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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
George E Smith: “We should also QUIT TELLING PEOPLE THAT THE WARMING IS LOGARITHMIC WITH CO2 ABUNDANCE.
It ISN’T, so get over it. IT MAY BE NON-LINEAR WITH CO2 BUT IT ISN’T LOGARITHMIC.
If the warming (CLIMATE SENSITIVITY) was 3 deg C per doubling +/- 50%, that would mean going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, would give the same 3 deg C Temp rise, as going from 1 ppm to 2 ppm; or going from one molecule of CO2 in 22.4 litres of standard atmosphere to 2 molecules of CO2 in 22.4 litres of air.
So stop saying it’s logarithmic; it ISN’T; and there’s no data that even hints thatr it is; with a 3:1 uncertainty in CS; you couldn’t possible separate linear from logarithmic; and there is no Physical theory that suggests it should be logarithmic.”
It’s a closer approximation to say the relationship is logarithmic than to say it is linear. The case where atmospheric concentration is 1 ppm need not be considered – it could never been so low, or lower than 100 ppm, if only because CO2 is essential for life on Earth. It’s a reasonable approximation to say it’s logarithmic over the feasible range of possible atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Physically it’s like putting up a curtain in front of a window where there is already a curtain – the curtain would have a greater effect if there wasn’t already a curtain there. CO2 only intercepts and retransmits energy, it doesn’t emit anything. Perhaps somebody has a better analogy.
It does mean there is only room for alarmism if Climate Sensitivity is as high as 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2.
Cal:
Thanks for the vote of confidence on Dr. Elsasser’s work. I will point out that I’m not “stuck” on CO2 being completely “black body” emitter and absorber in the Tropopshere.
A study done in 1948 from a 307 foot instrument tower in Monro, Texas by a Dr. Cooley (M.S. Thesis, U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, 1950) found that the radiative temperature change, heat up and cool down, was responsible for 25% of the radiation balance, and water the other 75%.
In truth, the problem with CO2 is to decide how much it acts as a “perfect” black body absorber (and re-emitter) for the 15 micron band. Also, how it COMBINES with H2O in terms of the overall spectrum response.
Since CONVECTION (turbulant mixing) would be inescapable in the first 300′ of the atmosphere, even if CO2 was a net 25% down flux, (and that increased..say by 25% since WWII, due to the 280 to 390 PPM change of CO2), the actual effect on the overall atmosphere energy balance (presuming it IS more of a black body response the more above 300′ you proceed), would be miniscule.
Again, saying this is “basic physics” is stretching it a bit. I’d say this is one of the more complex “systems” to model that exist in the whole world!
Max
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.”
——————
So Barry, you mean that when certain climate skeptics claimed that the IPCC was exaggerating the certainty, those particular climate skeptics were lying.
Barry says:
————
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.
————–
Are you sure about that Barry. I understood that the scenario results came about as a result of averaging many many runs so as to get some idea of the range of possible outcomes that might arise due to the chaotic nature of the physics.
[Reply] Check the difference between CO, carbon monoxide, and co2, carbon dioxide. RT-mod
You talkin’ ta me?
I am fully cognizant of the difference: CO is a competitor with oxygen for Fe linkage in hemoglobin, and causes unconsciousness and death even at fairly low concentrations, beginning around 100 ppm. CO2 is virtually inert, and only dangerous if it thins out the air supply too much, at several 10s of 1000s of ppm.
All the material I cited is specific to CO2. Please re-read.
[Reply] Yes, I’m talkin’ ta yerself. Re-read the comment you responded to. Carefully. RT-mod
@george E. Smith
Co2 infrared absorption is logarithmic between 100 and 1000 ppm, the concentrations of interest. This can be calculateted using quatum physics, and was observed in laboratory experiments as early as 1901.
ref: John Koch, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Wärmeabsorption in Kohlensäure., Öfversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-Akademiens Förhandlinger, 1901. N:o 6 p 475-488
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/Koch_fig1.gif
Actually, I’ve cited Chiefio several times. He asserts that the planet’s flora tend to drive down CO2 to their starvation level, and we fauna are unable to keep up. The supply is typically only fully restored by mega-volcanic events, etc.
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.
——–
Barry, every physicist knows that feathers will be affected by air resistance. They wrote the book on the subject after all. So stop trying to deceive people into believing that physicists are simple minded.
Physicists also know that only a few objects in this world are feathers. Apparently you don’t know that.
Physicist are expert in capturing the essentials of a physical process and then adding refinements until they have captured enough understanding that is sufficient for the purpose.
Since climate is so non-linear non-equilibrium dissipative system, it has those things called ‘attractors’. Models cannot predict future in principle (hell, if they predict weather within 1*C margin a week from now it is a wonder come true). But they, models, are supposed to find out what the current attractors are and how they change with the change of imposed parameters like co2 concentration. Strange how we never hear about models presented this way and always as if a doomsayer devices.
We had a fine example of the ‘it’s just simple physics, stupid!’ on a BBC ‘Panorama’ program a few months ago. At the end two climate scientists were on, one a thorough-going AGW man and the other a (relative) sceptic. They were both asked two questions: is there more CO2 in the atmosphere than there used to be, and is CO2 a greenhouse gas. Naturally they both replied ‘Yes’; the program then sat back with a smug smile on its face as if to say : ‘so how can you not believe in AGW then?’. They were not asked further questions like ‘what is the most important greenhouse gas’, or ‘how is heat transferred upwards in the lower atmosphere’, the answers to which would have rather undermined the program’s position.
On a dumbing-down note: Panorama used to last an hour. Now it never gets more than 30 minutes.
As for predicting the future using models, does anyone remember the Club of Rome around 1970? Their model predicted increasing scarcity and starvation followed by a general collapse of civilisation. Well, of course it did: the model assumed an exponential increase in everything from population to pollution, with not a single feedback mechanism included. If you add your assumptions to the input of a model, no matter how many partial differential equations it has or how many teraflops your massively-parallel computer can manage, they come right back at you in the output.
As for pointing out to the MSM that the temperature/CO2 relation is logarithmic: they wouldn’t know what you were talking about.
Barry claims
————-
The low-end ’projections’ of temperature by model runs with other values and assumptions are ignored completely by CAGW advocates,
————
Err no! They are not ignored. But if you are proposing take action on anything that might happen in the future, the things of most interest are the most probable outcome and the worst-case scenario. Knowing these things allow you to minimize the amount of action you must take.
Boris;
You held your breath for 4 minutes? Isn’t that close to a world record?
Oops! I see not. Just googled, and it’s up around 18 minutes!! I wonder what the exhaled CO2 fraction was after that ….
[Reply] Yes, I’m talkin’ ta yerself. Re-read the comment you responded to. Carefully. RT-mod
Ah! he said. Ha!
You’re right, of course, he switched gears to CO at the point he mentioned 380 ppm. My bad. He was making a general point about trace gas.
Perhaps we should expand the cliché to “nearly inert trace gas”. 🙂
[Reply] 😉
Brian H says:
December 28, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Actually, I’ve cited Chiefio several times. He asserts that the planet’s flora tend to drive down CO2 to their starvation level, and we fauna are unable to keep up. The supply is typically only fully restored by mega-volcanic events, etc.
=======================================================
Well that and Gates new pet of the week, the hydrological cycle.
When you look at history and how the planet came to be, including us, it’s pretty amazing that it’s doing ok at this low level of CO2.
In another place and time, sensible people would be worried about that.
Edward Bancroft says:
December 28, 2010 at 3:25 pm
onion:Simple physics shows that CO2 has a significant warming effect. Complex physics shows that too.
“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.”
Bravo for you, Mr. Bancroft. Yes, this kind of input is most definitely needed.
Barry makes stuff up
————
, 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.
———–
Err no. The model output is the consequence of the theory. The consequence of the theory is compared with the observations. If the observations don’t match the consequences an investigation is made to identify what subtle physical mechanism was overlooked in the model or what part of the calculation is not correct.
If all seems fine the model is used to make a projection and an estimate of the uncertainty produced.
But you already know all that don’t you Barry. Unless you have already forgotten the argument you just made in the previous paragraph about projections.
Sonicfrog says:
December 28, 2010 at 3:25 pm
“Theo… And I’m a geology school drop-out!”
But that puts you way ahead of some Nobel Prize winners that I know. Sometimes, I think that everyone should be required to study geology for two years. Get to know rocks from a mathematically sophisticated point of view.
[We prefer that posters don’t refer to skeptics as “deniers,” “denialists,” etc. Your attack is now at the name-calling stage, so I snipped it all. ~dbs, mod.]
Max Hugoson says:
December 28, 2010 at 3:54 pm
“Since CONVECTION (turbulant mixing) would be inescapable in the first 300′ of the atmosphere, even if CO2 was a net 25% down flux, (and that increased..say by 25% since WWII, due to the 280 to 390 PPM change of CO2), the actual effect on the overall atmosphere energy balance (presuming it IS more of a black body response the more above 300′ you proceed), would be miniscule.”
This topic is so very important. No one will talk about it. I guess very few or maybe none know about it.
Chris Clark says:
“We had a fine example of the ‘it’s just simple physics, stupid!’ on a BBC ‘Panorama’ program a few months ago.” … “As for pointing out to the MSM that the temperature/CO2 relation is logarithmic: they wouldn’t know what you were talking about.”
Of course it won’t be wealthy media people like Jeremy Paxman who freeze to death because of unaffordable energy and over-estimated climate sensitivity, it will be impoverished working-class pensioners.
Mike D. says:
Because the differences in concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere, availability of the sources, and residence time in the atmosphere (water vapor being a condensable gas) means that our emissions of water vapor are nowhere near large enough to alter the concentration of it on a global scale. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is basically determined by the temperature.
Lazy Teenager presumes:
“The model output is the consequence of the theory. The consequence of the theory is compared with the observations. If the observations don’t match the consequences an investigation is made to identify what subtle physical mechanism was overlooked in the model or what part of the calculation is not correct.”
Err… No. Wrong on several assumptions.
First off, there is no CAGW “theory,” and the models are wrong. In fact, what began as a hypothesis [CO2=CAGW] has been falsified and is now back to the conjecture stage of the scientific method.
If the hypothesis [or theory, or law] doesn’t match experimental evidence or observation… it is WRONG. That is the key to science.
I suppose they no longer teach the scientific method to lazy teenagers. What would they care anyway? Their minds are already made up.
Mike McMillan says:
December 28, 2010 at 3:05 pm
What a fun thread.
========================================================
lol, yes it was! I was about to thank you for clearing up the CO vs CO2 misunderstandings, prevalent in this thread, but, alas, it seems I was a bit premature.
The problem stems from connotations. C, CO, and CO2 mean the same thing to different people. True, they are all very different, but typically when discussing CAGW, or climate change, or nom de jour, C means CO2. I would also imagine that CO could connotate CO2 also. Some commenting, were just plain wrong and didn’t understand the difference while others were using them as synonyms. Kinda like an Abbot and Costello routine. Was much fun and you tried to blow it!
Having read the moderators of this site for a few years, usually, when a moderator attempts to correct me, I try to look back and see where it may be that my message was misconstrued either by an error on my part or a lack of clarity on my part. More often than not, a clarification is easily written to be able to convey the original thought, but that’s just me.
LazyTeen wrote: “every physicist knows that feathers will be affected by air resistance.”
Yes, every physicist also knows that a planet is not an isolated system, therefore it does not conserve energy. Yet the mainstream climatologist A.Lacis reveals the foundation of his theories:
“Since radiative transfer is a well established and well understood physics process, we have accurate knowledge of what is happening to the global energy balance of Earth. And as I noted earlier, conservation of energy leaves no other choice for the global equilibrium temperature of the Earth but to increase in response to the increase in atmospheric CO2.”
LazyTeen continues: “Physicist are expert in capturing the essentials of a physical process and then adding refinements until they have captured enough understanding that is sufficient for the purpose.”
From the example above, it looks like climatologists are not experts in essentials of physics. Is this the point you were trying to make?
John Day says:
December 28, 2010 at 8:07 am
“Answer: Yes, we have an ideal planetary CO2 greenhouse laboratory in place on the planet Mars, whose atmosphere is 95% CO2.
The Martian atmosphere is much thinner, only 1% of Earth, but because it’s almost pure CO2 the actual concentration of CO2 is about 30 times greater per unit surface area than on Earth.
Yet the mean surface temperature is the same as the black body temperature, ~210 K, according to NASA’s “Mars Fact Sheet”:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
Black-body temperature: Mars 210.1 K Earth 255 K
Average temperature: Mars ~210 K Earth 288 K
Conclusion: Even though CO2 is a powerful absorber of 15 micron radiation, in isolation its contribution to “greenhouse warming” is negligible.”
John, Lacis et al claim that this is due to the low pressure in the Martian atmosphere so there is little pressure broadening of the CO2 lines unlike Earth.
Of course this also means that extra CO2 in the amounts we are talking about certainly won’t show any extra noticeable pressure broadening on Earth as it is total pressure that counts, not the partial pressure of the CO2. IIRC this is one of Gavin’s arguments as to why the effect of CO2 isn’t saturated or nearly so (extra pressure broadening from extra CO2).