Thermodynamice Of Global Warming

[ajmplanner]

Here's an interesting article arguing that the Kelvin temperature scale is the proper scale for measuring temperature in the climate system. I haven't seen this relatively simple idea discussed before in this forum. When used in place of Centigrade, a whole new picture of historical temperature change emerges:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/t...rming.html

[Derek]

Thank you ajmplanner. A very good and basic point I for one had not really "grasped".
I have akways ignored Kelvin because it is not as familiar as Celcius, and conversion is actually so easy.
It is a scale I will use more often in future. Kelvin describes far better the idea of different levels of energy, which we feel as hot and cold comparatively. The objects, or whatever, do not feel hot or cold, but they do "feel" energy levels comparatively, Kelvin describes this. Celcius introduces the notion of negative temperature, which although good for explaining with, as it reflects our senses feel of things, is not the correct way to view such differences.

ALSO, The article rasies Prof Lindzen's excellent point that GMT (surface) temp is 273.15K. Dooooh, of course, really.
I assume the difference between surface temperature and near surface air temperature is made in his presentation.

[Richard111]

Nice find. Thank you. Have printed it to add to my coffee table collection.
(was looking forward to some levity on hot-tailed rodents )

[Questioning_Climate]

The attached graphic should give a good idea of the scale.

   

[Derek]

Ok, so the difference between Celcius and Kelvin when plotting "stuff" can make a big difference to the apparent "scale" of what is plotted.
That is the same issue as when plotting CO2 concentrations, the scale should go down to zero ppm, but frequently does not. This means as it does in these examples of plotting in centigrade, that plotting CO2 with a scale that starts above 0, usually 370ppm, makes the changes look far bigger than they actuialluy are.

Does the choice of what to use, C or k, depend also on what is being compared?

I would also question whether, as in K&T type plots (using W/m2), "everything" is being compared to absolute zero, when in reality nothing within the system depicted actually is compared to absolute zero. W/m2 can also give a false impression.

It would appear to me to be a case of considering which to use, for what is being compared or plotted, whilst taking into account the "problems" of which, C or k, to use. In most "applications" both have advantages, and disadvantages, this also applies to other units used for plotting.

[Questioning_Climate]

When considering thermal radiation, (modification of radiative thermal properties of the atmosphere is the basis of Anthropogenic Global Warming) the Kelvin scale should be used. By plotting on Kevin scale the real significance/context of the temperature changes is preserved.

The warming of the last 100 years or so is tiny compared to annual changes irrespective of the units used.

In terms of temperature anomalies, Celsius and Kelvin are basically interchangeable.