IPCC expert Reviewer
THERMODYNAMICS AND CLIMATE MODELS
The whole of thermodynamics is based on systems in equilibrium, The equations only apply where the system is completely isolated from external influence. It must be completely insulated from output or input of energy.
The universe is not an isolated system and is not in equilibrium. In order to make use of thermodynamics for any part of it, it is necessary to make simplifying assumptions.
The currently accepted climate model begins by assuming that the energy output of the sun is constant. We have sophisticated instruments to measure this energy but its measured variability is deliberately concealed. When asked for the information they refused, They only permit us to know "averages", which presumably apply only to daytime. They have to concede that these "averages" are variable, but we are only allowed to know the annual or decadal ones, which they can try to argue can be used to modify their conclusions.
The next simplifying assumption is that the sun shines all the time, day and night , with one quarter of its peak intensity. This is a fatal assumption, because diurnal variability is not only very great, it is a step function, with zero for half the time, so no plausible average is even possible. It is surely obvious that the climate is different between day and night, let alone between a cloudy day and a clear day.
Then it is assumed that the surface of the earth is isolated from the earth itself. This is obviously wrong. The earth exchanges heat with the atmosphere, and with the earth below. There are attempts to measure the heat in the ocean but even that is futile because the ocean does happen to be very large, and it is quite capable of exchange of heat with the ocean floor. There is a grudging admission that there is convection and exchange of latent heat of water, but the figures they assume are little more than guesswork. There is also an assumption there is no input of heat from the earth itself, which is, after all, very hot in the centre. Nobody knows how many underwater volcanoes may be supplying heat.
Finally, there is an assumption that energy entering must equal energy leaving. Every geologist knows that this wrong, from the earth's history. It is ridiculous to choose an arbitrary period, such as since 1700, or since 1978 when such a "balance" is possible. It is never possible.
The system is not in equilibrium and none of the laws of thermodynamics apply because it is a system with a constant external energy supply and is therefore a perpetual motion machine. All forms of energy on earth, except that which comes internally, derive from the sun, whether it is chemical, electrical, ordinary heat, radiative heat or work. This includes any radiative exchange in the atmosphere, in whatever direction.
It is a commentary on the current level of scientific education that so many people who should know better have accepted this model: even you and many of your friends. .
There is a place for simplifying assumptions, if they work. After all, Newton did not even know that he was assuming that the motions of atoms and molecules in his solids had to cancel out before his equations could work. The fact that they do work does not prove that his assumptions are always right. Einstein showed that they do not apply to very high speeds. But Einstein's treatment assumed that it would be possible for travel back in time. As Hawking says "We have no tourists from the past" so it must be wrong.
The IPCC climate model does not work. The temperature is not rising, The temperature in the lower troposphere cannot be predicted. Even the flawed "temperature anomaly record" can only be simulated if you leave out urban effects and ALL the ocean oscillations. Our knowledge of natural changes is insufficient to explain everything that happens. Humans undoubtedly influence the climate by altering atmospheric convection, evaporation and condensation of water, urban and land changes, It is possible that emissions of water vapour as well as minor "greenhouse" gases also have an influence, but their influence is unlikely to be revealed by such an absurd model of the climate.