Guest Post by Barry Woods
All too often the ‘simple physics of CO2’ argument is presented to the public by the media, politicians, climate scientists and environmental advocacy groups, in a way that grossly simplifies the issue of the response in global temperature to increasing CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.
An excellent response to the simple physics argument is to be found in the comments at Climate Etc (Professor Judith Curry’s blog)
In reality my feather blew up into a tree
“….. which is that since CO2 is a GHG it follows that increasing CO2 must increase the temperature (of something). No matter how many times we say that the climate is a system with complex non-linear feedbacks they still love this simple principle of physics.
This is because physics works by isolating simple situations from reality. That was the great discovery of physics, that if you simplified reality you could find simple laws. So far so good.
But as every engineer knows, these simple laws often do not work when reality gets messy, as it usually is. Simple physics says that if I drop a ball and a feather they will fall at the same rate.
In reality my feather blew up into a tree.
It is not that the simple law is false, just that there are a number of other simple laws opposing it. In the case of climate we don’t even know what some of these other laws are, so we can’t explain what we see. That is where we should be looking.”
The ‘do you deny the simple GHG physics’ argument is also often an attempt to portray anyone that asks reasonable scientific questions about AGW and the complexity of climate science, as some sort of an ‘anti-science’, ‘flat earther’ denier.
The realities and complexities and unknowns of climate science are described in the IPCC working Group 1 reports, but somehow get ‘lost in translation’ into the Summary for Policymakers, for example (and everyone knows very few politicians even read beyond the executive summary of anything).
IPCC (Chapter 14, 14.2.2.2, Working Group 1, The Scientific Basis)
Third Assessment Report: “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Time and time again the media and environment groups ignore this IPCC fact that the climate is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system and that the worst case scenarios of the computer model ‘projections’ or scenarios (because they know they cannot use the word prediction) latest example, 4C by 2060, are just one result of computer model ‘runs’ programmed with various extreme values of these assumptions.
The low-end ‘projections’ of temperature by model runs with other values and assumptions are ignored completely by CAGW advocates, the data output or projection of a computer model transmorphs into a scientific fact, the data output of a computer model becomes evidence of CAGW.
Climate Science is often portrayed to the public in simplistic terms as a mature science, narrowed down and focussed onto one primary factor – CO2, assuming all else to be equal, and not the possibilities in this type of system that varying one parameter alone, may vary other parameters in non-linear ways, even potentially flipping some from positive to negative feedback (or vice versa)
At the time of the Copenhagen Cop 15 Climate Conference, stunts on TV, rather than the discussion of uncertainties of ‘climate science’ were the order of the day.
The classic demonstration of the ‘do you deny the simple physics of CO2’ argument is a glass tube filled with CO2, heated and then the TV presenter or preferably a senior government scientist says ‘look it has warmed!’ –
As demonstrated by the BBC in their Newsnight program, Copenhagen Climate Conference time, the BBC’s apparent intellectual response to the climategate emails and documents. Watts Up With That, gave a critique of this particular type of TV experiment and CAGW PR.
I wonder what would have happened if a member of the audience had been able to question their methodology, or even ask simple questions like:
What is the percentage of CO2 in the jar?
ie total atmospheric is ~0.038%, what percentage is in the glass jar – 50% plus perhaps, or more?
[Corrected typo spotted in comments – 0.038% / 380 ppm]
If you were to mention that the CO2 effect is logarithmic, then you are likely to be labelled a ‘climate change sceptic’ or worse a ‘climate change denier’ by any passing MSM media TV presenter, environmentalist group or AGW consensus minded politician, and then they will simply stop listening, because you are obviously a fossil fuel funded denier, such has been the CAGW consensus PR.
I wonder if for a sceptical joke, someone could produce a spoof YouTube video of a feather and a cannon ball in a glass jar experiment (non evacuated) and the TV presenter could say to the audience:
“Proof – The Cannon Ball FALLS faster that the feather – Simple Physics clearly show this”
Someone in the audience could then ask, but you have air in the jar? and then get ridiculed by the group as an ‘anti-science’ denier, the scientist/presenter could even bring out the ‘No Pressure’ red button to use!
The simple and not so simple physics of a number of climate parameters, are programmed into the climate computer models. Many of these parameters, it is acknowledged, are not completely understood or that there is serious contentious debate about in the scientific literature. ie aerosols, clouds, solar pacific and atlantic oscillations, volcanoes, etc,etc
Engineers (or economists now, perhaps) will advice climate scientists, model are not reality, reality is often more complicated than any computer model. Take a step back, view with hindsight with respect to risk in the financial markets. At the trouble the cream of the last few decades of science graduates – turned computer modellers – left the world’s economy in, following the modelling of credit risk amongst many other economic assumptions.
Next time anyone starts on about the simple physics of CO2, remember the feather and a cannon ball in a very large glass jar analogy, or for the classically motivated, atop the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
Politicians could lay trillion-dollar bets, and dozens of competing scientific groups (publically funded) could even attempt to write a computer models to predict when and where the feather would land…………
Thanks again to Anthony for the opportunity to write at Watts Up With That again. There is a little more about me here.
Or maybe you could stop by at my new blog, I hope that the Watts Up With That regulars like the name.
Frank Kotler says:
December 28, 2010 at 12:21 pm
The old hippie’s view:
Several hundred million years ago, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was considerably higher than today. It was also a little warmer. The biosphere thrived! In fact, the biosphere went into a sort of “overshoot” condition: plants grew faster than they could decay. Plants fell over on each other, and carbon was buried, cruelly isolated from the cycle of life from which it sprang. Now, human activities have liberated some of this entrapped carbon, re-introducing it to the carbon cycle, where it belongs. Gaia smiles.
========================================================
Frank, that is a very good point.
No one brings up the fact that CO2 levels have fallen, and why.
It you compare it to a closed system, they will reach an equilibrium that barely sustains them.
Mike D. says:
December 28, 2010 at 10:30 am
Why not limit the emission of water vapor?
That would be too easy. Condensors are old-tech.
Taking an untested drug is not “dangerous”. The proper term would be “risky”.
[Reply: It wasn’t my stuff, it was a main article typo. My apologies for not fixing ‘tenet’ (now fixed). Correcting blog spelling is a Sysiphean task, which I try to do between approving comments when I have time. But there isn’t enough time in the world to fix every spelling error. Can you imagine trying to fix my friend UCLA English Professor Steve Mosher’s grammar and typos? Egad.☺ ~dbs]
========================================================
You are the man! You know, I was only poking fun and didn’t expect you to correct any of my endless mispellings and grammars failures. Steve M is about the only one hear that’s worse than me. 🙂 Sisyphean
Thanks db.
James, that’s “here” rotfl
“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
“For decades, most economists, including the world’s most powerful central bankers, have supposed that people are rational enough, and the working of markets smooth enough, that the whole economy can be reduced to a handful of equations. They assemble the equations into mathematical models that attempt to mimic the behavior of the economy. From Washington to Frankfurt to Tokyo, the models inform crucial decisions about everything from the right level of interest rates to how to regulate banks. In the wake of a financial crisis and punishing recession that the models failed to capture, a growing number of economists are beginning to question the intellectual foundations on which the models are built. Researchers, some of whom spent years on the academic margins, are offering up a barrage of ideas that they hope could form the building blocks of a new paradigm.” (from “Economists’ Grail: A Post-Crash Model”, by Mark Whitehouse, Wall Street Journal, 30 November 2010).
“The Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI, http://www.epri.com) is seeking one or more Economists – Global Climate who will be responsible for conducting and supporting economic and technology analyses of energy and environmental policy options, particularly on the U.S. energy sector. Most time will be spent developing and running large scale and computable general equilibrium models.” (http://tbe.taleo.net/NA5/ats/careers/requisition.jsp?org=EPRI&cws=1&rid=600)
So EPRI wants to incorporate the unpredictability of climate science into the complexity of the economic system and use a general equilibrium model to represent the outcomes?
Anybody interested in trying to advise EPRI?
Steven Mosher says:
December 28, 2010 at 10:25 am
‘”The is a gross misunderstanding of the situation. In a controlled experiment we may say “if I increase the concentration of X, then Y will respond like so” Then, as experimenters we are given clear directions. Increase X, observe Y. However, in climate science and in other areas of scientific investigation we cannot control X.’
Right. In astronomy, you cannot control what you study. That means your experiments are passive rather than active. But it does not change scientific method and it does not excuse the use of computer models as substitutes for experiments, whether passive or active. Computer models are good for analytical purposes. They cannot replace reasonably well-confirmed hypotheses or actual experiments that test hypotheses. If you would think about it for a minute, you would realize that if you had reasonably well confirmed hypotheses you would have no desire for a computer model of the very phenomena that the hypotheses explain. On the other hand, if you have collected a lot of observations then programming them into the most advanced computer is not going to produce a hypothesis to explain the salient features of what you observed. Computers do not do synthesis. Only the human mind does synthesis. Of course, y0u can sometimes surprise yourself with the outcomes of a computer program, but that is only because your brain is not powerful enough to see all the implications of its relevant set of assumptions. The surprise you experience is the product of analysis not synthesis.
That’s a bit of apples/oranges considering most of our understanding of when to expect earthquakes comes from a detailed study of the history of the soil to find when earthquakes have occurred and where. We know how often the San Andreas goes off from soil samples all over the U.S., so we know it’s reasonable to expect one soon. The picture with regards to historical climate is far more murky. There is no definitive record of when and where things changed. In fact we’re just at the beginning of nailing down precisely what has happened in order to learn from it. So to this point in time, history isn’t nearly as useful a tool in educating ourselves as to what to expect from the Earths climate. With the political pressure generated by alarmism, the field has relied on models far more than seismology ever would.
I would say it’s far more reasonable to ignore what climate scientists say than seismologists, even though seismologists never publicly predict anything. Seismology didn’t put the cart before the horse.
Steven Mosher writes:
“1. throw up your hands and say it cant be calculated.
2. Run a bunch of GCMs and give a projection. This projection will be imperfect,
it will have a wide range of values. None of them will forecast a cooling. The majority project a future that has an increased risk to life and property as we know it.
It’s limited science, but the best we happen to have.”
It is not a science. It is a collection of really good hunches. The fact that the subject matter of the hunches is really-really-really important does not make it a science. To have a science, you have to have hypotheses that are reasonably well-confirmed; that is, they must have a history of accurate prediction of real events in the real world that we do not control. Climate science does not have them at this time. In some few decades, it will have them. If what you really care about is doing something about your beliefs on climate change, then stop talking about science and start writing books about your really good hunches on climate.
I’d like to see a separate article by George E. Smith or Ric Werme on the “CO2 in a jar” experiment (which should be redone as “CO2 in a large building” experiment).
And raspberries to all the people who can’t tell the difference between CO2 and CO.
On Craig Loehle’s earthquake analogy.
Many characteristics of earthquakes are very well known… it’s seismology. Some of the aspects of a seismic event are very well know and easy to explain by simple laws of physics – how fast a primary wave travels vs the secondary wave. But, the deeper you get into the science, the more you find you’re dealing with calculus and complicated concepts that are not easy even for scientists to decipher. Take for example the 6.7 Northridge earthquake. Even though the overpass span of highway 14 that goes over I-5 was built to withstand a 7 + on the San Andreas, it came down during this weaker quake. Computer models said it wouldn’t, that it was safe. What was missing from the old model was that the fault that produced this quake was closer to the bridge than the San Andreas, and that, because the Northridge fault is a blind thrust fault, and closer to the surface, the inherent differences in the physics of wave propagation generated by the Northridge even was different than that of the San Andreas. The bridge was built at a time when the existence of blind thrust faults was still not confirmed (the 83 Coalinga quake sealed the deal).
Even more surprising was that the Northridge quake also cracked welds in more than a few high rise buildings in downtown LA. That, according to the models, was absolutely NOT supposed to have happened.
Jeremy says: December 28, 2010 at 1:51 pm
“I would say it’s far more reasonable to ignore what climate scientists say than seismologists, even though seismologists never publicly predict anything. Seismology didn’t put the cart before the horse”.
Actually, I would say that seismologists do pretty well at predicting the What but don’t usually try for the too specific When something is going to happen or the How Much.
“”””” George E. Smith says:
December 28, 2010 at 11:52 am
Well I don’t want to be too critical Barry; we need all the help we can get. But lets talk about this “CO2 in a jar” experiment in a bit more quantitative terms. “””””
WRT my comment at the above hour; I omitted one further effect.
As a result of the incandescent lamp being ten times the temperature of the typical earth surface emitting LWIR than CO2 intercepts, the emitted spectrum is quite different, adn instead of peaking at about 10.1 microns the lamp peaks at about 1.0 microns.
Now 10.1 micron radiation at 400 W/m^2 is completely undetectable by the human body; we are quite oblivious to its presence.
BUT !! at 1.0 microns, we have an entirely different situation. The human body is mostly water H2O, and H2O has strong absorption bands at 0.94 and 1.1 microns, as well as in the 700 -800 nm range, and also around 2-3 and 3-4 microns; all of which will recieve plenty of power from a 2880 K source emitting 4 megaWatts per square metre.
It is primarily for this reason that the human body reacts toi intense radiation at around 1 micron and gives us the sensation that we call “heat” or “warmth”.
So the popular lab demonstration with CO2 laced air is a total fraud. As I said, try it out with a bottle of water instead of the incandescent lamp, and see if the doubled CO2 sample gets three deg C hotter than the other one.
The author writes:
“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Sorry, this is not the problem. The problem is that climate science is in its infancy. It has no well-confirmed hypotheses. In a few decades, it will provide us with well-confirmed hypotheses and wonderful information.
The phrase “chaotic system” confuses many people. First off, whatever it is, it cannot be a chaotic system. Systems are predictable but chaos is unpredictable. What people mean by chaotic system is a system that has inputs which can produce chaos. For example, the fire in my fireplace is a chaotic system. If I put in too much fuel, the house burns. If I put in the wrong kind, the neighborhood burns. If I put in none, the fire dies. See, inputs create chaos. Yet the behavior of fire is perfectly predictable. I suggest that at this time the phrase “chaotic system” has no utility whatsoever.
Sonicfrog says:
December 28, 2010 at 2:04 pm
“On Craig Loehle’s earthquake analogy.”
OMG, stop! You are writing real science! I cannot bear it! It is so full of Humility! Ease up, guy; you’re gonna kill us. ( Really, folks, what Sonicfrog wrote has all the feel of real science. You can’t miss it.)
I saw this somewhere else on WUWT so can’t claim the credit myself but…
If…if CO2 did what the Warmists Claim i.e. amplify and trap incoming radiation the surely the worlds energy problems would be solved?
CO2, cheap and plentiful could be piped to giant heat exchangers in desert/ sunny areas where it’s magical properties would allow us to capture and amplify the heat of the sun.
Forget expensive rare earth solar electric, and clumsy fickle wind power let CO2 save the day! Hurray!
Barry Woods says:
December 28, 2010 at 11:02 am
“I am well aware of the complexities of computer models and the limitations,the IPCC say ‘projections’ and ‘scenarios’, BUT they know full well they will be claimed by others to be predictions.. The silence of the lambs (scientists) fail to correct the media misrepresentations.”
Actually, the wrong doing is much greater. If the IPCC, Mann, Hansen, and the others would qualify the results that they publish, there would be no climate scare. But they give these “projections,” which they call predictions and CLAIM THAT THEY ARE BASED ON THE BEST SCIENCE. That is demonstrably false and they know it. It might be based on the best hunches of the scientists, but it is based on no reasonably well-confirmed hypotheses at all. There is no science. Look at James Hansen. He struggles constantly to update his temperature data so that he can make the current year the hottest year on record. In other words, he struggles to justify his fundamental data record. That is not science that is worth a hearing. Some day there will be a climate science but today there is none.
“Simple physics shows that CO2 has a significant warming effect.” “So whether you consider the science very certain or very uncertain, there’s no basis to argue that the ongoing CO2 rise is safe.”
Evidence suggests that Climate Sensitivity is in the region of 0.5 degrees Celcius per doubling of CO2. In other words, a four fold doubling (increasing CO2 from pre-industrial levels to 4,000 parts per million) would increase global temperature by something like 2 degrees Celcius. That wouldn’t be very significant. In fact, CO2 concentration has been as high a mere 1% back in the history of the Earth, 50 million years ago, and life thrived.
If Climate Sensitivity is 0.5 degrees C per doubling of CO2, it’s certain that other factors predominate over CO2 in setting global temperatures. In other words, it’s possible that global temperatures could fall significantly, even as CO2 rises. The consequences could be catastrophic for working class pensioners living in places like Glasgow, who, unable to afford heating, would suffer hypothermia in large numbers.
That would be a likely consequence of assuming a rise in CO2 is unsafe. “Settled science” could mean death for many people.
“So Galileo Galilei you are a denier! You deny that the Universe orbits the earth?”
The rest is history, education, and science…
What a fun thread. We even shoehorned in JFK, Joel Shore, and spell checking.
On the matter of CO and CO2, we inhale 380 ppm and exhale 40,000 ppm, setting some parameters on gas exchange rates in our bodies. As the inhaled percentage goes up, that will affect the exchange efficiency, and at 40,000 ppm, we’re not likely to last very long. CO2 suffocation is Very painful. Try holding your breath for a couple minutes. The body has sensors for CO2, and they let you know when levels get too high.
We don’t have sensors for oxygen, however. In a low oxygen environment, we just pass out, then die if not rescued. We aren’t even aware that we’re passing out, actually. In the Air Force, we had altitude chamber training to recognize our individual symptoms of hypoxia. Stick you in a big steel tank and pump the air out. Great fun.
Carbon monoxide has such low toxic numbers because it binds to blood hemoglobin much better than oxygen, cutting off your cells’ oxygen supply. The brain is the first to go (ain’t that the truth), so the results are the same as in an altitude chamber, you just pass out painlessly before croaking.
Theo… And I’m a geology school drop-out!
onion:Simple physics shows that CO2 has a significant warming effect. Complex physics shows that too.
CO2 is an infra red active gas, it absorbs IR incoming energy and can transfer this to surrounding atmosphere molecules, heating them. But, in the absence of incoming IR energy it will convert local thermal energy into radiated IR, thus cooling the atmosphere.
On this simple model, the net effect on the atmosphere is the difference between the slight heating effect in the day and the slight cooling effect at night. Manmade CO2 is said to be ~120ppm of the current 380ppm. So the difference we are looking for is (Heating-Cooling) of 0.012% atmosphere.
Of course, this model is nowhere near the reality, but it is worth bringing up, as the physics of CO2 warming always get quoted without the physics of CO2 cooling being mentioned.
CO2 is equally a ‘refrigerator’ gas as it is a ‘greenhouse’ gas.
“Mike D. says:
December 28, 2010 at 10:30 am
Why not limit the emission of water vapor?”
When compared with the water that evaporates from the oceans, the human contribution is totally negligible. Besides, unlike CO2, any extra amount of water vapor that we add just precipitates out anyway as rain or snow.
Also, it’s my understanding that CO2 concentrations and the heating effect are logarithmic, whereby each measurable increase in CO2 the heat quotient decreases, so that a doubling of CO2 from where we are now does not produce twice as much, but results in only a quarter . It looks something like this.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Logarithms.svg/300px-Logarithms.svg.png
There don’t seem to be many physiologists on this thread. Exhaled breath is between 3-5% CO2 or 30-50,000 ppm as I found one boring day in the lab when trying to interface our CO2 meter to the computer. The simple act of holding ones breath will raise the concentration of CO2 impressively and I’ll have to look up exactly how high I got the CO2 percentage after a 4 minute breath hold in a physiology lab where we were collecting exhaled gases and analyzing CO2 and O2 concentrations. I do believe it was over 10% CO2.
The primary effect of CO2 at high levels is to increase respiratory rate as increased CO2 absorption will lower blood pH which is a respiratory stimulant. AFAIK, 5% CO2 with normal O2 levels is tolerated well. High levels of CO2 have CNS depressant effects as we see with people with COPD who have pCO2 on an arterial blood gas of 90 mmHg which works out to about 11.8% CO2. These individuals also seem to lose their respiratory stimulation from high CO2 levels and have respiratory drive controlled primarily by pO2.
I’m wondering what OHSA has to say about the situation of an individual suffering a cardiac arrest at work and a fellow worker giving him CPR and administering a “toxic” level of 50,000 ppm of CO2 in exhaled air?