Gaia – Saved by the Seas
Posted by jennifer, May 26th, 2009 - under Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
THE idea that the earth’s physical and biological systems adjust to perturbation through feedback systems is central to James Lovelock’s Gaia theory. Let me declare upfront that I don’t subscribe to this theory because I don’t see the earth as a living entity, but rather as a place where life is lived. I do agree, however, that natural systems tend to exhibit strong negative feedback around an equilibrium point. Negative feedback is the opposite of positive feedback. It acts to oppose perturbation on a system and thus to maintain the current equilibrium. [1]
The Gaia theory is very popular including amongst many sceintists concerned about global warming notably Tim Flannery. Professor Flannery was named Australian of the Year in 2007 and is presently chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council. The Gaia theory underpins his influential book on climate change ‘The Weather Makers’.
Given Professors Lovelock and Flannery believe in feedback systems which seek to maintain an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on earth, Gaia, it is perhaps surprising that they are so concerned about elevated concentrations of carbon dioxide causing a climate crisis.
I understand that this concern, as articulated by Professor Lovelock in his 2006 book ‘Revenge of Gaia’, stems in large part from a belief that Gaia has been so despoiled that the biological systems which would normally buffer, for example the capacity of phytoplankton and forests to draw excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, is no longer properly functioning.
But what if there exists a physical system, in addition to these biological systems, to prevent runaway greenhouse?
New research by Hungarian physicist Ferenc Miskolczi’s has shown that there will not be a runaway greenhouse effect because the atmosphere maintains a “saturated” greenhouse effect, controlled by water vapour content. [2] The analogy has been made to a saucepan of saturated salt solution boiling on a stove. Turn up the gas on the stove and the boiling point is not affected. Add more salt and the boiling-point is not affected, because the salt solution is already saturated. [3]
Dr Miskolczi’s work provides a detailed Gaia level empirical formulation of how the physical system works to maintain equilibrium. While American Climatologist Roy Spencer, has independently provided a nuts and bolts demonstration of possible mechanisms with respect to the hydrological cycle. [4]
So there is perhaps no longer a reason for Professor Lovelock to continue to believe that it is already too late to avoid significant global warming that will make much of the Earth’s surface inhospitable.
In summary, new findings by a Hungarian physicist and an American climatologist, interestingly both climate change sceptics, provide evidence for a physical system to support the popular Gaia theory of a world kept at an optimal equilibrium for life. [5]
And the really good news is that the critical regulating gas, water vapour, is unlikely to ever be limiting because there is just so much of it on planet earth. Indeed I think it is time James Lovelock wrote a new book and I suggest it be entitled, ‘Gaia: Saved by the Seas’.
***************
Important Notes and Links
My ideas for this note come from correspondence with Christopher Game and have also been significantly influenced by reading Michael Hammer. But I don’t expect them to agree with much of what I have written.
1. Michael Hammer recently commented at this blog that “Natural systems virtually all exhibit strong negative feedback around an equilibrium point.” Mr Hammer made the comment to contrast this observation with the IPCC temperature rise claims which are based on an assumption of strong net positive feedback in our climate system. Negative feedback is the opposite of positive feedback. It acts to oppose any disturbance acting on a system and seeks to maintain the current equilibrium.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/role-of-water-vapour-in-climate-change/
2. F.M. Miskolczi (2007) Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent atmospheres, Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Society 111(1): 1-40.
‘The Saturated Greenhouse Effect’ by Ken Gregory provides a good summary of the new theory developed by Ferenc Miskolczi .
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
3. Christopher Game would add that the climate process is different from a boiling saucepan in one important respect. Non-equilibrium phase transitions are a little conceptually different from equilibrium ones. The phase transition at which the climate process is pinned is dynamical in character, in contrast with the phase transition of boiling water which has a static character. Consequently the physical quantity that is pinned is not the climate temperature; it is the climatic response ratio.
4. Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell, Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A simple Model Demonstration, Journal of Climate.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JCLI2253.1
Roy Spencer, recently commented at his blog that:
But the climate system tinkers with itself all the time, and the climate has managed to remain stable. There are indeed internal, chaotic fluctuations in the climate system that might appear to be random, but their effect on the whole climate system are constrained to operate within a certain range. If the climate system really was that sensitive, it would have forced itself into oblivion long ago.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/the-mit-global-warming-gamble/
Testimony of Roy W. Spencer Before the US Senate EPW Committee: Latest Research on Climate Sensitivity to CO2
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/07/testimony-of-roy-w-spencer-before-the-us-senate-epw-committee-latest-research-on-climate-sensitivity-to-co2/
5. It is not generally acknowledged, including by either Roy Spencer or Ferenc Miskolczi, that their important work fits neatly together or supports the Gaia theory, this is my opinion.
I have relied to a large extent on a series on ABC radio two summers ago and Wikipedia for my understanding of Gaia as described by James Lovelock. I have not read any of James Lovelock’s books. I am more familiar with the work of Tim Flannery and have read the ‘Weather Makers’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
Nick and others,
If natural systems don’t tend to an equilibrium – your claim – then wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect climate change – in short why are governments trying to stabilize the current climate?
Jennifer,
I don’t think anyone says there can’t be natural climate change. Things like ENSO cycles, or in the much longer term, ice ages, are well recognised. In fact cycles generally have an underlying positive feedback mechanism which determines the frequency.
And I don’t think governments are trying to stabilise the climate, in the feedback sense. There’s debate about how stable it is, but not about trying to change that.
The debate is about a specific driver, GHG increase. That isn’t a feedback or an oscillatory process. It’s a one-way push, caused by mining carbon, and the climate can only respond by getting warmer in the long term. Feedbacks influence how much warmer.
A rough analogy is a kid on a portable swing. Gravity, momentum/ke etc maintain a fairly stable oscillation. But they don’t help if someone picks up the swing and moves it. The oscillations will go on, but with a new central point.
“Thing like ENSO…are well recognised.” Well, Nick I just spent a very invigorating period at Deltoid where sod and other lumps of dirt argued that ENSO doesn’t exist. On issues more salubrious, the problem for GHG driving is that there is no Transient Climate Response and noone knows what and when the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity will be at or after or during the nominated red button of 2CO2; although the boys at MIT get into the swing of things and took a stab at it;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/26/how-not-to-make-a-climate-photo-op/#more-8038
As I said at Deltoid, which seemed to stir the creatures up more than usual, I’d love to get some of these doom and gloom, end of the world ‘experts’ in court. It’s about time some responsibility attached to ‘expert representation’.
Nick I’m really mystified as o where you are getting this from:
“In fact cycles generally have an underlying positive feedback mechanism which determines the frequency.”
Yes electronic oscillators have positive feedback but not every cyclic behaviour involves feedback for instance a spinning wheel is cyclic, a pendulum the orbit of the moon affecting the tides the orbit of the earth affecting the seasons these are all cyclic but they are all also open loop i.e. no feedback involved. You might make a quasi sort of negative feedback from the damping but that’s really open loop as well.
Thank you Eli (and Jan). Of course, I understand those reactions extremely well. I’m just not used to viewing them in “feedback” terms. Indeed, I made a lot of nitro-polymers in my time. You cannot even touch some of them, without worrying about “feedback.”
Nick:
” In fact cycles generally have an underlying positive feedback mechanism which determines the frequency.”
Now, it cannot always be a “positive” feedback if you have “cycles,” correcto? And it sure appears that there is something going on that is MUCH more powerful than CO2 (which probably has no power at all), since temperatures are decreasing at a steep rate for about 7 1/2 years! I’m still awaiting an explanation of this from an AGW-phile.
“I’d love to get some of these doom and gloom, end of the world ‘experts’ in court. It’s about time some responsibility attached to ‘expert representation’.”
Oh yes Cohers – and we’d love to get all the political Australian sceptics “reviewed” thoroughly too with doors bolted. Should be a major blood bath. You perhaps might offer yourself up? :-)
You might have something here luke; instead of this namby pamby debate and screeching at each other, perhaps a few organised one on one biff events might be the answer; if the sceptics win the AGW crowd are given 30 acres at Nimbin with a big fence around it and they commune with nature without bothering anyone else; if the AGW crowd win then the sceptics go and live in a coal mine. What weight division are you?
oh – I was thinking a serious session where operational CSIRO scientists get to grill the sceptics.
Ho ho ho ! (and vice versa). Will probably come to this eventually.
Kinetics can be expressed as a series of differential equations. Radical formation is a feedback. The classic example is a mixture of H2 and Cl2
Cl2 + UV light/heat/spark –> Cl + Cl (Initiation)
Cl + H2 –> HCl + H
H + Cl2 –> HCl + Cl Propagation
H + H + M –>H2 Termination
Cl + Cl + M –>Cl2
H + Cl + M –> HCl
You need a third body for the termination steps
The Cl and H produced in the second and third reactions are feedbacks. The temperature rise from those reactions dissociates more Cl2 etc. That is also a feedback.
There is even a movie
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/demos/main_pages/10.7.html
Luke the warmer-preacher:
“oh – I was thinking a serious session where operational CSIRO scientists get to grill the sceptics.”
Hmm, it would be fun to watch the “operational CSIRO scientists” try to do this. I never yet saw an example of where a “skeptic” was “grilled” and he didn’t blow the “competition” away with facts and logic (that is because the AGW “side” doesn’t have any empirical data or logic to support its position, just computer models and emotional rhetoric, after all. Thus, they always resort to “bumper sticker arguments” and something like pictures of polar bears drowning). In the USA we cannot even get ONE of the chicken-shit AGW priests to stand up in public for a debate with a skeptic. For example, Monkton recently spent a lot of $ to fly over here because of an invitation to debate Gore, but the Democrats cancelled the debate. I wonder why? Are they afraid? Answer: Of course they are afraid, since the emperor is really, really naked.
Luke, I challenge you to cite a debate between “skeptics” (i.e., realists) and the leftist, communistic AGW freaks wherein the AGW-freaks don’t make a complete ass of themselves to the average bystander. Hansen, Gore, and the rest of the hypocritical jokers, like all leftists, are good at bumper sticker slogans, but mighty poor on the real battlefield.
Eli: Nice, but you forgot the important stuff–the dots for the free radicals (the free electrons, man). It’s Cl. Not Cl. LOL. Do you need any references?
More correctly, the “unpaired electrons,” which are what make “free radicals,” well, RADICAL, dude. I love it when a peer tries to lecture me, LOL. You are on my turf, bunnyradical.
Well yes Jae – indeed this encounter is an embarrassment to right wing denialist turds everywhere. Enjoy:
http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/abc-australias-tony-jones-and-the-great-global-warming-swindle-debate/
Tony Jones a great Australian journalist? Who knew? Left wing prat is more like it.
jae ” I’m just not used to viewing them in “feedback” terms.”
That’s because it isn’t.
Eli “The Cl and H produced in the second and third reactions are feedbacks. The temperature rise from those reactions dissociates more Cl2 etc. That is also a feedback.”
No Eli that’s just chain reaction. Just because a reaction can be described by differential equations doesn’t mean there is feedback involved.
Luko:
“Well yes Jae – indeed this encounter is an embarrassment to right wing denialist turds everywhere. Enjoy:”
I pity your ability to distinguish truth from blatant nonsense. Although there were a few errors in “swindle,” the main message is unassailable.
Now, perhaps you can shed some light on just why the Earth is cooling, big time, despite increasing CO2 emissions. None of the rest of your geniuses has come forth. Is there maybe something “greater than CO2″ in climatology? How about the SUN, AGW-TURD?
Jan:
“That’s because it isn’t.”
Yeah, I sense that, too, but I’m having trouble defining my own terms here. I think the normal reactions that increase entropy should not be considered “feedback.” There has to be an additional parameter that is causing the feedback. For example, the Sun heats the atmosphere and all the molecules in it. The simple heating of the atmosphere by the Sun is not “feedback” (same as the case with combustion–the simple oxidation of all the carbon and hydrogen is not feedback, just a normal chemical reaction). ONLY if the resultant heat causes some OTHER “third” effect, like evaporating water, AND that effect (water vapor) somehow enhances the heating, then that would be “feedback.” That is what happens with the PA system. The amplification of the sound is not “feedback.” It is the extra energy that enters the microphone from the speakers that is the “feedback.” And like you have said always, that requires that ADDITIONAL energy be added to the system. Don’t know how to explain it better….
Mate if you believe Durkin’s dross you have definitely come down in the last shower. Wanker.
jae “Don’t know how to explain it better….”
Neither do I and feedback is my turf.
” like evaporating water, AND that effect (water vapor) somehow enhances the heating”
Yes that could be considered feedback I don’t however think that it will be positive and that it will enhance heating.
People should not confuse heat, energy and temperature a rise in temperature does not necessarily mean that there is more energy available for work or even more in in the system.
Comment from: Eli Rabett May 28th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
How do you account for the observation that a usual product of a free radical reaction is another free radical? (Hence catalysis using free radicals). What mechanism causes a reduction in free radicals to end your postulated scheme?