The public use of temperature rather than
enthalpy when choosing a metric to explain climate change that has been exposed as problematic with the skeptics using the same methodology as the IPCC communicators to claim the warming has stopped, or that we are actually cooling.
Not exact matches
In the classical view (bold line), metastable clusters form and nucleation occurs
when the critical nucleation
enthalpy ΔG * is overcome.
When the two airstreams also exchange moisture, you have an energy (or
enthalpy) recovery ventilator (ERV).
Climate Alchemy and probably most scientists not taught chemical thermodynamics don't realise that the main heat transfer term in the oceans is the partial molar
enthalpy transferred
when the fresh, cold water sinking from melting ice in the Antarctic and Arctic summers is made more saline
when it mixes with the warmer, more saline surface water for which solar energy has partially unmixed the ions.
What is the compelling reason to introduce
enthalpy,
when we don't need it?
A polytropic process proceeds with an apparent constant heat capacity Ch and d' Q = Ch dT = Cp dT — R T dP / P
When going from T0 to T the changes of the internal energy and of the
enthalpy are Cv (T - T0) and Cp (T - T0) while the heat transferred to the gas is Ch (T - T0); it is zero for an adiabatic and RT ln (P / P0) for a constant temperature process.
In my mind that will occur
when we regularly measure the
enthalpy of the environment and lead with that, not just the temperature.
Steve — I have stated multiple times that the climatologists are all gathered under the lamppost as its light there — using atmospheric temperature
when they should be measuring atmospheric heat content in kilojoules per kilogram taking account of the
enthalpy.
«An alternative description is to view the
enthalpy of condensation as the heat which must be released to the surroundings to compensate for the drop in entropy
when a gas condenses to a liquid.»