Customer Reviews

Atmospheric Thermodynamics

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

When I bought this book in 1998, I did so with great expectations: at long last an overdue text in atmospheric thermodynamics! And from Oxford University Press at that! I read it and was rather annoyed at the arrogant style of those two authors, one of whom has written an admired textbook on scattering. I found very disturbing such phrases as the one I am paraphrasing as the title of this review, as well as others like "the rubbish that continues to be propagated in textbooks is inexcusable". Either they don't have read enough textbooks or they are redefining the word rubbish. There are many imprecise statements and also straight errors. They do no better than their predecessors, although that is exactly what they set out to do (Preface, p. ix). They abhor differentials, citing some great figures like Truesdell, who "dips his pen in the most corrosive acid when writing about differentials in thermodynamics", misunderstanding him and ignoring what he wrote about differentials in the second edition of "Rational Thermodynamics". I agree, however, with the authors in that there is much room for improvement in the usual presentation of atmospheric thermodynamics, and I think they succeed in many respects. But in a major point they fail outrightly: I find it "inexcusable" that, by the end of the 20th century, the authors of a new textbook on atmospheric thermodynamics seem uninformed as to the important developments in irreversible atmospheric processes that took place in the last 50 years or so. No mention of entropy production, for instance, nowhere is "affinity" defined, although it plays an important part in reaching equilibrium, an aspect of real processes to which they devote a chapter, but without bringing the reader nearer to modern developments.
Altogether a failed attempt at filling out a gaping gap existing in this branch of meteorology.

A year ago I spent several hours in libraries searching for a good meteorology textbook to recommend to physics students; the choices were all horrible. Now this book comes along and I'm recommending it not just as a meteorology textbook but also as a general thermodynamics textbook--it's that good. Thermo is much less abstract when you have a particular application in mind, so in many ways this book is ideal for teaching the subject. It's written at the right level for undergraduate physics majors and anyone else who knows basic physics and can handle an occasional differential equation. It's full of funny jokes and interesting thought questions. The book is so good that I'm happy to forgive the authors for their long-winded (though entertaining) diatribes against the way other people do thermo. Every physics student should at least look at this book; every physics teacher should buy it.

This is a very unusual book on thermodynamics. It is very good reading and can be usefull if you know thermodynamics. Otherwise it is dangerous.The authors hate a lot of things. Among then differentials , which they claim"are a swindle".The authors probably are not aware of Abrahan Robinson work on Non Standard Analysis.However to divide every differential by dt and claim that with this time enters in thermodynamics is wrong in my opinion. Thermodynamics considers reversible transformations which of course can only be approximated , usually (but not allways)by very slow transformations. There are other erors in the book , which however can be VERY usefull if you already know thermodynamics. Please be carefull

Bohren has got to be one of the best teachers in the world, and his contribution to this book is evident on most pages. Examples are lucid, end-of-chapter review problems are stimulating. Makes you look at science a little differently. I would recommend this book to all people from the mathematically astute atmospheric hobbyist to the grad student looking for a thermo reference, or something while studying for comps or qualifying exams. This will be the most useful scientific book on your shelf, and may even qualify for a position on the coffee table!

I teach atmospheric science to undergraduate students at a major university. Teaching atmospheric thermodynamics has always been a challenge because of the lack of a suitable text book. I had high hopes for this book when it first came out. However, it turned out that I could use almost nothing in this book. The treatment is non-standard and in many instances incorrect. Because of the authors' disdain for differentials, derivations are cumbersome and not always correct; certain topics such as Maxwell's relations cannot be treated without differentials (perhaps this is why this topic was omitted from the book). The selection of material is not very useful for an atmospheric scientist, other than the fact that it focuses mainly on gases. Apart from the selection and treatment of the material, the aspect of the book that I dislike the most is the condescending manner that the author treats other people in the profession and also the students. The author dislikes many things, and everybody else working in this field is apparently an idiot. Most of the so-called misconceptions held by others that are pointed out in this text do not exist in fact, and the authors are merely playing linguistic games. Some of the other reviewers apparently find this amusing; I do not. The author apparently attempts a feynman-esque style in his writing; in my opinion it fails miserably. I have found the text by Curry and Webster on "Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans" to be far more useful, although it is somewhat advanced for undergraduates.

I recently borrowed this book via inter-library loan. I am already comfortable with physics, and looking to learn a bit about atmospheric science. After reading one or two chapters, I couldn't take any more. The authors' personalities and relentless diatribes distract the reader from the material.

Why waste several pages ranting about previous authors' use of differentials, instead of simply adopting a clear notation and perhaps pointing out in a footnote the deviation from conventional notation?

Why must these authors define heat and work to have units of power (nevertheless confusingly using symbols Q and W rather than e.g. Qdot and Wdot) when in nearly all other contexts heat and work have units of energy?

The authors envision themselves on a quixotic journey to right the wrongs done students by other texts. The result reads like the rambling of someone no longer connected with reality.

A friend in the publishing industry points out that Cambridge Press is far better known than Oxford Press in the field of atmospheric science, so I could have known in advance that an Oxford book in this area was not likely to be first rate. Next week I'll start to read the (more recent) Cambridge book on atmospheric physics that arrived in the mail a few days ago.

Pages and pages of discussing the unimportance of using the differentials in Thermodynamics, and some other concepts that are really useless and nobody discusses anymore.