Radiation Physics Laws Give the Effect of CO2 on Earth’s Temperatures – A Primer
Abstract: A new chemical process control systems engineering model of Earth’s atmosphere quantifies the effect of CO2 on Earth’s surface temperature. It uses the rigorous S-B radiant energy transfer rate law. The Earth’s surface and atmospheric temperatures are given explicitly as linear ordinary differential and algebraic equations; the only system properties needed are absorptivity and emissivity, five of which depend on CO2.
CO2 affects surface temperature by at least four mechanisms, one positive and three negative. CO2 decreases Earth’s global radiating temperature to space slightly. When atmosphere parameters increase by 1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} due to CO2, surface temperature changes – 0.762C and atmosphere changes – 0.392C.
INTRODUCTION
Astrophysicists and climatologists have been struggling to quantify the effect of atmospheric CO2 on Earth’s temperature since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol called for control of Earth’s global temperature by human throttling of hydrocarbon combustion, which emits CO2 to the atmosphere. Kyoto called for building a thermostat for the whole Earth. The greenhouse gas theory, GHGT, is not quantitative and not proven.
Chemical process control system engineers agree one needs a valid dynamic process model before designing a feedback controller to hold a desired dependent response variable like temperature about a desirable setpoint target, by adjusting an independent manipulated variable like combustion rate, which strongly affects effects the controlled variable, temperature. Such a control system is called a thermostat. They are in oil refineries, buildings, homes, cars and the human body.
Before designing any control system, engineers analyze four criteria necessary to insure the control system will work at all, even if it is built. There is a rigorous mathematical method for determining the desired setpoint setting, involving optimization of a risky tradeoff1-5. This technology is available, but humanity is not organized properly to use it. (We can’t agree whether it is too hot or too cold.) Further the system must be measurable, observable and controllable. Mathematical criteria6, 7 were developed in 1970’s to verify a priori whether these conditions are satisfied.
Work8-10 in early 1997 indicated the proposed Kyoto thermostat did not satisfy any of these criteria, hence it will never work. (Never. No matter what the global consensus and government research spending may be.) After 20 years the conclusion has been confirmed by the UN and world scientific community. They recently estimated it will take at least 50 years and $4 trillion to build their thermostat. Still won’t work.
MODELING APPROACHES
There are three main approaches to mathematically describing the atmosphere’s behavior. Two encompass forms of the main laws of physics: conservation of energy (First Law of Thermodynamics), conservation of matter, and Stefan-Boltzmann Law of radiators. These laws incorporate the physical properties of the system and rate law parameters. When an input variable change like CO2 is specified, like a step, ramp, sine wave or arbitrary function, the model can be solved for the output response variables, temperatures.
Rigorous space and time is described by complex coupled nonlinear partial differential equations11, 12. Since the atmosphere varies greatly day to night, from the surface to space, equator to poles, clouds, auroras, storms and lightening, with gases, liquids and solids of different compositions, temperatures and pressures, solving the equations is not practical, even with computers. Weathermen cannot forecast accurately more than a few days in advance. But the forms of these equations falsify the greenhouse gas theory12.
Control system engineers developed lumped parameter model methods to simplify the mathematics by combining spatial effects with effective properties and parameters, retaining the dynamic behavior. The partial differential equations are reduced to ordinary differential equations which are easier to solve and reveal important system characteristics, like stability, measurability, observability and controllability.
A body of control theory for differential equation models was developed since 196013. Multivariable dynamic control systems now model and control complex commercial oil refinery reactors and distillation columns around the world by several businesses. So control system engineering works, adds value.
If only long term steady-state behavior rather than short term dynamic responses is of primary interest, the dynamic terms can be neglected and the system of differential equations reduces to algebraic equations. Over long periods, say years or decades, this steady-state model quantifies output changes caused by input and property changes. This is the scientific cause and effect model missing in climate change studies.
Review of the greenhouse gas theory (GHGT) literature indicates climate scientists have bypassed the two rigorous engineering methods and opted for an empirical statistical regression input – output modeling approach from atmospheric measurements. These methods can detect possible correlations but never prove causation alone. (Control engineers incorporate this law of science in their work.)
Since scientists cannot specify the type of Earth’s input functions known to better identify the system with experimental testing, they are limited to measured natural input fluctuations which are weak system identifiers. While this approach may give useful interpolations, it cannot give reliable extrapolations beyond the range of its basis data.
This knowhow is often used by engineers, the art of combining science and empiricism to build things. Sadly, UN and university modelers have wasted billions of dollars on this approach, known to be futile, proving it doesn’t work for themselves14. Yet some continue attempting the impossible.
The second method is employed here to draw conclusions. The key is to model Earth’s radiating atmosphere with Martin Hertzberg’s general radiant energy transfer rate law15.
We will derive algebraic expressions that quantify the effect of adding CO2 on temperature. If we assign physical properties correctly to each radiator we should have accurate radiant energy flows, temperatures and the effect of inputs like CO2 on all these dependent variables.
Read the full paper with algebraic equations here:
https://principia-scientific.com/publications/Latour_CO2_Feb2017.pdf
Speaking to John O’Sullivan (CEO of Principia Scientific International) Dr Latour said:
“I have consolidated my engineering ideas and consider this the most important paper I have ever written; of monumental significance. Probably the most significant paper PSI has posted.
It solves many problems; answers many questions. I used the rigorous law of radiant energy transfer published by Dr Martin Hertzberg and conservation of energy law to rigorously model Earth’s interacting surface and atmosphere energy flows.
This gives algebraic equations for both temperatures without any assumptions or empirical statistical parameters at all, just their physical properties: absorptivity & emissivity. Pure physics + HS algebra + ES arithmetic.
I estimated properties from known flows and predict temperatures to a “T”. Once the effect of CO2 on atmosphere absorptivity and emissivity is included, we have the only mathematical relationship of CO2 on temperatures. I included an example of 1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} increase.”
In the conclusion to the paper Dr Latour makes the astonishing finding that assuming a one percent increase in atmospheric parameters (emissivity and absorptivity) levels gives surface temperature DROP from 14.786C to 14.033C by – 0.763C. Atmosphere temperature drops from – 18.141C to – 18.533C by – 0.392C.
Such a conclusion refutes the claims of government climate scientists who say ANY rises in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide must cause warming.
*****
Bio: Dr Pierre Latour: Chemical Process Engineer. Among achievements served as Chief of Simulations Branch for NASA on the Apollo mission at the Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas. Devised computer simulations of Apollo docking, Lunar Module, separation maneuvers, Saturn V booster wind gust loads. Long and distinguished, award-winning career in engineering; served at senior levels including working at Shell and DuPont. See more at: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pierre-latour-0057a579
Trackback from your site.