Thermodynamics of Global Warming

[Geee]

American Thinker:

What percentage change in global mean temperature (GMT) has occurred since the Industrial Revolution began? This can be calculated only by using an absolute temperature scale. Answer = +0.3%.

Can this be so alarming to Al Gore? Indeed, the Kelvin absolute scale for temperature is one of only seven basic units of measure recognized in the International System of Units. Temperature measures the heat content of a substance -- a simple linear relation so long as the zero of the temperature scale is properly placed. Heat itself is a form of energy measured in joules, calories, or BTUs. The thermodynamic science of heat flow requires the use of Kelvin because Kelvin eliminates the problem of negative temperature readings encountered with the Celsius or Fahrenheit scales. Heat can flow into and out of any mass, be it solid, liquid, or gas. Reduction of heat makes it colder. There is no such thing as negative heat (anti-heat?). Therefore, negative temperature conveys no meaning, either.

Absolute zero temperature occurs at -273.15º C, or -491.67º F, and signifies a state of matter displaying complete absence of heat. The PBS NOVA television program broadcast an excellent introduction to the science of cryogenics and its fascinating history. Anders Celsius invented his centigrade scale in the late 18th century. Zero of Celsius scale is the temperature of ice-water (32º F), while 100º C is the boiling point (212º F) of water at sea level -- both chosen by Celsius because they are easily reproduced as experimental temperature calibration standards in laboratories around the world. In 1848, Lord Kelvin invented his eponymous thermodynamic temperature scale which employs the same "degree" as the Celsius scale but shifts the zero point to absolute zero1. Therefore, any temperature value recorded in Celsius can be easily converted to Kelvin just by adding 273.15.

This measurement scale vastly simplifies the mathematics of, for example, equations of state for an ideal compressible permanent gas such as air (Figure 1). These are the same equations that govern the evolution of the climate and necessarily are at the heart of any computer-numerical algorithms developed for climate modeling.

[raygun]

clkun

[raygun]

The Unbearable Complexity of Climate

 

by Willis Eschenbach

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

 

I keep reading statements in various places about how it is indisputable “simple physics” that if we increase amount of atmospheric CO2, it will inevitably warm the planet. Here’s a typical example:

 

In the hyperbolic language that has infested the debate, researchers have been accused of everything from ditching the scientific method to participating in a vast conspiracy. But the basic concepts of the greenhouse effect is a matter of simple physics and chemistry, and have been part of the scientific dialog for roughly a century.[/indent]

Here’s another:

 

The important thing is that we know how greenhouse gases affect climate. It has even been predicted hundred years ago by Arrhenius. It is simple physics.

 

Unfortunately, while the physics is simple, the climate is far from simple. It is one of the more complex systems that we have ever studied. The climate is a tera-watt scale planetary sized heat engine. It is driven by both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial forcings, a number of which are unknown, and many of which are poorly understood and/or difficult to measure. It is inherently chaotic and turbulent, two conditions for which we have few mathematical tools.

 

The climate is comprised of five major subsystems — atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere. All of these subsystems are imperfectly understood. Each of these subsystems has its own known and unknown internal and external forcings, feedbacks, resonances, and cyclical variations. In addition, each subsystem affects all of the other subsystems through a variety of known and unknown forcings and feedbacks.

 

Then there is the problem of scale. Climate has crucially important processes at physical scales from the molecular to the planetary, and at temporal scales from milliseconds to millennia.

 

As a result of this almost unimaginable complexity, simple physics is simply inadequate to predict the effect of a change in one of the hundreds and hundreds of things that affect the climate. I will give two examples of why “simple physics” doesn’t work with the climate — a river, and a block of steel. I’ll start with a thought experiment with the block of steel.

[raygun]

The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase air temperatures by "trapping" infrared radiation (IR) ignores the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR. Unfortunately, many people who claim to be scientists are unaware of Wood's experiment which was originally published in the Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320

 

Greenhouse Theory Disproved a Century Ago

 

http://globalwarming...ntury_ago.thtml

[raygun]

The Science of Global Warming

in Perspective

 

http://nov47.com/gbwm.html

 

Done. Stick the fork into us; we are done.

 

Scott Walker incident doesn't matter in the least; we're all done.