*Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society*finds climate models violate the 'basic physics' of the Second Law of Thermodynamics with respect to simulating conventional turbulent heat flow, one of the most important mechanisms of heat transfer in the atmosphere.

According to the authors,

"Numerical models of the atmosphere should fulfill fundamental physical laws. The Second Law of thermodynamics is associated with positive local entropy production and dissipation of available energy."i.e. entropy always increases and energy always dissipates per the second law of thermodynamics.

"Inspecting commonly used parameterizations for subgrid-fluxes, we find thatsome of them obey the Second Law of thermodynamics, and some do not...A new water vapor flux formulation is derived from the requirement of locally positive entropy production. The conventional and the new water vapor fluxes are compared using high-resolution radiosonde data.Conventional turbulent heat flux parameterizations do not conform with the Second Law.Conventional water vapor fluxes are wrong by up to 10% and exhibit anegativebias."

"...Both test cases indicate thatcan occur for the conventional heat flux. Obviously, thenegativethermal dissipationto the resolved turbulence is later on dissipated by friction, so that the total dissipation is again comparable [for the wrong physical reasons], at least for the boundary layer experiment."additional energymade available by thisnegativedissipation

In other words, the computer models falsely claim that entropy can decrease, heat can "negatively dissipate" [i.e. concentrate itself], and that "

The finding is quite ironic given the climate alarmist meme that computer-modeled global warming is just "elementary basic physics" and "settled science" upon which all scientists agree. However, it is doubtful that many scientists know that the black-box climate models aren't even programmed to obey the most fundamental laws of thermodynamics.

Almut Gassmann and Hans-Joachim Herzog

Two numerical tests (the Boulder windstorm testc ase and a convective boundary layer experiment) are performed with the ICON-IAP model. The experiments compare conventional and entropy-consistent heat flux parameterizations. Both test cases indicate that

*additional energy*[a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics] is made available by this "*negative*dissipation" [a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics]." Thus, the climate models violate the basic physics of both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.The finding is quite ironic given the climate alarmist meme that computer-modeled global warming is just "elementary basic physics" and "settled science" upon which all scientists agree. However, it is doubtful that many scientists know that the black-box climate models aren't even programmed to obey the most fundamental laws of thermodynamics.

**UPDATE:**Dr. Roy Spencer explains why IPCC climate models violate the basic physics of conservation of energy (1st Law of Thermodynamics).**How is local material entropy production represented in a numerical model?**Almut Gassmann and Hans-Joachim Herzog

**Numerical models of the atmosphere should fulfill fundamental physical laws. The Second Law of thermodynamics is associated with positive local entropy production and dissipation of available energy.**In order to guarantee this positivity in numerical simulations, subgrid-scale turbulent fluxes of heat, water vapor, and momentum are required to depend on numerically resolved gradients in a unique way. The task of parameterization remains to deliver phenomenological coefficients.**Inspecting commonly used parameterizations for subgrid-fluxes, we find that some of them obey the Second Law of thermodynamics, and some do not.**The conforming approaches are the Smagorinsky momentum diffusion, phase changes, and sedimentation fluxes for hydrometeors.**A new water vapor flux formulation is derived from the requirement of locally positive entropy production. The conventional and the new water vapor fluxes are compared using high-resolution radiosonde data.**__Conventional turbulent heat flux parameterizations do not conform with the Second Law.__**Conventional water vapor fluxes are wrong by up to 10% and exhibit a***negative*bias.Two numerical tests (the Boulder windstorm testc ase and a convective boundary layer experiment) are performed with the ICON-IAP model. The experiments compare conventional and entropy-consistent heat flux parameterizations. Both test cases indicate that

**can occur for the conventional heat flux. Obviously, the***negative*thermal dissipation**to the resolved turbulence is later on dissipated by friction, so that the total dissipation is again comparable [for the wrong reasons], at least for the boundary layer experiment.***additional energy*made available by this*negative*dissipation
Related:

So that's how they get global warming out of the models. They just make up some extra heat in the thermodynamic calculations.

ReplyDeleteYes, that's the secret, just include an "energy amplifier" in the model and PRESTO, you get higher temps.

ReplyDeleteOf course, once you try to buy an actual "energy amplifier" you have a very hard time finding one...... They used to be all over the place on Ebay (tm), but somebody (probably those evil Coke (tm) brothers) snatched them all up. So, with no ready supply of "energy amplifiers" the dreaded "AGW" cannot appear (at this time).

BUT once energy amplifiers are in ample supply again boy we are all going to be scorching, hot, hot, hot, or maybe wet/cold/dry/warm/windy/calm/gentle breezes/hurricanes/doldrurms/etc. But it will be a change from last weeks weather no doubt about that, unless it stays the same, which happens once in a while.

I want to tell you, once the supply of energy amplifiers comes back on the market all heck might/could/may/possibly/per chance/likely/maybe/should occur right away. And that's the truth....

Cheers, Kevin

Ha ha ha, Kevin

A -10% difference in water vapour flux would mean it's not emitting heat convectively as fast as it should, right? Well that would be a spurious source of warming.

ReplyDeleteThe global average of evaporation rates looks to be roughly in the vicinity of 100cm per year, which implies the evaporation of a cubic metre of water per square metre per year. Multiply this tonne of water by 2473.5 J/g latent heat of vapourization, then divide by seconds in a year to find the heat flux.

1000000[cm^3 m^-2 y^-1] × 1[g/cm^3] × 2473[J/g] ÷ (60s/min×60min/h×24h/d×365d/y) = 73 [W/m^2]

Let's assume that half of this energy will eventually be radiated by the water vapour, and half of that radiation travels downwards.

If those assumptions are anywhere near correct then the -10% error amounts to roughly 19W/m^2 which is 6% of the total greenhouse effect, twice as large as the sensor error on ground level DLR measurements, and 6 times larger than the purported increase in DLR from a doubling of CO2.

Or in other words, a 10% error in water vapour flux looks like it is significant for the global warming debate and is large enough to be detected by measurement.

Can anyone find mistakes in my assumptions or reasoning please?

We should try to figure out how much of a problem a 10% error creates.

Delete...and half of that radiation travels downwards.Reminds me of the cartoon where the climate scientist is explaining at the chalkboard

"Then a miracle occurs".Further to my previous comment, I just realised my own mistake. That method calculates heat flux of water vapour, but the model error is only 10% of that amount, so the -10% error creates an additional 1.9W/m^2 which is ...hmmm...( 5.35 * ln(X/X0) = 1.9)... exactly equal to the theoretical additional DLR due to CO2 for a 280-400ppm increase.

ReplyDeleteWhat an odd co-incidence.

Oh no, this is not going well. Sorry, ignore the above as a wild goose chase.

ReplyDeleteThe fundamental error in my previous analysis was using latent heat to estimate the radiative forcing, when really the energy available for GHE from water vapour is mostly radiated from the earth itself, not travelling with the evaporation (though some is travelling with the water due to the surface temperature being higher than at altitude).

Figuring out how much this 10% error changes the humidity and the optical depth due to water vapour (and thus the consensus GHE) would be much more involved, and more suited to LBLRTMs.

Could we have an "official" interpretation of the materiality of this issue? Is this a "difference that makes no difference"?

ReplyDeleteThe Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to cyclic processes of well-defined systems. Correct statements about energy transfer and entropy generation for other circumstances and systems can be made that appear to violate the Second Law but do not. I wait for further discussion.

ReplyDeleteNo, the 2nd law applies to all systems "well defined" or not, all processes cyclical or not, open systems, "closed" systems, the Earth, atmosphere, and universe.

DeletePlease ask yourself

Delete1) does the atmosphere have mass

2) Is our atmosphere in Earth's gravitational field

I yes to 1) & 2) then ask

3) Does this mean that the atmosphere's upward displacement by any expanding system requires work

The answer is yes, Like lifting a rock an expanding system must perform work in order to lift our atmosphere. THIS MEANS that the second law is a bogus law.

Please see my website for further info: www.newthermodynamics.com

I have several peer reviewed published papers in this

website: see link titled mypapers

the paper concerning the second law is titled "Second law and Lost Work" and can also be found

http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1173-24-kent-w-mayhew-second-law-and-lost-work.html

Have you ever considered, if the second law is bogus as I state then an implication becomes that the latent heat of vaporization requires work, i.e the upward displacement of our atmosphere's mass requires energy. While the converse is not true which is to say that the latent heat of condensation does not require work. Accordingly, latent heat of vaporization has a greater magnitude than latent heat of condensation. This also means that all traditional models are wrong.

DeleteNow if you realize that entropy production is used to explain the work lost in displacing our atmosphere but rather wrongly/rightly expresses this value in terms of entropy production: Why wrongly/rightly, well it actually gives the right values for empirically measured values of lost work but for the complete wrong reasons.

It never ceases to amaze how far off a science can become when one of its foundations verges on being blunderous. Imagine if the likes of Maxwell, Carnot, Kelvin, Clausius or any of the other 19th century greats realized the inherent weakness of bestowing so much to entropy. Or if Plank or Mach had their way and Boltzmann's entropy did not take precedent as it has. Surly understanding lost work in terms of our atmosphere's mass's displacement against gravity simplifies thermodynamics but what of entropy? Understandably entropy has a different vague interpretation depending upon its application. Certainly Boltzmann's interpretation of entropy being the randomness of molecules in incessant motion has been used to explain so much! Yet the explanation remains too vague lacking any real guidance of common sense. Ask yourself what does randomness mean. As Arieh Ben-Naim rightly pointed out randomness is not a particularly scientific term as it too subject to ones own misguided interpretations.

Which is to say just because it explains experimental findings does not means its basis is solid and valid. One must understand that traditional thermodynamics only explains empirical data because the Boltzmann's constant was determined to make it so. The sad reality is Boltzmann's constant is only a constant for the ability of a system to do work here in Earth's gravitational field. Change the magnitude of the field of gravity and Boltzmann's constant will change. SO sad its not some universal constant. In other words we formulate a grand math based upon probabilities and formulate a science around this math, Yet the essence of its construct that being Boltzmann's constant is calculated based upon the math.

This has allowed for the loss of constructive logic is thermodynamics.

Always remember a probability gives results but it never ever gives reasons. a full house or a flush are results in cards, the reason is the cards were dealt.

So just because Boltzmann's beautiful math gives results it does not give reasons. The reason for lost work is not entropy production it is the displacement of Earth's atmosphere by expanding systems. Of couyrse this fundamental misunderstanding has led entropy to being applied to everything. Does entropy really belong in information theory, Well certainly thermodynamic entropy does not yet it is applied just because a mathematical formulation that explains information theory has certain parallel to Boltzmann's formulations.

What does entropy really means, Interesting no one actually knows - allowing for continuous illogical conjecture. Ykes Okay I can go on and on. But ask is entropy really too big to fail? Seemingly this has become the case. I do not know whether I should laugh or cry.

Food for thought

Kent

Kent of www.newthermodynamics.com

Absolutely correct MS - thankyou

ReplyDelete"Basic physics" update: New paper finds ocean model violates 1st law of thermodynamics

ReplyDeletehttp://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JPO-D-13-0260.1?af=R