When it comes to the atmosphere, kinetics need to be considered while a pure thermodynamic equilibrium would probably be confusing. In our atmospheric chemistry lecture the professor forbade us to say that with respect to climate change the atmosphere is out of equilibrium because it is not in equilibrium and it's good that it is.

The equilibrium state would be that [almost] everything is burnt into crisp and that's not exactly very helpful for life on earth as far as I've heard. Therefore, you have various local non-equilibrium states interacting with each other.

Having said all these fundamental things, of course the direction of processes is determined by the thermodynamic equilibrium constants and thus the Gibbs energy by dG=-RTlnK: that's e.g. the problem with CO2 fixation, basically every equilibrium constant says that CO2 mostly wants to stay CO2 which means that it costs a lot of energy to remove it from the atmosphere or the oceans and you have to watch out that a CO2 removal process does not emit more greenhouse gas externally than it consumes.

Jurgen,

You are absolutely true.

Hen entropy come to zero it enriches the equilibrium stages , when entropy is inquality definitely climate change possible with substantial amount of gases mixed in atmosphere, when enthalpy becomes negative gases can blend each other like CF can mix with CO2. it is likely to observed once free energy is zero dynamic equilibrium is not there but moment it catches randomness due to blending of three gases temperature changes and momentum is sudden exploited in term of weather down. However, dynamic equilibrium is impossible it seems provided residual stress is not forbidden.

Ashish

What do you mean by "entropy comes to zero"? The entropy still increases, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't lose its applicability here.

Jurgen,

As of now we know, entropy can be positive or zero. Entropy zero. means(there is no difference between initial and final state) no change found in the system(just take example nozzle and turbine) during any thermodynamic either reversible or adiabatic process. Entropy zer0(Entropy0) it means it is associated with total free energy of the system in thermodynamics, it means some inherent disorder is almost collapsed but in reality it can not be because surrounding is there to warm enthalpy(Is that true?). When we look into third law of thermodynamics we can understand crystalize at entropy zero. The decrease in entropy means free energy to drive the weather, where increase you don't know what changes might possible in climate, which direction climate changes. At equilibrium, system is reversible and hence changes in entropy will be zero( means entropy behaves as conserved quantity and no change occurs in total entropy). You know very well what differences is there between adiabatic and reversible adiabatic process.

Please imagine whether entropy zero possible or not? if not what can happen in climate change? if yes what can happen there? what measure we can have against the third law of thermodynamics????? this is a open discussion.........please review questions and elaborate answers.

Ashish

Ah, so you meant the differential change dS.

Well, that is essentially what my professor meant with his "don't call it equilibrium" mandate. We will have steady states, like e.g. with the radiation budget (https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/earth_rad_budget_kiehl_trenberth_big.gif), but I don't think approaching this from an entropic point of view is the most helpful one to fixing the problems.

I do not say you are wrong. You are absolutely true. I asked you whether it is dynamic equilibrium? Just technical question to audience.

This is a query. you might understand what I said? If it is reversible process it is dS=0, if it is adiabatic, Entropy of the system S=0.

If we look at earth as a whole, we have a permanent non-equilibrium exchange of matter, so on one side we have cosmic radiation AKA ions and electrons impinging into the atmosphere while light atoms (hydrogen and helium) are leaving earth since gravity can't hold them back.

That's not the main effect with climate change, but it throws us out of a defined ensemble here.

When it comes to your focus on entropy, I just looked around a little. There are multiple considerations regarding entropy, but they seem to be mixing the thermodynamic quantity with the associated philosophical concept. Here is an article that looked worth being taken serious:

Article Maximum entropy production, cloud feedback, and climate change

Check out the appendix, there they talk expclicitely about an entropy flux into space.

Jurgen,

Thermodynamically atmospheric impact may be connected. Atmospheric thermodynamics and energy balance has role in climate science as matter and energy flow through the natural balance and they are connected between gravity and thermodynamics. Balancing energy from sun(basics of climate) and energy from earth ultimately drives our climate by first law of thermodynamics.

I have never disagreed with thermodynamic energies having a defining impact on climate change, but focussing on entropy won't solve our problems with it.

Jurgen,

Being a mechanical engineer we correlate, incorporate the thing with mechanical thermodynamics.