong a factor that, if CO2 forcing did not have a significant warming effect, we should be experiencing a significantly negative short term trend in global temperatures, not the weakly positive trend we are currently experiencing.

Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum

Tom Dayton at 00:09 AM on 19 July, 2013

Murray Salby recently was not continued in his position at an Australian university, for reasons having nothing to do with his bad science. DeSmogBlog now reports that several years ago Salby was banned from getting further funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation, for non-science reasons. The reasons include not reporting financial conflicts of interest (I'm shocked!).

Charles Krauthammer's flat-earther global warming folly

mandas at 14:13 PM on 11 July, 2013

John

I know this is off topic, so I apologise for that. But I had to provide this link to this thread at WUWT. The conspiracy theorists are out in force today: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/10/macquarie-university-responds-to-murry-salby-termination-issue/#comment-1361244

New study by Skeptical Science author finds 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is man-made

Dikran Marsupial at 05:51 AM on 14 June, 2013

civil engineer, just to clarify, my name is Gavin Cawley (I post pseudonymously, but not anonymously), Prof. Essenhigh wrote the original paper on which mine was a comment. Mea culpa, the link in the earlier post was to Prof. Essenhigh's original paper, rather than my comment paper, which you can find here.

Sadly Prof. Salby's argument is also incorrect (I would be genuinely pleased if it were correct) and I and others have written blog posts on his presentations (my article is the first of those listed, and would be a good place to discuss this further):

Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum

Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural

Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle

Salby's ratio

Humlum et al. make basically the same mistake and another SkS author has published a peer-reviewed comment paper on that one as well, see:

New study by Skeptical Science author finds 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is man-made

Roy Spencer also made a similar error (happily only on his blog and didn't actually publish it), which I discuss here:

Roys' Risky Regression

Scientists make mistakes frequently, you are not at the cutting edge of your field if all of your ideas are right, and some errors happen more than once. Sadly climatology gets a fair amount of media interest, so instead of these errors being quietly forgotten, they end up being discussed in public view.

Prof. Salby's new talk seems to have some additional material on ice core CO2 proxy data, but the central argument is still that addressed in my earlier SkS post.

New study by Skeptical Science author finds 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is man-made

Paul Pukite at 14:38 PM on 10 June, 2013

Using the equatorial SST data for latitudes -6±15 degrees, we can take the Mauna Loa CO2 data and compensate for seasonal outgassing. This has a Henry's Law gain factor of 3 PPM/deg C after applying a lag of 1 month. This simple transformation completely removes the seasonal oscillations, leaving only low-level noise and perhaps a few glitches related to El Nino events (see 1998-1999).

Mauna Loa compensated by SST

The above figure is the compensated Mauna Loa CO2 data after removing the seasonal IPWP ocean outgassing of CO2. I also placed a polynomial fit as a guid to the eye.

Region of the IndoPacific Warm Pool

The above figure shows the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP) lies within the +9N to -21S SST average. This is the hottest part of the Pacific and should have the strongest activation for CO2 outgassing.

The SST data was taken from a NOMADS server (NOAA Operational Model Archive and Distribution System)
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&varlist=on&psfile=on&new_window=on&ptype=ts&dir=

The CO2 data was taken from the Mauna Loa records, going back to 1981 to match the archival extent of the SST records
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/esrl-co2/from:1981

I have to say that the available oceanographic and atmospheric data is an amazing resource for debunking claims made by people like Humlum (and don't forget Murry Salby).

New study by Skeptical Science author finds 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is man-made

MA Rodger at 05:02 AM on 7 June, 2013

HJones @6/8/10.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions 1960-2010 aren't what you'd call "exponential".

The annual rise in atmospheric CO2 did dip in 2011 but this is more attributable to the La Nina event of that peaked in 2008 and far less attributable to the small reduction in CO2 emissions that year.

Some time back I created a graph using actual numbers (GISS temperature & MLO CO2) to rebut one of these Humlum type papers (it may have been the Murry Salby lecture) but the equasion being bandied about has been used with real data 1959-2012 and supports the veracity of Figure 1a in the post above, the green and blue of figure 1 being coloured pinkand red.

The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2

KR at 01:50 AM on 4 August, 2012

Falkenherz - (paraphrase) "...and what if a leprechaun jumped into the tub?"

Explanation by analogy is very useful. But reasoning from an analogy back to a system under investigation is only plausible if that portion of the analogy holds - it's much better to work matters out directly in the system of interest. In this case expansion and contraction of the bathtub is something you have not mapped to the carbon cycle.

I would note, in addition, that mass balance/CO2 discussions are more relevant in the How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions or possibly the Murry Salby CO2 source threads. This discussion is on CO2 rise rates and interactions with atmospheric residence time...

What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?

Dikran Marsupial at 22:15 PM on 16 July, 2012

FWIW I sent Prof. Murry Salby an email on 08 June 2012 asking for details of how a slide in his talk was generated so I could try and replicate it for an article I was writing for SkS. I haven't recieved a reply from him to that email, or indeed any other email I have sent (other than the standard "I'm swamped and can't respond to all the emails" reply I recieved from Jemme Wu in response to my first email).

Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale

Dikran Marsupial at 17:07 PM on 13 June, 2012

CBDunkerson There have been some climatol0ogists making the claim that the rise in CO2 is natural, including Roy Spencer (as dana pointed out), Tom Segalstad, Richard Courtney, and now Murry Salby. The flaws in their arguments are pretty obvious, which just goes to show that scientists can have blind spots, just like the rest of us.

As I said, the difference between true skepticism and stubborn bias is the willingness to investigate, rather than to simply question (questioning is only of value if you are interested in the answer).

Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle

desertphile at 01:44 AM on 2 May, 2012

Salby mentioned the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice age, neither of which were global events, and then claimed that CO2 followed temperature; these assertions have been refuted and debunked by scores of scientists. Murry Salby needs to update himself in the current literature.

Note that our New Galileo here also ignored the fact that humans are currently putting 30,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere EVERY YEAR, yet the non-human sources put in AND THEN REMOVE the same, or very similar, amounts of CO2 that they do every year. Just where does Mr. Salby believe our release of CO2 is going?

Roy Spencer finds negative feedback

muoncounter at 01:37 AM on 23 April, 2012

Uncle Ben#25,

While I appreciate the continued double-quoted shout-outs, I am not sure they contribute to productive discussion. If you are curious as to the origin of my login name here, I do indeed count muons (in my spare time).

"You do understand that the technique displayed in Spencer's plots has not been seen before in this field."

No. Others have tried to prove their misconceptions by looking at short term changes alone (notably, that year-to-year changes in atmospheric CO2 were supposed to show a natural source).

Tamino did an excellent analysis of this type of mistake (which Spencer made as far back as 2008):

He’s based his estimation of climate sensitivity on time spans which are so brief that feedback (in the usual sense) in the climate system doesn’t have time to operate! If you eliminate feedback (in the usual sense) from consideration, you’re not going to get a realistic estimate of climate sensitivity.

After some searching, a graph similar to the one you describe as so revolutionary is shown here:

-- source

In this graph, many 'segments' are indeed parallel. But what does that signify? Rather than declare that 'Mother Nature is trying to tell us something,' look at the graph itself. In a plot of change in flux vs. change in temperature, we are looking at derivatives. What is the significance of the slope of a derivative in this context, except as a very effective means of removing the longer term trend? A derivative, after all, is a high-pass filter. And in climate contexts, high frequency equates to noise.

Note: If this is not the type of graph you are describing, my apologies.

There are numerous criticisms of Spencer's method, both on the source page for the graph above and on the RealClimate review of Spencer's blunder. At the minimum, Spencer somehow equates global radiation to ocean-only temperature change, presents (without saying so) a very short time span of data and emphasizes monthly variation (which of course, obscures the longer period terms).

To make matters worse, Spencer's own words betray a certain lack of scientific objectivity:

I find it difficult to believe that I am the first researcher to figure out what I describe in this book. Either I am smarter than the rest of the world’s climate scientists–which seems unlikely–or there are other scientists who also have evidence that global warming could be mostly natural, but have been hiding it.

So let us lose the Galileo references, the 'witchhunt' fears and the appeal to 10 minute exercises. Let us lose the proclamations of Nobelity (which seem to be prevalent only on the pages of WUWT). I do agree that we must always be on the alert for hints of paradigm change. But this wasn't it.

Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1

Tom Curtis at 00:57 AM on 21 April, 2012

Dikran Marsupial @13, apparently this was Prof Salby's position on Feb 20th:

"Dear Brian,

Apologies for the belated reply; we’re on summer break here.

The technical paper underpinning my presentation to the Sydney Institute
has certainly not been withdrawn. The cycle of scientific publication is slow,
typically about a year. For a subject as political as this one, it can
be very slow.
The fiasco surrounding Spencer and Braswell (2011), a thinly-veiled exercise
in coercion, didn’t help. But, with patience, we will eventually get there.

Upon formal release, a notice will be sent to the numerous interested parties.
In the meantime, a couple of matters of possible interest:

(1) About half of the material in the Sydney Institute presentation
is developed in Physics of the Atmosphere & Climate,
a peer-reviewed volume that is now out.
Although developed for a technical audience,
elements should be comprehensible to the non-specialist.
Highlighted in the attached is material of relevance.

(2) In the coming weeks, a video of the presentation will be made available
through the Sydney Institute – inclusive of full graphics. Stay tuned.

Murry Salby"

So apparently, no he has not seen reason. But any difficulty he has with publishing is purely to do with politics and nothing to do with any flaws in the paper /sarc

Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural

Sascha Tavere at 00:19 AM on 21 April, 2012

@ Dikran Marsupial

Re Q&A

Audience question: "... more temperature -> more co2 -> more temperature? ..." (4'30")

Murry Salby: "For reasons that I am not going to go into with this audience, there has to be a negative-feed back that bridles this positive feed-back and holds things in check."

Oh yeah? Do tell more professor Salby! He didn't. There just "has to be".

Am I offended because of the condescension? It might not be possible when speaking to lay people to explain everything in a short space of time, but it seems to be a crucial point that you can't hedge on if you're serieus.

Pique or scepsis?

Why Are We Sure We're Right? #1

shoyemore at 19:00 PM on 20 April, 2012

caerbannog #1,

Salby gave a public talk last year that was greeted with almost complete derision by scientists in the field. Since then he dropped out of sight.

I do not think his musings have made it past peer review. It is not clear if he has even tried. There is a thread about his views here:

Murry Salby confused about the carbon cycle

The Irish comic writer Flann O'Brien has a scientist called de Selby in some of his books. Among de Selby's theories is one that night is caused by a gathering of atmospheric dust. I see a definite relationship.

Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing

KR at 01:42 AM on 30 November, 2011

Arkadiusz Semczyszak - Your previous two posts amount to a claim that "It's not anthropogenic emissions, it's melting permafrost - without which our emissions would have no consequences."

This is a curious assertion, as we know what our emission levels are, and we know what the rate of rise in CO2 is. Given that the increase in atmospheric levels is less than our emissions, a simple mass balance analysis shows that we are indeed responsible for the rise in atmospheric concentrations. And your hypothesis is a fascinating call to abdicate responsibility for our actions.

I'll also note that you have not provided any references supporting your theory, nor have you shown any estimates for CO2 contributions from melting permafrost. Even more importantly, I cannot think of a historic record indicating anything natural close to the rate of CO2 increase occurring now, including the PETM, which was at least an order of magnitude slower in onset.

I strongly suggest that you read (and comment upon) either the How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions, or the Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural threads. I don't think there's a thread specific to your permafrost claims - perhaps because I don't recall anyone ever proposing it before... which should tell you something.

The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download

muoncounter at 11:42 AM on 28 November, 2011

skept.fr#9:

I hardly think the degree to which a particular paper can be spun is a worthy criterion for rebuttal. If a paper is on a relevant topic and has some evident flaws, it is questioned. Why do you interpret that as bias?

You are missing the bigger question: If Schmittner's sensitivity is within the 'classical range of sensitivities' - although they claimed to have lowered the uncertainty - why are the pseudo-skeptics running with 'new paper finds global warming overstated'? Isn't that an indication of just how bad things are in the literature of denial: A paper that makes no statistically significant change to our understanding is trumpeted like they've transmuted lead into gold?

We saw this behavior with CERN CLOUD, Murry Salby, Spencer/Braswell, etc. In the vernacular, it's called 'clutching at straws.' Myths do not debunk facts.

A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths

skywatcher at 09:11 AM on 19 August, 2011

On the topic of these skeptics disagreeing with each other, this post by MediaMatters has emails from Richard Muller and Judith Curry throwing Bastardi under the bus. Muller also explicitly debunks Murry Salby in his email to MediaMatters. Oh yeah, Judith Curry may be worth considering for the roll-call?

#10 Les - I agree with you, in that it is a very fine line between calling out skeptics for their BS and a witch-hunt. However, unlike witches, these people have earned their right to be on this dunce's list, and the more these people are shown to be spouting garbage, the better.

Climate's changed before

adelady at 16:07 PM on 17 August, 2011

stickybeak, I think you're probably referring to this, Murry Salby Confused About The Carbon Cycle.

Not very promising.

Climate Denial Video #2: Failed at Science? Attack the Scientists

Michael of Brisbane at 07:53 AM on 7 August, 2011

Yes, nice work John.
(although I think the comparison to two of the greatest actors ever, is a slight s..trr..e..t..c..h, light-hearted as it may be) :)

I visited SKS today with the hope of reading y'all's opinion on the forthcoming paper by Murry Salby.
I know the paper hasn't been released yet, but it has passed peer review apparently.
Please visit Jo Nova's site for more info.

I'd like to know what the readers of SKS think.
(maybe you'll start a series of "Salby's Slip-ups", or "Murry's Mayhem", "Murry's Mirth", or "Salby's Subterfuge"?)

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results