|
27 January 2011
1 Global Climate by Navier-Stokes Equations
Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through it, you dont understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third time you go through it, you know you don’t understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn’t bother you any more. (Physicist Arnold Sommerfeld (1868-1951))
Global climate results from a thermodynamic interaction between the atmosphere and the ocean with radiative forcing from the Sun, gravita- tional forcing from the Earth (and the Moon) and dynamic Coriolis forcing from the rotation of the Earth. The thermodynamics is described by the Navier-Stokes equations (NSE) of fluid dynamics, for a variable density incompressible ocean and compressible atmosphere, expressing conserva- tion of mass, momentum and energy.
The atmosphere transports heat energy absorbed by the Earth surface from the Sun to a top of the atmosphere TOA from where it is radiated to outer space, and thus acts as an air conditioner or heat engine [9] keep- ing the surface temperature constant under radiative forcing from the Sun. A basic question in climate science is the stability of this air conditioner under varying forcing, more specifically the change of surface tempera- ture under doubled concentration of atmospheric CO2 (from 0.028% to 0.056%) , referred to as climate sensitivity.
For the Full Chapter in PDF Form, please click here
Comments
1. The analogy of the atmosphere with a pot of boiling water is completely misleading, because of course the water cannot get any hotter than 100°C.
2. The author neglects to mention that increasing the CO2 concentration causes the altitude of the effective TOA to rise. This is the essential mechanism of the greenhouse gas effect, and this more than compensates for any changes in lapse rate.
3. He doesn't mention water vapour feedback, which is the primary atmospheric positive feedback mechanism.
4. His description of the lapse rate seems confused. If you decrease the lapse rate while maintaining a fixed TOA temperature, that means that the surface temperature increases, and vice versa.
5. Is g = 9.81 C/km an example of editorial lapse rate?
All in all, an extremely one-sided piece of work dressed as science.
Back to school for you buster! LMAO!
I have not found any serious consideration of a physical theoretical basis of mass, heat, temperature from mainstream climate science, which appears to have lost its way with the flood of money the politicians have given them.
Climate sensitivity appears to be a number derived from the computer model to explain the warming in recent decades enhanced by the data fudging.
Interested to know your perspective of Bo Nordell's work on thermal pollution as a cause of warming. www.ltu.se/shb/2.1492/1.5035
This is the primary reason the Earth's surfaces in the tropics do not reach the temperatures the Solar radiation can induce !!
It neatly explains why climate science is wrong !
Evaporation of water converts energy into latent heat that otherwise would result in increased temperatures.
This energy does not contribute any thermal effect until it is released high in the atmosphere upon condensation and from this level there is little impedance to it simply radiating straight to space.
In the tropics the vast majority of the Earth's surface is ocean.
Only a fool could argue this isn't so when one considers REAL science.
For example Singapore, almost on the equator rarely exceeds 32 degrees C air temperature - the highest on record was 36 degrees C - despite nearly saturated humidity all the time.
If water vapour has a positive feedback its effect is certainly missing in any tropical city located near to water !!!
Baghdad at 33.3 degrees N invariably has summer temperatures far higher, 45 degrees C is common despite the reduced insolation.
Cos 33.3 means a 16 % reduction in solation at Baghdad compared to Singapore YET Baghdad temperatures are more extreme by a significant margin.
Climate Scientists do not understand CO2 has NO heat "trapping" properties but Water Vapour does - albeit only temporary - through latent heat of evaporation.
Climate Scientists also fail to recognize water has a heat trapping ability through its latent heat of fusion - this one is permanent until it freezes.
"2. The author neglects to mention that increasing the CO2 concentration causes the altitude of the effective TOA to rise. This is the essential mechanism of the greenhouse gas effect, and this more than compensates for any changes in lapse rate."
CO2 is less than 0.04 % by volume and less than 0.06% by weight - Climate Science figures, not mine.
At less than a gram per cubic metre at sea level, and far less at altitude, the effect of CO2 is negligible !!!
What evidence is there to actually support the assertion that the effective TOA rises due to less than 1 gram CO2 per cubic metre ??
"3. He doesn't mention water vapour feedback, which is the primary atmospheric positive feedback mechanism."
The belief that atmospheric water vapour has a positive feedback is the most unbelievable piece of nonsense ever.
All the evidence contradicts this nonsense.
Water's effect on local climates is undeniable. Water vapour does not promote higher temperatures - I will not repeat evidence for this - it is incontrovertible - every meteorological record debunks this.
Areas in the vicinity of water never attain the high temperatures of areas remote from it - this is why almost the entire Australian population lives in a coastal location.
Areas in the vicinity of water also never attain the low temperatures of areas remote from it - this is why almost the entire Australian population lives in a coastal location.
This is another Climate Science argument which simply is not supported by any REAL evidence !
"4. His description of the lapse rate seems confused. If you decrease the lapse rate while maintaining a fixed TOA temperature, that means that the surface temperature increases, and vice versa."
This is complete nonsense.
Again, what evidence is there to support any of these assertions ?
There has never been any empirical evidence to support the theory that something can "trap" its own radiation and thus increase its own temperature.
To assert there is evidence is to lie !!
What about the initial condition that lead to this fake science - the TOA radiative balance ??
The assertion that "blackbodies" heat up by radiating less - an assertion that has never been demonstrated by the way - is an oxymoron in the extreme meaning of the term.
REAL science says that radiation is caused by temperature and the hotter the higher the intensity of the radiation.
There exists a "blackbody" boundary between the Earth and the surrounding space and this will be in equilibrium with the Solar radiation, what happens below this is simply local - not that I even believe this really as we ignore the enormous quantities of energy converted to mass daily !!
Where did the evil “fossil fuels” come from ??
"5. Is g = 9.81 C/km an example of editorial lapse rate?"
No you idiot it is the dry adiabatic lapse rate. There are several lapse rates observed.
Encyclopaedia Britannica –
“The dry adiabatic lapse rate for air depends only on the specific heat capacity of air at constant pressure and the acceleration due to gravity. The dry adiabatic lapse rate for the Earth’s atmosphere equals 9.8 °C per kilometre …”
If anyone really believes that a gas with unremarkable well established properties that constitutes less than 1 gram per cubic metre of the atmosphere controls the climate and the Sun doesn't - well words fail me !
This guy is a regular at that famous den of bullshit - SkepticalScience - the place where they promte lies and delete any comment that dares to disagree.
The Solar radiation is capable of inducing high surface temperatures on the Moon - much higher than usually evidenced on Earth.
This exposes the BS that 255 K is the temperature the Earth would be without GHGs.
The second is the observed slow rate of cooling on the Moon.
If the Moon had a period of 24 hours I believe there is no room to doubt it would be much hotter than Earth !
It acts like a heat pump removing energy via conduction and convection. Add to that the effect of water and there is little of substance in this BS statement about insulating !
The space surrounding Earth cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered "cold" - it is literally awash with powerful solar radiation capable of heating planetary surfaces to over 390 K.
The only way to avoid it is to hide in the shadow of a nearby planet.
Strip away the deceptive imagery of climate science and there is not much left !
Singapore is mostly surrounded by water, which moderates the temperature. You are quite correct that evaporation and convection transport heat, and indeed do so on a global scale.
For some strange reason you seem to think that this is an argument against water vapor feedback - your comments indicate that you don't understand the WV feedback mechanism, instead you simply rely on your own imagination of what WV feedback is. You may have great faith in your own imagination, but this is not a rational way of finding out reality.
CO2 is less than 0.04% by volume - this is correct, but if you assume that a low percentage concentration automatically means it has no effect, you are wrong. Compare it with the concentration of ozone in the stratosphere, which is around 10ppm - according to your logic, it should have no effect, but stratospheric ozone absorbs almost all the UV radiation from the sun.
You claim that there is empirical evidence to support the theory that something can "trap" its own radiation - the planet Venus is the classical example of exactly that.
Temperature of the moon. The reason why the surface of the moon gets so hot in direct sunlight is because there is no convection to transport heat, the rocks are good insulators, and of course you are talking about the maximum temperature which is reached after being exposed to sunlight for two weeks continuously. You might imagine that the moon would be hotter than the earth if it had a 24-hour day, but of course this is all just in your imagination and has zero physical basis. Don't forget that the temperature on the side of the moon in shadow drops to -150 celcius. So the average temperature does indeed work out as below zero.
CO2 is only able to absorb a very narrow band of infra-red radiation, around 8% of the total radiated from the earth's surface. Orbital spectrometer readings show that these bands are full absorbed (not only by CO2), thus adding more CO2 to the atmosphere does absolutely nothing.
The fact is that whatever effect CO2 has in our climate, it has been doing so for as long as we need to be concerned with. More CO2 does not add up to more heat retained by the atmosphere, since the cup is already full.
RSS feed for comments to this post