October 17, 2019, 02:15:09 PM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: Discrepancy between Gibbs free energy minimisation and Enhanced GHG theory?  (Read 224 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rob JM

  • Very New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Mole Snacks: +0/-0
Hi,
I’m trying to get feedback on why the enhanced GHG theory doesn’t conform with Gibbs free energy minimisation?

For those who are unaware, climate scientist base the theory of “Dangerous” global warming not on increasing CO2, but increasing CO2 causing a forcing that results in a large positive feedback known as water vapour positive feedback. (Enhanced GHG theory)
The CO2 results in 3.7w/m2 (1 deg warming) while the positive feedback contribute 6.3w/m2 to generated a warming of 3 degs in the models. (Or more)

This would appear to fall foul of Gibbs free energy minimisation as it would produce a rise in both sensible heat energy and latent heat energy with no corresponding offset. Thus the Theory would fail to conform to the second law of thermodynamics.

Additionally the measurements of humidity in the upper troposphere appear to contradict the theory.
The theory states “that relative humidity will stay constant, resulting in an increase in water vapour as temperatures rise in response to CO2” It is supposed to happen in the upper troposphere as warming in the lower troposphere would increase lapse rate and produce convective cooling.

The observations show the opposite
Relative Humidity is declining, as is absolute humidity, while temperature is static (the theory predicts the upper troposphere should warm at twice the rate of the surface.)https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/qj.546

Graphs of the global humidity can be found here.
https://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm

Further discussion of missing empirical evidence of positive feedback.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/22/study-tropical-hotspot-fingerprint-of-global-warming-doesnt-exist-in-the-real-world-data/

Appreciate any feedback.


Offline Enthalpy

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3088
  • Mole Snacks: +273/-57
Did you inject sunlight in the Gibbs energy and others?

We're speaking of a system out of equilibrium essentially, with visible light received and far IR emitted. Are you trying to apply some law for equilibrium?

Offline Rob JM

  • Very New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Mole Snacks: +0/-0
Did you inject sunlight in the Gibbs energy and others?

We're speaking of a system out of equilibrium essentially, with visible light received and far IR emitted. Are you trying to apply some law for equilibrium?
The climate scientists assume Total solar irradiance to be constant (despite the solar forcing rapidly oscillating as the earth rotates)
Their calculations are based on the notion the the earth is in a state of Equilibrium prior to CO2 being added. However they are not applying Gibbs/le Chatelier’s and just assuming that positive feedback will occur. From a chemical perspective that doesn’t make any sense to me.

From what I can see the theory has been a case of the tail waging the dog.
The causal chains appears thus

Evidence of ice ages where the cause was unknown.
Correlation of CO2 and temp in ice cores, Assumption the CO2 drives temp, ignoring Henrys law.
CO2 was found to produce insufficient forcing, so assumption of positive feedback causing CO2 to have large effect. Ignoring Gibbs free energy minimisation, where the null assumption would be negative feedback.
It appears they assumed relative humidity remains constant, despite radiosonde observation showing that wasn’t the case at the time of theory formulation.
They also predicted stratospheric warming, which they reversed when it was found to be cooling, even though a cooling stratosphere would drive an increasing lapse rate (energy potential between bottom and top of stratosphere.

All the observations of temperature and humidity show no evidence of positive feedback.
That should in my opinion falsify the theory.
 



Offline Enthalpy

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3088
  • Mole Snacks: +273/-57
The climate scientists assume Total solar irradiance to be constant (despite the solar forcing rapidly oscillating as the earth rotates)
No.

Their calculations are based on the notion the the earth is in a state of Equilibrium prior to CO2 being added.
No.

However they are not applying Gibbs/le Chatelier’s
Why would you like to apply that? The Earth is not in thermodynamic equilibrium.

Evidence of ice ages where the cause was unknown.
The cause is known. Fluctuations of Earth's inclination and orbit. Nice theory, works for the quaternary. Previously, the continents were elsewhere, but more subtle models exist and work for that too.

Correlation of CO2 and temp in ice cores, Assumption the CO2 drives temp, ignoring Henrys law.
Solubility variations are by far not the main explanation: I had checked personally. CO2 influencing the temperature is a model that works. That's why it is accepted by scientists. They wouldn't accept a mere assumption.

And so on and so forth.

My suggestion is that you study the existing models more in depth before criticising them.

My alternative suggestion is that, if you hope to convince someone with such arguments, you seek a place where people are less knowledgeable.

Sponsored Links