Dobrý den pane Hollane,
chtěl jsem se zeptat, zda odkazy v práci Kleidona a Ghausího přece jen nezviklaly Vaše přesvědčení,
že koloběh vody nehraje v globálním klimatu žádnou roli, a zabývat se jím v souvislosti s globálním
klimatem je pavěda.
Pokud se tak stalo, rád bych obnovil naši diskusi o tomto tématu, s cílem dovést ji k závěru.
Se srdečným pozdravem a přáním hezkého víkendu
Tomáš Kalisz
--------- Original Message ---------
Sender : Tomas Kalisz <tomas.kalisz@novaled.com> Senior Scientist/IPL Group/Novaled GmbH
Date : 2023-10-25 09:51 (GMT+1)
Title : Avex 4/2020, rok od polemiky nad jeho kritikou
Dobrý den pane Hollane, dobrý den pane Marku,
v připojeném mailu přeposílám vysvětlení, které mi doktorand profesora Axela Kleidona z Jeny pan Ghausí poslal k
jejich článku v PNAS.
Z jeho odkazů jsem prošel jen veřejně přístupnou práci Renno 1996 a musím přiznat, že ta termodynamika je pro mě
dnes už stejně moc těžká. Základní výpověď jsem nicméně doufám pochopil a Vy se, pane Hollane, jako fyzik
určitě zorientujete ještě mnohem lépe.
Jde o to, že v meteorologii zjevně už dávno nikdo nepochybuje o tom, že počasí funguje jako tepelný stroj, jehož
chladníkem je vyzařování dlouhovlnného tepelného záření z chladných vrstev atmosféry do ještě chladnějšího vesmíru.
Proto Vaše polemika s Janem Pokorným a Josefem Sejákem, od níž za pár dnů uplyne rok, ve svém nešťastném
přirovnání Země k uzavřené místnosti míří mimo.
Jinými slovy, po dlouhém zkoumání musím bohužel s konečnnou platností konstatovat, že odpověď Czech Globe na
otevřený dopis ke stanovisku Avex 4/2020 interpretuje toto stanovisko způsobem, který je zcela rozporu s dnešním
stavem vědy a proto hluboce zavádějící pro širokou veřejnost.
Myslím, že nikdo není neomylný, ale zároveň mám za to, že pokud se stane chyba tohoto druhu, má ji napravit ten,
kdo ji udělal.
Velm pěkně to popsal včera pan profesor Hruška z Vašeho ústavu, když si v rozhovoru pro iRozhlas posteskl, že
v jiných zemích se viník ekologické havárie typu otrava Bečvy většinou sám přizná.
Přál bych si, aby tomu podobně bylo i u nás. Ve srovnání s otravou Bečvy jde v případě Avex 4/2020 "jen" o čest
a poctivost.
Doufám, že vědci by v tomhle ohledu mohli jít příkladem.
S pozdravem
Tomáš Kalisz
--------- Original Message ---------
Sender : Sarosh-Alam Ghausi <sghausi@bgc-jena.mpg.de>
Date : 2023-10-19 21:52 (GMT+2)
Title : Re: questions regarding mathematical formulae in supplementary material to your article
Dear Mr Kalisz, Thank you for your questions and interest in our work. 1a) Yes, the equation 6 is correct. It looks different then the Carnot efficiency of conventional heat engine because it is derived in context of a dissipative heat engine. To know more about this concept you can refer to these papers (Emanuel 1998, Renno 1996) or (chapter 4 of this book). 1b) About the efficiency of cold heat engine being greater than 1: If you look at the equation 6 alone, it may seem that having a temperature Ts > 2Tr will make this term greater than 1. That will imply for a mean radiative temperature of 255K the surface temperature of the Earth has to be greater than 510K. However, even theoretically it is not possible because Ts and Tr are not just independent terms but in turn constrained by radiative balance of the atmosphere. Tr is derived from outgoing longwave radiation and Ts is shaped by energy balance at the surface. So Ts can not be increased without having an effect on Tr. 2) The dissipation primarily take place in the lower atmosphere where convection and mixing occurs. Ideally the dissipation and dU/dt correspond to an effective engine temperature which should be the potential temperature of lower atmosphere. Here, we make an assumption that as surface is closer to the lower atmosphere we can substitute Te (engine temperature) with Ts (surface temperature). On other hand, Tr represents the coldest and the most optimistic temperature at which highest entropy can be exported out from the heat engine. Hope this answers your questions, Kind Regards, Sarosh |
On 10/19/2023 5:54 PM Tomas Kalisz <tomas.kalisz@novaled.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Ghausi,
I would like to return to your article https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2220400120
mentioned in my previous e-mail of October 2.
I have two questions regarding the formulae derived in the Supplementary material.
1) When I tried to apply your approach and estimate the optimal convective flux for global
energy balance equations including an "atmospheric window", I arrived at following discrepancy.
As you write, for a steady state, wherein dU/dt equals zero, Equation (6) is indeed similar to
the famous equation for Carnot cycle efficiency. If we compare both terms, however, we find
out that Tr and Ts are switched for each other.
Is it indeed correct? I tried to clarify using the reference Kleidon et al 2018, however, I failed.
To be honest, for me, the Equation (6) looks like that efficiency of the "cold heat engine" is higher
(commensurately to the ratio Ts/Tr) than the efficiency of the ideal Carnot heat engine.
If so, with sufficiently low Tr, the atmospheric "cold heat engine" could have efficiency higher
than 1. In other words, it appears that the "cold heat engine could work as a true perpetum mobile.
That is the main reason for my question.
2) The questioned Equation (6) is derived under an assumption "[because dissipation D
primarily occurs in the lower atmosphere]..to use surface temperature instead".
If my understanding to your Equation (6) (that it could be indeed interpreted as a term for "cold
heat engine" efficiency) is correct, I would like to ask if another assumption, namely that the
dissipation D occurs rather at the mean radiation temperature of Earth atmosphere Tr than at
the surface temperature Ts, may be perhaps more realistic?
It appears that under this alternative assumption, the Equation (6) for the effciency of the
atmospheric "cold heat engine" becomes identical with the known term for efficiency of the
ideal Carnot engine.
Thank you very much in advance for considering these questions and best regards
Tomáš Kalisz
-----------------------------------------------------
Sincerely,
Tomáš Kalisz
Senior Patent Engineer
NOVALED GMBH
Elisabeth-Boer-Straße 9
01099 Dresden
Germany
phone +49-351-79890-221
fax +49-351-79890-999
e-mail tomas.kalisz@novaled.com
web http://www.novaled.com
Novaled GmbH - Registered Office: 01099 Dresden; Companies Register: Amtsgericht Dresden, HRB 32931; Board of Directors: Gerd Guenther, Munho Jang, Sangshin Lee, PhD; Chairwoman of the Supervisory Board: Bong Ok Kim, PhD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer
This e-mail is from Novaled GmbH and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy or distribute the e-mail or any attachments. Instead, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and any attachments. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, lost, destroyed, incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
-- Sarosh Alam Ghausi, Ph.D student Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry Jena 07745, Germany Email: sghausi@bgc-jena.mpg.de Mobile: +49 17674892823 |
|
|