For fans of the real 2nd law of thermodynamics, see Fig. 3 in the paper which shows heat only flows one way from the hotter Earth to colder atmosphere. The paper discusses the 2nd law in the context of maximum entropy production, which also explains why the so-called 'fingerprint' of AGW - the "hot spot" - won't occur.
|Ozawa et al Earth energy & entropy budgets|
Reviews of Geophysics, 41, 4 / 1018 2003 doi:10.1029/2002RG000113
THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS AND THE GLOBAL CLIMATE SYSTEM: A REVIEW OF THE MAXIMUM ENTROPY PRODUCTION PRINCIPLE
Hisashi Ozawa, Atsumu Ohmura, Ralph D. Lorenz & Toni Pujol
Abstract: The long-term mean properties of the global climate system and those of turbulent fluid systems are reviewed from a thermodynamic viewpoint. Two general expressions are derived for a rate of entropy production due to thermal and viscous dissipation (turbulent dissipation) in a fluid system. It is shown with these expressions that maximum entropy production in the Earth's climate system suggested by Paltridge, as well as maximum transport properties of heat or momentum in a turbulent system suggested by Malkus and Busse, correspond to a state in which the rate of entropy production due to the turbulent dissipation is at a maximum. Entropy production due to absorption of solar radiation in the climate system is found to be irrelevant to the maximized properties associated with turbulence. The hypothesis of maximum entropy production also seems to be applicable to the planetary atmospheres of Mars and Titan and perhaps to mantle convection. Lorenz's conjecture on maximum generation of available potential energy is shown to be akin to this hypothesis with a few minor approximations. A possible mechanism by which turbulent fluid systems adjust themselves to the states of maximum entropy production is presented as a self-feedback mechanism for the generation of available potential energy. These results tend to support the hypothesis of maximum entropy production that underlies a wide variety of nonlinear fluid systems, including our planet as well as other planets and stars.
Fascinating to see that there is a small enclave of scientists, operating in the shadow of the loud, corrupt and incompetent IPCC, trying to understand the planetary physics by the methods of scientific inquiry.ReplyDelete
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas that has the ability to be heated. We feel the effect of this "trapped" energy as humidity. That is why 100 degrees in humid Houston feels much hotter than 100 degrees in dry Arizona.ReplyDelete
Greenhouse gases have thermal mass and can "trap" or retain heat for a while.
Everything is relative. The bigger the difference in temperature between the earth and the atmosphere, eg. the warmer the earth is relative to the atmosphere, the faster the earth is going to cool. In the desert, when night falls, it gets cooler much more rapidly than in a humid area because there is less water vapor in the atmosphere retaining heat.
You should separate your posts about the green house effect not being real into a separate website because they destroy the credibility of this website (which is a shame).
The reason why a humid 100 degrees "feels" hotter than a dry 100 degrees is because the air is already saturated with water vapor in a humid environment thus decreasing evaporative cooling, not because of "heat trapping" or "back-radiation."
Nothing in the universe can "trap" heat except a black hole. Increasing thermal mass by adding 'greenhouse gases' to the atmosphere in effect increases the radiative surface area and thus cooling. Energy in = energy out, and GHGs can't add any energy. GHGs do "back-radiate," but this "back-radiation" is not capable of heating the Earth because a radiating lower frequency/lower entropy/lower temperature body cannot heat a higher frequency/higher entropy/higher temperature body at all.
Sorry you feel these posts decrease the credibility, but I am not willing to accede to violations of basic physics to support a non-problem. And there are several physicists who agree, including Claes Johnson, G&T, Sorotkin, Kramm, the authors of this paper, et al. If you also don't think these physicists have any credibility, explain specifically why.
I've always regarded the so called greenhouse effect as meaning that the speed of energy loss to space is reduced by the bouncing around of energy between molecules of the atmosphere before it is released to space.ReplyDelete
In that process all the molecules present in the atmosphere radiate energy in every direction including downward hence the so called back or downward radiation.
Is it contended that none of that actually happens ?
GHG do radiate isotropically, i.e. 50% up and 50% down, but that does not make the hot Earth even hotter, because a radiating lower frequency/lower entropy/lower temperature body cannot heat a higher frequency/higher entropy/higher temperature body at all.ReplyDelete
Please go to claesjohnson.blogspot.com for many posts that explain this in depth.
Warmists claim that the back-radiation from GHG makes the Earth 33C or now apparently 60C "hotter than it would otherwise be," which requires a NET FLOW of heat from the cold atmosphere to hot Earth in violation of the 2nd law. (for the 60C figure see Roy Spencer's post):
The adiabatic lapse rate, pressure, gravity, & volume are all that is needed to model the atmosphere temperature profile, and without breaking any laws of physics:
EVERYTHING has thermal mass and can "trap" heat for a while. Of course that TRAPPING is simply the 2nd law of thermodynamics at work in conjunction with the properties of the material which controls how fast it can absorb, radiate and conduct energy.
Cats have higher body temperatures than humans. So, when my cat sits on my lap, I feel warmer due to its body heat. But do think that the cat doesn't feel warmer as well?ReplyDelete
You see, heat flow is bi-directional, irrespective of the which body is hotter. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics is best described in statistical terms rather than the over-simplified "Heat flows from hot to cold". A more accurate simplification is 'The NET flow of heat is from a warm body to a cold body' which you sometimes see in the better textbooks.
When radiation is absorbed by a body, it increases the energy of that body - usually manifesting itself as heat. It really doesn't matter what the frequency of the radiation is or where it comes from; whether it's from a hotter body or colder body. The receiving object certainly doesn't know the latter.
The Earth is surrounded by the cold vacuum of space. So an atmospheric blanket at any temperature above absolute zero, interposed between the Earth and this cold vacuum, results in the surface of the Earth being warmer than it would otherwise be. This seems obvious to me - what is the difficulty?
When I hear someone citing the schoolboy version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, I know what follows is likely to be nonsense - this article didn't disappoint.
An in depth analysis of the GHE is presented by John Nicol physicist at James Cook Univ. Townsville Australia. Well worth a read - firstname.lastname@example.orgReplyDelete
Thanks to Tallbloke for tip.
I have read at least 4 analyses by serious physicists that come to similar conclusions.
Roy Spencer and Science of Doom disagree.
Your school boy version doesn't disappoint. Who knows or cares what your cat thinks. You see, heat flow from cold to hot is between zero to negligible, as determined by statistical mechanics:
The GHE effect states the Earth is 33C (60C from backradiation) "hotter than it would otherwise be," which requires the NET heat flow to be 33C (60C radiative) from cold to hot. DID YOU SEE THE WORD 'NET' IN THE LAST SENTENCE?
Your statement "It really doesn't matter what the frequency of the radiation is or where it comes from; whether it's from a hotter body or colder body." is absolutely false. In your universe, putting an ice cube in a glass of water will cause the water to boil.
Since you didn't learn these things as a school boy, here's some remedial reading. After you have read and understood, then let me know all of Professor Johnson's errors:
Yes, I featured Dr. Nicol's paper a while back, and added it to a list of 28 others:
Does the NET rate of flow of energy from hot (surface) to cold (space) not decline if more CO2 (or any other GHG) is added to the atmosphere ?ReplyDelete
Unless perhaps compensated for by an increase in the NET rate of flow as a result of another non radiative process such as a change in the speed of the hydrological cycle ?
Adding “greenhouse gases”, since they are not energy sources, will cause the temperature of the Earth/atmosphere to decrease because “greenhouse gases” require energy to heat up and will also increase the radiating surface area of the atmosphere. This is analogous to a heat sink cooling the microprocessor in your computer.ReplyDelete
The Watts disipated by the microprocessor remains the same, but the Watts are distributed over a larger radiating surface area DROPPING the watts/m^2 and therefore the TEMPERATURE of the microprocessor DROPS.
Claes Johnson and Chilingar et al find that adding GHGs results in slight cooling.
There seems to be many different understandings of the greenhouse effect. Firstly, if it is only a matter of heat insulation then why is it given a posh new name "the greenhouse EFFECT", and why is this "EFFECT" not taken into account and exploited in any heat conduction problem which does not take place in the atmosphere. Secondly, why does the stratosphere get colder when the earth heats up? Don't tell me that it is a matter of heat insulation again, I've heard it before, think again. Things like that happen in a refrigerator. You guys just have to wake up to the fact that you have been scammed.ReplyDelete
Thirdly, of course the existence of a colder upper atmosphere heats the surface. This is because it exerts a pressure on the ground. And don't tell me that there is any significant difference between radiation pressure and pressure from molecular collisions.
yes, the "effect" word is a cover for the violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics claiming GHGs ADD energy to the system.
And their silly answer to your question about the stratosphere cooling is because the troposphere is supposedly "trapping heat" -the hot spot that has failed to occur - once again implying the NET flow of heat is cold to hot and a DECREASE in entropy!
simple explanation of why the K-T Earth Energy Balance is wrong - you can't just add radiation fluxes!ReplyDelete