GCM Models violate Laws of TD
A paper published today in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society finds climate models violate the 'basic physics' of the Second Law of Thermodynamics with respect to simulating conventional turbulent heat flow, one of the most important mechanisms of heat transfer in the atmosphere.
According to the authors,
"Numerical models of the atmosphere should fulfill fundamental physical laws. The Second Law of thermodynamics is associated with positive local entropy production and dissipation of available energy."
i.e. entropy always increases and energy always dissipates per the second law of thermodynamics.
"Inspecting commonly used parameterizations for subgrid-fluxes, we find that some of them obey the Second Law of thermodynamics, and some do not... Conventional turbulent heat flux parameterizations do not conform with the Second Law. A new water vapor flux formulation is derived from the requirement of locally positive entropy production. The conventional and the new water vapor fluxes are compared using high-resolution radiosonde data. Conventional water vapor fluxes are wrong by up to 10% and exhibit a negative bias."
"...Both test cases indicate that negative thermal dissipation can occur for the conventional heat flux. Obviously, the additional energy made available by this negative dissipation to the resolved turbulence is later on dissipated by friction, so that the total dissipation is again comparable [for the wrong physical reasons], at least for the boundary layer experiment."
In other words, the computer models falsely claim that entropy can decrease, heat can "negatively dissipate" [i.e. concentrate itself], and that "additional energy [a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics] is made available by this "negative dissipation" [a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics]."
Thus, the climate models violate the basic physics of both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. The finding is quite ironic given the climate alarmist meme that computer-modeled global warming is just "elementary basic physics" and "settled science" upon which all scientists agree. However, it is doubtful that many scientists know that the black-box climate models aren't even programmed to obey the most fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
UPDATE: Dr. Roy Spencer explains why IPCC climate models violate the basic physics of conservation of energy (1st Law of Thermodynamics). How is local material entropy production represented in a numerical model?
Almut Gassmann and Hans-Joachim Herzog Numerical models of the atmosphere should fulfill fundamental physical laws.
The Second Law of thermodynamics is associated with positive local entropy production and dissipation of available energy. In order to guarantee this positivity in numerical simulations, subgrid-scale turbulent fluxes of heat, water vapor, and momentum are required to depend on numerically resolved gradients in a unique way.
The task of parameterization remains to deliver phenomenological coefficients. Inspecting commonly used parameterizations for subgrid-fluxes, we find that some of them obey the Second Law of thermodynamics, and some do not.
The conforming approaches are the Smagorinsky momentum diffusion, phase changes, and sedimentation fluxes for hydrometeors. Conventional turbulent heat flux parameterizations do not conform with the Second Law.
A new water vapor flux formulation is derived from the requirement of locally positive entropy production.
The conventional and the new water vapor fluxes are compared using high-resolution radiosonde data. Conventional water vapor fluxes are wrong by up to 10% and exhibit a negative bias.
Two numerical tests (the Boulder windstorm test case and a convective boundary layer experiment) are performed with the ICON-IAP model. The experiments compare conventional and entropy-consistent heat flux parameterizations. Both test cases indicate that negative thermal dissipation can occur for the conventional heat flux.
Obviously, the additional energy made available by this negative dissipation to the resolved turbulence is later on dissipated by friction, so that the total dissipation is again comparable [for the wrong reasons], at least for the boundary layer experiment.
Related:
Why the AGW "Hot Spot" Won't Happen
New paper finds IPCC climate models don't realistically simulate convection
Dr. Noor van Andel: The data does not agree with the theory of greenhouse gas induced global warming
We should revisit occasionally what the proper role of government is. As the constitution was a good sense of direction, we need a core set of principles to add in order to deal with the future.
So many want to engineer society, remove risk, assist certain groups, rather than let individuals thrive and raise communities. Why?
Is Democracy where we all "get it good and hard" or is it the best means to a free society?
Should we roll with the special interests, or make the government achieve its proper role, what is that role, and how to do this?
When do deficits and governments become too large?
Government is becoming more elitist while trying to sell corrections to problems it created, what makes this possible?
GCM Model Errors estimate of the large error
GCM Model Results The results of the IPCC
GCM do not model Convection Well
Patrick Michaels on GCM Models
