Of Heat Engines and Refrigerators
Kevin Kilty
Weather is made possible because transfer of heat also makes available some amount of mechanical work. The view of the atmosphere being akin to a Carnot heat engine has a long history involving many famous names in atmospheric science – Sverdrup, Brunt, Oort, and Lorenz. To say that the literature around this topic is vast is an understatement.
Related views, rarely mentioned, hold the atmosphere’s working to be a refrigerator or a thermostat or even air-conditioning. WUWT guest blogger, Willis Eschenbach, often makes reference to these ideas, as he did here recently and even more recently here. The Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis belongs here, too.
Two simple models, heat engine and refrigerator, compliment one another. If, for example, one is interested in how heat transfer produces the observed weather, a heat engine is a good place to begin. If, on the other hand, one’s focus is how the atmosphere works to produce a stable climate, free of CO2 terror, then perhaps the refrigerator makes a better starting place.
Carry this idea further to realize that the atmosphere is less like a heat engine than it is like a self-acting refrigerator/dehumidifier. As Paulius and Held [1] conclude regarding dissipation of available work, in cases where convective heat transport is mostly due to the latent heat, “…convection acts more as an atmospheric dehumidifier than as a heat engine….”
Dehumidifying the air makes it more transparent to long wave radiation, some of which originates right at the surface. This acts to cool our Earth.
Observations about Heat Transport
It is common for people to think that heat is carried all the way from equator to poles. Yet, most refrigeration seems to me local, as Figure 1 shows. Averages of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) exceeds or is a large fraction of average local solar irradiance. The only exception being in the polar night where there is no solar irradiance to be had. Once heat is in motion by multiple means (ocean currents, wind, radiation) it is difficult to identify where it originated. So, my view is that most outgoing radiation occurs near where heat was absorbed and is accomplished by the characteristics of the regional weather.
Figure 1. Zonal annual mean incoming SW solar radiation against outgoing longwave IR. Modified from [2] (CC BY 3.0 DEED)
Another idea, reinforced by the near-obsession with the infrared properties of CO2, is that radiation is the predominant vertical heat transport mechanism. Figure 2 comes from Figure 1 in an WUWT essay from last December. The radiation transport is calculated using MODTRAN and the temperature/humidity structure of a mid-latitude summer atmosphere free of clouds. It illustrates clearly that vertical radiative transport calculated from the Schwarzchild transport equation using observed temperature profiles, is not adequate to explain vertical heat transport – the reason being, as explained in the essay, is that a full transport equation must satisfy the First Law of Thermodynamics and account for all transport mechanisms. The red curve of Figure 2 shows that radiation in this case accounts for less than half of net heat transport from the surface, but grows to encompass all transport toward the tropopause. The blue curve shows heat transport contributed by advection, convection, and latent heat.[3]
Figure 2, mid-latitude summer profile of upward heat transport by radiation (red curve) and other mechanisms (blue curve).
A model of heat engine and refrigerator
When people propose a heat engine model of the atmosphere, they typically draw a comparison to a Carnot engine. This is limiting for several reasons. First. because the Carnot engine is an abstraction. It is a “black-box”. It accepts heat energy input and delivers a fraction of this energy as mechanical work according to Carnot’s formula – (1-Th/Tc). It is more efficient than any real machine but contains no details about its workings. Second, the Carnot cycle imagines heat being exchanged with reservoirs. Yet, reservoirs are difficult to find. On Earth there is only one real reservoir to speak of and that is radiation to free space which is not reversible. Just identifying someplace like the Earth’s surface, or anvil of a thunderstorm as a reservoir is not convincing.
Figure 3. Blue arrows indicate refrigeration. Red arrows denote a heat engine.
Finally, the atmosphere doesn’t work like a heat engine. Three panels in Figure 3 illustrate the issue. Panel A) in the figure shows a heat engine as people usually think of one. In addition to its usual components there is a control surface which defines the system versus its surroundings. This is true whether the engine produces work, or whether it consumes work like a refrigerator or heat pump. In its typical form, the work made available by the engine travels beyond the control surface. The first law of thermodynamics then is Qc = Qh – W; and using the second law result that reversible heat exchange between two isentropes makes heat quantity proportional to absolute temperature of reservoirs produces the efficiency of the Carnot engine – n = (1-Tc/Th); or the coefficient of performance of a Carnot refrigerator – COP = Tc/(Th-Tc).
However, for the atmosphere as a whole and for most distinct weather events working within, the control volume encloses the work as in panel B). Now, there is no result as simple as the Carnot efficiency. The value of Qc depends on the final disposition of the work. Is the work dissipated to heat, or, is some destroyed in another way? Even if entirely dissipated to heat, does this add to Qc or could some be recycled back into more work?[4]
Panel C) shows an engine operating off flow work provided by some external source. Flow work includes mechanical energy. Ocean waves raised by wind provide an example. Perhaps the tornado, or forward flank downdraft of cooled air in a thunderstorm are examples too.
The concepts of heat engine and refrigerator shouldn’t be taken too literally. The atmosphere differs from a heat engine and greatly differs from a Carnot engine. A refrigerator consumes work to move heat against temperature. As a refrigerator the atmosphere moves heat from hot to cold which would occur on its own – COP is nonsensical in this case.
Calculating heat transferred
Entropy, as Clausius originally envisioned it, is simply a state variable. A differential element of a path (Tds) equals the amount of heat absorbed or gained on a small section of a (T,s) path describing a process. A very general way of showing the relationship between heat and work in a weather feature, then, is to construct a diagram showing temperature and entropy (T,s) of the air passing through.
The prescription for building this diagram is as follows: First, draw a schematic diagram showing the essential elements of a particular atmospheric phenomenon; that is, a diagram showing all substantial modifications to the working fluid. Then, at the same time, build a thermodynamic state graph from the schematic. Imagine following a representative parcel of fluid (i.e. a kilogram of moist or dry air) as it passes through the diagram. Path sections with positive Tds denote absorption of heat; negative Tds denotes rejected heat. Net of the complete path is available work; or it would be if this were an engineered machine.
Calculating S
Temperature is measured but entropy we must calculate. In my examples, I use this formula which captures most entropy changes except for entropy of mixing water vapor with dry air:
S = (Cd+Cw*r)Ln(T)-RLn(P)-r*L/273+S0 Eq. 1)
Where; Cd and Cw are heat capacities of dry air and water vapor, T is absolute temperature, P is total pressure, R is gas constant of dry air (0.287), r is mixing ratio (kg/kg), and L is latent heat of vaporization at (2495-2.5(273-T) kJ/kg).[5] S0 is a constant to set relative entropy to zero at a convenient place in T-S space.
An example: The Polar Low
The schematic diagram in Figure 2 is that of an Arctic Low. I modeled it on the description and measurements of one such storm that occurred in the Barents Sea plus a recent review article.[6] Figure 3 shows this working fluid path.
Figure 4. A cross-sectional model of a Polar Low. Air properties are provided at each of four points along the machine process path.
Start the analysis at point 1 in the figure. This is cold, dry polar air that has come off an ice sheet. Surface air temperature and dew point are -10C and -13C, respectively, which translates to a mixing ratio of 0.0006 kg/kg. This air now travels along the sea surface, probably below an inversion which aids in preventing dissipating the modifying air, picking up heat and moisture as it goes.
There is often a steep gradient of sea surface temperature in the Barents Sea at the ice edge. Some of the sea surface is as warm as 8C courtesy of the North Atlantic drift. By the time air reaches the center of the storm at point 2 it has been modified to be substantially warmer and more humid than when it left the ice edge – about 12C warmer with a mixing ratio many times as great (0.0021). This is so modified that it is buoyant and can rise through the inversion (undoubtedly gone within the storm).
On our thermodynamic diagram (Figure 3), the path (1->2) shows this modification of polar air. Path (2->3) shows the rise of moist air within the storm. It is a dry adiabatic rise for around 1200 meters, then saturated pseudo adiabatic above. I have placed the storm top around 500mb where a sounding recorded an environmental temperature of -46C. The saturation pseudo adiabat is about 3C warmer (231K), but quite dry (a mixing ratio probably less than 0.0002).
Closing the cycle
Closing the cycle of working fluid in Figure 3 is needed for two reasons. First, we need a closed path on our T-S diagram in order to calculate heat transfer and net work. Second, an open diagram would suggest air accumulating in places. Closing the diagram allows one to imagine a steady-state global atmosphere.
Air ejected from the storm top at 3 cools through radiation to space for some unknown time to eventually descend to the ice sheet again. The higher air so lacks humidity that cooling to space likely continues during the descent of air to the surface and there is radiation cooling of the surface too. Some process, perhaps sublimation of ice, adds humidity. There are no adiabatic paths to be had. Maybe, temperature declines at a rate something like 1-1.5C per day. The details don’t matter. What is required to close the cycle is that air returns to the ice surface at conditions equal to how it began. Path 3->4, then path 4->1, accomplishes this.
Figure 5. Simple calculations of the Tds path integral. Path 3->1 is speculative, but closes the cycle; that is, takes the working fluid properties from point 3 back to 1.
Results
The path 1->3 is entirely positive entropy change and therefore heat added to our engine (22.3 kJ/kg); the 3->4->1 is entirely negative and therefore heat expelled (or rejected) from our engine (19.4 kJ/kg). The net, which is the enclosed area, amounts to 2.9 kJ/kg of work made available by the machine; or that is how a person would interpret the diagram if this were a heat engine like Figure 3A. More generally a person would like to know the disposition of the 2.9kJ/kg of available work. Nonetheless, even without knowing this, interesting observations are possible.
For example, in contrast to the tropical hurricane in which ⅔ of heat input comes from latent heat; this arctic hurricane obtains only ⅓ from latent heat. The balance is from sensible heat. This polar cyclone runs on warm water transported from lower latitude. If more warm water were transported, then these cyclones would be more frequent or persist longer. The total absorbed heat during the steady state of this storm can be twice the heat input to the Nordic Seas by the North Atlantic Drift.
The dissipation of work
When we say the word “engine” what we usually mean is some contraption that produces external work. Yet, storm engines are different. They mainly serve to move heat. This one we have just analyzed takes 22.3 kJ of heat per kilogram of air flowing through it, and immediately rejects 19.4 kJ of it quickly to space. It uses the balance to run itself – to run the weather. Now, as the work output is actually contained within the control volume of Figure 3B, what becomes of it?
The short answer is that it is dissipated. But to answer this question more completely, think about the evolution of any weather event.
It begins as a small disturbance with a much smaller cycle than Figure 5. If dissipation of work at this scale is less than available work, the excess work can increase the intensity and scale of the storm. This continues until dissipation equals available work. During this steady state of the storm, which the Arctic hurricane might run for 18 hours, dissipation equals available work. As the reservoir of energy becomes depleted late in the storm life, intensity and scale decline to match available work. All work is eventually dissipated.
Here is a short list of dissipation and irreversible processes.
- Fluid friction all along the surface path raises waves and associated spray on the sea. Raising waves is easy to see as an irreversibility since wind raises waves, which are eventually dissipated, but waves cannot raise wind.
- Mechanical work is dissipated through drag of precipitation which occurs even as updrafts are operating to maintain the storm.
- Dissipation through turbulence in the updraft and in the outflow above the storm.
- Mixing (entrainment).
- Many moist processes, such as evaporation into unsaturated air, are irreversible.
- Radiation heat transfer over a finite temperature difference.
What matters in the limit is that all of the heat input to the working fluid is rejected and that air is dehumidified. The most common winter condition over the central Arctic Ocean, occurring during some 13% of weather conditions, Nygård, et al, refer to as circulation type 10.[7] It consists of the strongest and most persistent high pressures, a water content that is low, with subsidence and warming of the air, while surface radiation cools the air from below. It is coincidental with high latent and sensible heat transfer from the North Atlantic drift. Perhaps Figure 5 explains this condition.
Another example: Boundary Layer in Fair Weather
Figure 6. The outlines of an invisible column of rising air capped by a small cumulus cloud.
Renno and Williams [8] made measurements in dry-air convection over open ground near Albuquerque in 1993. They employed a remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) to stay within rising air parcels to make measurements. Rising parcels maintained a potential temperature 1C higher than descending parcels. The data were noisy because of both a tendency of the RPV to drift outside a parcel and noisiness of the instrumentation. Near the ground surface readings became increasingly variable, but there was a distinct group of measurements with a temperature about 6C above that of a rising parcel. This presumably was a superadiabatic layer at the ground surface.
Air parcels rose and fell 3.4m/s and 1.7m/s respectively, suggesting through mass conservation a 2:1 ratio of updraft to subsidence area. Mixing ratio of the updraft near ground was 0.0095 and declined to 0.009 at 800m altitude perhaps from entrainment. The downdraft approached the surface with a mixing ratio of 0.0091, although there is substantial variation in this data. Pressure is probably 835mb at ground surface (1600m).
There is simply not enough information about the atmosphere above flight level of the RPV to figure the relationship between rising and falling parcels. However, the point of this essay is that the heat absorbed at high temperature is equal to that rejected by the sum total of all operations of the refrigerator/dehumidifier. We focus, then, on heat absorbed.
Figure 7 shows (1->2) that absorbed heat is 3.4 kJ/kg. Without being able to close the diagram the net available work is unknown but probably very small because of small temperature differences. Even if only 1%, though, it amounts to 34J/kg which is sufficient to generate buoyancy and account for kinetic energy of 7.5 J/kg.
Figure 7. T-s diagram of mixing air in a descending parcel with air in the superadiabatic layer near the ground surface.
By mixing 17% of air in the superadiabatic layer with 83% of air in a descending parcel, we conserve mass, enthalpy and moisture to end up with air exactly like that at point 3. The rate of heat absorbed far exceeds what is required to remove solar insolation from the surface in this instance. The entity that is not conserved in this mixing is entropy. It increases because of this mixing. I figure this value as 1.5 J/KgK, which sounds small, but when multiplied by a dead-state temperature (around 300K) becomes 0.45 Kj of lost potential work. What this means is that one-half kilojoule of additional work would have been available for more vigorous convection if the mixing of air had been done in a reversible manner. The 1.5 J/kgK of increased entropy has to be exported to space eventually.
Climate change
Nowadays, the twenty-four thousand dollar question is: “How does this relate to climate change?” I will offer two views from the literature.
On the one hand Renno and Ingersoll formulated a model of fraction of Earth surface covered by convection cells.[9] They conclude that a climate warming will increase the intensity of updrafts, but areal coverage decreases, meaning the region of slowly descending dry air then increases. I haven’t analyzed how convincing this argument is, but it certainly sounds like the negative feedback of the adaptive iris.[10]
On the other hand, F. LaLiberte, et al, built an ambitious T-S diagram for the general circulation and concluded that the intensity of the hydrological cycle in warmer climates might limit the heat engine’s ability to generate work.[11] My reading of their supplementary materials showed meticulous completeness and attention to details. Nevertheless one cannot escape these observations: 1) the baseline and future forecast depends on a climate model (CESM) using RCP4.5, 2) the effect itself is small, amounting to 1% of available work per century in the presence of larger interannual noise, and perhaps most significantly 3) the baseline comparison between the climate model and MERRA reanalysis showed discrepancies attributed to parameterization of atmospheric convection.[12] They refer to this as the water in the gas problem. However, latent heat of water is so large that Rankine cycle plants show better efficiency with some water in their gas (i.e. outlet steam quality of 92%), and the weather can’t possibly run in any other way.
Conclusion
The atmosphere is less a heat engine than a collection of many self-running refrigerators/dehumidifiers operating in different ways to carry heat largely from surface to tropopause locally and the balance from equator to poles. An important, but perhaps underappreciated, effect of dehumidification is to make the atmosphere broadly more amenable to cooling by LWIR.
References:
1- Olivier Pauluis and Isaac M. Held, Entropy Budget of an Atmosphere in Radiative–Convective Equilibrium. Part I: Maximum Work and Frictional Dissipation, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences,Volume 59: Issue 2, Jan 2002, Page(s): 125–139
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059<0125:EBOAAI>2.0.CO;2
2-Salzmann, Marc. (2017). The polar amplification asymmetry: role of Antarctic surface height. Earth System Dynamics. 8. 323-336. 10.5194/esd-8-323-2017.
3- An occasional visitor to WUWT, pdquondam, in his essay “HBC_model.pdf” caused me to think of this graph.
4-Hewitt, McKenzie, and Weiss, 1975 Dissipative heating in convective flows, J. Fluid Mech., v. 68, part 4, 721-738.
5-There are other minor terms omitted involved in mixing water vapor with dry air. In addition, the process must have reached steady state and there isn’t strict conservation of mass in the cycle because of condensed water or snow carried in the air flow.
6-See for example: Rasmussen, E, 1985, A case study of a polar low development over the Barents Sea, Tellus, 37A, 407-418, Or Emanuel, K, and Rotunno, R, 1989, Polar Lows as Arctic Hurricanes, Tellus, 41A, 1-17, and Marta Moreno-Ibanez, Rene Laprise, and Philippe Gachon, Recent advances in polar low research: current knowledge, challenges and future perspectives, Tellus A: 2021, 73, 1890412, https://doi.org/10.1080/16000870.2021.1890412
7- Tiina Nygård, Michael Tjernström and Tuomas Naakka, Winter thermodynamic vertical structure in the Arctic atmosphere linked to large-scale circulation, Weather Clim. Dynam., 2, 1263–1282, 2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-1263-2021
8-Renno and Williams Quasi-lagrangian measurements in convective boundary layer plumes and their implications for the calculation of CAPE, 1995, Mon. Weather Rev., September, 2733.
9-Nilton Renno, Andrew Ingersoll, Natural convection as a heat engine:a theory for CAPE,
J atmos sci, v 53, n.4, 572
10-Lindzen, Chou, and Hou, Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Iris? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol 82, no. 3, March 2001.
11-Constrained work output of the moist atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate
F. LaLiberte , et al, SCIENCE, 30 Jan 2015, Vol 347, Issue 6221, pp. 540-543
DOI: 10.1126/science.125710
12-Parameterization of processes that should be based on physics is the Achilles heel of modeling; creating energy ex nihilo, destroying entropy in the universe, or masking forbidden features – all bad. See, for example, Jay D. Schieber and Markus Hutter, Multiscale modeling, beyond equilibrium, Physics Today, March 2020, p.36.
Great work. A big Clap-eyron to K. Kilty.
Good pun!
Good article.
“The atmosphere is less a heat engine than a collection of many self-running refrigerators/dehumidifiers operating in different ways to carry heat largely from surface to tropopause locally and the balance from equator to poles. An important, but perhaps underappreciated, effect of dehumidification is to make the atmosphere broadly more amenable to cooling by LWIR.”
I think of refrigerators and dehumidifiers as simply alternate implementations of a heat engine cycle. The climate system employs the atmosphere as the working fluid, including water vapor, to accomplish its overall task of converting absorbed heat to just enough motion and radiative dissipation to space.
Agree, though I would place emphasis on the water-water vapor-precipitation cycle to transfer energy surface-to-tropopause, and add the ocean currents as a useful working fluid in equator-to-pole transfer.
Good points.
This polar cyclone runs entirely on heat taken to the Arctic by ocean currents. Collectively, these may be the essential element in the winter gatekeeper.
Atmospheric meridional heat transfer from the tropics is significantly greater than oceanic currents. At 35 degrees north only 20% is oceanic. At very high latitudes almost all of the heat transfer is atmospheric:
https://oceanwiki.ethz.ch/doku.php?id=lecture1:heattransport
While direct transfer of heat by convection of air away from the tropics is big, another significant factor in the atmospheric heat transfer is the heat pump effect of storms that release massive amounts of heat into the atmosphere in the mid-latitudes as a result of the phase change of water. I think a water-cooled engine is the best analogy, where the engine is the tropical oceans that are cooled by evaporation. The steam is pumped away from the tropics by convectional wind currents, and the condensation release of heat away from the equator is the radiator.
David, when I was putting this together I was thinking of the many posts you have made pointing out the rather large fluxes of LWIR upwelling from clear areas of the globe. Clear sky with dry air radiates quite a lot from the surface — ballistic transport I would call it.
Yes, and those “rather large fluxes” are contrasted with the comparatively weak fluxes (~1/10th of the strong fluxes) from cloud tops. This helps clarify that the so-called “greenhouse effect” – i.e., the suppression of just enough OLR to maintain favorable conditions down here – is primarily accomplished by the dynamic formation and dissipation of clouds.
“to maintain favorable conditions down here – is primarily accomplished by the dynamic formation and dissipation of clouds”
What accurate global average cloud data do you have to prove that theory is correct?
“What accurate global average cloud data do you have to prove that theory is correct”
ANS: Power of observation. The presence and albescence of clouds. The Presence and absence of rain when there are clouds. The fact that there is not a cloud in the sky or wind in the air and moments latera cloud appears and there is a significant rainfall with no wind and the rain falls straight down.
That was a nothingburger comment
“What accurate global average cloud data do you have to prove that theory is correct?”
Nice to hear from you, Richard!
Why do you ask for an average, when the answer is readily given by observing the scene directly?
Please consider spending some time “watching” the dynamic emitter operate in the “CO2 Longwave IR” band.
Some help is pasted here from another recent comment.
**************
Radiance vs “Brightness Temperature”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qy4QnSkaJZeLIeC4R7-600ZuctPEUwaz/view?usp=sharing
The significance of Band 16 to the computed incremental static warming effect of 2XCO2.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/175qnVngPPfZJKUPUH13u6t5wolTBl0qi/view?usp=sharing
7-day time lapse of Band 16 visualizations from GOES East for the full disk of the planet. In my opinion, this is one of the best ways to counter the “basic physics” line of misdirected persuasion.
https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
**************
And here is a still image from today, from GOES East.
What you do not have is a measurement of the global average of solar radiation blocked by clouds or the upwelling radiation blocked by clouds
Brightness, and percentage of cloudiness too, are inaccurate proxies for actual radiation blocked by clouds.
A change of SO2 emissions, and other air pollution, changes the amount of sunlight that reaches Earth’s surface. How is that distinguished from the effects of cloud changes?
GOES carry two types of imagers: One measures the amount of visible light from the sun that Earth’s surface or clouds reflect back into space. The second measures the infrared energy that Earth’s surface and clouds radiate back to space. Because GOES can sense infrared radiation, they can operate at night.
GOES-16 has provided continuous imagery and atmospheric measurements of Earth’s Western Hemisphere, total lightning data, and space weather monitoring, providing critical atmospheric, hydrologic, oceanic, climatic, solar and space data, since November 2016
NOAA does not use their GOES weather satellites to make the same conclusions you allegedly use their data to make.
Why should we trust you, and believe NOAA is deliberately ignoring the data from their own satellites?
Hi Richard,
“Why should we trust you…”
You should not trust me. It’s not about me. The Band 16 visualizations to which I refer show how it works. I made no claim beyond what is readily apparent by watching the dynamic operation.
“Brightness, and percentage of cloudiness too, are inaccurate proxies for actual radiation blocked by clouds.”
The ABI imager detects radiance. There is an equation in the user manual by which the Band 16 radiance values are converted to a “brightness temperature.” These “brightness temperature” values are then applied to generate the visualized images using a color scale. What clouds do to IR flux reaching the detector in space (i.e. the radiance) is therefore visualized using a fixed mathematical conversion. Nothing to do with any kind of “proxy.” I gave you a plot of radiance vs “brightness temperature.”
“NOAA does not use their GOES weather satellites to make the same conclusions you allegedly use their data to make.”
I give great credit to NOAA for making their visualizations public. The scientific validity of their imaging is not in question here. If the powers that be at NOAA wish to push the attribution of reported warming to incremental CO2 (and other non-condensing GHGs), even as their own products show that attribution to be fundamentally unsound, then that’s on them.
Your other points are irrelevant to the concept I stated, to which you apparently object.
Be well.
Just for comparison to the IR Band 16 still image I posted, here is a “geocolor” image at the same time. This shows the clouds as if viewed by eye.
One shouldn’t forget the “rather large flux” of SW reflected to outer space by cloud tops when you talk about the low IR flux from cloud tops.
Thanks. SW reflection is not forgotten in terms of the multiple processes involved in the amazing climate system. But I want to focus here on the active control of longwave emission to space.
Water vapor is doing the exact same thing that the NG/Propane powered refrigerators used today have been doing for decades. The heat transfer throughout the Globe is using the same principle. Strange that Envirowhacos are not aware of and/or are ignoring this.
Back in the 50’s when I worked on the Railroad as a helper in the summers the caboose had a refrigerator that was powered by a “Smudge Pot” * the flame heated a reservoir filled with Ammonia. The vaporized gas would then pass through an orifice causing cooling in the fridge then pass through the coil on the back of the fridge, turn back into a liquid and repeat. No need for power to pump the refrigerant.
The refrigerant is pumped by pressure difference , the power is the rate of thermal energy production from combustion.
Darn, Eq. 1 has a typo, That 273 in the denominator should be a T. However, the results differ only in the fourth decimal place. I did actually use T in the calculations, but even erroneously using 273 would matter not all that much because most temperatures in the examples are close to 273.
Doesn’t that tell you something about the requirement to measure the “anomaly” of the GAT to the nearest one thousandth of a degree C?
Anomalies are not measured, they are calculated from measurements whose resolution doesn’t support anomalies in the hundredths digit let alone the thousandth digit.
I can’t but always think in terms of the 1st and 2nd laws of Thermodynamics when it comes to climate stuff ! Excellant article though.
Kevin,
Please add units to kg/kg mixing ratio.
Some of your audience may not be familiar with enthalpy, adiabatic, Carnot, etc., so notes need to be added for clarity to attract/inform a wider audience.
Otherwise, a great contribution to understanding.
The weather and retained energy control knob is water vapor, which the IPCC, EPA, etc., do not list as a greenhouse gas.
They, for political purposes, claim CO2 is the control knob, which is totally absurd.
See URLs
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
Your point about units is a good one. I did mention in the explanation of Eq. 1 that of mixing ratio in particular because it is often stated as g/kg.
g water vapor/kg dry air is the correct expression
from that ppm is easily determined
2.5 g WV/ kg dry air is (2.5/18)/(1000/29) = 0.004028 = 4028 ppm
Oh,Oh! CO2 is usually given as ppmv, while you have calculated ppm by weight. Not the same, is it?
I converted the weight to mol fraction, then to ppm
“The weather and retained energy control knob is water vapor, which the IPCC, EPA, etc., do not list as a greenhouse gas.”
That is false
The IPCC guestimates that most of the warming in the next few centuries will be from a water vapor positive feedback amplifying the modest warming effect of CO2 alone.
They probably use the common theory of a 7% increase in average atmospheric water vapor with each +1 degree C. increase of the average troposphere temperature.
They correctly claim water vapor is a dependent variable, not a direct cause of global warming.
The main problem is inaccurate attempts to calculate global average water vapor make it impossible to verify the 7% theory of the Clausius–Clapeyron relation.
What we have are a huge range of guesses about the water vapor positive feedback, ranging from zero to a 7x amplification of CO2 warming. No one is willing to say “We don’t know”.
Which is bonkers on a hobbyhorse! If you don’t know the amount of moisture, you know diddly about whether the heat content is increasing or decreasing. Are you going to make me pull out my psychrometric chart just to supply some numbers to show you that under many conditions, a lower sensible temperature can have a greater heat content, entirely due to the amount of water vapor in the air?
A 110 °F day in Phoenix, AZ can have less moisture content than a 90 °F day in Orlando, FL. The total heat content of the air in Phoenix can by 40% less than Orlando. Atmospheric temperature is not a measure atmospheric heat content.
“Atmospheric temperature is not a measure atmospheric heat content.”
And it is heat content that is a big contributor to climate. The word usually used to describe heat content is “enthalpy”.
Arizona friend
“It’s 110 degrees today, but it’s dry heat, not like in Miami, Florida”
Me
“Do you go outside in such heat?”
Arizona friend
“Of course not”
The heat content, aka enthalpy, equations of air and WV contain t as C, and of CO2 contain t as K
In my articles, I show, the atmosphere enthalpy increase is about 9200 EJ, because I assumed t increased from 14.8 at end 1900 to 16 C at end 2023
Whatever the t increase, the increase in enthalpy can be calculated
That about 8% enthalpy increase , will have weather effects, such as increased evaporation and precipitation, which is needed to support the increased greening of the world, due to CO2 at 296 ppm end 1900 increasing to 421 ppm end 2023.
You need to be sedated
Not a closed system like a greenhouse.
A greenhouse isn’t a closed system, there are inputs to it such as the sun, irrigation of some sort, and CO2 input, usually internal in winter and spring, and external from vents in summer and fall.
.Closed terrariums — if given perfect conditions — can thrive on their own forever. Planted and sealed inside closed vessels, the added soil, plants, and water produce their own little ecosystem, recycling the water, moisture, and humidity inside their glass worlds
Very nice post. I had to dust off that portion of my brain to remember the equations. It would be interesting to get better data from the second experiment with the very common rising of parcels of warm humid air to form a cloud. While GCMs still would not be able to model this from first principles, at least their parameterization of the process would become more accurate.
Almost all work generated in a normal Carnot cycle like a power plant is eventually converted to heat where the work is performed. For an automobile, the work the engine provides is converted into heat by the friction with the air or rolling friction in the tires. For electricity in a house, lights all convert electrical energy into light which becomes thermal energy as it is absorbed by the surfaces in your house. The air conditioner also turns the work of the compressor into heat. Electric ranges and dryers also. Examples of work not being converted entirely into heat is when it is turned into chemical energy (making a particular chemical from raw materials) or potential energy.
All true. If you think about the weather, especially the updraft in precipitating storms, the dissipation of work occurs coincident, I mean smack-dab in the middle, with processes producing the work. For general Qc=Qh, making the Carnot formula nonsensical.
Must read
Germany admits heating regulation a test to see what society would put up with
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/german-minister-admits-ruinous-home?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=268621&post_id=144992238&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=rbtcp&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
One has to admit that our elites, as a group, there are notable exceptions, do a lot of good in society — charity, sitting on non-profit boards, making wealth, etc. However, elites often also take societies to destruction. I gave a talk at our state GOP convention about a month ago. My talk was about the challenges to maintaining reliable and affordable electrical energy with current efforts to redesign everything, and I related the story about the Scottish elite c. 1690 who decided they needed a colony just like other European powers. The Darien colony was a sink for the nation’s wealth — wealth died fighting the Spanish and Yellow fever. Was probably the biggest single reason for the union with England in 1707. Elites = destroyed independent Scotland.
England became much better at international exploitation/trade than Scotland.
It had more capital, more ships, more manpower, larger armed forces.
Some of the Scotland elites wanted to be part of that bigger picture, the reason they sold the Independence of Scotland to England.
Many of the freedom-loving Scots moved to the English Colonies in Virginia, etc.
Many signed the Declaration of Independence, because they wanted the UK out of their new US
We need more of such Patriots to defend our open borders
With the declining birth rates, companies need more workers so they are welcoming hard-working immigrants.
Along with the 80% that are here for the welfare – not work. And the 10% that are here to destroy (whether on the small scale as common criminals, or the large scale as terrorists).
We may need the 10% – but not the 90%.
We can always welcome hard-working, honest people.
What we don’t welcome are criminals, terrorists and the insane.
We must vet them in their own country, before we give them permission to enter the US.
I also had to have a sponsor who would be financially responsible, so I would not be a burden to the government
That how I entered the US from the Netherlands in 1955
Water vapor is doing the exact same thing that the NG/Propane powered refrigerators have been doing for decades. Back in the 50’s when I worked on the Railroad as a helper in the summers the caboose had a refrigerator that was powered by a “Smudge Pot” * the flame heated a reservoir
Interesting aren’t they? People can hardly believe that a refrigerator can run on a source of heat. The trouble with absorption refrigerators is their very poor COP. You need a very cheap source of heat.
My camper had a propane gas refrig.
Mine as well. And 110 volt, and 12 volt. But new RV’s and travel trailers are more and more equipped with high efficiency, 12 volt compression fridges. Mine pulls ~400 watts on 110 volts, and ~300 watts with the more marginal 12 volt, to heat up the ammonia mix. A modern compressor replacement would pull less than 100 watts. The current run of lithium battery packs can run them for a day+, and solar can provide most of the energy in toto, depending on this and that. When mine flips and burns, I’m switching.
The first, second hand, refrigerator we had when we were first married was an gas fridge possibly an Electrolux. Compared to electrical versions, then and now, it was totally silent.
I can’t remember how it was connected to the supply.
When they explained to me how the inside was made cold by heating it with a flame and not electricity I thought they were feeding me B/S.
A most enjoyable/informative read. Thanks for including work in your discussion.
I wanted to keep this article to less than 3,500 words because otherwise they just absorb too much of peoples’ time. But there are lots of extraneous topics to touch upon. One thing that I found surprising was how much excess surface cooling is available even in circumstances as gentle as the thermals in fair weather. Probably only about 20% of the surface has a convection cell (updraft/downdraft) operating over it at any one time. And it is run by very little available work.
The atmosphere is a heat engine/refrigerator, and it works like this. When the lapse rate is less than the DALR (about 9.8 K/km), when air is forced to rise by turbulence, it expands and cools adiabatically as pressure reduces. The cooling rate is basically the DALR. With this greater than the lapse rate, the air becomes cooler and denser than the neighboring air, and so work is done pushing it higher. That comes from the KE of the wind. Work is done to transfer “cold” upwards – ie heat downwards, against the temperature gradient. It is a heat pump.
What goes up must come down – the descending air compresses and warms faster than the lapse rate. It is then warmer than ambient, and buoyant. Work is done to force it down, again taking KE from the wind. This transfers heat downward. Both the up and down motions transfer heat down. This is how a lapse rate can be maintained against the normal tendency of heat to flow down a temperature gradient.
This explains why air with lapse rate less than DALR is convectively stable. Sure, air warmed by some land feature rises, but rising costs in kinetic energy, and doesn’t get far.
The picture switches when the lapse rate exceeds DALR. Rising air cools more slowly than ambient, and so becomes more buoyant. It gains kinetic energy, but is warmer on arrival, so has transferred heat upward. Same with downward motion. It is a heat engine. The air is convectively unstable. But the heat transfer tends to lower rthe lapse rate.
These are the mechanisms that tend to maintain the lapse rate at about the DALR. It is lower because the “adiabatic” movement is leaky, especially with condensation tending to counter its effect.
In no way does anything I say deny the fact that sufficient work can move heat against its spontaneous tendency from hot to cold. In fact, I specifically mentioned, with what is called flow work which includes mechanical energy plus internal energy, that many weather elements probably operate just so.
I have a good friend who reached 18,000 feet on a hang glider and 37,000 feet in a sailplane. How he do it? Well he rode thermals to a fairly high elevation first, and in the case of the sailplane managed to then reach a wave cloud above Boulder.
This idea that thermals can’t get very far ’cause they dissipate work maybe needs a bit of revision. I have seen thermals, in the form of intense dust devils, reach levels of at least 300m carrying a heavy dust load; and probably higher but the dust was centrifuged/settled out and put an end to my ability to follow it. No condensation of water vapor at all — just heat derived from the surface. The dust devils probably consumed a fair amount of work to act as they did, but the thermals I illustrated required very little.
I know there is plenty of K.E. in the atmosphere, but it comes from some place, and that some place is available work from heat transport. Once you get into a loop of explaining heat transport downward using K.E. but then explaining K.E. as coming from heat transport you’ll likely get into trouble with thermodynamics someplace.
I do not need an explanation about lapse rates. I can calculate them just fine. Have a look at Figure 2. It shows from data that a large component of convective/latent heat is required to explain the total transfer of heat up to 10km — the Schwatzchild Eq. can’t explain it, wasn’t even meant to.
Not fair Kevin –
your evidence based on real-world experiences and observations is immediately negated by academic controlled-environment experiments and (even better) – models.
Get with the “settled science”, man!
“Once you get into a loop of explaining heat transport downward using K.E. but then explaining K.E. as coming from heat transport you’ll likely get into trouble with thermodynamics someplace.”
No, the driving KE comes from a heat engine on a different scale. The best example is the Hadley cell. Air rises near the equator – combination of heat and water vapor buoyancy. It travels high to a colder place, descends, and the air returns as trade winds.
“This idea that thermals can’t get very far ’cause they dissipate work maybe needs a bit of revision.”
Yes, it does. The main thing quenching them is the cooling effect I referred to.As they rise, with the lapse rate less than DALR, they lose their warmth relative to the environment. How far they get, depends on the initial temperature differential, and the extent to which the lapse rate is less than DALR. If lapse rate equals DALR, it would not be quenched.
I agree with you that things can operate differently on different scales. That is why in the essay I stated “operating in different ways to carry heat largely from surface to tropopause locally and the balance from equator to poles.”
It is also why I used two examples at extremely different scales. If you want to tell me that thermals in the boundary layer cannot reach 300 meters, 800 meters, or even higher. Then there is a world of observations contrary to what you insist is so.
The thermals can be ridden in by dust, birds, sailplanes, RPVs. Renno and Williams followed the thermal with RPV to 800m. The measurements show air rising is warmer than the air descending nearby. This is exactly opposite what you insist is a transport of heat from a cooler to warmer place using K.E. from the general circulation. And, by the way, what is the general circulation other than the composite of every atmospheric motion and weather event on smaller scales?
Are you trying to tell me that thunderstorms do not run themselves, but rather are parasitic on the K.E. of the Ferrel cell? Really? My sailplane friend got caught in the updraft of a thunderhead and while diving as hard as he could still has his rise rate indicator pegged at 1,500 ft/min. Sure, the big outbreaks of thundershowers are aided by surface convergence or the occurrence of a dry line, but where I live, and Willis describes things very similarly, it takes the summer sun to stir things to action.
How it does so? I’m working on that.
” If you want to tell me that thermals in the boundary layer cannot reach 300 meters, 800 meters, or even higher.”
No. I quoted no such numbers.But you can work it out. If the lapse rate is 7 K/km, and DALR is 10 K/km, then air that leaves the surface 3K warmer than surrounds will lose that excess at height 1000m. Then it works against gravity to go higher, so slows down.
If the lapse rate is 9 K/km, it can rise to 3 km. It can happen, but such thermals are not easy to find.
I understand lapse rates fine, Nick, so i don’t need the tutorial and I would agree with you if all there was was a parcel with a tiny bit of K.E. in an environment lapse rate of 7-10 C/km; but that’s not all there is, and I am sayin’ no more until I have thought it all out.
Even the infra red heat radiated to space?
What came down must go up.
Like the world’s temperatures after the last ice age?
We’ve been telling you this for ever Nick.
Sheesh – talk about slow on the uptake 🙂
And light gases can be lost to space. Venus has no water vapor, CH4 or even much N2 but has heavier CO2 which causes high temperatures through pressure at the surface. Titan has CH4 in the atmosphere.
Please explain how rivers of water, carrying more water than the Amazon river and almost a long get high up into the atmosphere at the level of jet streams.
Water vapor is about 3/5 the density of air.
It’s called “Isentropic flow” ….
https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/clouds/Isentropic_Analysis/ISENTROPIC_LIFTING.htm#:~:text=An%20isentropic%20process%20is%20an,5a%20and%205b).
”Warm air resists undercutting cold air. To stay at the same density (by preserving potential temperature) it must override the cold air. The depth of cool air on the cool side of a warm front generally increases moving to the north of the surface warm front boundary. As warm air advects over colder air, it advects to a higher altitude above sea level as it moves north of the warm front boundary. The warm, less dense air rises gradually in the vertical as it overrides the sloping cold dense air (less potential temperature air). It must do this to stay at the same potential temperature (same relative density). This is why warm fronts tend to bring widespread light to moderate precipitation.
The uplift is at a lower angle than uplift that is generally associated with cold fronts and thermodynamic thunderstorms. You will often come across this complicated concept when reading NWS forecast discussions. Terms that they will mention that relate to this concept include (theta surface, potential temperature surface, isentropic upglide, differential advection, and density perturbation). For another explanation of this process of isentropic lifting (and diagrams) see Chuck Doswell’s article at:
(the) “effect of dehumidification is to make the atmosphere broadly more amenable to cooling by LWIR.”
Please explain what that means in simple English
The long term CO2 scaremongering is mainly based on a water vapor positive feedback — more water vapor in a warmer troposphere — amplifying the greenhouse effect of CO2 alone by some amount. The IPCC claims to know the amount — they claim to know a range.
You seem to be talking about dehumidification while the IPCC is talking about humidification.
Are you claiming the water vapor positive feedback theory is false?
Richard, have a look at reference 10. The infrared iris is predicated on the exceptional dryness of the air in large regions of subsidence, such as the subtropics.
However, consider that you reduce the total volume water by about 10%, uniformly, and calculate the transmissivity of the air volume surface to 10km for polar air (which is already not very humid) and you’ll find it increases the transmission by about 2%. In the up and down of radiation transport surface to air and back again (the greenhouse effect) when radiation lands on the surface it is thermalized again and some of it is now in the open window even if it was absorbed by CO2 in the air. This radiation now escapes completely. An extra 2% helps substantially.
The original question
‘Are you claiming the water vapor positive feedback theory is false?’
I was hoping for a yes or no answer.
I will also accept “I don’t know” as a suitable answer to a simple question.
Einstein would say”
“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
I am often compared with Eistein.
My wife often says: “You’re no Einstein.”
OK smart guy here is another answer. There is some positive feedback if you consider only water vapor. I have doubt about it being equal to what you will often hear this 7% figure as Clausius-Clapeyron scaling. But Clausius-Clapeyron is an equilibrium relationship. The atmosphere is not in equilibrium and its moisture burden is dependent on transport processes — it’s what Dibbell is saying. If I had to guess, then I would say the geometric increase of Clausius-Clapeyron is too much. I would say draw a tangent line to the water vapor curve, I.e. linearize it. Now add in clouds and other dynamics, and who knows? I don’t.
The inaccurate global absolute average water vapor percentage seemed to support the 7% theory from 1980 to 2000 but not from 2000 to 2023, which was not expected.
Relative humidity had a decreasing trend since 1980, which was also not expected,
It is still reasonable to believe there is some water vapor positive feedback. But Earth fights warming with more evaporation and more OLR. Two negative feedbacks to the water vapor positive feedback. There may be a delay before the negative feedbacks stop the progress of the after vapor positive feedback. But something must stop the positive feedback, even if “we don’t know what” is the best answer today.
I mention the positive water vapor feedback because it is the PRIMARY variable that converts harmless AGW into potentially dangerous catastrophic warming.
The world has had a warming rate of +0,3 degrees C. per decade since 2007 — that is the average prediction of a catastrophic warming rate since 1979.
If the +0.3 degrees C. per decade warming rate continues, the Climate Howlers will be in a “We told you so” mode, and the climate debate may be over.
I took a thermodynamics course in the early 1970s and did not enjoy it. Your article should have been a lot shorter and simpler for the general public. It also seemed to be more about weather than climate, but that may be because I have remembered so little about thermodynamics from my class over 50 years ago. I can barely remember the college was the Rochester Institute of Technology.
There is no “water vapor positive feedback” because there is no warming from CO2.
CO2 induces increased evaporation all by itself. This cools the surface which negates the small additional warming from absorbing energy at the edges of the 15 nm bands.
The is now essentially a proven fact from this graph provide by bnice …
and the NOAA data on high atmospheric RH.
I think that the answer to your question is found in Willis Eschenbach’s post ‘Rainergy’ that was posted on WUWT five days ago.
Based on Figure 5 of Willis’s post, it would appear that water vapor feedback is temperature dependent. It is a positive feedback at sea surface temperatures below 26C, and becomes highly negative at sea surface temperatures above 26 C.
One must keep in mind that the vapor pressure of water is highly temperature dependent, doubling for every 10C increase in water temperature.
It makes no sense to me now, or then, that a warmer ocean would evaporate less than a colder ocean. Either Willie E, was wrong, or the data were wrong, or both were wrong.
The warming of the oceans contains another risk: positive feedback loops. For example: when the rate of evaporation on the ocean surface increases, it produces more water vapor, which causes temperatures to rise, which causes the rate of evaporation to increase.
Although water can evaporate at low temperatures, the rate of evaporation increases as the temperature increases. This makes sense because at higher temperatures, more molecules are moving faster; therefore, it is more likely for a molecule to have enough energy to break away from the liq
A refrigerator uses and externally applied energy source to force a heat flow against the natural direction.
I don’t see how this can be compared to a natural, uninterrupted flow determined by natural forces and feedbacks.
Remove heat from the surface — refrigerates it. As I said, “Don’t take the analogy too far.”
The Earth uses an externally applied energy source, too – the Sun. Have you been outside at noon lately?
Wrong there is no forced flow of heat. Heat flows via the 2nd law of thermodynamics from the warmer internal space of the refrigerator to the colder refrigerant fluid in the larger tubes where it has expanded from the very small tubes in which the liquid refrigerant collects after the gas is cooled by radiation. The compressor acts in three ways 1/ to compress the refrigerant gas to a pressure where it will liquify at temperature a little above room temperature 2/ the movement of the liquid and gas through the tubes 3/ to create a vacuum to allow the liquid refrigerant to evaporate. Each point of heat transfer complies with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Any properly qualified chemical or mechanical engineer can tell you that. Refrigeration is engineering from experience and building units. An Australian James Harrison was one of the first in about 1856 for the transport of frozen meat. It has nothing to do with scientists. Expansion of the atmosphere is one reason from the lapse rate as well as gravity causing increasing pressure closer to the surface through the weight of the atmosphere (same applies on Venus where the atmosphere has a greater depth than Earth and hence higher temperature at the surface)
Let me offer the suggestion, the other reservoir (the warm one) is the ocean. Yes, we labeled them 7 seas and etc., but really it’s all connected (with the exception of exceptional places like the Great Salt Lake and the Dead Sea and etc., but those are minor exceptions) into one huge body of water, which makes one huge heat reservoir. While we talk about the deep ocean having a temperature of something around 4°C, compared to the Black Body of space, that’s really warm, and the surface temperature is on average warmer, without exceeding 30°C.
But recall that the definition of a reservoir is that it can supply or accept unlimited heat without altering its temperature. The heat exchange is reversible — i.e. zero entropy generation. The real ocean surface temperature changes as storms, hurricanes in particular, pass by absorb heat and stir water. I am going to guess that the reason these polar cyclones run for only 15-18 hours is they exhaust the easily accessible heat in the Nordic Seas during that time. The oceans contain a huge supply of heat for sure, but the weather can’t get to it without generating entropy.
Heat transfer is not reversible. It always complies with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Engineering in refrigeration and liquefaction of gases (such as LNG, LPG, oxygen nitrogen etc) provides through power the conditions such as compression, radiation, convection, vacuum for evaporation etc to allow heat transfer complying with the 2nd law of thermodynamics (an engineering subject which clearly nearly all scientists have no understanding)
To quote my thermodynamics book “Reversible processes actually do not occur in nature.”
Exactly what Planck found.
It is going to take a while to digest this one.
A beautiful piece of work, Kevin. I’m an engineer and geologist in the mining industry so you may be justified in downgrading my compliment a little. I judge quality outside my expertise by readability, attention to detail, and logical argument. Stuff that you need to estimate is done without handwaving. Actually, until I read your work I had no idea that climate science had developed such a rich trove of data to work with.
There is hardly any long wave radiation to space from high cloud tops, it is the low cloud tops, cloud free warm ocean surfaces and desert surfaces.
Check the thermal infrared GOES imagery.
Yes water drops and ice particles in clouds do absorb radiation from the surface but the top of clouds radiate to space otherwise clouds would rapidly disappear in daylight hours from the sun. Clouds are complex and all modelers do not understand the processes which are engineering.
In Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics there are 5 Postulates, Postulate 1 defines energy forms, Postulate 2 is the 1st law of Thermodynamics, Postulate 3 defines entropy Postulate 4 is the Second law of Thermodynamics stated in terms of entropy. Postulate 5 is “The macroscopic properties of homogeneous PVT systems at internal equilibrium can be expressed as a function of temperature, pressure and composition only.
The most important part of refrigeration (also liquefaction of gases) is the application of postulate 5 through expansion of refrigerant fluids. The expansion reduce the temperature of the refrigerant to less than the temperature in the body of the refrigerator or freezer.. The lapse rate (reduction of temperature away from the surface) is the reason that everywhere above the surface it is colder than the surface. Winds can transport rising air to other parts but the effect is not large -hot air from the tropics does not get to polar areas and cold polar air do not get to the tropics. There is a gradient of temperature from the poles to the equator. Clouds can affect the rising of air through localised movement to cause inversion but this is minor over valleys or associated with mountains and tends not to last long.
The second point in refrigeration is the evaporation the of the refrigerant due to the creation of a vacuum at the entrance to the compressor or the dissolution of ammonia refrigerant in water. This is an important part of the removal of heat. I have had it confirm by chat GPT at the second law of thermodynamics applies at every point of heat transfer.
Finally, Modtran is a model which does not take into account temperatures. CO2 absorbs (and emits) radiation at a wavelength of 14.8 micron which in turn is at a temperature of about 196K from Wien’s Displacement law. There appears to be little CO2 in the atmosphere at a height above 5M. So CO2 absorbs practically no radiation and so has no effect on temperatures. It should be noted that CH4 absorbs radiation at 8 micron (362K) which is not radiated by Earths surface. The supposed effect of CH4 being worse than CO2 is a lie. It absorbs no radiation from Earth or even the sun.
” CO2 absorbs practically no radiation and so has no effect on temperatures. “
Stick to chemicals
On climate science, you are a fool.
CO2 level at altitude will change about 3% for every 1,000 feet (300m).
“There appears to be little CO2 in the atmosphere at a height above 5M.”
I assume you mean 5 meters
If so, you are demoted to
a complete fool
According to you this graph is wrong. Please explain why. Absorption equals emissivity.
Sorry typing mistake with big fingers. I meant 5km.
I stick to engineering theory and experience. Chemistry is a small part of chemical engineering to before 7000 BC when the first metal (lead Pb) was smelted and also polished concrete floors. Cupellation ie separation of silver from Ag-Pb ores dates to about 5000BC. Thermodynamics, Heat & Mass transfer, Fluid dynamics are engineering subjects which very clearly no so-called climate scientist understands.
The above discussion is reminiscent of differences in scientific and engineering thinking. For scientists, a model is but a set of equations with solutions to be explored. For engineers, something physically realizable (machines). Consider the expression W=J*(1 – T2/T1). To engineers, this describes the maximum ‘useful work’ obtainable from a heat engine. To scientists, W=(J/T1)*(T1-T2) describes the dissipation or free energy loss of a constant entropy flux between two temperatures. The models of climate science bear the marks of engineering design.
“In science if you know what you are doing you should not be doing it. In engineering if you do not know what you are doing you should not be doing it.” (Hamming)
What a great quote.
Kevin,
Excellent post. If nothing else is taken from your essay, it should be obvious that radiation only diagrams are not the be all and end all of what occurs in the atmosphere.
I have long been an advocate that work is part of the atmospheric circulation and dissipates heat while doing going about its process. Another point that radiation only theories miss entirely.
Keep up the good work.
“12-Parameterization of processes that should be based on physics is the Achilles heel of modeling”
Indeed. I was shocked to learn a few years ago that the latent heat of evaporation varies with temperature by more than 5% across the earth but the Gavin Schmidts just wave their hands and say it’s OK to assume constancy.
And it’s not just climate modelers who do this.
Remembering the excuse Captain Kirk’s son gave for his method developing the Genesis Project in The Wrath of Khan: ‘It was the only thing that would make it work’.
Of course, his short cuts on an otherwise insoluble problem ultimately proved worse than useless.
Kirk should have been court-martialed in Rath of Khan because he failed to follow standard procedure when meeting an unknown vessel. He was required to raise shields and because he didn’t people died. That is an offense that cannot be over looked.
“As a refrigerator the atmosphere moves heat from hot to cold which would occur on its own – COP is nonsensical in this case.”
A refer moves heat from cold to hot.