Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Quote of the day, ditch the scientific method edition | Main | The ASA is a kangaroo court »

Salby in Blighty

Mike Haseler emails a link to a new video recording of Murry Salby's visit to the UK last year.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (15)

Roger Andrews has a new post

The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is .... 33 years?

The ? is important since part of the objective is the discussion that tries to bridge the gap between this model and bomb 14C estimates for residence times that tend to be around 15 years. Rogers model is based on mass balance and produces an excellent fit between emissions and observed atmospheric CO2. IPCC estimates of 100+ years are difficult to reconcile with what goes on in the real world.

What is Murry Salby doing these days?

Sep 3, 2014 at 11:25 AM | Registered CommenterEuan Mearns

Sound quality is poor, with minimal speech intelligibility.

IPCC estimates of 100+ years

IPCC estimates are based on the so-called Bern model (unvalidated, with non-physically realisable response characteristics).

Sep 3, 2014 at 11:38 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

How is it, with the technical facilities and expertise available, so many presentations (like this one) offer such poor sound quality? I notice this sometimes even with videos from world-class centres of technical excellence. It's as if those making the film have no regard for their audience thus treating the speaker with disrespect. The location acoustics should not be an excuse. There are technical solutions. The House of Commons should, anyway, offer first rate facilities for such events.

Sep 3, 2014 at 12:00 PM | Unregistered Commenteralleagra

33 Years...

Dr.David Evans has come up with an 11 Year cycle regarding the Sun-Earth heat cycle hasn't he?

11 fits nicely into 33, coincidence?

Sep 3, 2014 at 12:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterRightwinggit

I blame global warming for the poor sound quality.

Sep 3, 2014 at 1:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Agree with poor sound quality. However, superb chain of reasoning, well presented, well explained. The essence can be understood and followed even without understanding the underlying physics. Starting 50:00, the conclusions are compelling.
Unfortunately, the joke at the end, with her Majesty the Queen, is almost unintelligible..

Sep 3, 2014 at 1:32 PM | Unregistered Commenterbenpal

Sep 3, 2014 at 11:38 AM | Martin A
Sep 3, 2014 at 12:00 PM | alleagra
Sep 3, 2014 at 1:32 PM | benpal

Dr. Salby's microphone is interfering with the table microphone. The latter should have been switched off during the lecture. In addition, the sound coding is set to a very, very low number of bits/s. It is a disgrace. Fire the mixer.

Sep 3, 2014 at 2:09 PM | Registered CommenterAlbert Stienstra

To download the video from youtube copy the URL to your browser and add "ss" (without the quotes) before youtube, then click on MP4 380p, seems to give slightly clearer audio (maybe just absence of buffering dropout, maybe not).

This looks to be a very similar presentation to his earlier one at a German climate meeting.

Sep 3, 2014 at 2:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterMikky

Well done Mike Haseler for drawing attention to this video. I have just finished watching it, and I intend to return and do so again, next time with pen and paper to hand, before the end of the month. I think Salby's perspective will, amongst several other contributions, help increase attention to soil moisture in particular and the water cycle in general as a player in the climate system. Anyone else wanting to dig into that a little further could begin here with these links:
(1) From a company that makes soil moisture meters.
(2) An overview article by Vezier, a leading proponent of the water cycle as being hugely more important than the carbon cycle, not least because the latter 'piggybacks' on the former
(3) Illustrates the foul flak from climate alarm promoters when any distraction from the party line on CO2 as the key driver appears. A paper by Vezier and Shaviv is the focus.

These three touch on commercial, academic, and political aspects of the topic.

Sep 3, 2014 at 3:02 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

Dr. Salby's microphone is interfering with the table microphone. The latter should have been switched off during the lecture. In addition, the sound coding is set to a very, very low number of bits/s. It is a disgrace. Fire the mixer.
Sep 3, 2014 at 2:09 PM | Registered CommenterAlbert Stienstra

I was there and could make out very little of what Dr Salby said at the time. I assumed it was my defective hearing but now I realise it was probably problems with the PA.

Sep 3, 2014 at 3:25 PM | Unregistered Commentersplitpin

I was the person who guessed 50 Breaths at the end of the video. The video was taken with a fairly low tech video camera hence the sound quality.

Sep 3, 2014 at 7:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterForester126

Masterful performance. Makes be wonder about the excuses that were used to dismiss him at Macquarie University and what that says about the faculty.

Sep 4, 2014 at 4:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterDaveR

I was at the event at the UK parliament meeting and asked Dr. Salby a few pertinent questions, where the answers were rather evading my remarks. Unfortunately I was not properly dressed (no tie!) to follow the Lord and his company in the catacombs of the parliament to discuss things out.

There are two points where Dr. Salby is completely wrong: CO2 levels do not increase continuously as result of a constant temperature offset (which is what he does by integrating the temperature record). The increase stops when a new equilibrium between pCO2 in the oceans and pCO2 in the atmosphere is reached. What he does is violating Henry's law.

Then he calculates a theoretical diffusion rate of CO2 in the ice cores to prove that CO2 levels were much higher in the past. But that is simply impossible: diffusion levels the peaks down, but that doesn't change the average over the full period. If his factor 10 peak leveling over the 10 kyear interglacial period after 100 kyear was right, then the rest of the 90,000 years glacial period, CO2 levels should have been very low, effectively destroying all life on earth. Further, each peak farther back in time would be a factor 10 lower and lower, or the "real" CO2 levels a factor 10 higher and higher. After 8 interglacials thus originally 10^8 higher than measured in the ice core... Quite impossible as the CO2:temperature change is 8ppmv/K over all 8 interglacials, each separated with 100 kyear. Which shows that there is no measurable migration of CO2 in these ice cores...

Sep 9, 2014 at 1:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterFerdinand Engelbeen

At 56:30 Salby points out that temperature is drifting away from CO2, and infers that the two must therefore not be connected. This commits the excluded-middle fallacy: Salby implicitly assumes that temperature is either influenced by CO2 or by natural causes. There is no reason to suppose that they are mutually exclusive.

Examination of the past 160 years of temperature and CO2 permits an assessment of the natural influences that cannot be obtained by restricting attention to data since 1970. This wider window reveals the natural influences that account for temperature deviations both above and below CO2.

Sep 9, 2014 at 7:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterVaughan Pratt

Sep 3, 2014 at 11:25 AM | Euan Mearns

Roger Andrews has a new post:

I have put some comments there...

Sep 9, 2014 at 9:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterFerdinand Engelbeen

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>