Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Figure 1. The Experimental Setup
I keep reading statements in various places about how it is indisputable “simple physics” that if we increase the amount of atmospheric CO2, it will inevitably warm the planet. Here’s a typical example:
In the hyperbolic language that has infested the debate, researchers have been accused of everything from ditching the scientific method to participating in a vast conspiracy. But the basic concepts of the greenhouse effect is a matter of simple physics and chemistry, and have been part of the scientific dialog for roughly a century.
Here’s another:
The important thing is that we know how greenhouse gases affect climate. It has even been predicted hundred years ago by Arrhenius. It is simple physics.
Unfortunately, while the physics is simple, the climate is far from simple. It is one of the more complex systems that we have ever studied. The climate is a tera-watt scale planetary sized heat engine. It is driven by both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial forcings, a number of which are unknown, and many of which are poorly understood and/or difficult to measure. It is inherently chaotic and turbulent, two conditions for which we have few mathematical tools.
The climate is composed of six major subsystems — atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, and electrosphere. All of these subsystems are imperfectly understood. Each of these subsystems has its own known and unknown internal and external forcings, feedbacks, resonances, and cyclical variations. In addition, each subsystem affects all of the other subsystems through a variety of known and unknown forcings and feedbacks.
Then there is the problem of scale. Climate has crucially important processes at physical scales from the molecular to the planetary and at temporal scales from milliseconds to millennia.
As a result of this almost unimaginable complexity, simple physics is simply inadequate to predict the effect of a change in one of the hundreds and hundreds of things that affect the climate. I will give two examples of why “simple physics” doesn’t work with the climate — a river, and a block of steel. I’ll start with a thought experiment with the block of steel.
Suppose that I want to find out about how temperature affects solids. I take a 75 kg block of steel, and I put the bottom end of it in a bucket of hot water. I duct tape a thermometer to the top end in the best experimental fashion, and I start recording how the temperature changes with time. At first, nothing happens. So I wait. And soon, the temperature of the other end of the block of steel starts rising. Hey, simple physics, right?
To verify my results, I try the experiment with a block of copper. I get the same result, the end of the block that’s not in the hot water soon begins to warm up. I try it with a block of glass, same thing. My tentative conclusion is that simple physics says that if you heat one end of a solid, the other end will eventually heat up as well.
So I look around for a final test. Not seeing anything obvious, I have a flash of insight. I weigh about 75 kg. So I sit with my feet in the bucket of hot water, put the thermometer in my mouth, and wait for my head to heat up. This experimental setup is shown in Figure 1 above.
After all, simple physics is my guideline, I know what’s going to happen, I just have to wait.
And wait … and wait …
As our thought experiment shows, simple physics may simply not work when applied to a complex system. The problem is that there are feedback mechanisms that negate the effect of the hot water on my cold toes. My body has a preferential temperature which is not set by the external forcings.
For a more nuanced view of what is happening, let’s consider the second example, a river. Again, a thought experiment.
I take a sheet of plywood, and I cover it with some earth. I tilt it up so it slopes from one edge to the other. For our thought experiment, we’ll imagine that this is a hill that goes down to the ocean.
I place a steel ball at the top edge of the earth-covered plywood, and I watch what happens. It rolls, as simple physics predicts, straight down to the lower edge. I try it with a wooden ball, and get the same result. I figure maybe it’s because of the shape of the object.
So I make a small wooden sled, and put it on the plywood. Again, it slides straight down to the ocean. I try it with a miniature steel shed, same result. It goes directly downhill to the ocean as well. Simple physics, understood by Isaac Newton.
As a final test, I take a hose and I start running some water down from the top edge of my hill to make a model river. To my surprise, although the model river starts straight down the hill, it soon starts to wander. Before long, it has formed a meandering stream, which changes its course with time. Sections of the river form long loops, the channel changes, loops are cut off, new channels form, and after while we get something like this:
Figure 2. Meanders, oxbow bends, and oxbow lakes in a river system. Note the old channels where the river used to run.
The most amazing part is that the process never stops. No matter how long we run the river experiment, the channel continues to change. What’s going on here?
Well, the first thing that we can conclude is that, just as in our experiment with the steel block, simple physics simply doesn’t work in this situation. Simple physics says that things roll straight downhill, and clearly, that ain’t happening here … it is obvious we need better tools to analyze the flow of the river.
Are there mathematical tools that we can use to understand this system? Yes, but they are not simple. The breakthrough came in the 1990’s, with the discovery by Adrian Bejan of the Constructal Law. The Constructal Law applies to all flow systems which are far from equilibrium, like a river or the climate.
It turns out that these types of flow systems are not passive systems which can take up any configuration. Instead, they actively strive to maximize some aspect of the system. For the river, as for the climate, the system strives to maximize the sum of the energy moved and the energy lost through turbulence. See the discussion of these principles here, here, here, and here. There is also a website devoted to various applications of the Constructal Law here.
There are several conclusions that we can make from the application of the Constructal Law to flow systems:
1. Any flow system far from equilibrium is not free to take up any form as the climate models assume. Instead, it has a preferential state which it works actively to approach.
2. This preferential state, however, is never achieved. Instead, the system constantly overshoots and undershoots that state, and does not settle down to one final form. The system never stops modifying its internal aspects to move towards the preferential state.
3. The results of changes in such a flow system are often counterintuitive. For example, suppose we want to shorten the river. Simple physics says it should be easy. So we cut through an oxbow bend, and it makes the river shorter … but only for a little while. Soon the river readjusts, and some other part of the river becomes longer. The length of the river is actively maintained by the system. Contrary to our simplistic assumptions, the length of the river is not changed by our actions.
So that’s the problem with “simple physics” and the climate. For example, simple physics predicts a simple linear relationship between the climate forcings and the temperature. People seriously believe that a change of X in the forcings will lead inevitably to a chance of A * X in the temperature. This is called the “climate sensitivity”, and is a fundamental assumption in the climate models. The IPCC says that if CO2 doubles, we will get a rise of around 3C in the global temperature. However, there is absolutely no evidence to support that claim, only computer models. But the models assume this relationship, so they cannot be used to establish the relationship.
However, as rivers clearly show, there is no such simple relationship in a flow system far from equilibrium. We can’t cut through an oxbow to shorten the river, it just lengthens elsewhere to maintain the same total length. Instead of being affected by a change in the forcings, the system sets its own preferential operating conditions (e.g. length, temperature, etc.) based on the natural constraints and flow possibilities and other parameters of the system.
Final conclusion? Because climate is a flow system far from equilibrium, it is ruled by the Constructal Law. As a result, there is no physics-based reason to assume that increasing CO2 will make a large difference to the global temperature, and the Constructal Law gives us reason to think that it may make no difference at all. In any case, regardless of Arrhenius, the “simple physics” relationship between CO2 and global temperature is something that we cannot simply assume to be true.
Sponsored IT training links:
Download RH302 questions & answers with self paced 70-270 practice test to prepare and pass 646-985 exam.
Models:
There are not 15 models for electric motors. There are not even two. There is one. And every one who has to deal with electric motors uses the same models.
Why is that? Electric motors are well understood and the constraints are definite.
So to step back and look at it from above, how does funneling truckloads of money (taxes) to a government (the most inefficient form of “business” ever created) going to make the weather patterns more “stable”, predictable and perfectly adjusted to suit the polar caps and glaciers?
Answer: It won’t. But, many people in the right circles will become filthy rich and powerful off of misinformation and deception, and that creates a very efficient government.
okay
MikeF (22:33:56) :
Wow, your friend Tony must be really good with computers if he had laptop in 70s…
You appear to be having difficulty with the word “since”, get a dictionary!
And you know what? My dad can beat up your dad any time.
Moderator I hope you’ll remove this remark because my father is dead.
Reply: Oh come on Phil. My father is also deceased and I wouldn’t be remotely offended by that phrase, which is a common expression referring to attempts to “one up” one’s opponent. I’ve used it myself in everyday conversation. ~ charles the moderator.
Phil. (18:31:33) :
Mooloo (16:37:20) :
Surely this is wrong, not to say contradictory. If cold CO2 has the same absorption band as warm CO2 (which I would expect) how does it suddenly become less transparent? It is either absorbing more energy and radiating it back (i.e. greenhouse effect) or it is absorbing the same amount. Its temperature is irrelevant unless it implies less transparency.
The absorption depends on temperature broadening the absorption lines, the colder the CO2 the narrower the lines (and since there is pressure broadening too, at high altitudes the lines are narrower due to that too).
The temperature is very relevant.
I don’t see why a cold CO2 molecule in the upper atmosphere radiates out less energy than an equally cold O2 molecule.
The O2 molecules don’t radiate at all in the IR.
Maybe you should rephrase the last line?
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-35-31-6115
Abstract
A linear InGaAs array was used in an interference filter spectral imager to monitor the twilight decay of the O2 Infrared Atmospheric (0–1) band in the twilight airglow. The interference filter was centered at 1.582 μm and had a bandwidth (full width at half-maximum) of 1.0 nm. The imaging lens was a simple doublet, and a Fresnel lens was used for smearing any possible sky inhomogeneities. Spectra measured over Toronto in October 1994 show that the sensitivity and spectral discrimination against the contaminating OH spectrum are potentially sufficient to infer meaningful rotational temperatures. The improvements that would result from an area InGaAs array are discussed.
the google search for O2 infrared brought out over 86.000.000 links.
the above is the first one.
I was puzzled with your statement: how could any molecule not have an infrared spectrum. Tom Vogt, where are you when you are needed?
After this O2 business I will quote my swallow story once more.
Half knowledge is not a desirable state.
The Swallow
When God created the swallow, a migrating bird that winters in Africa, He started to show him how to build his nest. He showed how to make small mud balls with his tongue and how to gradually build up the nest; but He was interrupted just before reaching the point where He started to show the swallow how the nest should get covered and have a roof. The swallow, half paying attention flexing its wings and ready to fly off swiftly after juicy flies and mosquitoes said “OK, OK, I know, I know” and flew away.
That is why swallows’ nests are only half built and they have to be under a roof or an outcropping. The swallow never had the patience to listen to the end of the demonstration.
Ever since a child I have often found myself in the swallow’s position, which is why my father would repeat the tale to me equally often.
George E. Smith: thank you for your answer. That’s what I expected from my chemistry background. That doesn’t suggest any way that extra “cold” CO2 up high is going to make any difference.
Phil: thank you also, although you seem to have missed the point. If cold CO2 has narrower bands, then it is less efficient than hot CO2 and will be a less effective greenhouse gas. Is that what you meant to say?
Anna V: I was wondering about O2 not having an IR absorption band. It jarred against my expectation. Thank-you also then for finding that link. As CO2 has three atoms I would expect it to have a wider absorption than O2, but not much wider as it is linearly symmetric (and the free electron nature of O2 will affect things).
So what is the mechanism that the AGW crowd allege makes all the difference then? I might go to Real Climate and have a dabble! (Assumed name, naturally.)
This graph helps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
(apologies for using wikipedia)
Phil. (20:34:18) :
Next, if water flowing downhill “tries to get there as fast as possible”, it would flow straight downhill like a marble rolling down a tilted floor.
No it wouldn’t, it would follow a brachistochrone (an inverted cycloid) as shown by the Bernoullis, Newton, Liebniz and l’Hôpital before 1700 (anticipated by Galileo about 50 years previously).
Only if it first scoops out the inverted cycloid in the ground. Lateral motion is not affected by gravity, hence there is no reason to expect a ‘sideways brachistochrone’, which is an oxymoron.
ThinkingBeing (13:50:32) :
But I’m not going to argue the validity of the models on these pages with anyone here. This is the land of zealots who have already made up their minds, then, with their minds closed, have chosen to very heroically label themselves as “skeptics.” So there’s no way to educate them, and no point in trying.
That’s a pretty close-minded attitude, hoss. One of the reasons I come here is for the articles — such as this one — which *are* educating me without hammering me with “You Won’t Understand It — Just Trust Me” talking points.
David Jay (13:34:42) :
Okay, but how do you explain the Hiller???
Ooooh — maybe Tee-Bee knows of a model that can explain it…
cthulhu (14:32:17)
They include kluges. They do not include “clouds”. From the IPCC:
Kadaka,
I think that is a free society’s way of saying that the industry is no longer viable. High interest rates will clean up a lot of the inefficient and non-viable industries, making more capital available for the efficient and viable ones. Again, not necessarily “positive” nor “negative”, but a necessary part of an efficient economy.
take a sheet of plywood, and I cover it with some SAND.
And then do your experiment.
I have read most of the replies, and most are in some sort of awe from this discovery. I have read and reread the article. And I have concluded that this is junk science at it’s worst. C’mon man! A river will plot its course by the path of least resistance. Place a boulder in the middle of the river and it will change course. Hell, the river itself could place the boulder there and it will still change course.
I would guess that without any obstructions the river would flow straight. Maybe a little influence by the Coriolis effect but that’s all.
And I am quit disturbed by Oliver K. Manuel’s praise. Especially since it was the first. Something is not smelling right in Denmark.
_Jim (09:50:24) :
You are right, I misunderstood your original comment. When WUWT allows these types of articles and I get a whiff of someone agreeing with them, I over react. My sincere apology to you.
Phil,
I am sorry that my choice of words have offended you. Please accept my sincere apology.
You must admit, however, that your listing of you friend’s accomplishments and other appeals to authority sounded very much like bragging that little kids do about their fathers.
If you want people to take your references to your friend seriously you should use his full name and cite papers he had published. And stop assuming that you are the authority on computer programming, without proof that sounds really childish.
Regarding your “since” statement – he did design wings in 70s, right? So, what did he use then? Since it couldn’t have been a laptop, what was it? Was it a slide rule? Or was it a computer? Maybe computer with “super” added to it? As in “supercomputer”? Person of your experience with computers must be aware that modern laptops are much more powerful than 70’s supercomputers, right?
And why is it when I read your posts I reminded of a time when I was in kindergarden myself (pretty long ago, unfortunately)?
You might want to take a look at an article by Dr. Tim Ball in the Canadian Free Press, Monday, December 28, 2009, Titled: “Time to Revisit Falsified Science of CO2”
jt (21:54:39) :
People keep making the point that Climate is Chaotic as if that meant Climate is unpredictable on any scale. However, there are kinds of chaotic systems which operate around “attractors” so that they repeat their configurations in quasi-periodic fashion. I would be interested in comments from mathematically knowledgeable persons about whether such kinds of chaos have been found, or are likely to be found, in the systems which generate climate, and, if so, what kinds of quasi-periodicity have been found or are expected.
It is beyond doubt that climate is driven by processes which exhibit deterministic chaos. GCM’s have no useful predictive power beyond 10 days. It is a complete myth that by averaging the climate outputs, such as temperature, it is possible to get good long-term predictions of what the future will be.
Linear statistical methods have little use when dealing with deterministic chaos, and new tools need to be developed if science is to progress.
Spector (00:38:11) :
You might want to take a look at an article by Dr. Tim Ball
Yes, I might, if I had a link….
gtrip:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18343
Took me about 5 sec of copy name-paste to search engine box- wait for results.
You are welcome.
The earths climate is governed by a multitude of events, including volcanic eruptions and earthquakes.Remember Krakatoa,how that affected the earths climate for generations. Any day an earthquake or volcanic eruption could alter the climate of earth,affecting all living things.Predicting what will happen is not accurate and never will be,as the earth is in a constant flux.In a hundred years anything may be happening with our climate,through our fault or not!
Learn to live with climate per se,if you dont like it,find another planet to live on!
Thank you Mr. Eschenbach for an interesting article, and for your explanation of the Constructal Law. Early settlers used Constructal Law by setting free a domesticated Bovine, and wherever it wandered, that determined the route of the road to be built. 🙂
Quote by Mr. Eschenbach: “As a result, there is no physics-based reason to assume that increasing CO2 will make any difference to the global temperature, and the Constructal Law gives us reason to think that it may make no difference at all.”
Heat transfer via the mechanism of radiation occurs at the speed of light, and this is the only mechanism available to the earth system to ultimately remove its heat, excepting expulsion of small amounts of helium, hydrogen, and the occasional man-made spacecraft. Sunlight in the visible and UV ranges does little to heat the atmosphere, thus virtually all broad band IR radiation emitted by the earth system comes from the surface of the earth itself. Since an increase in CO2 merely lowers the elevation above ground level for which it extinguishes in those few narrow bands of IR absorption, I’ll play devil’s advocate here, by suggesting that there may be a grand total of a 0.01 to 0.02 deg C rise in the global average temperature for a doubling of CO2.
@Mooloo (14:50:21) :
A molecule absorbing a foton will warm up, a molecule emitting a foton will cool down. To be in equilibrium, the molecule has to emit the same amount of energy as it is absorbing.
The same is true for the earth as a whole. In equilibrium the amount of radiation from the sun must be the same as the amount of radiation the earth radiates to outerspace. If there are no greenhouse gasses the earth itself will do this radiation. If there are greenhouse gasses, they will absorb some of the radiation from the earth and radiate some back to the earth and some to outer space. Since now the greenhouse gasses are doing part of the radiating to space and these gasses are colder, the earth as a whole will radiate less. To get back to equilibrium the earth will warm until it radiates the same amount of energy it is receiving.
MikeF (01:27:54) :
You are assuming that all readers use the same web browsing capabilities that you have; now aren’t you?
I am aware of how to find the articles that people post. Courtesy would dictate providing a link to an article that you want people to read. It’s kind of like saying thank you.
I see no reference here on link insertion. Some site managers do not appreciate unauthorized insertion of live links in posts….
Since now the greenhouse gasses are doing part of the radiating to space and these gasses are colder, the earth as a whole will radiate less. To get back to equilibrium the earth will warm until it radiates the same amount of energy it is receiving.
This is cart before horse. Actually, as far as I can tell, it’s nonsense.
“These gases are colder” relates to what? There is more CO2 in the outer atmosphere, yes. But the outer atmosphere black box radiates out at the same rate regardless of what gas it is made up of. So what other mechanism is at work then?
I understand that more CO2 might create a greater greenhouse effect. I think it’s untrue because CO2 is at saturation, but I can see how it might be true. But that isn’t being claimed. Instead we are told more cold CO2 means less radiation by some other method.
You appear to want it both ways. It is cooler, so it is radiating less. So it has to get warmer to radiate more. But more CO2 makes it cooler, so it radiates less. So it has to get warmer. Which makes it cooler. … Which, IMNSHO, is a nonsense. I can understand if you argue the upper atmosphere is warming in order to once again reach equilibrium, but instead I am told the opposite.
I want a practical explanation of why adding CO2 to the upper atmosphere makes it radiate less. Not to be told that it does, but to be given a mechanism. Why does cold CO2 radiate less than cold O2?
Or are we better off planning for the worst case scenario
The worst case scenario is an ice age. The boffins have yet to figure out how to grow crops under ice.