The video begins in German, but after only 41 seconds shifts permanently to English (and later American), so don’t be dismayed. Stick with it.
The German professor, in his words of welcome, describes Professor Salby, from Macquarie University in Sydney:
He is known all over the world as one of the few specialists who really have a view over the whole area of climate development. Despite his long relationship with the most renowned climate institutes, he has preserved his own critical and constructive reasoning, which in some parts is in real contradiction to the official expert opinion and also [opposes] the assessment of the IPCC.
I tried to discover the name of the professor who introduced Dr Salby, but I get only as close as hearing it pronounced as “
Professor Harday“. I can find nothing resembling that on the University of Hamburg’s web site in the Department of Earth Sciences of the School of Mathematics, Informatics and Natural Sciences. If anyone can provide it, I’ll insert it here. [The proprietor of No Tricks Zone, Pierre Gosselin, kindly says that it sounds like “Professor Harder.” Thanks, Pierre. – RT]
Anyway, he was clearly pleased with the opportunity to listen to Selby. His introduction is the most understated yet strongest, most resounding condemnation of the establishment viewpoint from a credible establishment figure that I have heard for some while.
Here’s a snippet of Professor Selby discussing the quantification of the atmospheric sources and sinks of CO2 (data are summarised from his speech and the slide).
Estimated sources and sinks of CO2.
The human source – 5 GT/yr
Ocean, 90 GT/yr; land, 60 GT/yr
Total emission from native sources: 150 GT/yr – 96% of the total.
It’s approximately balanced by native sinks which absorb about as much.
The key word: approximately.
Because native sources and sinks are two orders of magnitude stronger. Even a minor imbalance can overshadow the human source. Moreover, if those sources involve Carbon 13 leaner than in the atmosphere, as many do, all bets are off.
At the very end, Prof Selby gives a concise summary. Here’s the complete transcript (it took me a while, but it’s juicy).
[at 1:03:06 of 1:08:23]
Model world, real world. This leads to the following conclusion. In the model world, changes of CO2 and global temperature are closely related. In fact within the scale factor, the two are synonymous; they are synonyms for the same thing. In the real world, they’re not related. The correct conclusion is they’re not related directly, as they are under the simplified energy balance that prevails in the model world. Recall, on time scales shorter than a century, changes of CO2 are conservative, controlled by emission from native sources. CO2 then evolves, not like temperature, as it does in the model world, but like the integral of temperature. It closely tracks observed CO2, even after the 1990s, when the observed records of CO2 and temperature clearly diverged.
If CO2 tracks the integral of temperature, which it clearly does, it cannot track temperature, which it clearly doesn’t.
In the model world, CO2 and global temperature are related directly. In the real world, they’re also related, but differently. The distinctly different relationship between CO2 and global temperature represents a fundamental difference in the global energy balance, between its evolution in the model world and the real world. If the global energy balance is wrong, everything else is window dressing.
The different relationship between CO2 and global temperature becomes manifest after the 1990s, when their observed records diverged. But once the temperature dependence of CO2 emission is accounted for, namely, by native sources, the two observed records are entirely consistent. These features of the observed evolution have the following two-pronged implication.
In the real world, global temperature is not controlled exclusively by CO2, not even on a long time scale, as it is in the model world.
In significant part, however, CO2 is controlled by global temperature, as it is in the proxy record.
I’ll close with a retrospective of general significance.
“The science is settled.” How often have you heard that? Meet Richard Feynman [whose photo appears on the screen], described as the greatest mind since Einstein. I had occasion to meet Feynman during my brief time at Caltech, and it was then that he gave a commencement address when he spoke on “Science, pseudoscience and how not to fool yourself.” He noted “one can be easily deceived by deferring to the authority of supposed experts.” Feynman developed a paradigm of such behaviour in which he characterised this as “cult science” [in 1974].
Feynman also discussed the key to science — a different audience but the same theme. Here’s an excerpt:
“Now I’m going to describe how you would look for a new physical law. We do so through the following process. First, we guess [the audience breaks up in laughter]. No, don’t laugh, it’s true. Then we perform a calculation to see what are the implications of the guess. Then we compare the result directly with observations. If it disagrees, it’s wrong.”
In that statement is the key to science. It doesn’t matter how beautiful your guess is; it doesn’t matter who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with observations, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.
A simple message is always a sign of truth.