Murry Salby is an atmospheric scientist who does not support CO2 Settled Science.
Murry Lewis Salby is an atmospheric scientist who focused on upper atmospheric wave propagation for most of his early career, and who more recently has argued against aspects of the scientific consensus that human activity contributes to climate change.
He has written two textbooks, Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics (1996), and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (2011).
The latter textbook, building on his first book, offers an overview of the processes controlling the atmosphere of Earth, weather, energetics, and climate physics.
Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate – Murry L. Salby
Cambridge University Press – 2012
Unsurprisingly, Murry Salby encountered academic turbulence in Boulder, Colorado.
Salby received his bachelor’s degree in aerospace engineering in 1973, and his Ph.D. in environmental dynamics from Georgia Tech in 1978.
Salby’s work focused on upper atmospheric wave propagation for most of his early career.
He began as an assistant professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder in 1984, in a department which eventually became the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences.
Salby became an associate professor in 1985 and full professor in 1991, gaining tenure in 1997.
In 1994 Salby set up a non-profit company to receive federal award funds from the National Science Foundation and other agencies for research in parallel with his research work at the University of Colorado, and in 2003 he formed another company as a subcontractor to receive charges for his efforts.
Following allegations of an overlap between funding applications, the National Science Foundation began an investigation in March 2005.
It advised the University of Colorado, which sought information from Salby but he did not cooperate with this investigation.
In October 2006 the university produced its investigation memo, and suspended Salby’s privilege of submitting proposals from the university as well as restricting his access to university research facilities.
In 2007, Salby was on sabbatical in Australia.
Before the university made its final adjudication, Salby resigned from his faculty position.
The National Science Foundation investigation report issued on 20 February 2009 found that Salby had overcharged his grants and violated financial conflict of interest policies, displaying “a pattern of deception, a lack of integrity, and a persistent and intentional disregard of NSF and University rules and policies” and a “consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit.”
It debarred Salby from receiving federal assistance and benefits until 13 August 2012.
And in 2013 academic turbulence unceremoniously stranded Murry Salby in Paris.
After leaving Colorado, Salby joined the faculty of Macquarie University in Australia, where he was appointed Professor of Climate Risk in 2008.
In May 2011, Salby’s research showing that ozone levels over Antarctica had begun to recover since the Montreal Protocol banned the use of ozone-depleting substances, was published in Geophysical Research Letters.
Salby’s employment at Macquarie was terminated in 2013; his return ticket from Paris was cancelled by Macquarie, stranding Salby in Europe.
Macquarie University stated that he was not dismissed because of his views on climate change, but for refusing to fulfill his teaching responsibilities and for inappropriate use of university resources including a corporate credit card.
But science can’t be grounded and academic turbulence hasn’t grounded Murry Salby.
Control of Atmospheric CO2 – Murry Salby
“I wanted to retire in Australia. I just didn’t expect to so soon.
If I am in retirement, let there be no doubt, it is forced retirement after being prohibited from teaching climate and then having my research files confiscated.”
Clearly, the CO2 Thought Police don’t appreciate science.
The CO2 Thought Police have clearly communicated to all scientists that articulating any science that falsifies their CO2 Settled Science theology is a double-minus-ungood thought crime that results in academic excommunication [unless the heretic recants].
Therefore, in the interests of science, here are some of the double-minus-ungood thoughts that can result in academic excommunication.
Atmospheric levels of CO2 do not mirror anthropomorphic emissions of CO2.
Anthropomorphic CO2 emissions are dwarfed by natural emissions of CO2.
Global mean temperatures do not reflect anthropomorphic emissions of CO2.
Natural emissions of CO2 are governed by surface properties [c=0.93] out of which temperature is the most significant [c=0.80].
Natural emissions of CO2 follow temperature i.e. CO2 levels do not drive temperature.
Naturally produced Carbon-14 is not uniformly distributed across the world.
The residence time of atmospheric CO2 is measured in decades not centuries.
Anthropomorphic emissions of CO2 closely follow human population growth.
Therefore, contraception is the most efficient prophylactic that prevents anthropomorphic CO2.
Note to self: Is CO2 Settled Science a re-branded form of Eugenics?
A rise in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppmv to 400 ppmv has a minuscule impact on atmospheric opacity and anthropomorphic emissions of CO2 [at most] can be associated with a temperature increase of 0.18 degrees Kelvin.
However, this maximum theoretical increase of 0.18 degrees Kelvin [caused by anthropomorphic CO2] is reduced to 0.09 degrees Kelvin by an associated increase in convective cooling.
This is no surprise to anyone who has read Physics of the Air [first published in 1920] by W. J. Humphreys who calculated that a doubling [or more] of atmospheric CO2 would cause average temperatures to rise by “no more than about 1.3 C”.
The Carbon Dioxide Theory.
This theory, advocated by Tyndall, Arrhenius, Chamberlin, and others, is based on the selective absorption of carbon dioxide for radiation of different wave lengths, and on its assumed variation in amount.
It is true that carbon dioxide is more absorptive of terrestrial than of solar radiations, and that it, therefore, produces a greenhouse or blanketing effect, and it is also, probably, true that its amount in the atmosphere has varied through appreciable ranges, as a result of volcanic and other additions on the one hand, and of oceanic absorption and chemical combination on the other.
But it is not possible to say exactly how great an effect a given change in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have on the temperature of the earth.
However, by bringing a number of known facts to bear on the subject it seems feasible to determine its approximate value.
Thus the experiments of Schaefer show that, at atmospheric pressure, a column of carbon dioxide 50 cm long is ample for maximum absorption, since one of this length absorbs quite as completely as does a column 200 cm long at the same density.
Also, the experiments of Angstrom, and those of E. v. Bahr, show that the absorption of radiation by carbon dioxide, or other gas, increases with increase of pressure, and, what is of great importance, that, both qualitatively and quantitatively, this increase of absorption is exactly the same whether the given higher pressure be obtained by compression of the pure gas to a column of shorter length, or, leaving the column unchanged, by the simple addition of an inert gas.
According to these experiments, if a given column or quantity of carbon dioxide at a pressure of 50 mm absorbs 20 per cent of the incident selective radiation, then, at 100 mm it will absorb 25 per cent, at 200 mm 30 per cent, at 400 mm 35 per cent, and at 800 mm about 38.5 per cent.
Now, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is equivalent to a column of the pure gas, at ordinary room temperature and atmospheric pressure, of, roughly, 250 cm. in length.
Hence, as a little calculation proves, using the coefficients of absorption at different pressures given by the experiments of Angstrom and E. v. Bahr, just described, the carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere must, under its present vertical distribution, absorb radiation very approximately as would a column 475 cm. long of the pure gas at the barometric pressure of 400 mm.
But Schaefer’s experiments, above referred to, show that such a column would be just as effective an absorber as a cylinder two or three times this length, and, on the other hand, no more effective than a column one-half or one-fourth as long; in each case, the absorption would be complete in the selective regions of the gas in question.
Hence, finally, doubling or halving the amount of carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere, since this would make but little difference in the pressure, would not appreciably affect the total amount of radiation actually absorbed by it, whether of terrestrial or of solar origin, though it would affect the vertical distribution or location of the absorption.
Again, as explained by Abbot and Fowle, the water vapor always present in the atmosphere, because of its high coefficients of absorption in substantially the same regions where carbon dioxide is effective, leaves but little radiation for the latter to take up.
Hence, for this reason, as well as for the one given above, either doubling or halving the present amount of carbon dioxide could alter but little the total amount of radiation actually absorbed by the atmosphere, and, therefore, seemingly, could not appreciably change the average temperature of the earth, or be at all effective in the production of marked climatic changes.
Physics of the Air – W. J. Humphreys – 1929 – McGraw-Hill Book Company
The CO2 Thought Police want you to feel lonely until you turn on the red light.