Thursday, January 29, 2015

New paper finds global warming reduces intense storms & extreme weather

A paper published today in Science contradicts the prior belief that global warming, if it resumes, will fuel more intense storms, finding instead that an increase in water vapor and strengthened hydrological cycle will reduce the atmosphere's ability to perform thermodynamic Work, thus decreasing the formation of intense winds, storms, and hurricanes. The authors demonstrate instead that if warming resumes
"Although the hydrological cycle may increase in intensity, it does so at the expense of its ability to do work, such as powering large-scale atmospheric circulation or fueling more very intense storms."
The paper adds to many others demonstrating that a warmer climate is a more benign climate with fewer extreme weather events, opposite the claims of climate alarmists. Claims of global warming producing more extreme weather due to "more energy in the system" are refuted by the paper which finds the atmosphere will become "less energetic" and the atmospheric "Carnot engine" will become less efficient at performing Work (such as generating intense winds and storms) due to global warming and a decrease of temperature differentials.

Note also the great physicist and engineer Carnot, who was the first to describe the atmosphere as a heat engine, agreed in his writings with both Maxwell and Clausius that the atmospheric temperature gradient, aka now called the "greenhouse effect," is a consequence of atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure rather than irradiance. 

The global engine that could

It has been widely accepted since Carnot's seminal work (1) that the atmosphere acts as a thermodynamic heat engine: Air motions redistribute the energy gained from the Sun in the warm part of the globe to colder regions where it is lost through the emission of infrared radiation to space (facilitated by greenhouse gases). Through this process, some internal energy is converted into the kinetic energy needed to maintain the atmospheric circulation against dissipation. The analogy to a heat engine has been applied to explain various atmospheric phenomena, such as the global circulation (2), hurricanes (3), and dust devils (4). On page 540 of this issue, Laliberté et al. (5) show that the hydrological cycle reduces the efficiency of the global atmospheric heat engine.

Fine weather machine.

Nice, sunny weather occurs when dry air from the upper troposphere sinks and is mixed with moist air near Earth's surface. Laliberté et al. show that such mixing weakens the atmospheric heat engine.
Although the atmosphere acts overall as a heat engine, it may not be a very efficient one. The distribution of energy sources and sinks around Earth implies a maximum work of ~10 W·m−2 when averaged globally, yet estimates for the rate of kinetic energy production by atmospheric motions are about half this figure. The difference is very likely due to Earth's hydrological cycle, which reduces the production of kinetic energy in two ways. First, as rain droplets, hail pellets, or snowflakes fall through the atmosphere, they generate microphysical shear zones in which a substantial amount of dissipation occurs. Satellite data yield an estimated dissipation rate from precipitation of ~1.2 W·m−2 in the tropics (6). Second, water mostly evaporates in unsaturated air, and this evaporation is thus thermodynamically irreversible. Such irreversibility reduces the work produced by a heat engine compared to a Carnot cycle. In particular, when the energy source of the Carnot cycle is replaced by evaporation, the mechanical work of the cycle is reduced and strongly depends on the relative humidity (7).
Idealized cycles such as the Carnot cycle are useful theoretical models for understanding how much wind can be sustained around the globe. However, the atmosphere is highly turbulent, and extracting a single cycle from the complex motions that make up the global circulation is not straightforward. Thermodynamic studies of the climate system have typically required detailed knowledge of all thermodynamic transformations and have involved a complex analysis of numerical simulations (8–10). These intensive data requirements explain why there have been relatively few thermodynamic studies of the global climate.
Laliberté et al. offer an elegant way to address this problem. Meteorologists have studied air flow on surfaces of constant entropy since the 1930s. Atmospheric scientists and oceanographers have extended this approach to study how air and water move around the planet on various thermodynamic surfaces, such as surfaces of constant temperature or salinity (11, 12). Laliberté et al. push this idea even further by averaging the circulation in a three-dimensional thermodynamic space (pressure, entropy, and water content). Dalton's law, however, states that all thermodynamic properties of moist air can be determined from the knowledge of these three state variables. This means that the circulation computed by Laliberte et al. can be used to infer all thermodynamic transformations in the atmosphere, based solely on standard meteorological measurements.
The authors apply their methodology to the global thermodynamic cycle using data from meteorological reanalysis and from a global climate model. The results confirm that the hydrological cycle reduces the amount of kinetic energy generated by the large-scale atmospheric flow by about one-third. As much as we may associate the hydrological cycle with severe weather and heavy precipitation, it is also responsible for nice, sunny weather, which occurs when air masses gradually regain some of the water vapor lost during an earlier rainfall (see the figure). The hydrological cycle reduces the average intensity of the winds around Earth mostly by generating pleasant weather around large portions of the globe.
The study by Laliberté et al. offers a blue-print for the systematic analysis of the thermodynamic transformations in the climate system. The method can be applied based solely on the standard output of numerical models and can easily be used to compare the thermodynamic cycles simulated by different global climate models. It also opens up two important questions.
First, what are the contributions of convection and other atmospheric motions at small scales in the atmospheric heat engine? The approach presented by Laliberté et al. is limited to motions resolved by their data set, which excludes anything with a horizontal scale of less than 100 km. Yet, many thermodynamic transformations occur within clouds, at scales that are not typically resolved in an atmospheric or climate model. Second, how are the thermodynamic processes affected by climate change? As Earth's climate warms, the air will be able to contain more water vapor on average. Laliberté et al. indicate that this would lead to a slight reduction in the work done by the atmospheric circulation. This result, if confirmed, could offer important insights into what Earth's global engine could do in the future.

References

  1. ↵ 

  2. ↵ 


Excerpts from main article:


Constrained work output of the moist atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate

  1. K. Döös4
EDITOR'S SUMMARY:

Because the rain falls and the wind blows

Global warming is expected to intensify the hydrological cycle, but it might also make the atmosphere less energetic. Laliberté et al. modeled the atmosphere as a classical heat engine in order to evaluate how much energy it contains and how much work it can do (see the Perspective by Pauluis). They then used a global climate model to project how that might change as climate warms. Although the hydrological cycle may increase in intensity, it does so at the expense of its ability to do work, such as powering large-scale atmospheric circulation or fueling more very intense storms.
Incoming and outgoing solar radiation couple with heat exchange at Earth’s surface to drive weather patterns that redistribute heat and moisture around the globe, creating an atmospheric heat engine. Here, we investigate the engine’s work output using thermodynamic diagrams computed from reanalyzed observations and from a climate model simulation with anthropogenic forcing. We show that the work output is always less than that of an equivalent Carnot cycle and that it is constrained by the power necessary to maintain the hydrological cycle. In the climate simulation, the hydrological cycle increases more rapidly than the equivalent Carnot cycle. We conclude that the intensification of the hydrological cycle in warmer climates might limit the heat engine’s ability to generate work.
As a reflection of the seminal work of Carnot, atmospheric motions have been described as an important component of the planetary heat engine (1). The concept of a heat engine is closely associated with the idea of work: For two cycles that transport the same amount of heat between the same two reservoirs, the one that generates the least irreversible entropy will produce the most work (2). We quantify the atmosphere’s work output through a budget of its entropy production. Previous attempts at obtaining such a budget either resulted in gross estimates (3, 4) or required highly specific data from climate models for a precise analysis (5–8). Some of these studies showed that the hydrological cycle was an important contributor to the generation of irreversible entropy (6, 9, 10), suggesting that moist processes, including the frictional dissipation associated with falling hydrometeors (11, 12), tend to limit the work output of the atmospheric heat engine. On a warming Earth, the increase in precipitable water (13) has been identified as a reason for the tropical overturning to slow down (14), and studies over a wide range of climates suggest that global atmospheric motions are reduced in extremely warm climates (15–17). Models forced according to a climate change scenario also exhibit this behavior in their tropical circulation (18). Here, we employ a method that uses high-frequency and high-resolution data to obtain an atmospheric entropy budget from climate models and reanalyses. This method does not depend on specialized model output, making the diagnostic applicable to the suite of models produced for the Climate Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) and paving the way to a systematic analysis of the entropy budget in climate models, as proposed by some authors (8).
We base our analysis on the first law of thermodynamics describing moist air (19, 20).FormulaThe material derivatives of moist enthalpy h and moist entropy s (19–21) are given by Formula and Formula, respectively.
The equation of state used here provides a comprehensive treatment of moist thermodynamics, including the effect of the latent heat of fusion on Formula and Formula (19, 20). The specific ratio Formula represents the total mass of water divided by the total mass of wet air (humid air plus water condensate). The work output Formula is given by the product of the specific volume Formula with the vertical velocity in pressure coordinates Formula. The chemical potential μquantifies the effect of adding or removing moisture; it is equal to the sum of two terms with different physical meanings (see the supplementary text). The first of these terms accounts for the moistening inefficiencies that accompany the irreversible entropy production associated with the addition of water vapor to unsaturated air (9,10). The second term accounts for the enthalpy changes associated with the drying and moistening of air. For the atmospheric thermodynamic cycle, we will show that when Formula is positive, Formula primarily quantifies the moistening inefficiencies accounted for by the first term, and when Formula is negative Formula primarily quantifies how much power is associated with combined moisture and dry air fluxes between the surface and the precipitation level accounted for by the second term.
Averaging the first law using a mass-weighted annual and global spatial mean [denoted as {□}] results in simplification. First, Formula equals the difference between interior moist enthalpy sinks and the moist enthalpy sources at Earth’s surface stemming from diffusive fluxes. If we assume that the atmospheric system is in steady state (and therefore approximately yearly periodic), the sinks cancel the sources and Formula vanishes. Moreover, under this averaging, Formula is positive because it quantifies the power necessary to maintain the hydrological cycle and accounts for the moistening inefficiencies (10), and Formula is also positive because it is associated with the dissipation of kinetic energy at the viscous scale (22). Writing Formula, then, the first law reads [equation 4 in (10)]FormulaFormula is thus reduced by the moistening inefficiencies accounted for by Formula. In the following sections, we obtain a diagnostic for Formula and Formula based on the area occupied by the atmospheric thermodynamic cycle in a temperature-entropy diagram (hereafter Formula diagram) and in a specific humidity-chemical potential diagram (hereafter Formula diagram), respectively.
We analyze two different data sources. The first source is a coupled climate model simulation using the Community Earth System Model (CESM) version 1.0.2 (23). The time period 1981 to 2098 is simulated using a combination of historical radiative forcing estimates and the Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5 (24) future scenario (hereafter historical RCP45). The second source is the period 1981 to 2012 of the Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA) reanalysis (25). For these two data sets, we use a recently developed method (20) to project the material derivative Formula from eulerian space to Formula, its representation in the Formula diagram. We use the same method to project Formula to Formula, its representation in the Formula diagram. Each of these quantities is associated with a closed, uniquely defined mass flux stream function in its respective coordinate system.FormulaFormula, ,FormulaFormula,Each stream function describes a separate aspect of the large-scale atmospheric thermodynamic cycle. This approach is similar to a method that has been previously used to study the atmospheric and oceanic circulations in thermodynamic coordinates (26–29).
In a Formula diagram, the quantity Formula describes a clockwise cycle (Fig. 1, A and B) with three main branches. In the lower branch, a large fraction of air is transported along the surface saturation curve (1000 hPa, 100% relative humidity) and, as it moves toward warmer temperatures, picks up heat through exchanges at Earth’s surface. In the tropical branch, air is transported from warm temperatures to colder temperatures at almost constant moist entropy along the zonal-mean tropical (15°S to 15°N) profile. The zonal-mean tropical profile thus represents the transformations that tropical air masses undergo when they convect, detrain, and mix with environmental midtropospheric air masses (30). In the third branch, radiative cooling acts to reduce entropy as air is transported from high moist entropy and cold temperatures to low moist entropy and warmer temperatures. The thermodynamic cycles in CESM and MERRA have a similar shape, but MERRA’s is stronger (larger maximum stream function value). In the region of the Formula diagram rightward of the zonal-mean subtropical profile (25°N to 35°N) and at temperatures lower than 280 K, the saturation specific humidity is small, so that pressure is approximately a function of temperature and moist entropy. In this region, thermodynamic transformations that occur along discrete pressure levels [diagnosed by Formula, Formula, and Formula (20) but not explicitly demonstrated here] yield the prominent sawtooth patterns seen in the CESM cycle. Although the same patterns appear in the MERRA cycle, they are not as prominent because the vertical resolution is finer by a factor of three, so that a smaller portion of the thermodynamic cycle is sampled along a given pressure level.
Fig. 1Thermodynamic diagrams for years 1981–2012.
(A and C) CESM. (B and D) MERRA. [(A) and (B)] Formuladiagram. Formula in color shading and gray contours (–75, –225, –375, and –525 Sv). Thick dashed lines represents the zonal-mean vertical profile in different latitude bands. Dotted lines give the 100% relative humidity curves at 1000 hPa, 500 hPa, and 200 hPa. Axes are oriented so that the lower left corner is closest to typical tropical surface Formula values, the upper left corner is closest to typical tropical upper tropospheric Formulavalues, and the right side of the graph is closest to typical polar Formula values. The correspondence between the equivalent potential temperature Formula and Formula (21) is indicated on the top abscissa. [(C) and (D)] Formula diagram. Formula in color shading and gray contours (–333, –667, –1000, and –1333 Sv). The thick dashed line represents the zonal-mean vertical profile in the tropics. Pressure levels are indicated along this profile. Axes are oriented so that the lower left corner is closest to typical tropical surface Formula values. [(A) to (D)] Thin black curves indicate where Formula= –1 Sv or Formula= –1 Sv. They indicate the small-magnitude cutoff over which Formula or Formula were computed to avoid floating-point errors.
...
The evolution of Formula in response to anthropogenic forcing indicates a trend of –0.038 ± 0.08 Wm−2 [one-sided ttest, 95% confidence interval (CI)] per 100 years for the 10-year running mean (Fig. 4B). Over the 21st century, this amounts to a small reduction in Formula (≈–1%). In an Formula diagram, the Formula response at the end of the 21st century exhibits a reduction of –0.102 Wm−2 per 100 years below 300 hPa and an increase of 0.073 Wm−2 per 100 years above 300 hPa (fig. S4); at 500 hPa, it is reduced by more than 5% per 100 years. This response is compatible with a general weakening of tropospheric motions accompanied with a strengthening of deep convective motions that have enough energy to reach the upper troposphere.
Because Formula is proportional to the material derivative Formula, we might expect its response to scale like the near-surface specific humidity and therefore be directly related to changes in global surface temperature through a surface Clausius-Clapeyron scaling. Indeed, the specific humidity on the model level nearest to the surface explains 94% of the variance of Formula over the entire 1981 to 2099 period (Fig. 4A). Both the near-surface specific humidity and Formula increase by 5.4% per K global surface warming, which is slightly less than the 7% per K surface warming increase associated with a tropical Clausius-Clapeyron scaling (14). In fact, most of the increase in Formula can be attributed to an increase in the moistening inefficiencies (fig. S5A). Moreover, this increase alone compensates for the increase in Formula (fig. S5B) and is therefore sufficient to constrain the atmospheric heat engine’s work output.
Previous theoretical analyses of the entropy cycle (6, 31) suggest that Formula should scale like Formula, where Formula is the outgoing long-wave radiation and Formula, Formula, and Formula are the mean temperature of atmospheric heat input, output, and dissipation, respectively. Observations of recent tropospheric warming [figures 2.26 and 2.27 in (32)] show that temperature trends are somewhat uniform in the vertical, which suggests that the difference Formula might increase more slowly than either Formula or Formula. This slower increase may explain why Formula does not follow a surface Clausius-Clapeyron scaling and why one would expect moist processes to limit the work output in simulations with anthropogenic forcing. Simulations over a wider range of climates would help verify this hypothesis.
Our comparison of thermodynamic cycles in CESM and MERRA show many similarities; however, we find that CESM requires less power to maintain its hydrological cycle than the reanalysis, due to the smaller amplitude of its moistening inefficiencies. We suggest that this difference might be a consequence of the idealized nature of parameterized convection schemes, and it is likely that it might also influence the response of CESM to anthropogenic forcing. Typically, convection schemes artificially transport moisture along a moist adiabat without accounting for the work needed to lift this moisture, but in the real world, this work is necessary to sustain precipitation. Any increase in global precipitation therefore requires an increase in work output; otherwise, precipitation would have to become more efficient, for example, by reducing the frictional dissipation of falling hydrometeors (11, 12). This is one reason we should interpret the constraint in work output in CESM as a constraint on the large-scale motions and not on the unresolved subgrid-scale convective events.
Our work illustrates a major constraint on the large-scale global atmospheric engine: As the climate warms, the system may be unable to increase its total entropy production enough to offset the moistening inefficiencies associated with phase transitions. This suggests that in a future climate, the global atmospheric circulation might comprise highly energetic storms due to explosive latent heat release, but in such a case, the constraint on work output identified here will result in fewer numbers of such events. Earth’s atmospheric circulation thus suffers from the “water in gas problem” observed in simulations of tropical convection (6), where its ability to produce work is constrained by the need to convert liquid water into water vapor and back again to tap its fuel.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Analysis: Solar radiation & cloud cover control the temperature in Sweden



Repost from The Climate Scam site, showing the remarkable correlation between solar radiation (modulated by clouds) and temperature in Sweden (google translation from Swedish).


The weather gods control the temperature in Sweden


Commenters have noted that the solar radiation in Sweden has increased while the temperature has risen. SMHI has published measurements of global radiation / insolation here . 

Summer temperatures and solar radiation as line graphs
Figure 7 - The summer temperature and solar radiation as line graphs
Annual solar radiation from SMHI and temperature from ECMWF.  The lines show the average values ​​for the towns of Kiruna, Luleå, Umeå, Östersund, Karlstad, Stockholm, Visby and Lund
Figure 1 - annual solar radiation from SMHI and temperature from ECMWF (ERA-Interim). The lines show the average values ​​for the towns of Kiruna, Luleå, Umeå, Östersund, Karlstad, Stockholm, Visby and Lund, 1983 - 2013
In the figure above you can see that on a yearly basis seems higher insolation give higher temperatures, but there are also large variations which must be explained in other ways. One must remember that it is not only the sun that affect our temperature. It will also large amounts of energy to us here in Sweden by the winds. To get a better picture of the situation goes, I therefore over to analyzing the data on seasonal basis (summer, fall, winter, spring) instead.

Why has solar radiation increased?

A hypothesis why solar radiation has increased is that the amount of aerosols have declined recently after having increased during the 1950-70's. This explanation fits very well into växthuseffekts hypothesis because it can not explain why the temperature dropped during the 1950-70 centuries otherwise.
But solar radiation is also affected very much by the amount of clouds. From ECMWF (ERA-Interim), one can get access to the amount of clouds that have been calculated in the same way as you do when you make weather forecasts. These values ​​should therefore be free from the influence of aerosols. Below are the solar radiation as a function of the proportion of clouds for the four seasons (click the figures for larger size).
scatter_irradiance_cloud_summerSolar radiation vs Rain
scatter_irradiance_cloud_winterscatter_irradiance_cloud_spring
Figure 2 - Solar radiation as a function of cloudy 1983-2013. The points show the average values ​​for the towns of Kiruna, Luleå, Umeå, Östersund, Karlstad, Stockholm, Visby and Lund.
For summer and spring seems to be a very strong connection between rain and solar radiation.Less cloud gives more sun. The relationship is somewhat weaker for the fall, but winter seems ratio should be the opposite. More clouds giving more "sun". The explanation for this is probably that even the long-wave radiation from the clouds measured. And during the winter when the sun's rays are weak, the radiation from the clouds to break through in the statistics.
I asked a question SMHI which wavelengths included in the measurement and got the following response:
" Most of this energy is in the wavelength range 300-4000 nm and distributed roughly 8 percent in the ultraviolet (UV), 48 percent in the visible and 44 percent in the near-infrared (IR) portion of the spectrum outside the Earth's atmosphere. "
The conclusion from this simple exercise is that there seems to be a strong link between cloud cover and solar radiation and therefore ought aerosol hypothesis could be written off. It has atleast not critical. It is thus that the weather patterns have changed and it has given us more sun.

Does increased insolation provide higher temperatures?

Let's look at how the temperature has been affected by solar radiation. Below are the four seasons with the temperature as a function of solar radiation.
scatter_irradiance_temp_summerscatter_irradiance_temp_autumn
scatter_irradiance_temp_winterscatter_irradiance_temp_spring
Figure 3 As temperature as a function of solar radiation 1983-2013.
There seem to be a strong link between solar radiation and temperature during the summer.But this access seems to be missing for the other seasons.
The handyman can also figure out the "climate sensitivity" from summer figure, and one can then validate whether the IPCC 4 W / m2 at doubling of carbon dioxide could provide several degrees higher temperature.
From ECMWF can also get values ​​for wind at 10 m height. Below are the temperature as a function of the southern and western wind:
scatter_wind_south_temp_summerscatter_wind_south_temp_autumn
scatter_wind_south_temp_winterscatter_wind_south_temp_spring
Figure 4 As temperature as a function of the southerly wind 1983-2013.
scatter_wind_west_temp_summerscatter_wind_west_temp_autumn
scatter_wind_west_temp_winterscatter_wind_west_temp_spring
Figure 5 As temperature as a function of the westerly wind 1983-2013.
Here there seems to be a link between southerly winds and temperatures for autumn and winter. There also seems to be a link between the western wind and spring temperature. But perhaps many factors that affect spring temperature being unable to find any strong determining factor.
An example of how the southerly wind has increased during the winter are shown below.
Winter temperatures and the southerly wind
Figure 6 - Winter temperatures and the southerly wind
It is thus not surprising that we get "bad" winters if the wind blows from the south and not from the north. And this is not something we can blame the carbon dioxide.

Conclusions

Solar radiation in Sweden has increased since the early 1980s. Maybe it has increased even earlier but I have no good measurements prior period. The increased solar radiation appears to be strongly linked to reduced cloud cover. It is thus needed no aerosol hypothesis to explain the increased solar radiation.
The increased summer temperatures in Sweden seems to be strongly linked to the increased solar radiation. Autumn and vårtemperaturerna other hand, is linked to the increased southerly wind. The picture is somewhat more complicated for spring, but the increased westerly wind seems to have a meaning.
We can thus explain most of the increased temperature in Sweden to changing weather patterns. If the carbon dioxide level has a bearing on the temperature this meaning is much smaller than the natural variation.
I have only shown a selection of all graphs I have developed. If you want to watch more graphs, there is a zip file here .
Update 2015-01-20 9:00:
On "Sunglasses" request show me this character how well the summer temperature and solar radiation are similar
Summer temperatures and solar radiation as line graphs
Figure 7 - The summer temperature and solar radiation as line graphs

The Atmosphere is Not a 'Blanket' & Does Not “Pile Heat”

Re-Posted  

What is Insulation, And what Does it Do?

People (well, the climate alarmists) don’t seem to understand what “insulation” is. They think that it means that it makes heat “pile up” inside the source of heat, or in the medium between the insulation and source of heat, so that the source of heat and/or the medium will get hotter than the source of heat and power input.
There is no such thing as “heat pile up”. This is a non-existent concept. You can think of it, like you can think of a unicorn, but it doesn’t exist.  Heat does not pile up, it readily and freely flows into whatever is around it.
Insulation is something that only works in a gaseous environment – it is all about a gaseous environment. Insulation, a blanket, a greenhouse, all work the same way, and that way is preventing convective cooling and air circulation.  Insulation in the form of a blanket, a sweater, a greenhouse enclosure, home insulation, etc., is about reducing and eliminating convective cooling, i.e. the loss of warm air.  A blanket, or insulation, etc., is about doing the opposite of what the atmosphere does!
In your house, insulation helps prevent the furnace-heated air from escaping your house and being replaced with cold air from outside. It doesn’t make the furnace burn hotter.  In your water heater, it helps the water retain its temperature after it has been heated.  It doesn’t make the water hotter than the heater.
You can wrap a heat source with as much insulation as you want.  All that will happen is that the insulation will reach the temperature of the heat source, and the heat source will not rise in temperature.  Insulation is just matter, just material like anything else.  When exposed to heat, it will warm, and will conduct that heat outward via diffusion.

Free Energy

People have claimed that if you have a heating element inside a mug of coffee, that if you then wrap the mug in insulation, the coffee and heating element will get hotter and hotter and hotter, because of “heat pile up”.
Rather, the insulation would simply help keep the mug from cooling once the power is removed from the heating element, otherwise, the insulation will simply attain the temperature of the heating element, if left long enough.
Imagine if we could heat coffee, i.e. water, this way? You just wrap enough insulation, and then a heating element at 60C inside the water can cause the water to boil because of “heat pile up” in the water due to the insulation around it!
This violates all of thermodynamics.  We’ve been trying to do stuff like that for hundreds of years. The discovery of the laws of thermodynamics are the result of those attempts.
Same with the steel greenhouse. The claim is that if you keep on adding shells, the inner sphere will get hotter and hotter by a multiple of the number of shells.
If the steel greenhouse worked that way, then you could power a steam engine and get more work out than you put it. You could layer a few shells around the inner source, make the inner source multiple times hotter than the tiny input at the centre, then flood it with water and have instant explosive steam generation. Then repeat over and over. They found back in the 1700’s and 1800’s that reality didn’t work this way.

Diffusive & Radiative Transfer are not Opposite Thermodynamics

If you add a new layer of steel physically directly touching an internally heated sphere, this new layer will simply heat to the temperature supplied from the interior sphere.  In fact, the new layer will be a little cooler because it will have a larger surface area than the original sphere.
The interior won’t get hotter because it heats a new layer of steel on top of it.  In this case you have the diffusion transfer equation, which similarly has a differential of hot and cold terms describing the heat flow, as does the radiation transfer equation, and we all understand that heat does not physically diffuse from cold to hot and that physical contact between a cold object and warm object does not make the warmer object warmer still.
Visually, think of it as in the following diagrams (read the captions please):
t0
Initial configuration. There is a heated element (left, yellow rectangle) with constant power input thus holding a constant temperature. There is also a passive, unheated, cold object being brought in (right, blue square).
diffusive
The passive block is brought into physical contact with the powered heat source. Heat begins transferring via diffusive (conduction) heat transfer from the powered source (rectangle) to the passive block (square) and raises the temperature of the passive block. At 3 sequential times, the temperature of the passive block is equilibrating to equal the temperature of the heat source. Neither the block nor the heat source can become hotter than the original temperature of the heat source, since there is no additional power being supplied to the heat source.
Putting a vacuum gap between the objects does not invert the laws of thermodynamics!!
radiative
With a vacuum gap in between the source of heat and the passive block, radiation transfers heat from the heat source to the passive block and the block rises in temperature to that of the heat source. The heat energy then continues conducting through the block to its other side: this is how and why energy is conserved without the passive block “back-heating” the source.
Insulation, the passive block, does not cause “heat pile up”.  Heat transfers one way only, and cold does not lead to hot becoming hotter still because it is being heated up.
The atmosphere is not a blanket. The atmosphere does not have heat piling up inside it.  And we’re not wrapping the atmosphere in insulation. And adding “insulating cream” to coffee does not make the coffee have a higher final temperature than what it is heated with, etc.
There is no radiative climate science greenhouse effect.  The entire field of climate science is a scandal which exploits the lack of knowledge of the Laws of Thermodynamics in the general populace, and even in the scientific community itself.  Climate science, as based on its radiative greenhouse effect and its “heat pile up” postulate, is founded on an entirely irrational and non-existent premise, as we see the result of for example in the last post.  The foundation of its ontology is wrong, the foundation of its physics is non-existent, thus, none of its alarmist claims which are directly based on that false ontology can be correct.  The alarmism is directly dependent upon that false ontology.  Hence, alarmism is false, along with much of the rest of the field of climate science itself.

Climate Pseudoscience Thermodynamics

The following diagram is how climate science thinks of heat flow and thermodynamics, and all others who subscribe to “steel greenhouse” ideas and the climate science radiative greenhouse effect:
climate thermo
Top: A passive cold object (blue, square) is brought near a heat source (rectangle, yellow). Middle: As the passive cold object is warmed by the heat source, it presents back-resistance to heat flow from the source of heat. Bottom: This requires the source of heat to heat up some more so that it can continue sending heat energy to the passive object.
There’s no end to this process – it results in a constant runaway mutual heating that never ends.  Think of that: mutual heating!  There is no mutual heating.  Heat is only one way, fellas.
Don’t you think we would have noticed that all we needed to do to make a source of heat hotter still was to simply to bring something cold nearby?  Well, we’ve tried to notice that, we’ve spent hundreds of years trying to notice that.  The discovery of the Laws of Thermodynamics have been the result.  There is no such thing as back-resistance to heat flow.
We have the mathematics of heat flow.  We know how it works, we know why it works.  It has been known for around 200 years.  The differential equations of heat flow and conservation of energy simply do not do what is claimed by the climate science radiative greenhouse effect.  Look at the diagrams above, and think about it.

Friday, January 2, 2015

Why Earth is a closed thermodynamic system that must obey the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Some have claimed that the Earth is not defined by thermodynamics as a physically "closed system," alleging upon this false assumption that the Second Law of Thermodynamics [which is applicable to closed or isolated systems only] somehow doesn't apply to the atmosphere/greenhouse gases/total Earth climate system including the surface, atmosphere, and oceans. 

We have refuted this claim in several prior posts ranging from Why the AGW 'Hot Spot' Won't Happen (2010) all the way up to the recent series of posts on the greenhouse equation, including the post Maxwell's Demon proves why cold gases cannot make hot bodies hotter. 

This incorrect assumption that Earth is defined as an "open system" and not a physically "closed system" is often utilized by AGW proponents to claim that the atmosphere or Earth can rightfully violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, such as by decreasing total entropy, transferring heat from cold to hot [which requires an impossible decrease of total entropy], warming of the surface from -18C to +15C by greenhouse gases such as CO2 (radiating at a very, very cold peak radiating temperature of -80C), and various other physical absurdities. 

While individual components of the Earth may be considered by definition an open physical system (where highly-localized decreases of entropy may intermittently occur), the Earth's climate system including land, oceans, and atmosphere in total are considered to be a closed thermodynamic system, for which the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies and requires total system entropy to always increase. 


Thus, the claim that greenhouse gases may violate the 2nd law to transfer heat from their very cold radiating temperatures (ranging from -80C to -18C) to warm the much warmer Earth surface by an additional 33C is absurd and physically false. Instead, the tropospheric 33C temperature gradient ["the greenhouse effect"] above and below the center of mass of the atmosphere (at ~5100 meters altitude) is maintained by the Maxwell/Carnot/Clausius gravito-thermal "greenhouse effect," as described in the recent series of posts, and is completely insensitive to changes in man-made CO2 levels. 

The physical boundary conditions of Earth's thermodynamic closed system range from the bottom of the oceans up to the top of the atmosphere at the edge of space. There is effectively no exchange of mass across any of these boundary conditions, therefore by physical definition, the total Earth system including climate system is considered a closed system which must obey the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. 

Note the only true "isolated system" in the universe is by definition the universe itself, thus Earth is part of the isolated system of the Universe, and the "closed systems" of the Milky Way, solar system, and Earth itself. Any claims that since the universe is technically the only physically "isolated system" in existence, therefore the 2nd law of thermodynamics may be violated in total for the Earth itself, are equally absurd. 

Thermodynamic types of systems as applied to the Earth are described in this excerpt from The Physical Environment: an Introduction to Physical Geography by Michael Ritter, PhD.:


Types of systems

Systems can be classified as open, closed, or isolated. Open systems allow energy and mass to pass across the system boundary.  A closed system allows energy but not mass across its system boundary. An isolated system allows neither mass or energy to pass across the system boundary.

Open Systems


The ocean is an example of an open system. The ocean is a component of the hydrosphere and the ocean surface represents the interface between the hydrosphere and the atmosphere that lies above. Solar radiation passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the ocean. The absorbed energy evaporates water from the ocean. As water vapor (mass) enters the atmosphere it carries with it the heat used to evaporate the water (called latent heat) and raises the air's humidity. If the humidity is high enough, condensation occurs, latent heat is released, and clouds are created. Continued condensation creates precipitation (mass) that falls back into the ocean. Hence, energy and heat (solar radiation, latent heat) as well as mass (water vapor and precipitation) passes across the boundary between the atmosphere and hydrosphere. All of the "spheres" of the earth system are considered open systems because energy and mass is exchanged between them.


Closed Systems

Earth as a closed system
The earth system as a whole is a closed system. The boundary of the earth system is the outer edge of the atmosphere. Virtually no mass is exchanged between the Earth system and the rest of the universe (except for an occasional meteorite). However, energy in the form of solar radiation passes from the Sun, through the atmosphere to the surface. Earth in turn emits radiation back out to space across the system boundary. Hence, energy passes across Earth's system boundary, but not mass, making it a closed system.
The interface between systems is not always easy to identify, others more so. The interface between the hydrosphere and lithosphere at a shoreline is easy to recognize as a definite planar boundary between a solid and fluid. The interface between the atmosphere and hydrosphere is less easy to discern as the hydrosphere comprises both liquid water of the surface and water held in the air.

And by this engineering brief:


What is a Thermodynamic System?


written by: Haresh Khemani • edited by: Swagatam • updated: 5/4/2010

The term thermodynamic system is used frequently in the subject of thermodynamics. Let us see what thermodynamic system is and its various types.

Introduction

The word system is very commonly used in thermodynamics; let us know what it is. Certain quantity of matter or the space which is under thermodynamic study or analysis is called as system. Let us say for example we are studying the engine of the vehicle, in this case engine is called as the system. Similarly, the other examples of system can be complete refrigerator, air-conditioner, washing machine, heat exchange, a utensil with hot water etc.

Now, let us suppose that we have to analyze the performance of engine in different conditions. Here, we will feed the engine with fuels of different grades and load it with different loads to find out its efficiency. We will also find its performance during idling, acceleration, varying speed, slow speed and high speed. A thorough analysis of the engine is carried out; hence it is called as system.

The system is covered by the boundary and the area beyond the boundary is called as universe or surroundings. The boundary of the system can be fixed or it can be movable. Between the system and surrounding the exchange of mass or energy or both can occur.

Types of Thermodynamic Systems

There are three mains types of system: open system, closed system and isolated system. All these have been described below:


1) Open system: The system in which the transfer of mass as well as energy can take place across its boundary is called as an open system. Our previous example of engine is an open system. In this case we provide fuel to engine and it produces power which is given out, thus there is exchange of mass as well as energy. The engine also emits heat which is exchanged with the surroundings. The other example of open system is boiling water in an open vessel, where transfer of heat as well as mass in the form of steam takes place between the vessel and surrounding.

2) Closed system: The system in which the transfer of energy takes place across its boundary with the surrounding, but no transfer of mass takes place is called as closed system. The closed system is fixed mass system. The fluid like air or gas being compressed in the piston and cylinder arrangement is an example of the closed system. In this case the mass of the gas remains constant but it can get heated or cooled. Another example is the water being heated in the closed vessel, where water will get heated but its mass will remain same.

3) Isolated system: The system in which neither the transfer of mass nor that of energy takes place across its boundary with the surroundings is called as isolated system. For example if the piston and cylinder arrangement in which the fluid like air or gas is being compressed or expanded is insulated it becomes isolated system. Here there will neither transfer of mass nor that of energy. Similarly hot water, coffee or tea kept in the thermos flask is closed system. However, if we pour this fluid in a cup, it becomes an open system.

Related Reading

What is Thermodynamics

First law of Thermodynamics

Second law of Thermodynamics

Third law of Thermodynamics

Zeroth law of Thermodynamics

Types of Thermodynamic Systems and Important Terms Related to Thermodynamics - Part 1

And by this overview of Thermodynamics Laws and Systems


http://www.uccs.edu/Documents/rtirado/Ch%2015%20The%20Laws%20of%20Thermodynamics.pdf