Beginner’s guide to convection cells

Posted: May 2, 2015 by oldbrew in climate, Clouds, general circulation, wind
Tags:

Global circulation of Earth's atmosphere displaying Hadley cell, Ferrell cell and polar cell [credit: NASA]

Global circulation of Earth’s atmosphere displaying Hadley cell, Ferrell cell and polar cell [credit: NASA]


Introducing by popular demand (?) [click to view]:
‘Convection Cells Move Air Around’ (short video) – Windows to the Universe.

When you warm air, it rises. Cool air will sink. This process of convection can lead to flows in the atmosphere, in a manner that we can illustrate [see video] on a small scale. Warm and cool air in a fish tank rise and fall; this motion is made visible by adding fog. Ultimately, the motion leads to a convection cell, with air rising, moving to the side, falling, and moving back. This heat-driven motion of air moves heat around in the atmosphere. It is also responsible for making the wind blow.

***
Cue discussion by Talkshop commenters🙂

This post arose from a discussion on another thread that seems to have started somewhere around here.

Larger version of the NASA graphic here.
————————————————————————————————
Update – a newer post (2015/06/11) can now be viewed here:
Atmospheric convection – what does it mean?
————————————————————————————————
[comments are now closed on this thread – see ‘Update’ above]

Comments
  1. oldbrew says: May 28, 2015 at 11:35 am

    “Another video for the critics to consider:”

    That one although brief is more likely correct! But it only covers the so called “Global circulation cells” that are “in part” convection, and in part advection.. This needs an exact definition of the verbs advection, and convection, and the distinction between the two. With the noun “cell”, they both become adjectives. What is the definition of “N. cell”, with respect to this atmosphere as modified by the two adjectives? Is there something “acceptable” to most?🙂

  2. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 28, 2015 at 8:58 pm

    Seems everything you don’t understand, but somebody else does, is a fantasy to you.
    Must be hard living in a fantasy world where wv percolates through N2 and O2, the sun doesn’t warm the surface, but the oceans surface layer mysteriously warms during the summer.

    Convection as we still know it today was discovered and published about by James Pollard Espy.
    Publication in 1841!! He figured this all out using crude instruments like a nephelescope. and dry and wet-bulb thermometers. Came even up with a first approximation for the DALR and SALR as we know it today.
    Read the Introduction and Synopsis, as published almost 175 years ago now.
    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KGsAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&hl=nl#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Your Alabama and Texas example are governed by the exact same principle.

  3. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: May 28, 2015 at 12:52 pm

    “Looking at Earth Energy budget diagrams (thankfully, now mostly without the “back radiation”)

    Heat from surface to atmosphere = 16 % radiation + 6% sensible heat = 22%
    Heat to atmosphere not from surface = 24% latent heat + 16% absorbed by H2O +4% absorbed by clouds = 44%”

    Your diagram is (almost) the same as these two:
    http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section1b.html#atmospheric_temperature

    In your diagram:
    Energy from surface > atmosphere: 14 + 6 + 24 = 44%
    Energy from other sources (sun) > atmosphere: 16 + 4 = 20%

    So all energy in the atmosphere is for a large part coming from the surface.
    Since a considerable part of the 16% sun > atmosphere is absorbed in the Thermosphere and Stratosphere, it is save to say that the energy in the Tropopause is mostly coming from the surface.

  4. Roger Clague says:

    Ben Wouters says

    I expected to be able to move to Global Circulation Cells by now.
    But it seems all participants in this discussion are still stuck in understanding convection for beginners

    The post is about the cause of convection. It is not possible for me to move on because I disagree with your mainstream understanding of the cause of convection in the atmosphere.

    Convection as we still know it today was discovered and published about by James Pollard Espy.
    Publication in 1841!!

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KGsAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&hl=nl#v=onepage&q&f=false

    It is good to see the origin of the currently popular atmosphere convection theory.

    To me an older scientific theory is less likely to be correct than a newer one. Older scientific theories are not added to, they are replaced. Not like human law which accumulates.

    He figured this all out using crude instruments like a nephelescope. and dry and wet-bulb thermometers.

    “When the air near the surface becomes more heated up-moving columns will be formed. As these columns rise their upper parts will come under less pressure and the air will therefore expand. As it expands it will grow colder as demonstrated by experiments on the nephelescope.”

    The experiments with the nephelescope do not allow conclusions about the atmosphere.
    The air in the container is not expanding, it is escaping and reduces its mass, internal energy and temperature
    The air packets (as in the modern form of Espy’s theory ) does not lose mass.

  5. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: May 29, 2015 at 1:56 pm

    “To me an older scientific theory is less likely to be correct than a newer one. Older scientific theories are not added to, they are replaced.”
    This older one is as valid today as it was in 1841. His number for the DALR (and thus the SALR) was too low (~8K/km iso 9,8K/km)
    This theory has been added to. eg
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convective_available_potential_energy
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convective_inhibition

    Used in meteorology everywhere every day.

    If not buoyancy, what else can be the cause of convection?

  6. oldbrew says:

    Wikipedia’s attempt to describe convection cells:

    ‘A convection cell, also known as a Bénard cell is a characteristic fluid flow pattern in many convection systems. A rising body of fluid typically loses heat because it encounters a cold surface. In liquid this occurs because it exchanges heat with colder liquid through direct exchange. In the example of the Earth’s atmosphere, this occurs because it radiates heat. Because of this heat loss the fluid becomes denser than the fluid underneath it, which is still rising. Since it cannot descend through the rising fluid, it moves to one side. At some distance, its downward force overcomes the rising force beneath it, and the fluid begins to descend. As it descends, it warms again and the cycle repeats itself.’

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Convection_cells


    [Caption: ‘Convection cells in a gravity field’]

  7. Ben Wouters says: May 29, 2015 at 2:14 pm

    “Used in meteorology everywhere every day.”

    Yep! thats the problem!

    If not buoyancy, what else can be the cause of convection?

    What do you think increasing RH creates? As in the stock tank!

  8. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 29, 2015 at 5:19 pm

    ” If not buoyancy, what else can be the cause of convection?
    What do you think increasing RH creates? As in the stock tank!”

    see http://www.meteociel.com/cartes_obs/humi.png
    Do you really believe that these small differences in RH will create enough buoyancy to create convection / thunderstorms ????
    Posted this before:
    “Below ~10C the difference in density between 0% RH and 100%RH is equal to or much less than the difference in density due to one degree temperature change.”
    Since almost the entire troposphere is below 10C RH is not a factor to reckon with, temperature is the deciding factor.

    Any progress in finding an explanation for these rising surface layer temperatures in summer?

  9. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: May 29, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    This is not the kind of convection you’ll find in the atmosphere (compressible air)
    And this most certainly has nothing to do with GCC’s.

  10. Ben Wouters says: May 29, 2015 at 6:22 pm
    Will Janoschka says: May 29, 2015 at 5:19 pm
    Ben Wouters says: May 29, 2015 at 2:14 pm

    ((“Used in meteorology everywhere every day.”))

    (“Yep! thats the problem!”)

    ((“If not buoyancy, what else can be the cause of convection?”))

    (“What do you think increasing RH creates? As in the stock tank!”)

    “Below ~10C the difference in density between 0% RH and 100%RH is equal to or much less than the difference in density due to one degree temperature change.”
    And at a surface temperature of 35 Celsius? Have you ever experienced a 4 acre west Texas stock tank at below ~10 Celsius?

    “Since almost the entire troposphere is below 10C RH is not a factor to reckon with, temperature is the deciding factor.”

    More BS!
    By the way this air cannot return to the surface until all of that latent heat is radiated to space.

    “Any progress in finding an explanation for these rising surface layer temperatures in summer?”

    No changes since the first time you asked this stupid question! Measurement indicates 1.4 times the insolation in summer vs winter!

  11. wayne says:

    Humidity and air density

    Most people who haven’t studied physics or chemistry find it hard to believe that humid air is lighter, or less dense, than dry air. How can the air become lighter if we add water vapor to it?

    Scientists have known this for a long time. The first was Isaac Newton, who stated that humid air is less dense than dry air in 1717 in his book, Optics. But, other scientists didn’t generally understand this until later in that century.

    To see why humid air is less dense than dry air, we need to turn to one of the laws of nature the Italian physicist Amadeo Avogadro discovered in the early 1800s. In simple terms, he found that a fixed volume of gas, say one cubic meter, at the same temperature and pressure, would always have the same number of molecules no matter what gas is in the container. Most beginning chemistry books explain how this works.

    (–http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/wdensity.htm)

    Back to the topic of global scale convection cells. The physics laws that determine the action of these cell and even going down in scale to a single innocent thermal over a ten acre pond all operate the same if you stay the course.

    Everyone seems correct on various points but I keep waiting for someone to wrap them into some grand explanation and I see this is not occurring, so I’ll take a jab at it. Also I find everyone is wrong on certain points so I hope they can take a new viewpoint and maybe gain from it.

    All vertical movement within an atmosphere has it’s base in density differences and those density differences always creates convection/subsidence. But horizontally density differences create no force outside of the vertical component from the gravitational field so here it is pressure that takes the foreground. But you must realize that any large scale vertical motion of large air masses also is part of what dictates any pressure differentials. There is one commenter here that is going to have problems with what I’m about to say but yes, thermodynamics is literally valid even in a container-less atmosphere.

    Take the relation P/ρ = R·T. The R is the specific gas constant 287.05 in SI and not the 8.314 universal gas constant when I speak of it. From this trio relationship along with the fact that gravity will cause vertical acceleration if there is any differences in densities vertically. Just because temperatures are different does not mean pressures are different… it depends on the density also. You can get (and need to!) totally understand that equation and it’s various forms. So let’s look at each. First take note that these relations are all linear, so a 10% change in one variable (P,T or ρ) will demand the ratio or multiplicity of the other two also changes by exactly 10%.

    From P/ρ = R·T we get:

    P = ρ · R · T

    If either density (ρ) or temperature or their combination rises, pressure must rise by the same proportion. Same if there is a decrease.

    ρ = P / (R · T)

    If pressure rises at constant temperature density must rise equally. If temperature decreases by 10% at constant pressure then density must also increase by 10%. Simple linear relations.

    T = P / (R · ρ)

    Pressure up at constant density, temperature has to be up. Opposite going down. If density decreases at constant pressure like you tend to find locally and at a constant altitude then temperature will and must rise.

    The trouble is that these too-simple singular variable changes holding the third constant in many cases does not happen, in a real planetary atmosphere, all three are changing simultaneously and each of the three affects the other two.

    Someone taking a too-simple viewpoint will always be wrong.

    Then you have the forces that these accelerations cause, both vertically and horizontally.

    Subsidence of cold dry air vertically will cause a horizontal wind as it encounters the solid surface. Generally this is termed advection to differentiate this movement (convection) from just vertical convection from any density differentials.

    —… don’t belittle anyone here because they insist on not reverting to some grade-school explanations for these men here have had decades of study in these various complexities and I am one of them.

    Will is correct on the Texas pond. The local environment is isotropic in temperature and pressure and ANY evaporation from that pond causes convection. If you will notice if you observe this world, you will find, more times than not, this happens just as to my west where there is a 100 acre pond, always in the summer on a mild day a cumulus cloud above that lake or angled to compensate for the mild wind direction.

    Now, on the Hadley scale convection… about 1800 nautical miles across by my guess from the equator to 30 N/S, ALL of these factors play in but the main factors, the differentials, is 1) the heavy solar insolation at the equator irregardless whether those differentials comes from a warmed surface or warmed near-surface air due to water vapor absorption or humidity differences which carries density differences and 2) at the other side over the horse latitudes the relative cooler and drier air that by those equations above that dictates a subsidence which will cause a wind toward the equator to replace (mass conservation) that which has a vertically positive movement upward by all of those factors.

    —, you are being far, far too simple and therefore not correct and as suricat questioned, is anyone really interested in this? Most here know all of the above and don’t need you to “teach” them basics.

    Please don’t hurriedly scour my or others words for something to pick and beat us over the head with… instead try to add to this topic by showing some insight into the more complexities anyone observes in weather pattern movements.

    Last night it stormed all night starting at midnight, huge cumulus clouds (cumulus-nimbus) with no solar input below since — said this only occurs during the daytime. I understand why, the radiosondes show abnormally cold-dry air above and these nighttime storms are at the base subsidence driven against immobile air masses to the east forcing upward moist air with latent heat released lowering the density.

    Now, there is an attempt from a more physical (physics) viewpoint and not in meteorological terms maybe. Maybe someone can add to it always taking all three of these free variables (P,T & ρ) into account, they al have their role.

  12. wayne says: May 29, 2015 at 11:35 pm

    “Humidity and air density

    Most people who haven’t studied physics or chemistry find it hard to believe that humid air is lighter, or less dense, than dry air. How can the air become lighter if we add water vapor to it?”

    Thank you for your helpful contribution! What even more folk do not know or “actually deny” is the amount of airborne water condensate, an aerosol colloid, with unknown density, that is supported by gravitational buoyancy! Average daily precipitation is 3 mm column water, which is replaced daily surface evaporation providing 80 W/m^2 of radiative exitance to space. However, total average column water supported is 24-28 mm. For this amount of water, to be water vapor the entire atmosphere must be above 30 Celsius! Parts, equatorial Sunside are above this temperature, and polar or nightside air temperatures are well below. This insists that Sunside evaporation of that airborne condensate to WV and nigntside conversion of WV back to airborne condensate, must be.far greater than surface evaporation. No one has measured!!

    “But horizontally density differences create no force outside of the vertical component from the gravitational field so here it is pressure that takes the foreground.”

    I respectfully disagree, It is not the density, but weight/volume, or (weight/volume) difference per vertical distance or interval that dominate. Still to simple in this atmosphere in this gravitational field. PV = (force/m2) x m3. That is force x distance, that might be “energy” but more likely “work” the conversion of energy = construction + entropy(of construction). Nothing that the forces in this atmosphere actually “do” are ever isentropic, never reversible, never adiabatic! It cannot happen! Electromagnetic radiative flux to space cares little if that is (energy) or (energy/temperature), the definition of entropy!! So many insist on “conservation of energy” by formula, while all insolation in whatever form is quickly wasted to space via EMR. Careful accounting of energy is helpful, Insisting on conservation by formula is delusional!

    “Now, there is an attempt from a more physical (physics) viewpoint and not in meteorological terms maybe. Maybe someone can add to it always taking all three of these free variables (P,T & ρ) into account, they al have their role”

    Not for understanding, but perhaps for an admission of incompetence!! The gas law for this atmosphere PV =.NcRsT Five variables, none orthogonal, add gravity. gets you six! To get a answer to “any” variable requires a solution to 30 unknown partial differential equations including 6 dependent on the variable that may “somehow” become a solution!!. There is no Cp or Cv in this atmosphere Do you think any GCModel or Meteorologist can actually solve that? Nc is moles dependent on “composition”, WV, of that mixture, like Rs! Got your bitch computer programming finished? 🙂 -will-

  13. suricat says:

    wayne says: May 29, 2015 at 11:35 pm

    “…”

    At last some ‘sane words’ to express the ‘convective’ method of energy transfer. Thank you wayne!🙂

    I’ve prepared a few posts in response to some queries, but I’ll not post them. I think its time to delve more deeply into the ‘energy transfer’ conundrum and look for a way that’s easier for the novice, and expert alike, to ‘pull together’ the plethora of functions and processes that cause ‘energy transfer’ in a planetary atmosphere open to a gravity field.

    Does anyone here have an understanding of ‘energy attractors’ (not the mathematical concept) that lead to a ‘manifold’ and other ‘bifurcations’? I’m ‘self-educated’ in this discipline and am not confident to ‘lead’ a discussion, but would participate in one.

    As an ‘intro’. There are two ‘attractors’ involved with local convection from the surface and its important to understand that this ‘convection’ is due to ‘buoyant effects against the gravity gradient’, thus, maintains a ‘vertically up’ vector. These ‘attractors’ ‘bifurcate’ from the ‘thermal energy’ ‘source’ as ‘less dense’ than the surrounding atmosphere. The attractors are ‘WV’ (a gas less dense than the atmosphere’s main ‘other’ constituents) and ‘warm air’ (heated by a local ‘hot-spot’). Both attractors cause a local ‘density disparity’ to the region where they ‘exist/are generated from’ and initialise ‘convection’.

    The thing about ‘convection’ is that it involves the ‘movement of mass’! This brings the property of ‘inertia’ into question, thus, our ‘bifurcation’ becomes a true ‘manifold’ where ‘three’ attractors now need to be observed and understood.

    In turn, this would lead on to the properties of the Coriolis Effect, Earth centrifuge theory and the ‘diffusion pump’ principle, but I’ll not continue.

    Please. Let’s look at this in a different way to get some ‘answers’!

    Best regards, Ray.

  14. suricat says:
    May 30, 2015 at 4:03 am

    wayne says: May 29, 2015 at 11:35 pm

    “…”
    “At last some ‘sane words’ to express the ‘convective’ method of energy transfer. Thank you wayne!🙂

    I’ve prepared a few posts in response to some queries, but I’ll not post them. I think its time to delve more deeply into the ‘energy transfer’ conundrum and look for a way that’s easier for the novice, and expert alike, to ‘pull together’ the plethora of functions and processes that cause ‘energy transfer’ in a planetary atmosphere open to a gravity field.

    Does anyone here have an understanding of ‘energy attractors’ (not the mathematical concept) that lead to a ‘manifold’ and other ‘bifurcations’? I’m ‘self-educated’ in this discipline and am not confident to ‘lead’ a discussion, but would participate in one.”

    Ray,
    I have no such understanding but accept considering your POV ! I understand little or none. I believe I know “some” as a prerequisite, but am distressed that the more I learn the less I know! Perhaps this is where entropy comes from! Can you please present some distinction between, understanding, learning, and the very exclusive knowing?

    Can your Attractors be distinguished from the “potential differences” that initiate all spontaneity?
    All the best. -will-

  15. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 30, 2015 at 2:41 am

    “What even more folk do not know or “actually deny” is the amount of airborne water condensate, an aerosol colloid, with unknown density, that is supported by gravitational buoyancy!”

    Yes Will. The ‘rate of descent’ of the/a ‘droplet’ is ‘offset’ by the ‘rate of ascent’ of the ‘convecting atmosphere’. This is confiscation! How may I help you to ‘disambiguate’ this conundrum?

    “Average daily precipitation is 3 mm column water, which is replaced daily surface evaporation providing 80 W/m^2 of radiative exitance to space. However, total average column water supported is 24-28 mm. For this amount of water, to be water vapor the entire atmosphere must be above 30 Celsius! Parts, equatorial Sunside are above this temperature, and polar or nightside air temperatures are well below. This insists that Sunside evaporation of that airborne condensate to WV and nigntside conversion of WV back to airborne condensate, must be.far greater than surface evaporation. No one has measured!!”

    AFAIK, no, they haven’t ‘measured’. However, have you considered the ‘oceans in the sky’? ‘Clouds’ are full of surprises. They even ‘rain’ into the lower atmosphere (virga rain) and don’t ‘wet’ the surface. The +30C temp is most likely ‘stored’ elsewhere, in clouds and ‘latent heat’.

    “I respectfully disagree, It is not the density, but weight/volume, or (weight/volume) difference per vertical distance or interval that dominate. Still to simple in this atmosphere in this gravitational field. PV = (force/m2) x m3. That is force x distance, that might be “energy” but more likely “work” the conversion of energy = construction + entropy(of construction). Nothing that the forces in this atmosphere actually “do” are ever isentropic, never reversible, never adiabatic! It cannot happen! Electromagnetic radiative flux to space cares little if that is (energy) or (energy/temperature), the definition of entropy!! So many insist on “conservation of energy” by formula, while all insolation in whatever form is quickly wasted to space via EMR. Careful accounting of energy is helpful, Insisting on conservation by formula is delusional!”

    Quote: “It is not the density, but weight/volume, or (weight/volume) difference per vertical distance or interval that dominate.”

    “but weight/volume” IS “density” Will! I think you are trying to describe something that you can’t explain here. Please ‘re-post’ this issue with more clarity.

    The remainder of your posting is unintelligible to me. Please clarify, this may well improve my comprehension. However, I see nothing related to inertia there.

    Best regards, Ray.

  16. wayne says:

    “the amount of airborne water condensate, an aerosol colloid, with unknown density, that is supported by gravitational buoyancy!”

    Exatly Will, unknown,or unknown to myself also. I’ve never seen any calculations of how much a cloud weighs over the same volume of air at that altitue but you just know it is sizable. That ‘support’ though as I take it to not come from any bouyancy force for it is clearly heavier but from the force from the air streaming upward below those clouds and that is continuous, not bubbles of packets or you would see clouds bouncing up and down as a packet prssed it upward then no packet and the cloud would fall until the next packet.

    Besides, as a former sailplane pilot I have never, ever experienced ‘packets’ of air rising below clouds but a very steady upward movement, many times reaching 1200 feet per minute or more (≈14 mph or more). That velocity itself carries a fair amount of energy in the mass of that stream and that is expended to steadily support the cloud, no bouncing clouds that I have ever seen. Observation trumps.

    Clouds can fall. I have only seen it first hand once in my life but one afternoon about ten years ago a large tower five or ten miles to the west got cut off from the sun shining on it as the sun set. That cloud literally fell and I was watching the news flash, on channel 9 I believe, and it showed the radar that looked just like a perfect red and white bullseye target ten mile wide of concentric circles, very strange. When it hit the surface and spead outward we experienced just over 100 mph straight line wind that hit here and this was many miles away… pretty awesome. In minutes it was gone. Bent one of my trees with a three foot trunk nearly horizontal but thankfully it didn’t snap.

  17. wayne says:

    Hi suricat, glad you differentiate those “attractors” from the math with chaotic phase space and all of that. I have no problem taking it as a general description but still not sure I understand some examples. On general attractor I have in my mind, and this is rather new viewpoint for me is water and its interaction with other energy flows in our climate system. It is its large heat capacity. Air is what, some one-fourth that of water and there is some 800 times move grams of water than an equal volume of air? Think that’s right.

    Very warm air can move energy into water but the waters temperature barely budges and the air’s temperature falls quickly depending on the turbulence. Can the water then heat back up the air with that energy? No, of course not, only warm to cooler, that energy was quelched because of waters huge mass and large heat capacity with little temperature change. I might call that, water itself, an “energy attractor” of sorts. What can that energy now in the water do? Well, now time gets involved for that water can give back that energy to colder air over a very long time period because of airs feeble heat capacity per gram, take little energy to heat air one degree. Still rolling that over in my mind and haven’t the time yet to try to quantify some of my questions.

    Am I close to what you mean by “energy attractor”?

  18. suricat says: May 30, 2015 at 5:02 am

    Will Janoschka says: May 30, 2015 at 2:41 am

    (“What even more folk do not know or “actually deny” is the amount of airborne water condensate, an aerosol colloid, with unknown density, that is supported by gravitational buoyancy!”)

    “Yes Will. The ‘rate of descent’ of the/a ‘droplet’ is ‘offset’ by the ‘rate of ascent’ of the ‘convecting atmosphere’. This is confiscation! How may I help you to ‘disambiguate’ this conundrum?”

    I must respectfully disagree. This has nothing to do with opposing velocities but only the concept of buoyancy under gravitational attraction. Buoyancy demands that local pressure completely offset weight or pressure from above independent of density of above, else motion.. Please calculate the earth surface pressure with only gas above, with no condensates or other aerosols like birds or aircraft, above to raise that pressure, from much less, to 101kPa as measured!

    “AFAIK, no, they haven’t ‘measured’. However, have you considered the ‘oceans in the sky’? ‘Clouds’ are full of surprises. They even ‘rain’ into the lower atmosphere (virga rain) and don’t ‘wet’ the surface.”

    I have considered, but grow only more confused!

    The +30C temp is most likely ‘stored’ elsewhere, in clouds and ‘latent heat’.

    No please get rid of the concept that temperature is any indication of energy!
    That energy in clouds as latent or sensible is extremely volatile including much mass motion.
    Do not go there, but feel free to discuss such with any that have survived !
    All the best -will-

  19. “but weight/volume” IS “density” Will! I think you are trying to describe something that you can’t explain here. Please ‘re-post’ this issue with more clarity.
    No not ever, weight/mass completely differentiates horizontal from vertical in a gravitational field.

    All the best, -will-

  20. Roger Clague says:

    Ben Wouters says:
    May 29, 2015 at 1:37 pm

    In your diagram:
    Energy from surface > atmosphere: 14 + 6 + 24 = 44%
    Energy from other sources (sun) > atmosphere: 16 + 4 = 20%

    You have put 24% latent heat of condensation as energy from the surface
    Condensation ( rain ) happens at many levels up to 4km or more. That is not the surface

    Since a considerable part of the 16% sun > atmosphere is absorbed in the Thermosphere and Stratosphere,

    Troposphere is 90% of mass of atmosphere. So at most 2% of energy from sun absorbed in the stratosphere
    Atmosphere mainly heated from above and within not from below.

  21. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: May 30, 2015 at 9:52 am

    “You have put 24% latent heat of condensation as energy from the surface”
    No, I’ve put 24% latent heat of EVAPORATION as energy from the surface.
    Evaporation happens mostly at the surface by solar heated oceans.

  22. Ben Wouters says:

    wayne says: May 29, 2015 at 11:35 pm

    “In simple terms, he found that a fixed volume of gas, say one cubic meter, at the same temperature and pressure, would always have the same number of molecules no matter what gas is in the container.”
    Agree. If wv is present in a volume of air the H2O molecules replace other molecules (N2, O2).
    They do NOT ‘percolate’ through the volume, they are an integral part of the volume.
    Max wv ‘content’ in a volume of air is at 100% RH.
    At 10C the difference in density between 0% and 100% RH is a mere 6 grams/m^3.
    Air at 9C and 100% RH has the same density as air at 10C and 0% RH.
    Density difference between air at 35C and 0% and 100% RH is 24 grams/m^3.
    At lower temperatures the wv “content” of air can be neglected for density considerations.
    Temperature is the deciding factor.
    Only at high temperatures air can “hold” a lot of wv, and this becomes very relevant in MAINTAINING convection, due to the release of latent heat.
    The reason why ocean surface temperature must be above ~28C to enable hurricane development.

  23. Ben Wouters says:

    wayne says: May 29, 2015 at 11:35 pm

    “Back to the topic of global scale convection cells.”

    Pse explain what a global scale convection cell is.
    The largest SINGLE cell convection I’m aware of is a thunderstorm (cumulonimbus).
    And this is already a very complex system internally.
    Low pressure areas, hurricanes etc. are MULTI cell systems, even more complicated.
    But still not ‘global scale’.
    So lets stick to single innocent thermals and perhaps expand when we agree on their reason for being.

    “Now, on the Hadley scale convection… about 1800 nautical miles across by my guess from the equator to 30 N/S”
    The Hadley cell (and the Ferrel and Polar cells) are NOT driven by convection.
    Their driving force is the thermal wind.

  24. Ben Wouters says:

    Pressure.

    Pressure in the static atmosphere is determined by the weight of the column above the measuring point. Assuming gravity to be a constant in at least the troposphere, it is the mass of the air above that dictates the pressure.
    At the surface the temperature can be eg -30C or +40C and the pressure in both cases eg 1013 hPa. All this means is that the MASS of the column above the surface is the same in both cases.
    Obviously the +40C column has expanded more upwards than the -30C column.

    We’ve been through this already:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/beginners-guide-to-convection-cells/comment-page-1/#comment-101278
    or
    http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section1a.html#pressure_gradient

    Seen no objections sofar.

  25. Ben Wouters says:

    wayne says:May 30, 2015 at 5:02 am

    “Exatly Will, unknown,or unknown to myself also. I’ve never seen any calculations of how much a cloud weighs over the same volume of air at that altitue but you just know it is sizable. That ‘support’ though as I take it to not come from any bouyancy force for it is clearly heavier but from the force from the air streaming upward below those clouds and that is continuous, not bubbles of packets or you would see clouds bouncing up and down as a packet prssed it upward then no packet and the cloud would fall until the next packet.”

    The BBC had a serie Operation Cloud Lab, and they attempted to weigh clouds.
    see http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zsbwjxs#zyrq7ty
    Cumulus clouds go up to perhaps 200 tonnes of water, cb’s a million tons or more.

    Indeed a cloud (waterdroplets) is kept ‘in the air’ by falling through rising air.
    Convection that creates simple cumulus clouds can be in the form of bubbles or streams.
    In the case of bubbles the solar heating of the surface is not strong enough to maintain a stream.
    The surface has to heat up again before the next thermal can leave.
    These are called ‘pulsating thermals’. You see the cumulus cloud form, and quickly disappear again when the thermal ends.

  26. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 30, 2015 at 4:52 am

    “I believe I know “some” as a prerequisite, but am distressed that the more I learn the less I know!”

    Join ‘the club’ Will.🙂

    “Perhaps this is where entropy comes from!”

    Not quite. Its where ‘entropy’ ‘goes to’.

    Engineers attempt to improve the ‘efficiency of enthalpy’ by way of ‘system manipulation’. Losses from ‘the system’ are understood as ‘inefficiency’, or ‘entropy’.

    The ‘attractor’ POV looks at the paths that ‘entropy’ (inefficiency) can take to reduce the ‘enthalpy’ (thus, efficiency) of the system.

    “Can you please present some distinction between, understanding, learning, and the very exclusive knowing?”

    This should be reserved for another conversation Will.

    “Can your Attractors be distinguished from the “potential differences” that initiate all spontaneity?”

    Perhaps. A ‘test’ would improve the ‘probability statistic’.

    TBH, I awoke yesterday confronted with my lap-top open with this thread. I’m not sure that I can continue here.

    Best regards, Ray.

  27. wayne says:May 30, 2015 at 5:02 am

    (“the amount of airborne water condensate, an aerosol colloid, with unknown density, that is supported by gravitational buoyancy!”)

    “Exatly Will, unknown,or unknown to myself also. I’ve never seen any calculations of how much a cloud weighs over the same volume of air at that altitue but you just know it is sizable. That ‘support’ though as I take it to not come from any bouyancy force for it is clearly heavier but from the force from the air streaming upward below those clouds and that is continuous, not bubbles of packets or you would see clouds bouncing up and down as a packet prssed it upward then no packet and the cloud would fall until the next packet.”

    I agree with no packets. But this? “not come from any bouyancy force for it is clearly heavier” Why is it clearly heavier? Same mass of N2, O2, and H2O whether gas or condensate with a slightly greater but unknown density. A somewhat greater horizontal area or somewhat lower altitude must compensate with no updraft. Remember atmospheric bulge sunward. How much of that is due to the expansion of airborne water condensate to water vapor as the atmosphere increases in temperature sunside? So many unanswered questions, and so many unsubstantiated guesses in Meteorology!🙂

  28. wayne says:

    Will: “I agree with no packets. But this? “not come from any bouyancy force for it is clearly heavier” Why is it clearly heavier? Same mass of N2, O2, and H2O whether gas or condensate with a slightly greater but unknown density. A somewhat greater horizontal area or somewhat lower altitude must compensate with no updraft.”

    Hi Will.

    Hmm, you ask why I say that, why heavier. By intuition I guess, or reminants of my chemistry minor minus four hours. Remember that to STP there is defined 22.4 liters of volume in any gas of any composition of particles. So if water vapor particles condense, less particles per volume and the volume will shrink but you are right, same mass, so denser. That’s all I meant by that. Brings to mind some very lengthy comment exchanges with Anastasia Makarieva on this very topic of condensation and volume. She was very badly treated at wuwt and that’s part of my leaving. You might like skimming some of her work on clouds, condensation and the affect on global scale frontal systems.

    https://2s3c.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/shrinking-implosion-vs-expansion-explosion/

  29. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 31, 2015 at 2:46 am

    “So many unanswered questions, and so many unsubstantiated guesses in Meteorology! ”

    Anxiously awaiting the engineers explanation for the ‘ Hadley cell convection’.

  30. Roger Clague says:

    Ben Wouters says:
    May 30, 2015 at 10:42 am

    No, I’ve put 24% latent heat of EVAPORATION as energy from the surface.
    Evaporation happens mostly at the surface by solar heated ocean

    At surface: H2O (l) + Latent heat L gives H2O (g)
    Water is changing to higher energy state
    Within the atmosphere at 200m to 4000m: H2O (g) gives H2O (l) + L
    water vapour condenses and releases energy to the atmosphere
    Latent heat warms the atmosphere from within at 200m to 4000m. or more.
    Water gains energy at the surface and releases it at altitude

    The convection is caused by the reduction in density caused by more H2O(g) relative to N2/O2

    Surface radiation to atmosphere: 16%
    Surface convection: 6%
    Sun to atmosphere directly absorbed from above by H2O 20%
    Sun to atmosphere though evaporating and condensing of H2O 24%

    That is from surface below 22% from sun above and latent heat within 44%.

    Atmosphere convection is not like convection in a room with a heater on the floor.

  31. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: May 31, 2015 at 9:55 am

    ” At surface: H2O (l) + Latent heat L gives H2O (g)
    Water is changing to higher energy state
    Within the atmosphere at 200m to 4000m: H2O (g) gives H2O (l) + L
    water vapour condenses and releases energy to the atmosphere
    Latent heat warms the atmosphere from within at 200m to 4000m. or more.
    Water gains energy at the surface and releases it at altitude”
    Yes, that’s more or less the process.

    ” The convection is caused by the reduction in density caused by more H2O(g) relative to N2/O2″
    How do you explain those famous periods with fog for days in a row.
    (fog is 100% RH air with condensation as well) Should convect away in no time according to your theory.

    Counting in this way you can also count the surface radiation as coming from above, since the sun heats the surface (to most people at least), surface radiates to the atmosphere and this radiation is absorbed higher in the atmosphere, so the energy is actually coming from above.

    What is surface convection? Sand/ dust etc. moving up? (like dustdevils?)

    ” Atmosphere convection is not like convection in a room with a heater on the floor.”
    And the essential difference would be?

  32. wayne says: May 31, 2015 at 4:10 am

    “Brings to mind some very lengthy comment exchanges with Anastassia Makarieva on this very topic of condensation and volume. She was very badly treated at wuwt and that’s part of my leaving. You might like skimming some of her work on clouds, condensation and the affect on global scale frontal systems.”

    https://2s3c.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/shrinking-implosion-vs-expansion-explosion/

    Thank you Wayne, skimmed, bookmarked, for much pondering! I noticed this is the last thread in that site. Are there updates elsewhere? Nevermind I will look! Ben must have the last word!

  33. wayne says:

    “Thank you Wayne, skimmed, bookmarked, for much pondering! I noticed this is the last thread in that site. Are there updates elsewhere? Nevermind I will look! Ben must have the last word!”

    Will, Dr. Anastassia M. Makarieva and Prof. Victor G. Gorshkov along with the rest of their team’s work is pretty deep mathematically and most is obtainable via http://www.bioticregulation.ru/contacts.php under the ‘publications’ tab. It has been a few years since I spent any time reading there but the proofs they present is fascinating and is right in the area of this thread. They seem to be concentrating on the biological/water vapor aspects and how this affects the global circulation via convection and evaporation. BTW, that blog of the link I gave above is new to me, I’ll spend some time reading other articles there as I get time.

  34. wayne says:

    Also Will I seem to have short-circuited your thought on ‘why do clouds stay aloft’ with already condensed particulate water droplets within even though it is slightly heavier per volume than if the droplets were water vapor molecules. I set outside watching some clouds go by in the middle of the night and I thought, oops, Will’s question may need some further examination. If that particulate laden air found within that cloud is in fact less dense than the cooler (potential temperature wise) and drier air below then that cloud would have no real physical reason to lower it’s altitude would it? Is that more what you were addressing?

    There are so many factors to keep track of, to not leave out in the topic of the physics of our atmosphere is it easy to leave many out, painted over, when speaking of one particular area or the other.

  35. oldbrew says:

    Talking of short-circuits, why not bring in electricity…

    ‘Atmospheric electricity affects cloud height’
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/mar/06/atmospheric-electricity-affects-cloud-height

    Check out the Carnegie curve in the video.
    Also – see Tim Cullen: http://malagabay.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/the-carnegie-curve/

  36. tallbloke says:

    “Brings to mind some very lengthy comment exchanges with Anastassia Makarieva on this very topic of condensation and volume. She was very badly treated at wuwt and that’s part of my leaving.”

    A scientist offering innovative theory which challenges lukewarmist orthodoxy getting buffooned at WUWT? Surely not…

  37. wayne says:

    Yes OB, that is but one of the ‘brushed over’ aspects I mentioned. As he said:

    “Whether these small currents affect the cloud’s constituent droplets has proved to be a question that is very difficult to answer because, almost invariably, other much stronger influences on the droplets are present, …”

    it becomes had hard to tell just how much these small (sometimes not) influences come into play, but the overall effect is always ends up right back at the bottom of the logic that it is density plus any other vertical forces that is why the atmosphere is as we experience day in and day out. Does the electrical gradient (some 200-300 volts per meter IIRC) also affect cloud droplets since they experience charge that can evolve into lightning… without a doubt! and that is such a vertical component too.

  38. wayne says:

    My checker missed “had” that should have been “hard”.🙂 Oh well, I need to proofread and often skip that boring task.

  39. wayne says: May 31, 2015 at 9:18 pm

    Also Will I seem to have short-circuited your thought on ‘why do clouds stay aloft’ with already condensed particulate water droplets within even though it is slightly heavier per volume than if the droplets were water vapor molecules. I set outside watching some clouds go by in the middle of the night and I thought, oops, Will’s question may need some further examination. If that particulate laden air found within that cloud is in fact less dense than the cooler (potential temperature wise) and drier air below then that cloud would have no real physical reason to lower it’s altitude would it? Is that more what you were addressing?

    Yes! How do they measure column water? Would surface pressure be 98.4 kPa without the 2.6 cm of H2O, independent of its state, but still buoyant? More importantly, in the 90’s measurement from collocated aircraft indicate that clouds absorb more visible energy than they reflect. In sunlight, UP go the clouds from increasing temperature and WV! Is that convection? Is that a cell? Is the size of a cloud limited by the condensate that is visible? Try looking at a cloud in the 8-13 micron interval! What does that do to some idiotic energy budget?🙂

    oldbrew says: May 31, 2015 at 9:35 pm

    “Talking of short-circuits, why not bring in electricity…
    ‘Atmospheric electricity affects cloud height’”

    Oh yes! Find someone that knows anything! Ben Franklin did not fly that kite, his slaves did!

    tallbloke says: May 31, 2015 at 10:12 pm

    (“Brings to mind some very lengthy comment exchanges with Anastassia Makarieva on this very topic of condensation and volume. She was very badly treated at wuwt and that’s part of my leaving.”)

    “A scientist offering innovative theory which challenges lukewarmist orthodoxy getting buffooned at WUWT? Surely not…”

    The paper is available for download! Get a few friends with masters in mathematics, to help discover the significance. No one at WUWT had a clue!
    All the best! -will-

  40. wayne says:

    Yes Rog… sadly surely! We’ve seen that more more that once haven’t we? What a boring place that site has become propping AGW in the guise. It is plain for all to see that will take the blinders off.

  41. wayne says: May 31, 2015 at 10:58 pm

    “Yes Rog… sadly surely! We’ve seen that more more that once haven’t we? What a boring place that site has become propping AGW in the guise. It is plain for all to see that will take the blinders off.”

    You may find WUWT boring, I find it infuriating, with there their “back radiation”! Do they actually feed these folk stupid pills?

  42. Sorry “their”, sorry again, was I writing of the folk or location? Most infuriating!

  43. suricat says:

    Guys. Clouds ‘stay aloft’ because the ‘air’ (atmosphere [gas]) within them is ‘saturated’ with WV. This ‘off-set’s’ the ‘heavier density’ of the water droplets to achieve ~equilibrium with the environment surrounding ‘the cloud’. Thus, clouds ‘rise’, ‘sink’, or ‘stay at the same altitude’, dependant on the ‘liquid content/cloud volume’ (the gas content in a cloud is always ‘at saturation point’ with WV, unlike the environs).

    wayne says: May 31, 2015 at 10:42 pm

    I concur wayne! The ‘static’ electrical charge that presents in Earth’s atmosphere can become ‘short-circuited’ by a ‘massive convective flow’. When this occurs we tend to give it the name of ‘thunderstorm’!

    The ‘electrical heating’ aspect of an ‘electric arc’ in the atmosphere is enough to cause much water in the atmosphere to ‘evaporate’, but the ‘shock-wave’ from the ‘sudden electrical discharge’, IMHO, is more disturbing to Earth’s systems and generates a ‘braking influence’ to ‘convection’ per se.

    When a ‘shock-wave’ is passed through ‘a cloud’, ‘cloud droplet size’ is increased by the ‘percussion’ effect.

    Best regards, Ray.

  44. suricat says:
    June 1, 2015 at 2:08 am

    “Guys. Clouds ‘stay aloft’ because the ‘air’ (atmosphere [gas]) within them is ‘saturated’ with WV. This ‘off-set’s’ the ‘heavier density’ of the water droplets to achieve ~equilibrium with the environment surrounding ‘the cloud’. Thus, clouds ‘rise’, ‘sink’, or ‘stay at the same altitude’, dependant on the ‘liquid content/cloud volume’ (the gas content in a cloud is always ‘at saturation point’ with WV, unlike the environs).Guys. Clouds ‘stay aloft’ because the ‘air’ (atmosphere [gas]) within them is ‘saturated’ with WV. This ‘off-set’s’ the ‘heavier density’ of the water droplets to achieve ~equilibrium with the environment surrounding ‘the cloud’. Thus, clouds ‘rise’, ‘sink’, or ‘stay at the same altitude’, dependant on the ‘liquid content/cloud volume’ (the gas content in a cloud is always ‘at saturation point’ with WV, unlike the environs).”

    Ray,
    I agree. Where is the accounting for the insolation (2400 J/gm evaporation of water condensate) to WV and the nightside exitance to space via EMR of that same energy upon condensation of WV back to airborne condensate? This is not any time delay but a continuous process of dispatching insolation to space. Where are the CPA audits of “this” energy budget? It seems to me that clouds not sensible heats of anything are the BIG moderator of Earth temperature extremes.
    All the best! -will-

  45. wayne says:

    suricat: “Clouds ‘stay aloft’ because the ‘air’ (atmosphere [gas]) within them is ‘saturated’ with WV. This ‘off-set’s’ the ‘heavier density’ of the water droplets to achieve ~equilibrium with the environment surrounding ‘the cloud’.”

    Ok Ray, I think I see what you are implying, the clouds are always at maximum r.h. which would therefore also mean they are at the maximum decrease in density of the gas between any droplets and compared to the surrounding environment that is not at saturation and this maximum decrease in density can then mean the droplets are naturally supported within this 100% r.h. environment bring the density to the exact altitude you find the clouds at. Something like that right? I’ll let that roll around a bit.

    Here’s what seems a good explanation of why the tiny droplets never just fall out of the cloud being a dense liquid and always pulled downward. With the explanation it would take very little turbulence/upward air movement from below to support these due to their tiny size. Equations help.
    http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g110_w08/lecture_notes/precip_processes/precip_processes.html

  46. OB,
    I hope you realize we are all beginners here, as no one had anything but fantasy!
    Are you taking notes?

    [reply] these are the notes🙂

  47. wayne says: June 1, 2015 at 5:05 am

    “Here’s what seems a good explanation of why the tiny droplets never just fall out of the cloud being a dense liquid and always pulled downward. With the explanation it would take very little turbulence/upward air movement from below to support these due to their tiny size.”

    Have you considered hydrogen bonding in these H2O molecules? That is why I suggested in one molecule thick Frisbee, no need of 3D for increased density with water, as noted by snowflakes! 🙂

  48. Roger Clague says:

    Ben Wouters says:
    May 31, 2015 at 4:38 pm
    ” The convection is caused by the reduction in density caused by more H2O(g) relative to N2/O2″
    How do you explain those famous periods with fog for days in a row.
    (fog is 100% RH air with condensation as well) Should convect away in no time according to your theory.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/fog
    Evaporation fog is caused by cold air passing over warmer water or moist land.

    Fog is an unusual event caused by a temporary temperature inversion. This supports my theory.

    Counting in this way you can also count the surface radiation as coming from above, since the sun heats the surface (to most people at least), surface radiates to the atmosphere and this radiation is absorbed higher in the atmosphere, so the energy is actually coming from above.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page5.php
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

    Nasa make the same mistake about latent heat. On page 5 surface balance, they say evaporation.
    On page 6 atmosphere balance they again say evaporation. It should say condensation. Condensation occurs at altitude not at the surface.

    My scores using Nasa figures
    From surface: convection 5%, IR from surface absorbed by atmos. 5% total 10%
    Not from surface: condensing H2O 25% absorbed by H2O 23% total 48%
    Not from surface 5 x from surface

    RogC ” Atmosphere convection is not like convection in a room with a heater on the floor.”
    BenW And the essential difference would be?

    A thought experiment
    When I turn off the room heater the T/h temperature gradient in the room stops. Convection stops.
    Turn off solar heating, as at night, the T/h of the atmosphere doesn’t change. Convection continues, storms and rain continues.
    This difference should not surprise you.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/beginners-guide-to-convection-cells/comment-page-1/#comment-101278
    “This implies that for every altitude the atmosphere must have a certain temperature that creates enough pressure to “bear” the weight of the air column above it.”

    You say weight of air causes temperature. Weight continues at night
    Convection in a room and an atmosphere are not similar.

  49. Ben Wouters says:

    wayne says: June 1, 2015 at 5:05 am

    “Here’s what seems a good explanation of why the tiny droplets never just fall out of the cloud being a dense liquid and always pulled downward. With the explanation it would take very little turbulence/upward air movement from below to support these due to their tiny size. Equations help.
    http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g110_w08/lecture_notes/precip_processes/precip_processes.html

    Total weight of the droplets in an average cloud is ~0,5 grams/m^3.
    Also good explanations:
    http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section3.html#cloud_formation
    http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section3.html#precipitation

    At -20C or colder the difference in density between 0% RH and 100% RH is very close to zero.
    (cold air does no support much wv)
    How do you explain the (very) high vertical speeds in a cumulonimbus at this and colder temperatures?

  50. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: June 1, 2015 at 12:13 pm

    “Fog is an unusual event caused by a temporary temperature inversion. ”
    Nothing unusual about fog.
    Everyone is telling that temperature has nothing to do with convection,
    it is low density due to wv content.
    So how can a temperature inversion prevent fog (low density) from rising ???

    “It should say condensation.”
    It says evaporation and that is correct.

    “Turn off solar heating, as at night, the T/h of the atmosphere doesn’t change. Convection continues, storms and rain continues.”
    Solar driven convection (thermals) start well after sunrise (9 or 10 o’clock lt), is at its max. around 2 o’clock and dies out well before sunset.
    After sunset (esp. clear skies) the surface temperature drops rapidly, also cooling the air layer close to it. The whole column above the mixed layer cools ~1 degree during the night.
    So solar driven convection stops just as in the room. Storms and rain are usually caused by frontal activity, a totally different story.

  51. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: June 1, 2015 at 12:13 pm

    “You say weight of air causes temperature. Weight continues at night”

    What I actually said:
    ““This implies that for every altitude the atmosphere must have a certain temperature that creates enough pressure to “bear” the weight of the air column above it.”
    At every altitude the air below must have a sufficient pressure to push the column above up against gravity. This requires a certain temperature.

  52. Ben Wouters says:

    wayne says: June 1, 2015 at 5:05 am

    “Here’s what seems a good explanation of why the tiny droplets never just fall out of the cloud being a dense liquid and always pulled downward.
    http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g110_w08/lecture_notes/precip_processes/precip_processes.html
    From the same source:
    http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g110_w08/lecture_notes/cooling_processes/cooling_processes.html
    esp. Adiabatic processes.

  53. Ben Wouters says:

    Ben Wouters says: June 1, 2015 at 3:23 pm

    “After sunset (esp. clear skies) the surface temperature drops rapidly, also cooling the air layer close to it.”
    This is called ‘nocturnal inversion’.

    @TimC
    One day we may even get to the nocturnal jets 😉

  54. Ben Wouters says: June 1, 2015 at 6:03 pm

    “After sunset (esp. clear skies) the surface temperature drops rapidly, also cooling the air layer close to it.” ‘This is called ‘nocturnal inversion’.

    Please show a location, with its measurements, where nocturnal surface temperatures (soil or water) are lower that the overlaying 30cm air!

  55. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: June 2, 2015 at 5:08 am

    “Please show a location, with its measurements, where nocturnal surface temperatures (soil or water) are lower that the overlaying 30cm air! ‘
    What is your obsession with the first 30 cm of the atmosphere???

    http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meetmast_Cabauw

    http://www.knmi.nl/~bosveld/experiments/caboper/viewdata/viewdata.htm

    esp

    http://www.knmi.nl/~bosveld/experiments/caboper/graphs/proftall_0.htm

  56. Ben Wouters says: June 2, 2015 at 8:15 am
    Will Janoschka says: June 2, 2015 at 5:08 am
    (“Please show a location, with its measurements, where nocturnal surface temperatures (soil or water) are lower that the overlaying 30cm air! ‘‘)
    “What is your obsession with the first 30 cm of the atmosphere???”

    That level of detail is needed to observe the direction of transfer “at” the surface air interface. You claim the surface both adds energy to the air during insolation AND subtracts energy from the air nocturnally.
    I can accept the insolation part but only for the first 1.5 m of air. I have measured! All air above that level has its temperature set entirely from the insolation itself. At night soil temperature is above that of the air. Your refs do not show that detail. Please defend your fantasy!

  57. Roger Clague says:

    Ben Wouters says:

    June 1, 2015 at 3:23 pm
    Roger Clague says: June 1, 2015 at 12:13 pm

    It says evaporation and that is correct.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

    “The remaining energy [to the atmosphere] is transferred from the Earth’s surface by evaporation (25%)”

    The Latent heat is released and can warm the air (N2/O2) only when the water vapour condenses. It condenses in clouds. Clouds are mostly above 1000m.

    “Turn off solar heating, as at night, the T/h of the atmosphere doesn’t change. Convection continues, storms and rain continues.”

    My point is about the temperature gradient at night. You say the sun heats the surface and the surface heats the atmosphere. How is T/h = 6K/km maintained with no heating from the sun at night?
    If I turn of the heater in a room then the T/h temperature gradient will quickly (<1 hour) become zero.

  58. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: June 2, 2015 at 9:55 am

    “You claim the surface both adds energy to the air during insolation AND subtracts energy from the air nocturnally.”
    No, I don’t. The surface warms due insolation and cools in the absence of insolation. Surface (soil) can change its temperature faster than the whole atmospheric column. Oceans are much slower in this respect.
    Exact reason (ao) why I introduced TestEarth, to prevent this kind of discussions.

    “I can accept the insolation part but only for the first 1.5 m of air.”
    Will Janoschka says: May 2, 2015 at 9:57 pm
    “The claim is the Sun heats (raises the temperature) of the surface, which then heats (raises the temperature) of the atmosphere. What BS.”
    A bit confusing. Does insolation perhaps heat the surface only on weekdays, not in weekends?
    Or perhaps no heating in May, but heating in June etc.?

    “At night soil temperature is above that of the air.”

    see http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter9/index.html
    esp. http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter9/bl_evol_6am.html

    This has been observed countless times all over the world.

    “I have measured!” Explains it all.

  59. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: June 2, 2015 at 10:49 am

    “The Latent heat is released and can warm the air (N2/O2) only when the water vapour condenses. It condenses in clouds. Clouds are mostly above 1000m.”
    Correct, latent heat is removed FROM the surface during evaporation, so the energy is coming FROM the surface.

    “How is T/h = 6K/km maintained with no heating from the sun at night?”
    The surface can loose energy direct to the atmosphere by evaporation, conduction and radiation. But the surface can also radiate directly to space. (atmospheric window). The surface thus cools faster during the night than the atmosphere, that can only lose energy to space slowly.

    So if the temperature above the mixed layer for the entire column drops evenly ~1K during the night, the lapse rate remains the same, only from a lower starting point.

  60. oldbrew says:

    That ‘nobody knows’ thing…

    ‘The largest source of uncertainty in today’s climate models is clouds. “We are still seeking a fundamental theory for moist convection, or what we call convection with phase changes. Without that theory, it is difficult to construct more accurate parameterizations [or models] of clouds that go into global climate models,” Romps said.’

    “Stereophotogrammetry can provide very useful information in this quest.”

    http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2015/05/28/clouds-in-3d-innovation-makes-stereophotogrammetry-a-common-thing/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

  61. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: June 2, 2015 at 3:25 pm

    ” “We are still seeking a fundamental theory for moist convection, or what we call convection with phase changes. Romps said.’”
    Must be an IPCC brainwashed climate ‘scientist’ then. Never talked to a meteorologist apparently.
    Probably also believes that the Adiabatic Lapse Rates have anything to do with the temperature profile of the ‘static’ atmosphere….

    [mod] should ‘anything’ read ‘nothing’ in the last line?

  62. Ben Wouters says:

    Ben Wouters says: June 2, 2015 at 3:48 pm

    “Probably also believes that the Adiabatic Lapse Rates have anything to do with the temperature profile of the ‘static’ atmosphere….”

    [mod] should ‘anything’ read ‘nothing’ in the last line?
    Imo anything is correct, but then English is not my primary language.

    Intention is : Adiabatic Lapse Rates are TOTALLY unrelated to the temperature profile of the ‘static’ atmosphere.
    They are ONLY meaningful for the temperature change vs altitude INSIDE air that moves vertically in an atmosphere that is (almost) in hydrostatic equilibrium.

  63. oldbrew says: June 2, 2015 at 3:25 pm

    (That ‘nobody knows’ thing…

    ‘The largest source of uncertainty in today’s climate models is clouds. “We are still seeking a fundamental theory for moist convection, or what we call convection with phase changes. Without that theory, it is difficult to construct more accurate parameterizations [or models] of clouds that go into global climate models,” Romps said.’

    “Stereophotogrammetry can provide very useful information in this quest.”

    http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2015/05/28/clouds-in-3d-innovation-makes-stereophotogrammetry-a-common-thing/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter )

    Thanks for the reference OB! If they had a third camera 200 m above the other two, they could get much more height information in this area of projective geometry.
    These are the folk that identify the unknown, rather than pander the beliefs of the religious!

    Ben Wouters says: June 2, 2015 at 3:48 pm
    oldbrew says: June 2, 2015 at 3:25 pm

    (” “We are still seeking a fundamental theory for moist convection, or what we call convection with phase changes. Romps said.’”)

    “Must be an IPCC brainwashed climate ‘scientist’ then. Never talked to a meteorologist apparently.
    Probably also believes that the Adiabatic Lapse Rates have anything to do with the temperature profile of the ‘static’ atmosphere….”

    Such a perfect example of my above comment!

  64. Ben Wouters says: June 2, 2015 at 8:42 pm

    “Intention is : Adiabatic Lapse Rates are TOTALLY unrelated to the temperature profile of the ‘static’ atmosphere.
    They are ONLY meaningful for the temperature change vs altitude INSIDE air that moves vertically in an atmosphere that is (almost) in hydrostatic equilibrium.”

    You adiabatic is observed nowhere! Such may happen only if your “air parcel” were contained in a reflective, thermally insulated, but flexible “baggy”, that would be an adiabatic barrier to both radiative and thermal energy transfer, while completely diabatic (promoting), pressure or expansion work to or from the environment! Please show any evidence of your fantasy! I hope this demonstrates the uselessness of the Meteorological religion!

  65. tallbloke says: May 31, 2015 at 10:12 pm

    (“Brings to mind some very lengthy comment exchanges with Anastassia Makarieva on this very topic of condensation and volume. She was very badly treated at wuwt and that’s part of my leaving.”)

    “A scientist offering innovative theory which challenges lukewarmist orthodoxy getting buffooned at WUWT? Surely not…”

    TB, OB,
    Have you had a chance a to look at any backup by Makarieva, on that site:
    https://2s3c.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/shrinking-implosion-vs-expansion-explosion/
    As suggested by Wayne? The Meteorologists critiqued the concept of power(force) from condensation,
    strictly from the viewpoint of their religion! No one scientifically applied their same critique “to their own religious beliefs”! Had they done so, the whole field of meteorology, and all the climate models that depend on such beliefs would have been dead and buried five years ago!
    Perhaps time to revisit that complete mockery of science.🙂

  66. Roger, Wayne, Suricat,
    I was searching Google for (Anastassia Makarieva WUWT) because of the “badly treated”

    The tallbloke 1-2013 article is no 8 on that list! I had to look!
    You guys are good at defending science from religion. Not in a sense that they are in opposition but in the sense that they are mostly orthogonal. In 2013 what is missing, ,and still is, in 2015, is an effective way of translating any of that to Cajun, from religious or scientific! The religious are winning 9 to 1!🙂 -will-

  67. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: June 1, 2015 at 3:35 am

    Why would you ‘double’ part of my post of June 1, 2015 at 2:08 am? I can only assume that this post was of great import WRT your understanding of how convection works. Glad to be of help.🙂

    However;

    “Ray,
    I agree. Where is the accounting for the insolation (2400 J/gm evaporation of water condensate) to WV and the nightside exitance to space via EMR of that same energy upon condensation of WV back to airborne condensate?”

    AFAIK its ‘hidden’ by the ‘latent’ property of H2O. Earth’s atmosphere is certainly a divergence from the ‘laboratory experience/experiment’, but to answer your query, ANY ‘latent property’ increases the ‘Cp’ of a gas mix! Thus, Earth’s atmosphere is a ‘diverse’ and ‘chaotic’ environment. The ‘atmospheric Cp’ is always changing and undefinable!

    BTW, “the night-side exitance to space via EMR” is probably ~the same as the ‘day-side exitance’. Peaks and troughs are ‘~3:00PM’ and ‘just before dawn’ respectively ‘at source’. You’ll need to calculate any ‘offset’ from this.🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  68. suricat says: June 3, 2015 at 1:53 am

    Will Janoschka says: June 1, 2015 at 3:35 am

    Why would you ‘double’ part of my post of June 1, 2015 at 2:08 am? I can only assume that this post was of great import WRT your understanding of how convection works. Glad to be of help.🙂

    Ray,
    Please, I know little of how convection may occur. My “assumption” was that all conversion of latent heat upon condensation was directly converted to EMR radiative flux. Mea culpa.

    However;

    (“Ray, I agree. Where is the accounting for the insolation (2400 J/gm evaporation of water condensate) to WV and the nightside exitance to space via EMR of that same energy upon condensation of WV back to airborne condensate?”)

    “AFAIK its ‘hidden’ by the ‘latent’ property of H2O. Earth’s atmosphere is certainly a divergence from the ‘laboratory experience/experiment’, but to answer your query, ANY ‘latent property’ increases the ‘Cp’ of a gas mix! Thus, Earth’s atmosphere is a ‘diverse’ and ‘chaotic’ environment. The ‘atmospheric Cp’ is always changing and undefinable!”

    OK, I now have “tentatively” learned that some of that latent heat may go into powering Atmospheric wind and wind-farms not pointing eastward and converting energy from planetary angular momentum.

    “BTW, “the night-side exitance to space via EMR” is probably ~the same as the ‘day-side exitance’. Peaks and troughs are ‘~3:00PM’ and ‘just before dawn’ respectively ‘at source’. You’ll need to calculate any ‘offset’ from this. :)” Best regards, Ray.

    Thank you,
    Measurements indicate that EMR exit flux “from the planet and atmosphere into the hemisphere with the Sun at apex” is at least twice that of EMR exit flux into the direction of the hemisphere in opposition. T^4!🙂 -grin-

  69. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: June 2, 2015 at 8:43 pm

    “These are the folk that identify the unknown, rather than pander the beliefs of the religious!”
    Unknown to the clueless perhaps, in the real world recreational (para)glider pilots can use this kind of forecasts for ao cloudbase, thermal strength, (cumulus) over-development prohibiting further thermals etc. etc.: http://rasp.kzc.nl/index.php?Day=%2B1&Lang=En&Stage=1
    Parameters: http://www.drjack.info/RASP/INFO/parameters.html
    All based on simple insolation driven convection, incorporating the well established use of the DALR and SALR

  70. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: June 3, 2015 at 3:35 am

    Ray,
    Please, I know little of how convection may occur. My “assumption” was that all conversion of latent heat upon condensation was directly converted to EMR radiative flux.

    No further comment needed……..

  71. Ben Wouters says June 3, 2015 at 8:12 am
    Will Janoschka says: June 3, 2015 at 3:35 am

    (‘Ray, Please, I know little of how convection may occur. My “assumption” was that all conversion of latent heat upon condensation was directly converted to EMR radiative flux.”)

    “No further comment needed……..”

    Indeed! Why did you comment?

  72. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: June 3, 2015 at 8:22 am

    “Indeed! Why did you comment?”
    Just for fun, copying your style which some seem to like😉

    Will Janoschka says: June 2, 2015 at 9:07 pm

    “You adiabatic is observed nowhere! Such may happen only if your “air parcel” were contained in a reflective, thermally insulated, but flexible “baggy”, that would be an adiabatic barrier to both radiative and thermal energy transfer, while completely diabatic (promoting), pressure or expansion work to or from the environment! Please show any evidence of your fantasy!”

    To keep things simple, especially for you:

    Now guess what happens with a thermal that rises in an atmosphere that is in HEq:
    it expands, just as the balloon. Expanding air cools, at the DALR assuming HEq and an adiabatic process.
    Adiabatic assumption is valid because the lifetime of a thermal is short, the temperature difference with the surrounding air is small and air is a lousy conductor anyway.
    If insolation is a concern, only the wv molecules can absorb solar radiation, and the effect is opposite the possible energy loss to the surrounding air.

  73. Kristian says:

    Ben Wouters says, June 2, 2015 at 8:42 pm:

    “[mod] should ‘anything’ read ‘nothing’ in the last line?
    Imo anything is correct, but then English is not my primary language.”

    In that case I guess “something” would be the correct word to use.

    “Adiabatic Lapse Rates are TOTALLY unrelated to the temperature profile of the ‘static’ atmosphere.”

    Again with this!? Ben, just because the actual observed temperature profile of the ‘static’ (what do you mean ‘static’?) atmosphere isn’t specifically CAUSED by gravity, specific heat and the release of latent heat alone, doesn’t mean the profile isn’t even in any way RELATED to the adiabatic lapse rates.

    This strange, narrow-minded idea of yours is almost as peculiar (and detached from reality) as your grand theory of geothermal heat somehow making our planetary surface warm beyond pure solar radiative equilibrium without the atmosphere doing any insulating work at all.

  74. Ben Wouters says: June 3, 2015 at 11:45 am
    Will Janoschka says: June 2, 2015 at 9:07 pmenvironment

    (“You adiabatic is observed nowhere! Such may happen only if your “air parcel” were contained in a reflective, thermally insulated, but flexible “baggy”, that would be an adiabatic barrier to both radiative and thermal energy transfer, while completely diabatic (promoting), pressure or expansion work to or from the environment! Please show any evidence of your fantasy!”)

    See no evidence, no rising, only expansion, is the balloon insulated from the chamber? how much did the temperature drop? You present no evidence of dry or saturated lapse rate anywhere all mesurement indicates a continuum of temperature with the immediate environment! Never any indication of your religious fantasy!

    “Now guess what happens with a thermal that rises in an atmosphere that is in HEq:
    it expands, just as the balloon. Expanding air cools, at the DALR assuming HEq and an adiabatic process.”

    If air is in hydrostatic equilibrium with its environment it will never move. If buoyant and moves in an adiabatic manner (no energy exchange) its buoyancy must persist all the way to the tropopause!

    “Adiabatic assumption is valid because the lifetime of a thermal is short, the temperature difference with the surrounding air is small and air is a lousy conductor anyway.”

    Your assumption is never valid, it is a fantasy! You use your fantasy, never for any understanding, but only in some nonsence way to promote that same fantasy!🙂

    “If insolation is a concern, only the wv molecules can absorb solar radiation, and the effect is opposite the possible energy loss to the surrounding air.”

    If EMR flux is present, as it always is, this can be an evaporation of airborne water condensate to WV sunside, and the inverse, condensation “with radiative exitance to space”, from WV to airborne condensate nightside with no needed change in air mass or temperature. There is only an increase in volume, up to 7%, with diabatic ascension sunside, and the corresponding decrease in volume,and diabatic descension nightside! Is that a convection cell? Is it 101? Why not? It is essential basic understanding of this atmosphere!🙂

  75. wayne says:

    Ben, I think you should have a question mark instead of certainty on this subject. Here is what and this has bothered me throughout this thread.

    The way you describe these packets, DALR, ELR, ALR, SALR and all of that (there I say vertical streams) cannot be correct. By your description of the way this works is the packet at the surface is warmer therefore less dense and rises and also is cooling much faster than the environmental lapse a it rises, and as the packet rises, the difference gets smaller and smaller as the temperature differential shrinks and when the temperatures equal the rise will stop at cloud base, equilibrium. But this is exactly the opposite to what a sailplane pilot experiences. As he finds a thermal near the surface the upward velocity is usually quite feeble and he is just glad he found any positive lift at all (variometer above zero now). As he tightly circles and rises in the stream he can tell by his variometer that read the ±vertical velocity (my plane read in 100ft/min) that the further he rises, the upward velocity increases, not decreases. Close to the cloud base the upward velocity is very high and you have to watch to not get blown upward into the cloud itself. Exact opposite than you seem to describe if I read you correct.

    How in your theory of how the physics of an atmosphere in convection reacts do you handle this apparent conflict in your mind?

  76. tchannon says:

    Assuming what you write is correct Will (I don’t know either way), a rising rate as density decreases implies perhaps a constant mass rise, has to speed up, perhaps Bernoulli is involved “the highest speed occurs where the pressure is lowest”

  77. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: June 3, 2015 at 3:35 am

    “Measurements indicate that EMR exit flux “from the planet and atmosphere into the hemisphere with the Sun at apex” is at least twice that of EMR exit flux into the direction of the hemisphere in opposition. T^4!🙂 -grin-”

    I assume you’ve accounted for any ‘mirrors’ (or not)?😉

    Best regards, Ray.

  78. suricat says:

    wayne says: June 4, 2015 at 3:45 am

    “But this is exactly the opposite to what a sailplane pilot experiences. As he finds a thermal near the surface the upward velocity is usually quite feeble and he is just glad he found any positive lift at all (variometer above zero now). As he tightly circles and rises in the stream he can tell by his variometer that read the ±vertical velocity (my plane read in 100ft/min) that the further he rises, the upward velocity increases, not decreases. Close to the cloud base the upward velocity is very high and you have to watch to not get blown upward into the cloud itself. Exact opposite than you seem to describe if I read you correct.”

    No wayne, I think you just identified a ‘bifurcation of energy’ from the ‘thermal system’ into the ‘kinetic system’ (ask Stephen Wilde).

    Whilst a volume of atmosphere is subjected to an ‘upwards force’ against the ‘gravity gradient’ it constitutes an ‘acceleration vector’. Thus, ‘the force’ generates a ‘counterpoise’ to ‘gravity’ and ‘accelerates’ at a rate of ‘force/gravity constant’ minus the ‘fluid resistance’, to keep it simple.

    Its what I would expect. If you push an ‘object’ (mass) with ‘~a constant force’, its speed increases.

    Best regards, Ray.

  79. wayne says:

    “No wayne, I think you just identified a ‘bifurcation of energy’ from the ‘thermal system’ into the ‘kinetic system’ (ask Stephen Wilde).

    Whilst a volume of atmosphere is subjected to an ‘upwards force’ against the ‘gravity gradient’ it constitutes an ‘acceleration vector’. Thus, ‘the force’ generates a ‘counterpoise’ to ‘gravity’ and ‘accelerates’ at a rate of ‘force/gravity constant’ minus the ‘fluid resistance’, to keep it simple.

    Its what I would expect. If you push an ‘object’ (mass) with ‘~a constant force’, its speed increases.”

    suicat, I read my word again and don’t don’t know why you said “No Wayne” but as to what you said that is an ‘of course’. For that portion of energy involved, the movement from thermal to bulk kinetic upward movement is without a doubt, and that energy of upward velocity will in the end via friction end up right back as thermal but now at a much higher altitude.

    A constant force will cause a constant acceleration but I don’t think in the thermals case as I am using the term it a constant force, but it definitely is above zero so there is still some acceleration occurring at cloud base but from I gather from Ben is says or it seems so that it should be decelerating slowly as it rises.

    In the too brief years I flew these planes I always had my scientific mind with me, it’s always there. I paid particularly close attention to that variometer instrument for you could learn much from it’s readings. On a gray day with zero convection it would read a constant -200 ft/min from the time you release until touchdown, very consistent. This is from memory but on a great thermal day inbetween the thermals (clouds) you would get something like -300 ft/min average (downward) between the clouds… see that extra 100 of drop? That’s the mass conservation in action. The thermals might average +1000 ft/min so I would deduce that the area of clouds to blue sky area should be the same 1000/100=10 ratio and sure enough, as you looked across the sky at the spacing of the clouds it was pretty much ten times more area between the clouds than the area of the clouds, very roughly. Some days would be much wider spacing with less lift so that ratio might be 800/(220-200) or forty to one and that is what the sky looked like.

    Back to that energy mentioned above. If 1/10 of the sky moves upward at 1000 ft/min energy is proportional to velocity squared so lets set the thermals a unit-less value of 1000². The rest of the sky is moving downward at 100 ft/min so give it 100². But there is ten times the slower air vertically so allow that in the ratio of 1000²/(100² x 10). So you might say that out of every 1,000,000 joules 900,000 go to mostly thermal energy via friction very high in the atmosphere while just 100,000 can be associated to that air blowing downward and hitting the surface and most of that doesn’t go to thermal energy but remains in the soft breezes you always feel because friction is also velocity dependent. Just an example how I would have some fun with the instruments in that plane. Data to me.

    You know, there is one example of energy transfer that I have never heard even mentioned.

  80. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: June 4, 2015 at 1:14 am

    Suggest from now on you just post one line containing “fantasy / religion / BS”
    so it’s obvious you once again have nothing useful to add to the discussion.

    A few highlights of your ‘brilliant’ posts sofar:

    Will Janoschka says: May 23, 2015 at 9:28 am
    “Please show the latitude, longitude, and altitude where your so called HEq has ever been detected?”

    Will Janoschka says: May 2, 2015 at 9:57 pm
    “The claim is the Sun heats (raises the temperature) of the surface, which then heats (raises the temperature) of the atmosphere. What BS.”

    Will Janoschka says: May 13, 2015 at 11:21 am
    “The gas WV with all its latent heat percolates through N2, O2, because of its much lower weight/volume!”

    Will Janoschka says: June 3, 2015 at 3:35 am
    “Please, I know little of how convection may occur. My “assumption” was that all conversion of latent heat upon condensation was directly converted to EMR radiative flux. “

  81. Ben Wouters says:

    wayne says: June 4, 2015 at 3:45 am

    “The way you describe these packets, DALR, ELR, ALR, SALR and all of that (there I say vertical streams) cannot be correct.”
    40+ years personal experience tells me it IS correct. It takes solid arguments to convince me I’m wrong.
    Haven’t seen any sofar.

    “By your description of the way this works is the packet at the surface is warmer therefore less dense and rises and also is cooling much faster than the environmental lapse a it rises, and as the packet rises, the difference gets smaller and smaller as the temperature differential shrinks and when the temperatures equal the rise will stop at cloud base, equilibrium.”Why would equilibrium be exactly at cloud-base???
    The rising stops when the density of the rising packet is equal to the density of the air the packet rises into.
    This is the decided by the ‘local’ ELR. Is measured twice daily at many locations around the world.
    So some days the local ELR is good for thermals, some days it sucks. We call this weather.

    “As he finds a thermal near the surface the upward velocity is usually quite feeble and he is just glad he found any positive lift at all (variometer above zero now). As he tightly circles and rises in the stream he can tell by his variometer that read the ±vertical velocity (my plane read in 100ft/min) that the further he rises, the upward velocity increases, not decreases. Close to the cloud base the upward velocity is very high and you have to watch to not get blown upward into the cloud itself. Exact opposite than you seem to describe if I read you correct.”
    Is called ‘cloud suck’.
    see http://www.drjack.info/BLIP/INFO/parameter_details.html#Cloud_Effects
    ‘ Convective clouds mark thermals, but they also add buoyancy to the thermals through the release of latent heat of condensation. This should be no surprise to those pilots who have experienced a notable increase in upward motion just below cloudbase, trying to suck the glider into the cloud. BLIPMAP predictions, however, assume that thermals are driven entirely by heating at the earth’s surface, so this release of heat aloft is not included in the BLIPMAP buoyancy estimates. ‘

    “How in your theory of how the physics of an atmosphere in convection reacts do you handle this apparent conflict in your mind?”
    see http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section1b.html#adiabatic_processes
    under Atmospheric stability.

  82. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: June 4, 2015 at 5:40 am

    “Whilst a volume of atmosphere is subjected to an ‘upwards force’ against the ‘gravity gradient’ it constitutes an ‘acceleration vector’.”
    What is the ‘gravity gradient’ in the troposphere?
    Afaik gravity is considered constant for these short distances?

  83. suricat says: June 4, 2015 at 5:11 am

    “I assume you’ve accounted for any ‘mirrors’ (or not)?😉 ”

    Waveband interval was 3-100 microns. Visible albedo and forward scattering were suppressed. Longer wavelength insolation was not suppressed. The interpretation of measurements is above my pay grade! 🙂 -will-

  84. Ben Wouters says: June 4, 2015 at 9:05 am

    “Suggest from now on you just post one line containing “fantasy / religion / BS”
    so it’s obvious you once again have nothing useful to add to the discussion.
    A few highlights of your ‘brilliant’ posts sofar:….”

    I observe that you have identified no errors, except those of your own making !

  85. Kristian says:

    Will Janoschka says, June 4, 2015 at 1:14 am:

    “If air is in hydrostatic equilibrium with its environment it will never move. If buoyant and moves in an adiabatic manner (no energy exchange) its buoyancy must persist all the way to the tropopause!”

    People have got to learn this! “Adiabatic” does not mean “no energy exchange”!!!!!!! It means “no HEAT exchange”!

    The adiabatic cycle specifically operates through the exchange of energy between the system and its surroundings in the form of … wait for it … WORK!

    I refer you once more to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics as expressed for a closed system (Clausius sign convention):

    ΔU = Q – W

    Where U is the system’s “internal energy”, changing proportionally with the system’s temperature, Q is the energy added to the system from its surroundings in the form of “heat”, and W is the energy lost by the system to its surroundings by doing “work” on them.

    What characterizes an adiabatic process is simply the stipulation that Q=0 (no “heat” allowed in or out) and that therefore ΔU=-W. Moreover, the W normally comes in the form of “pressure-volume” (PV) work, that is, in the expansion and compression contraction against a varying external pressure.

    That’s all there is to it. That’s what an adiabatic process is. Nothing else. No ‘work against gravity’ during uplift or anything, no conversion between KE and PE. That’s an entirely different process. A macroscopic, mechanical (Newtonian) one. Mix the two up at your peril. Nothing but confusion awaits.

  86. Kristian says:

    “… expansion and contraction …” Sorry.

  87. oldbrew says:

    Confirming Kristian’s comment: ‘An adiabatic process is one that occurs without transfer of heat or matter between a system and its surroundings.’

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process

  88. Roger Clague says:

    Ben Wouters says:
    June 4, 2015 at 9:06 am

    What is the ‘gravity gradient’ in the troposphere?
    Afaik gravity is considered constant for these short distances?

    The gravity gradient is ignored but should not be. It explains the GHG
    without use of pressure, density or hydrostatic equation
    Let surface gravity = gsurf
    Let tropopause gravity = gtrop
    gtrop/gsurf = 6000^2/6020^2 g depends on r^2
    = 0.993
    Gsurf-gtrop = 0.007gsurf = 0.007 x 10m/s^2 = 0.07m/s^2
    Using only Newtons Laws of Motion
    V^2 = 2gs s = distance,
    V^2 = 2 x 0.07m/s^2 x 20 000m
    = 2800m/s^2
    V = 53m/s
    N2 average velocity at 200K (tropopause) = 400m/s^2, at 300K (surface) = 450m/s^2

    The increase in temperature from tropopause to surface (greenhouse effect) is caused by gravity.
    We knew this from mgh = mcT conservation of energy
    T/h = g/c

  89. Roger Clague says:

    Kristian says:
    June 4, 2015 at 11:34 am

    That’s what an adiabatic process is. Nothing else. No ‘work against gravity’ during uplift or anything, no conversion between KE and PE. That’s an entirely different process. A macroscopic, mechanical (Newtonian) one. Mix the two up at your peril. Nothing but confusion awaits.

    I agree adiabatic theory and conversion between KE and PE are different explanations of one observation, the lapse rate.
    They cannot be cannot be mixed and cannot both be correct.
    Adiabatic theory of LR is based on cooling by expansion of a gas obeying the gas laws.
    Gas laws are derived using Newtons laws but gas laws don’t apply to the atmosphere. Because it has variable volume, and it has temp and pressure gradients.
    Converting of KE to PE is based on the conservation of energy law,. PE = mgh is based on Newtons laws. Both apply to the atmosphere.

  90. oldbrew says: June 4, 2015 at 2:25 pm

    “Confirming Kristian’s comment: ‘An adiabatic process is one that occurs without transfer of heat or matter between a system and its surroundings.’”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process

    EMR flux though not heat is now considered to be within the thermodynamic, if it “can” result in a change in sensible or latent heat. An adiabatic barrier now must be insulated, rigid, and reflective!

  91. Roger Clague says: June 4, 2015 at 7:30 pm

    Kristian says: June 4, 2015 at 11:34 am

    (“That’s what an adiabatic process is. Nothing else. No ‘work against gravity’ during uplift or anything, no conversion between KE and PE. That’s an entirely different process. A macroscopic, mechanical (Newtonian) one. Mix the two up at your peril. Nothing but confusion awaits.”)

    “I agree adiabatic theory and conversion between KE and PE are different explanations of one observation, the lapse rate. They cannot be cannot be mixed and cannot both be correct.”

    I also agree but the height gradient of pressure, density, and temperature, (lapse rate) “is” the expression of PE as converted to buoyancy. You cannot use both!

    “Converting of KE to PE is based on the conservation of energy law,. PE = mgh is based on Newtons laws. Both apply to the atmosphere.”

    Please explain why anyone considers the conservation of energy in this atmosphere? It can be a useful accounting tool. Kristian’s “internal energy” sensible and latent heat when divided by own temperature is the definition of entropy! This “heat” or U/T is always easily converted to EMR flux and spontaneously discarded in any direction of lower radiance. Energy should be accounted to determine efficiency. Energy is never conserved in this atmosphere!

  92. oldbrew says:

    Here we can see pressure and density gradients in graphic form [scroll down].
    http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/graphs.htm

  93. oldbrew says: June 4, 2015 at 10:50 pm

    “Here we can see pressure and density gradients in graphic form [scroll down].
    http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/graphs.htm

    Thank you! the viscosity one shows what junk may be supported in this atmosphere.

  94. wayne says:

    Watch out, http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/graphs.htm has some errors. It list the density at 11,000 meters (geopotential meters it seems) at 393.918 kg/cu.meter which is exactly 1000x too great. It shoud read 0.36392 kg/m³ there. Popped right out at me so this program must have not passed through QC yet.😉

  95. suricat says:

    wayne says: June 4, 2015 at 8:00 am

    (“No wayne, I think you just identified a ‘bifurcation of energy’ from the ‘thermal system’ into the ‘kinetic system’ (ask Stephen Wilde).

    Whilst a volume of atmosphere is subjected to an ‘upwards force’ against the ‘gravity gradient’ it constitutes an ‘acceleration vector’. Thus, ‘the force’ generates a ‘counterpoise’ to ‘gravity’ and ‘accelerates’ at a rate of ‘force/gravity constant’ minus the ‘fluid resistance’, to keep it simple.

    Its what I would expect. If you push an ‘object’ (mass) with ‘~a constant force’, its speed increases.”)

    “suicat, I read my word again and don’t don’t know why you said “No Wayne” but as to what you said that is an ‘of course’. For that portion of energy involved, the movement from thermal to bulk kinetic upward movement is without a doubt, and that energy of upward velocity will in the end via friction end up right back as thermal but now at a much higher altitude.”

    I concur. The reason I said “No wayne” is because this line of logic leads to the ‘Stephen Wilde’ hypothesis (which is ‘incorrect’ by my way of thinking). I apologise for any misunderstanding.🙂

    “A constant force will cause a constant acceleration but I don’t think in the thermals case as I am using the term it a constant force, but it definitely is above zero so there is still some acceleration occurring at cloud base but from I gather from Ben is says or it seems so that it should be decelerating slowly as it rises.”

    If you consider ‘decelerating’ as a way to express a ‘lesser acceleration’, that’s fine. However, a ‘braking’ influence also has the same effect! Disambiguation is required!

    Try to see the system’s ‘habit’ from both sides of the coin toss. I’m off to bed.

    Best regards, Ray.

  96. tchannon says:

    http://www.rcsoaring.com/docs/thermals_2006.pdf

    Seminal apparently (goodness knows what seaice is doing in the url)
    ftp://ecco2.jpl.nasa.gov/data3/ATN_output/%2Btemp/%2Bseaice/morton_taylor_convection.pdf

    There is a large body of work to do with thermals.
    During the winter they migrate to warm places, a great affinity with older humans.

  97. wayne says:

    Tim, second paper… superb and I also have no idea how it is found under ‘seaice’. Maybe someone who also saved that paper is as bad as I in taking the time to organize notes. Too easy to say… I’ll move it later, now where can I stick this. ; )

  98. Kristian says:

    Will Janoschka says, June 4, 2015 at 9:29 pm:

    “EMR flux though not heat is now considered to be within the thermodynamic, if it “can” result in a change in sensible or latent heat. An adiabatic barrier now must be insulated, rigid, and reflective!”

    Will,

    Diabatic heating and cooling of the rising volume of air are processes operating parallel to the adiabatic one. The adiabatic process ONLY involves the expansion of the air against falling external pressure going up, and the contraction of that same air against rising external pressure going down.

    There are lots of other processes going on at the same time. They, however, don’t concern the ADIABATIC warming and cooling of the volume of air in question.

    It’s pointless arguing that since there are other simultaneous processes working, then there isn’t an adiabatic one going on.

    Try to keep two thoughts in your head at the same time.

  99. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: June 5, 2015 at 3:05 am
    wayne says: June 4, 2015 at 8:00 am

    ““A constant force will cause a constant acceleration but I don’t think in the thermals case as I am using the term it a constant force, but it definitely is above zero so there is still some acceleration occurring at cloud base but from I gather from Ben is says or it seems so that it should be decelerating slowly as it rises.”

    If you consider ‘decelerating’ as a way to express a ‘lesser acceleration’, that’s fine. However, a ‘braking’ influence also has the same effect! Disambiguation is required!”

    The upward force is caused by the difference in density of the rising thermal and the ‘static’ air the thermal rises into
    (where the density decreases with altitude).
    When using the average ELR of ~6,5 K/km the upward force for the dry thermal will decrease rapidly with altitude, unless condensation starts (cloudbase) before the buoyancy is completely gone. (6,5 K/km vs 9,8K/km)
    So a standard ELR is not good for thermal development. It takes a more unstable ELR to see thermals develop.

  100. oldbrew says:

    Wayne says: ‘Watch out, http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/graphs.htm has some errors. It list the density at 11,000 meters (geopotential meters it seems) at 393.918 kg/cu.meter which is exactly 1000x too great. It shoud read 0.36392 kg/m³ there. Popped right out at me so this program must have not passed through QC yet’

    Not seeing any error here😐

  101. wayne says:

    OB, it started on the Graph tab when I pushed on your link, first thing I pressed on that density graph was 11,000 meters since I know those value well having programmed this very same set of statndard atmosphere programs myself. Checked their units thinking it might be listing g/m^3, no, it was kg/m^3. I knew they needed some fixing somewhere, the units label, a bug, because the calculator tab read correct as you just showed in your comment. Go figure, but that density graph at the default setting is not correct of course, thin air at 11,000 meters having a mass of 363 kilograms per cubic meter! Come on.

  102. oldbrew says:

    Sorry Wayne, I see what you mean now. I didn’t realise those pop-up values were there:/

  103. Kristian says: June 5, 2015 at 7:59 am
    Will Janoschka says, June 4, 2015 at 9:29 pm:

    (“EMR flux though not heat is now considered to be within the thermodynamic, if it “can” result in a change in sensible or latent heat. An adiabatic barrier now must be insulated, rigid, and reflective!”)

    Do you have any problem with the “new” adiabatic, that is no “energy” exchange with environment?

    “Will,
    Diabatic heating and cooling of the rising volume of air are processes operating parallel to the adiabatic one. The adiabatic process ONLY involves the expansion of the air against falling external pressure going up, and the contraction of that same air against rising external pressure going down.”

    Ben insisted ,with references, that his air parcels are insulated from the environment, so he can claim that his dry parcel decreases in temperature faster than the ELR. This is the complete fakery of meteorology! They measure, then explain measurement with fantasy! The Dr. Anastassia Makarieva paper on lateral wind power, clouds, condensation and the affect on global scale frontal systems, is much mire interesting.
    https://2s3c.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/shrinking-implosion-vs-expansion-explosion/

    “It’s pointless arguing that since there are other simultaneous processes working, then there isn’t an adiabatic one going on.”

    I agree, it is also pointless to jump through hoops to show “conservation of energy” in this atmosphere.
    It is not like the atmosphere is running out of energy, lots more coming in the morning.🙂

  104. Roger Clague says:

    tchannon says:
    June 5, 2015 at 3:46 am

    Seminal apparently (goodness knows what seaice is doing in the url)
    ftp://ecco2.jpl.nasa.gov/data3/ATN_output/%2Btemp/%2Bseaice/morton_taylor_convection.pdf

    This paper illustrates my criticism of meteorology.
    1. Lab experiments that don’t reproduce atmospheric conditions. Not surprising as they did have satellites.
    2. Adjusting observations using a favoured theory.

    lab experiment

    “Description of the laboratory experiments on maintained plumes simple test of the theory developed in the preceding sections was carried out on the laboratoly scale by releasing a light fluid in a tank of heavier fluid in which there was a stable density gradient. Stratification was produced by adding successively more concentrated layers of salt solution t,o the bottom of the tank, which was about m deep and 30 cm in diameter”
    This is an experiment in a tank 1m deep using a compressible liquid at constant temperature.
    The atmosphere is 20 000m deep, is a compressible gas with T/h = 6.5K/km and g/h = 0.004m/s^2/km.

    Adjusting data

    “The compressibility of air is allowed for by using the potential temperature in place of the absolute temperature throughout the above treatment.”

    http://web.gps.caltech.edu/classes/ese148a/lecture11.pdf
    Potential temperature
    “potential temperature, θ. θ is the temperature that a parcel of dry air would have if it were compressed adiabatically to the surface (1000 mb).”

    Potential temperature is an imaginary, virtual, number calculated from theory
    That is the measurement used: potential temperature has been changed, adjusted from the real measured absolute temperature
    Theory and observed data must be kept apart.

  105. Roger Clague says:

    oldbrew says:
    June 4, 2015 at 10:50 pm

    Here we can see pressure and density gradients in graphic form [scroll down].
    http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/graphs.htm

    If we compare the T/h and p/h they are very different.
    T/h is straight and stops abruptly, it is not continuous.
    p/h is exponential and continuous
    This shows that T is not caused by p, as is claimed by those who use gas laws and hydrostatic equilibrium

  106. oldbrew says:

    RC: ‘T/h is straight and stops abruptly’ – at the tropopause.

    In the graphs:
    – temp., speed of sound and viscosity all look much the same if not identical
    – pressure and density look the same

  107. oldbrew says: June 5, 2015 at 8:53 pm

    (RC: ‘T/h is straight and stops abruptly’ – at the tropopause.)

    “In the graphs:
    – temp., speed of sound and viscosity all look much the same if not identical
    – pressure and density look the same”

    Yes,
    Now get some meteorologist to try explain the shapes that are measurements, not some fantasy!
    The first three are similar as they are subject to constraints upon degrees of freedom of the gases are reduced at high altitudes! All gases increase in temperature when compressed as part of the work done on the gas. No gas decreases temperature under free expansion. Under throttled expansion (JT effect)
    some gases cool (air) some increase in temperature (He)! Fantasy does not help!🙂

  108. wayne says:

    BTW oldbrew, thank you for that link to the online graphs of the Standard Atmosphere 1976. Even though it takes a little explanation on that density graphs (just move the decimal three places to left) this gives me a much easier way to explain and let other test by the equations what I found about not only our atmosphere, but all of the atmospheres from which we now have some pretty close approximate profile readings. This helps to explain how they operate, yes RC, under existing thermodynamics (polytopic process, not the adiabatic process) and gas laws, to myself anyway.
    [ http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/graphs.htm ]

  109. wayne says:

    Will!!

    In that one statement: “The first three are similar as they are subject to constraints upon degrees of freedom of the gases are reduced at high altitudes!” I think you just might be getting to what I was trying to present in Rog’s “A small sceptical voice in the lukewarm wilderness” article.

    Not sure if it would be fruitful for me to attempt to explain that again here, this thread has quieted down, but I am a little short on time so I would have to keep it rather concise instead of in the middle trying to explain buoyancy to Stephen.

    The hard part is getting the mind, it was hard for me, to accept the fact that even though the five graphs above in that digitaldutch link might seem implausible under thermodynamics there is a way to view atmospheres where the laws stay intact but in order to do such a thing, you have to be able to accept things like “near infinite heat capacity” and even “negative heat capacity”. I had to go and take a course (on the web), four times none the less, to understand why such concepts do in fact exist.

    Will, this falls exactly on you many comments on exitance of EMR. Heat capacity is what? It is the amount of energy you have add to a unit mass to change the temperature one degree kelvin. But in lower stratospheres, not in a lab bottle, there you do find near infinite heat capacity and this fits naturally into the polytropic equations of that branch of thermodynamics. That is in the equations the exponent approaches zero. (I’ll give the equations later so you can use the graphs that you can push on a certain altitude and get the T, P, ρ etc at a given altitude.

    What that means to me is as you add energy to our lower stratosphere it will simply leave upward, no change in temperature. Downward there is a huge resistance to ir radiation downward, it will be absorbed in hundreds of meters but upward that radiation experiences near zero resistance to escape to space. I think this is the same you keep expressing.

    As for negative heat capacity which you find in the upper stratosphere and above in all atmospheres (Dr. Leonard Susskind explained this in that statistical mechanics course) all molecules are spaced so sparsely that they are basically in abbreviated orbit trajectories about the earth’s center (see vis-viva equations in any good astronomy book). As you add energy what happens there? Right, the particles slow down! and merely take on orbits with a larger semi-major axis. Slower is less kinetic energy so lower kinetic energy.

    If you can get by those two aspects I can show you with those graphs for earth or probe data from Vega2, Galileo, Hygens how the profiles of all of these atmospheres follow the same equations under the polytropic process and you are right… it’s dependency falls for some reason under their resepctive degrees of freedoms of the compinent gases. As for the exact “why”, I still am investigating that. As to whether it does, well, let’s just say that is what the equations show.

  110. wayne says:

    Will, a correction and something I forgot to include about expansion.

    “Slower is less kinetic energy so lower kinetic energy.” should have stated “Slower is less kinetic energy so lower kinetic temperate.” In rarely interacting particles about a center of gravity (planet or moon) if you add energy the gas cools due to the larger net orbit distances from the center. Negative heat capacity, but this is strictly due to gravity and the arcs of trajectories and you will never experience this in a container in a lab but it shows up in other areas such as globular galaxies. Add energy and the average velocity drops as the cluster expands. Remove energy and the cluster contracts and the kinetic temperature computed by the moving stars (not speaking of the stars temperatures) increases, it gets hotter in that kinetic aspect.

  111. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says:

    “Ben insisted ,with references, that his air parcels are insulated from the environment, so he can claim that his dry parcel decreases in temperature faster than the ELR. This is the complete fakery of meteorology!”
    Actually it shows that you’re still not able to understand the implications of the Hydrostatic Equilibrium of our atmosphere.

    Seems this simple explanation is already too much for you:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/beginners-guide-to-convection-cells/comment-page-1/#comment-101278

  112. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: June 5, 2015 at 7:48 pm

    “If we compare the T/h and p/h they are very different.
    T/h is straight and stops abruptly, it is not continuous.
    p/h is exponential and continuous
    This shows that T is not caused by p, as is claimed by those who use gas laws and hydrostatic equilibrium”

    Again, who claims that T is caused by p???
    On the planet I live on the temperature of the atmosphere is caused by that big yellow thing in the sky, called ‘sun’.

  113. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: June 5, 2015 at 11:52 pm

    “Now get some meteorologist to try explain the shapes that are measurements, not some fantasy!”
    “The first three are similar as they are subject to constraints upon degrees of freedom of the gases are reduced at high altitudes! All gases increase in temperature when compressed as part of the work done on the gas.”
    Takes an engineer to screw up so badly.
    Speed of sound and viscosity are directly related to temperature. No surprise the graphs look the same.

  114. Ben Wouters says:

    wayne says: June 6, 2015 at 4:41 am

    “Will, this falls exactly on you many comments on exitance of EMR. Heat capacity is what? It is the amount of energy you have add to a unit mass to change the temperature one degree kelvin. But in lower stratospheres, not in a lab bottle, there you do find near infinite heat capacity and this fits naturally into the polytropic equations of that branch of thermodynamics. ”

    In the mean time, on planet Earth the increasing temperature vs altitude in the stratosphere can be simply explained by the absorption of solar UV by O3 and O2 high up in that stratosphere.

  115. Ben Wouters says: June 6, 2015 at 10:49 am
    (Will Janoschka says:
    “Ben insisted ,with references, that his air parcels are insulated from the environment, so he can claim that his dry parcel decreases in temperature faster than the ELR. This is the complete fakery of meteorology!”)

    “Actually it shows that you’re still not able to understand the implications of the Hydrostatic Equilibrium of our atmosphere.Seems this simple explanation is already too much for you:”

    Well one of us does not, Ben, simple, straightforward, and wrong!

    Ben Wouters says: June 6, 2015 at 10:52 am
    Roger Clague says: June 5, 2015 at 7:48 pm

    (“If we compare the T/h and p/h they are very different.
    T/h is straight and stops abruptly, it is not continuous.
    p/h is exponential and continuous
    This shows that T is not caused by p, as is claimed by those who use gas laws and hydrostatic equilibrium””

    “Again, who claims that T is caused by p??? On the planet I live on the temperature of the atmosphere is caused by that big yellow thing in the sky, called ‘sun’.”

    The lapse rate is caused by the Sun?
    Again Ben, simple, straightforward, and wrong!

    Ben Wouters says:June 6, 2015 at 10:56 am

    “Takes an engineer to screw up so badly. Speed of sound and viscosity are directly related to temperature. No surprise the graphs look the same.”

    Temperature,viscosity, and speed of sound are all effects of a compressible fluid in a gravitational field, as the ratio of pressure to density. WORK in a gravitational field!
    Again Ben, simple, straightforward, and wrong!

    Ben Wouters says: June 6, 2015 at 11:00 am

    wayne says: June 6, 2015 at 4:41 am
    (“Will, this falls exactly on you many comments on exitance of EMR. Heat capacity is what? It is the amount of energy you have add to a unit mass to change the temperature one degree kelvin. But in lower stratospheres, not in a lab bottle, there you do find near infinite heat capacity and this fits naturally into the polytropic equations of that branch of thermodynamics. ”)

    “In the mean time, on planet Earth the increasing temperature vs altitude in the stratosphere can be simply explained by the absorption of solar UV by O3 and O2 high up in that stratosphere.”

    I increasing temperature only of stratospheric “mass”, with that mass decreasing much faster than temperature is increasing. This is consistent with decreasing energy with altitude!
    Again Ben, simple, straightforward, and wrong!

    Any others that you wish to insult?🙂

  116. wayne says:

    “In the mean time, on planet Earth the increasing temperature vs altitude in the stratosphere can be simply explained by the absorption of solar UV by O3 and O2 high up in that stratosphere.”

    Ok Ben, of course I’ve read that before. And on bodies with thick atmospheres without “UV by O3 and O2”, little water, which also are atmospheres with tropospheres, tropopauses, stratospheres and lapse rates, that all follow the same science equations as ours ignoring the specialty cases of ours? I’m not saying that O3 does not have an imprint in our specific atmosphere’s profile, you can see that in the upper portion of our profile but you seem to be incapable of sorting out the differences and only look at the commonalities as scientists naturally do. Without looking for deeper insight you may never get away and advance from your insistent Meteorology 101 viewpoint.

    On the vast water in our troposphere that we here on Earth and feel its effect daily and weekly, I find no special properties following those well established equations on the average over periods spanning across seasons and years. That is, no special long term lingering properties attached to it. That was a surprise to me and brought me from a co2-GW believer to know there is nothing there at all.

    Unknowst to you, you support one aspect of what I am saying when you stated somewhere above that in radiosondes you can see the profile, excluding the volatile boundary layer, move everywhere a couple of degrees cooler at night, a couple of degrees warmer in the day but the average lapse does not change. The entire atmosphere does exactly the same thing and that is what is set by the TSI. Heavy influx on the day-side, zero on the night-side. The long term lapse appeared to be fixed. That is all I searched for. If fixed, what makes each atmosphere have the lapse that the probes show they do and I didn’t expect to find some singular equation, but to my surprise there is one equation that they all fit to when adjusted in the polytropic index (the exponent) in that non-linear family of differential equations. Adjust for the gravitational acceleration (g), the mean molecular weight (M) and the heat capacity and their combination ends up right back at the collective degrees of freedom of the component gases in each atmosphere. If you don’t recognize what I am saying immediately, those are exactly the same variables in the equations used to form the Standard Atmosphere 1976… read the paper written by those numerous scientists, agencies and governments. It is available online.

    If you don’t find that curious I will know you definitely don’t have the mind of a true scientist. Curiosity. Skepticism. Always doubting the current established views and always searching to advance even further.

    After doing my search over a couple of years, I found there are a few others looking at this very aspect. One came to the conclusion that the differing factor is as simple as all atmosphere’s are expressing 3/2 of the underlying heat capacity and that is also one aspect I considered before noticing the closeness of fit to the degrees of freedom. The 3/2 is pretty close too but doesn’t quite follow all of the profiles as close as the one based on the degrees of freedom which as fits for even Titan up to about 10km. There is another atmosphere you cannot ignore the absorption of solar influx in the stratosphere. I’m not sure which is correct but I have no doubts now that something will be discovered in this area.

  117. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: June 6, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    ” Again Ben, simple, straightforward, and wrong!”
    Good. Will learned some new words. We now have ‘fantasy, religion, BS, simple, straightforward and wrong’ . Try to mix a little.
    Next step, and very important: use arguments.

    I’ll give an example.
    Ben says ” Speed of sound and viscosity are directly related to temperature. No surprise the graphs look the same.”
    Will says ” Temperature,viscosity, and speed of sound are all effects of a compressible fluid in a gravitational field, as the ratio of pressure to density. WORK in a gravitational field!”

    Ben says: see eg http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-speedsound.htm
    and shows Will is wrong.

    or
    ” The lapse rate is caused by the Sun?
    Again Ben, simple, straightforward, and wrong!”
    Will thinks Ben is wrong, because he does not understand that the sun can heat the surface.
    But sun heats surface, surface heats atmosphere, atmosphere (and surface) lose energy to space.
    Simple, straightforward and correct.

    For accompanying music I suggest ‘Another one bites the dust’.

  118. Ben Wouters says:

    wayne says: June 6, 2015 at 7:20 pm

    Sorry wayne, no more time today. Back tomorrow.

  119. Ben Wouters says: June 6, 2015 at 8:42 pm
    Will Janoschka says: June 6, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    (” Again Ben, simple, straightforward, and wrong!”)

    “Good. Will learned some new words. We now have ‘fantasy, religion, BS, simple, straightforward and wrong’ . Try to mix a little.Next step, and very important: use arguments”.

    Thank you for your encouragement

    “I’ll give an example.” ‘(“Ben says ” Speed of sound and viscosity are directly related to temperature. No surprise the graphs look the same.”)’

    (Will says ” Temperature,viscosity, and speed of sound are all effects of a compressible fluid in a gravitational field, as the ratio of pressure to density. WORK in a gravitational field!”)”

    “:Ben says: see eg http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-speedsound.htm
    and shows Will is wrong.”

    Really! did you even read your own reference? Your reference clearly equates speed of sound in the “atmosphere” as proportional to the ratio of pressure/ density = WORK Temperature is but a measure of the entropy associated with that work! Ben is even wrong when “he” gets to pick the example!

    ‘(“or ”)’
    (“Is the lapse rate is caused by the Sun? Again Ben, simple, straightforward, and wrong!”)

    Thank you so very much for the deliberate misquote!!!

    “Will thinks Ben is wrong, because he does not understand that the sun can heat the surface.
    But sun heats surface, surface heats atmosphere, atmosphere (and surface) lose energy to space.
    Simple, straightforward and correct.”

    Again same BS different emphasis!! Quote Ben,
    ——————————————————————-
    Will Janoschka says: May 2, 2015 at 9:57 pm
    “The claim is the Sun heats (raises the temperature) of the surface, which then heats (raises the temperature) of the atmosphere. What BS.”
    ——————————————————————–

    The BS is the “which then heats (raises the temperature) of the atmosphere.”
    Show any evidence that such ever happens

    Please explain “how” during insolation the surface heats (transfers sensible heat to) the immediate above air 1-8 cm when that air is already at a temperature greater than the surface? Even the latent heat of evaporation gets its last bit energy from the higher temperature air rather than from the surface

    “For accompanying music I suggest ‘Another one bites the dust’.”

    Ben, why not go somewhere and purchase a “clue” !

    Cannot we agree on the meaning of words?
    To most hotter (adj) is an elevated temperature, cooler (adj) is a reduced temperature. Got any problem with understanding the adjectives?

    The scam is in the verb form, To warm, to heat or to boil means to add energy to, with no indication of any temperature or necessary temperature increase! To cool or to freeze is only the extraction of energy again, with no indication of any temperature or temperature decrease!

    If you wish to change temperature “say so” if you wish to change energy “say so”!
    Temperature and energy are related “only” in very !!limited circumstances!
    Mostly heat (noun), (in a cup of coffee) refers to sensible heat which is the “minor” or “only” connection between temperature and energy!


  120. Thank you OB This is exactly the sight of “go elsewhere”! for any that have learned any skills of piloting any aircraft. Only the F-22 pilot would instruct younger brother or sister pilot to “go through that” so we can observe the result!!
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Big_Cumulonimbus.JPG/640px-Big
    _Cumulonimbus.JPG

  121. Ben Wouters says:

    wayne says: June 6, 2015 at 7:20 pm

    “Without looking for deeper insight you may never get away and advance from your insistent Meteorology 101 viewpoint.”
    The meteorology I learned some 40 years ago and used in my professional career (classical meteorology) is very good in explaining our weather. I see no need for new concepts like ‘percolating wv’, sun not heating the surface’ etc.
    Some time ago this classical meteorology became corrupted with all kinds of twists to explain how the atmosphere can warm the surface iso the other way around, all to accommodate the GHE.
    One of the results is the nonsense idea that the DALR and SALR somehow regulate the temperature profile of the entire atmosphere (ELR). Every observation from simple thermals to towering cb’s can be explained by comparing the ELR vs the DALR (and SALR), where the DALR is the temperature change vs altitude for a rising or sinking volume of air.
    This the subject of this thread: convection cells.

    I can understand your interest in the atmospheres of other planets and moons, but comparing them to Earth will be a very difficult task. On earth we have countless observations, current and historic, for other bodies perhaps 3 or 4 profiles?

    I like to focus on Earth, and get rid of this GHE nonsense.

    “Unknowst to you, you support one aspect of what I am saying when you stated somewhere above that in radiosondes you can see the profile, excluding the volatile boundary layer, move everywhere a couple of degrees cooler at night, a couple of degrees warmer in the day but the average lapse does not change. The entire atmosphere does exactly the same thing and that is what is set by the TSI. Heavy influx on the day-side, zero on the night-side. The long term lapse appeared to be fixed.”
    The profile above the boundary layer shifts something like 1K between day and night.
    To understand that you only have to look at the oceans. Surface temperature differs only 1K between day and night, irrespective of the massive solar input. Only in very calm weather the difference may be 4 – 5 K. So the energy loss to space from the surface must be pretty constant as well. That the entire tropospheric profile shifts with the same value is dictated by the HEq.
    If uneven energy loss occurs, convection/subsidence immediately sets in to correct the situation.

    I assume you know this site: http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html

    So it is relevant to understand WHY the temperature profile is what is measured.
    But after measuring the temperature profile,it is possible to explain our weather.

  122. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: June 6, 2015 at 10:54 pm

    ““:Ben says: see eg http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-speedsound.htm
    and shows Will is wrong.”

    Really! did you even read your own reference? Your reference clearly equates speed of sound in the “atmosphere” as proportional to the ratio of pressure/ density = WORK Temperature is but a measure of the entropy associated with that work! Ben is even wrong when “he” gets to pick the example!”
    Try to understand what you’re reading, it helps😉
    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound

    Altitude variation and implications for atmospheric acoustics.

    In the Earth’s atmosphere, the chief factor affecting the speed of sound is the temperature. For a given ideal gas with constant heat capacity and composition, sound speed is dependent solely upon temperature; see Details below. In such an ideal case, the effects of decreased density and decreased pressure of altitude cancel each other out, save for the residual effect of temperature.

    ““For accompanying music I suggest ‘Another one bites the dust’.”

    Ben, why not go somewhere and purchase a “clue” !”
    You’ve used this one before. Try to be a bit more creative. Booooring.

  123. Ben Wouters says:

    @wayne

    See http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2015/05/28/clouds-in-3d-innovation-makes-stereophotogrammetry-a-common-thing/
    “The next steps are to combine the stereophotogrammetric data with other observations at the ARM site to answer basic questions about cloud life cycles. In particular, Romps and colleagues want to understand what environmental conditions can be used to forecast the sizes, speeds, depths, and lifetimes of convective clouds.”
    I find this unbelievable. This is done daily by meteorologists around the world.

  124. Roger Clague says:

    Ben Wouters says:
    June 6, 2015 at 10:52 am

    On the planet I live on the temperature of the atmosphere is caused by that big yellow thing in the sky, called ‘sun’.
    So what is causing the lapse rate at night?
    At night the half of atmos is not absorbing sunlight and evaporation, radiation from surface and convection is much less
    Yet the LR does not change for that half it remains 6.5Km/km.

    “In particular, Romps and colleagues want to understand what environmental conditions can be used to forecast the sizes, speeds, depths, and lifetimes of convective clouds.”
    Ben W: I find this unbelievable. This is done daily by meteorologists around the world.

    Meteorologists are forecasting the behaviour of clouds based on past experience. Romps and others, like me, want a theory which is based on well accepted and appropriate laws, such thermodynamic laws and Newton’s laws of motion.
    Two different and complementary routes to the same end.

  125. oldbrew says:

    ‘Meteorologists are forecasting the behaviour of clouds based on past experience.’

    Ocean tides are also forecast ‘based on past experience’ aren’t they – and then sold as a combination of two theories?

    ‘Two theories help explain tides. The equilibrium theory of tides uses the universal laws of physics, as applied to a water-covered Earth. The dynamic theory of tides studies tides as they occur in the real world, modified by landmasses, geometry of the ocean basins , and Earth’s rotation.’

    Read more: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/St-Ts/Tides.html

    ‘Help explain’ is not quite the same as ‘explain’😉

  126. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: June 7, 2015 at 2:22 pm

    “So what is causing the lapse rate at night?
    At night the half of atmos is not absorbing sunlight and evaporation, radiation from surface and convection is much less
    Yet the LR does not change for that half it remains 6.5Km/km.”

    See my response to wayne \: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/beginners-guide-to-convection-cells/comment-page-2/#comment-102196
    also
    see http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html

    ” Meteorologists are forecasting the behaviour of clouds based on past experience. ”
    Shows you have no idea what meteorology is about.

    “Romps and others, like me, want a theory which is based on well accepted and appropriate laws, such thermodynamic laws and Newton’s laws of motion.”
    see http://www.tornadochaser.net/capeclass.html

  127. wayne says:

    Ben Wouters says: June 7, 2015 at 10:36 am: “The meteorology I learned some 40 years ago and used in my professional career (classical meteorology) is very good in explaining our weather.”

    I’m sure it has Ben. You must think I don’t respect meteorologists for what they do, that couldn’t be further from the truth, and do very good at least here where I live, lives depend on their rules of thumb.

    Ben: “Some time ago this classical meteorology became corrupted with all kinds of twists to explain how the atmosphere can warm the surface iso the other way around, all to accommodate the GHE.”

    “I like to focus on Earth, and get rid of this GHE nonsense.”

    Well good luck Ben because there is undeniably a misnamed greenhouse effect (temperature enhancement) and it is not some 33°C but more like at least double that (≈288°C – ≈212°C) as the moon via the Diviner instruments indicate.

    Ben: “To understand that you only have to look at the oceans. Surface temperature differs only 1K between day and night, irrespective of the massive solar input.”

    That is exactly my point. The temperature changes in the oceans that cover some 70% of this planets is so tiny, 1°C day to night, as you say, that you can basically ignore that tiny aspect without adding much error. But the air changes greatly some 10-20°C and you say it is the surface that “causes” this large air temperature difference and that is one gigantic misunderstanding from you yourself Ben right there. It is ok to say you were wrong or misundersood, I do it regularly and that is how you can learn and advance for I have too studied many branches of science for fifty years, actually more than that, but I still find areas where my own understanding got skewed by reading and accepting one book, article, paper or the other. Everything you read is not correct, not at the core level.

    I have read many thousands and thousands of pages of meteorology books, articles, scientific papers over those fifty years and I know about the CAPE, LCL, various lapse rates, etc, etc that you keep adhered to, but many here don’t want to here about that, those are general descriptions of lines on radiosondes but don’t get down to the core cause those wiggles and lines even exist in atmospheres. You are not looking deep enough Ben but you have to move more into the realm of physics, thermodynamics, etc that will in the end better explain atmospheres characteristics and the real causality.

    Ben: “I assume you know this site: http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html

    No, I use NOAA’s but that seems like a good site too, looks easier to use so maybe so I’ll tuck that away. For me to use it in my area it will take a while to critically analyse their skew-t plots to see if their skew does in fact represent in a perfectly vertical line the 6.5 mean elr that what I do relies on. If not that adds some complexity to extract quick visual aspects from the data.

    Ben: “So it is relevant to understand WHY the temperature profile is what is measured.”

    Darn Ben, that is exactly what I have been doing. Do you just throw my words away?

    Seems you also belive that the sun ’causes’ the elr and as Roger stated this is evidently not true. If it were the solar influx as the cause then at night as all solar influx is shut off the elr would show a leaning and not that the entire profile moving parallel a bit cooler or warmer but stays constant.

  128. wayne says:

    Ben, I do appreciate the offered link of http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html but it as I suspected, its temp skew plot is at 4.75 K/km instead of 6.5 so when I would quickly view one I could not immediately tell if upper air is abnormally cooler or warmer without tracing those plot lines, hard, my eyes are not what they used to be, every single time and then getting out the calculator, so no go, little use here to me.

  129. Ben Wouters says:

    wayne says: June 7, 2015 at 6:27 pm

    ” Well good luck Ben because there is undeniably a misnamed greenhouse effect (temperature enhancement) and it is not some 33°C but more like at least double that (≈288°C – ≈212°C) as the moon via the Diviner instruments indicate.”
    More like 90K difference to explain, so I assume we can agree that the atmosphere cannot possibly provide this can kind of warming effect.
    The answer imo again is in the oceans. The early oceans were sitting on an ocean floor bubbling with magma, and probably still boiling hot. They cooled down until the solar provided energy compensated the energy loss to space through the atmosphere. So the current deep ocean temperature is not coming from the sun, but from the hot interior of earth.
    Atmosphere only has to reduce the energy loss from the surface to space. No heating of the surface required.

    ” The temperature changes in the oceans that cover some 70% of this planets is so tiny, 1°C day to night, as you say, that you can basically ignore that tiny aspect without adding much error. But the air changes greatly some 10-20°C and you say it is the surface that “causes” this large air temperature difference and that is one gigantic misunderstanding from you yourself Ben right there. ”
    Interested to see data that shows the air temperature over ocean water to be 10-20 C above the ocean surface temperature. Found this: http://forums.accuweather.com/index.php?showtopic=6446
    Shows air temperature consistently below the water temperature.
    See http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/6305/63050721.pdf especially graphs on page 725
    The upper 5 or 10 meters of the ocean store daytime solar, and release this energy again during the night.

    ” and I know about the CAPE, LCL, various lapse rates, etc, etc that you keep adhered to, but many here don’t want to here about that, those are general descriptions of lines on radiosondes but don’t get down to the core cause those wiggles and lines even exist in atmospheres. ”
    If you understand CAPE, then I don’t understand your ideas about convection as you gave earlier in this thread. CAPE compares the radiosonde profile with the temperature of a rising volume of air, that cools according the DALR and SALR to see how high and how fast a parcel will rise in that specific temperature profile.

    ” Seems you also belive that the sun ’causes’ the elr and as Roger stated this is evidently not true. If it were the solar influx as the cause then at night as all solar influx is shut off the elr would show a leaning and not that the entire profile moving parallel a bit cooler or warmer but stays constant.”

    Without insolation the surface temp on earth would be 30K or so, and the atmosphere would be on the surface as a fluid or even as a solid. So the sun does provide the energy to explain the temperature of the atmosphere and hence its ELR. Question is how.
    To me it is obvious that the atmosphere is warmed mainly from the surface, except in the thermosphere and stratosphere, and also some warming in the troposphere where wv and clouds intercept some solar radiation.

  130. Ben Wouters says: June 7, 2015 at 10:44 am
    Will Janoschka says: June 6, 2015 at 10:54 pm

    ((““:Ben says: see eg http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-speedsound.htm
    and shows Will is wrong.”))

    (“Really! did you even read your own reference? Your reference clearly equates speed of sound in the “atmosphere” as proportional to the ratio of pressure/ density = WORK Temperature is but a measure of the entropy associated with that work! Ben is even wrong when “he” gets to pick the example!”)

    “Try to understand what you’re reading, it helps😉 ”

    Indeed!!, from your reference Quote:————————————————————————–
    Although (in the case of gases only) the speed of sound is expressed in terms of a ratio of both density and pressure, these quantities cancel in ideal gases at any given temperature, composition, and heat capacity. This leads to a velocity formula for ideal gases which includes only the latter independent variables.————————————————————————–

    The wiki false claim “these quantities cancel in ideal gases at any given temperature” is deliberately misleading! In this atmosphere the ratio pressure/density has units of force times distance =WORK!
    the work is exactly that that compresses the lower atmosphere and also raises its temperature.

    You obviously have never tried to measure the speed of sound while changing temperature! with the same mass of gas and same volume density remains constant, upon “heating” (increase in temperature) and specific heat (energy) the pressure must increases, thus increasing the speed of sound. If however I increase pressure (by adding more same temperature gas) both pressure and density increase thus increasing the speed of sound with “no” change in temperature.

    “Altitude variation and implications for atmospheric acoustics.
    In the Earth’s atmosphere, the chief factor affecting the speed of sound is the temperature. For a given ideal gas with constant heat capacity and composition, sound speed is dependent solely upon temperature; see Details below. In such an ideal case, the effects of decreased density and decreased pressure of altitude cancel each other out, save for the residual effect of temperature.”

    Again deliberate deception on the part of you and wikipedia, Pressure and density do not cancel either for the speed of sound or for atmospheric temperature. That same physical change affects the speed of sound and air temperature in the same manner. That is why the graphs look similar! Again you attribute cause only to your religious belief!
    Deliberately misleading, as is “all” your simple straightforward and wrong!🙂

  131. wayne says:

    Ben Wouters, you must be a small man to even attempt what you just did with my words and thoughts above, Guess it must feed you something your psche needs to feed on so I will no long engage just to have you contiunue. Glad you seem to have memorized meteorology and only meteorology well. I am now sorry I took you serious earlier.

  132. oldbrew says:

    Interesting time lapse video (1.5 minutes)…

    ‘A dedicated group of storm chasers filmed an amazing timelapse of a stationary supercell over the Colorado Rockies’
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11651332/Storm-chasers-capture-incredible-supercell-timelapse.html

    Sample of video [credit: Daily Telegraph]

  133. Roger Clague says:

    oldbrew says:
    June 7, 2015 at 3:19 pm

    Help explain’ is not quite the same as ‘explain

    http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/St-Ts/Tides.html

    Tidal predictions are based on recorded high measurement from past records, and then are used to predict the future. But because of all the complex combination of possibilities, it is difficult to predict Earth’s tides from knowledge of physical processes and the historical record. Yet with a combination of actual local measurements with known astronomical data, scientists can derive very accurate tide predictions.”

    There are two different ways to “predict the future”. They are
    Compare with past records, statistics
    “From knowledge of physical processes.” science
    Meteorology is the same as tidal predictions. They use past records and predict from them. Meteorology does not calculate temperatures or pressure from knowledge of physical processes and constants.
    Medicine is similar. A doctor is informed by blood pressure, (physics), blood sugar measurements, (chemistry) and bacterial life cycles (biology). But he does not calculate the health of a patient. He assesses many features using his experience of other patients he has seen or read about in the past.
    Meteorology and medicine are useful but are not sciences.

  134. Roger Clague says:

    http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/meteorology.1.i.html

    Aristotle 2300 years ago describes the water cycle we are now still discussing.

    Most of book 1 is worth reading
    Some extracts from Part 9
    “ It is the region common to water and air, and the processes attending the formation of water above take place in it.”
    “Now the earth remains but the moisture surrounding it is made to evaporate by the sun’s rays and the other heat from above, and rises. But when the heat which was raising it leaves it, in part dispersing to the higher region, in part quenched through rising so far into the upper air, then the vapour cools because its heat is gone and because the place is cold, and condenses again and turns from air into water. And after the water has formed it falls down again to the earth.”
    “We must think of it as a river flowing up and down in a circle and made up partly of air, partly of water.”
    “So the moisture is always raised by the heat and descends to the earth again when it gets cold”

    To me it seems that Aristotle thinks the colder higher place cools the moist air and not the opposite.

  135. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: June 7, 2015 at 11:42 pm

    ” Again deliberate deception on the part of you and wikipedia, Pressure and density do not cancel either for the speed of sound or for atmospheric temperature. ”
    In case you missed it, the graph was for the speed of sound in the Standard Atmosphere, where pressure and density DO cancel each other.
    I confess, I wrote this whole wikipedia page to deceive you. Get real.

    ” In this atmosphere the ratio pressure/density has units of force times distance =WORK!
    the work is exactly that that compresses the lower atmosphere and also raises its temperature.”
    Fascinating! In a STATIC atmosphere? You make this up yourself?

  136. Ben Wouters says:

    wayne says: June 8, 2015 at 4:22 am

    ” Ben Wouters, you must be a small man to even attempt what you just did with my words and thoughts above”
    Haven’t the faintest idea what got you worked up so much, but my length is 185 cm. and I’m fine, thank you very much.

  137. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: June 8, 2015 at 9:28 am

    ” Interesting time lapse video (1.5 minutes)…”

    Scary stuff indeed….

  138. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: June 8, 2015 at 10:55 am

    ” There are two different ways to “predict the future”. They are
    Compare with past records, statistics
    “From knowledge of physical processes.” science”

    Great. This discussion about ‘convection cells’ now has officially become science😉

    Remember the DALR being based on the First Law of Thermodynamics, Hydrostatic Equilibrium for the surrounding atmosphere, expanding and thus cooling air for the rising volume, the process being adiabatic, condensation starting when RH reaches 100% etc..

  139. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: June 8, 2015 at 3:05 pm

    ” To me it seems that Aristotle thinks the colder higher place cools the moist air and not the opposite.”

    Roger Clague says: May 29, 2015 at 1:56 pm
    “To me an older scientific theory is less likely to be correct than a newer one. Older scientific theories are not added to, they are replaced. Not like human law which accumulates.”

    What would be the relevance of Aristotle’s ideas (~ 2300 years old) be vs Espy’s (~175 years), vs the current DALR/SALR methodology?

  140. Roger Clague says: June 8, 2015 at 10:55 am

    “Meteorology and medicine are useful but are not sciences.”

    Indeed but both mistakenly call their work scientific! How sad!

    Roger Clague says: June 8, 2015 at 3:05 pm
    http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/meteorology.1.i.html
    “Aristotle 2300 years ago describes the water cycle we are now still discussing.
    —————————————————————————————————————————————
    Most of book 1 is worth reading
    Some extracts from Part 9 (My wj Bold)
    “ It is the region common to water and air, and the processes attending the formation of water above take place in it.” “We must consider the principles and causes of all these phenomena too as before. The efficient and chief and first cause is the circle in which the sun moves. For the sun as it approaches or recedes, obviously causes dissipation and condensation and so gives rise to generation and destruction.” “Now the earth remains but the moisture surrounding it is made to evaporate by the sun’s rays and the other heat from above, and rises. But when the heat which was raising it leaves it, in part dispersing to the higher region, in part quenched through rising so far into the upper air, then the vapour cools because its heat is gone and because the place is cold, and condenses again and turns from air into water. And after the water has formed it falls down again to the earth.”
    “We must think of it as a river flowing up and down in a circle and made up partly of air, partly of water.”
    “So the moisture is always raised by the heat and descends to the earth again when it gets cold”
    ————————————————————————————————————————————-
    “To me it seems that Aristotle thinks the colder higher place cools the moist air and not the opposite.”

    Which is exactly correct, along with the correct use of the term moisture! Clearly Aristotle was writing of airborne water condensate (an aerosol colloid) rather than water vapour which is a gas. There exists in this “atmosphere” an average of 2.4 to 2.8 g/cm2 of total water (in four phases, colloid being one). Most of the atmosphere is to cold, via EMR flux to space, to allow such to remain WV! The electromagnetic power from the sun evaporates some of this airborne condensate to WV requiring 2400 Joules per gram, with no temperature change! Please calculate the total power flux from the sun against the number of grams of condensate that come under purview of the sun in that single second! How much of that can the sun possibly evaporate with perhaps no change no temperature? All the rest must be left as a permanant colloid condensate, (mostly as wee snowflakes in the upper atmosphere)! This calculation shows no need for surface participation in the continuous power transfer of insolation to EMR exitance to space. The whole surface water cycle accounts for a mere 25% of this power transfer! There is no need for any surface EMR exitance what so ever!
    It is clearly the “effort” on the part of meteorologists and climatologists to completely suppress and discard any reference to the presence of atmospheric water condensate and the extremely significant part latent heat, and EMR exit flux, has on the process! They know! The falsification is deliberate! Aristotle did not know, but he was much more careful with his words! 🙂

  141. Roger I hope you do not think that the above is any way libelous. I have only described broad groups that need be investigated for any wrongdoing by governments of Britain, the EU, Australia, and the USA. Few can be considered criminal, but many can be identified as stupid, or incompetent! Only the courts can decide if the stupid illegally profited from their own stupidity!🙂

  142. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: June 8, 2015 at 9:35 pm

    “It is clearly the “effort” on the part of meteorologists and climatologists to completely suppress and discard any reference to the presence of atmospheric water condensate and the extremely significant part latent heat, and EMR exit flux, has on the process! They know! The falsification is deliberate! ”

    It’s obvious you are in dire need of professional help. Find someone you can trust to help you.

  143. suricat says:

    OB. you buggered this thread from the ‘outset’! Its ‘impossible’ to discuss ‘convection cells’ when you start with ‘GCCs’ (Global Convection Cells)!!!

    The ‘make-up’ of GCCs includes the ‘kinetics’ of many attractors within the ‘manifold’!

    This ISN’T a ‘beginners guide’ at all. Its a way to ‘confuse’ the beginner.

    Best regards, Ray.

  144. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: June 9, 2015 at 8:38 am

    “It’s obvious you are in dire need of professional help. Find someone you can trust to help you.”

    I’m not sure that this attitude is helpful in a discussion Ben. Where and how can you be made to understand that a ‘ground up’ LR can only be described as an ‘ELR component’ consisting of ‘SALR and DALR’ UNTIL ‘cloud-base’ is achieved!

    I’m not prescribing, or proscribing, any altitude. When a ‘liquid’, or ‘solid’, presents itself ‘at altitude’, it ‘becomes/presents as’ ‘a surface’ that can interact with insolation!

    These ‘islands in the sky’ confound everyone because they change soooo quickly. Please be patient.

    Best regards, Ray.

  145. suricat says: June 10, 2015 at 1:40 am

    “OB. you buggered this thread from the ‘outset’! Its ‘impossible’ to discuss ‘convection cells’ when you start with ‘GCCs’ (Global Convection Cells)!!!
    The ‘make-up’ of GCCs includes the ‘kinetics’ of many attractors within the ‘manifold’!
    This ISN’T a ‘beginners guide’ at all. Its a way to ‘confuse’ the beginner.

    I agree! Nothing but for the believers! Ray your concept and OB’s later concept of a “convection cell” in a pan of fluid heated from below forming a hexagonal “convection cell” is precise as in the explanation for such. But advection of a fluid no mater “natural” or forced (say centrifugal force) plus the movement of anything except that fluid is properly termed “convection”. Global Convection Cells are both convection and cells. They certainly have nothing to do with local “thermals” that are never cells. The intended confusion by those that think they know, was expected. 🙂 -will-

  146. Ben Wouters says: June 9, 2015 at 8:38 am

    “It’s obvious you are in dire need of professional help. Find someone you can trust to help you.”

    I can only trust you Ben, as you are the “only”, that knows all!!!!🙂

  147. oldbrew says:

    We can move to convection cells part two if you like. It can open with this (for example):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection_cell#Process

    We could include the opening section (convection cells) as well.
    It wouldn’t be intended as a definitive statement, just a starting point for discussion, and we would say that.

  148. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: June 10, 2015 at 2:05 am

    “These ‘islands in the sky’ confound everyone because they change soooo quickly. Please be patient.”
    I think I have been very patient with WJ. I’m just communicating with him in his own peculiar way.

    What everybody here seems to miss is that our atmosphere has a DENSITY GRADIENT.
    A volume of air with a given density can be buoyant at sea level, the same density at 1000 meters will not be buoyant. Air at 10 kilometers and the same density will drop like a stone.
    So buoyancy in this atmosphere is not comparable to buoyancy in an in-compressible fluid.

    There is a reason I started my posts about simple convection with the Hydrostatic Equilibrium of this atmosphere.

  149. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: June 10, 2015 at 2:29 am

    “I agree! Nothing but for the believers! Ray your concept and OB’s later concept of a “convection cell” in a pan of fluid heated from below forming a hexagonal “convection cell” is precise as in the explanation for such. But advection of a fluid no mater “natural” or forced (say centrifugal force) plus the movement of anything except that fluid is properly termed “convection”. Global Convection Cells are both convection and cells. They certainly have nothing to do with local “thermals” that are never cells. The intended confusion by those that think they know, was expected.🙂 -will-”

    Can’t wait for your explanation of Global Convection Cells. It will be a lot of fun, but not so much for you I’m afraid😉

  150. oldbrew says:

    Ben W says: ‘What everybody here seems to miss is that our atmosphere has a DENSITY GRADIENT.’

    And the density gradient has an identical shape to the pressure gradient.
    http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/graphs.htm

  151. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: June 10, 2015 at 12:14 pm

    “And the density gradient has an identical shape to the pressure gradient.
    http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/graphs.htm

    Obviously, but then those are the things even a twelve year old already knows😉

  152. Ben Wouters says:

    Just for fun using http://www.denysschen.com/catalogue/density.aspx

    Air at sealevel, 15C 0% RH, density = 1,221 kg/m^3
    Air at sealevel, 15C 100% RH, density = 1,213 kg/m^3

    So if we manage to create a volume of air with RH 100% in surrounding air with RH 0%,
    the air with RH 100% will be buoyant.
    How far does it rise? Untill it reaches the altitude where the density is the same as the rising volume. Trial and error shows that at 90 meter, temperature now 14C and RH 0% the density is also 1,213 kg/m^3.

    What a wonderful world we live in

  153. wayne says:

    Ben, Ben… error… density is not some constant vertically. Please recompute.

    You continue trying to make points with fantasies as Will would put it. Get real. Get accurate.

    The base of our differences seems to be that you seem to be of the type that looks at various charts and web calculators, I am the type that programs the very charts and calculators that you look at. You fail to look at the physics equations and type in the values into an actual calculator to see if you (or the site you are using) are even doing the computation correct before posting.

    Or possibly you are typing in values into some internet .com site that has not been programmed correctly or has not handled round-off errors and rounding correctly and that is confusing you. One or the other.

    Maybe suricat and Will will also help inform you that, yes, density decreases on the average as the altitude increases even in your 100% RH ‘packet’ so you cannot do what you just did above to make some point.

    Do I see the latent heat hidden in your example that you are about to speing to show how smart you are… quite.

  154. Roger Clague says:

    oldbrew says:
    June 10, 2015 at 9:19 am
    We can move to convection cells part two if you like. It can open with this (for example):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection_cell#Process

    “In the field of fluid dynamics, a convection cell is the phenomenon that occurs when densitydifferences exist within a body of liquid or gas”

    The confusion starts here. What causes the density difference?
    In liquid heated from below it is the expansion of the liquid near to source.
    In the atmosphere it is the moistness of air near the surface at the equator.
    There is density difference everywhere in the atmos. But the main cell, the Hadley starts at the wet equator.
    Convection in a liquid heated from below is not like the Hadley convection cell in the atmosphere heated from below, within and above
    1. Heating at different places
    2. Different cause of density difference.
    We need to find a better explanation for atmosphere convection

  155. oldbrew says: June 10, 2015 at 12:14 pm

    “Ben W says: ‘What everybody here seems to miss is that our atmosphere has a DENSITY GRADIENT.’”

    “And the density gradient has an identical shape to the pressure gradient.”
    http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/graphs.htm

    Yes they are both logarithmic but they have different dimensional units. The important is the ratio of pressure to density That has the dimensions of work force x distance or the equivalence of gravitational potential energy! At the same time the same gravitational force spontaneously creates pressure, density, speed of sound, viscosity, and temperature, gradients all increasing at lower altitudes! Each of these gradient “potential differences”, completely or partially nullify other seemingly spontaneous processes such as the spontaneous tendency toward isothermal and isobaric!!

    Ben Wouters says: June 10, 2015 at 1:00 pm

    “Obviously, but then those are the things even a twelve year old already knows😉 ”

    Except for the twelve year old that knows all, remains brainwashed, and refuses to think!🙂

  156. Ben Wouters says: June 10, 2015 at 1:49 pm

    “How far does it rise? Until it reaches the altitude where the density is the same as the rising volume. Trial and error shows that at 90 meter, temperature now 14C and RH 0% the density is also 1,213 kg/m^3.”

    In one instance Ben’s air parcel is insulated but flexible allowing volume exchange but not temperature exchange! Now he claims constant volume with a temperature exchange! Why does not the RH also exchange? Ah! the illusionary adiabatic! Is there no end to such fantasy?

  157. oldbrew says:

    How about this one? Some of the English is a bit iffy but mostly it’s OK.

    http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html

  158. Roger Clague says: June 10, 2015 at 7:41 pm

    “Convection in a liquid heated from below is not like the Hadley convection cell in the atmosphere heated from below, within and above
    1. Heating at different places
    2. Different cause of density difference.
    We need to find a better explanation for atmosphere convection”

    I agree, and much more detail on all the various forms of atmospheric convection. Most important is the specific roll of H2O (in any or all four phases) in this particular instance of atmospheric convection. Perhaps a thread on “the role of H2O in the different types of atmosphere convection”. Please remain as far away from air parcels as possible!🙂

  159. suricat says:

    wayne says: June 10, 2015 at 5:53 pm

    “Maybe suricat and Will will also help inform you that, yes, density decreases on the average as the altitude increases even in your 100% RH ‘packet’ so you cannot do what you just did above to make some point.”

    I’ll try wayne, but I’m not hopeful.

    Best regards, Ray.

  160. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: June 10, 2015 at 1:49 pm

    “Air at sealevel, 15C 0% RH, density = 1,221 kg/m^3
    Air at sealevel, 15C 100% RH, density = 1,213 kg/m^3”

    The ‘at sea level’ assumptions seem ~correct.

    “So if we manage to create a volume of air with RH 100% in surrounding air with RH 0%, the air with RH 100% will be buoyant.”

    ‘At sea level’, I concur, but have a problem with the “RH 0%” comparison.

    “How far does it rise? Untill it reaches the altitude where the density is the same as the rising volume. Trial and error shows that at 90 meter, temperature now 14C and RH 0% the density is also 1,213 kg/m^3.”

    How???

    At a “90 meter” altitude the “air with RH 100%” becomes either ‘super saturated’, or ‘contains water droplets’ and ‘may/may not’ exhibit an elevated temperature (dependant on ‘water droplet production’)! Any pressure change at this altitude has also altered the ‘gas mix’ due to the ‘compressibility’ value of the component gasses. Nevertheless, the ‘friction’ generated by this ‘convection’ also generates a ‘static electrical element’ that ‘polarises’ any movement and can, later, become an ‘electric storm’ event.

    The “RH 0%” scenario is just impossible for an Earth simulation. WV is always there.

    Please query where you need elucidation.

    Best regards, Ray.

  161. OB, perhaps you should change this title of the thread to “Atmospheric convection 607” for any that wish to become conversant with this discussion! Most would run away and hide!

  162. Ben Wouters says:

    wayne says: June 10, 2015 at 5:53 pm

    “Ben, Ben… error… density is not some constant vertically. Please recompute.”

    Ben Wouters says: June 10, 2015 at 1:49 pm
    Air at sealevel, 15C 0% RH, density = 1,221 kg/m^3
    at 90 meter, temperature now 14C and RH 0% the density is also 1,213 kg/m^3

    where ‘also’ refers to ‘Air at sealevel, 15C 100% RH, density = 1,213 kg/m^3’

    Ben Wouters says: June 10, 2015 at 10:35 am
    “What everybody here seems to miss is that our atmosphere has a DENSITY GRADIENT.”

    And your point is ??

    “you seem to be of the type that looks at various charts and web calculators”
    Actually I’m the type that had a pretty good education in classic meteorology.
    I also had the privilege of being briefed before every flight by experienced meteorologist of the Dutch KNMI, who where always willing to share their knowledge.
    On top of that I have 40+ years personal experience in working with and experiencing our atmosphere. So yes, I’m pretty confident that I know how convection works.
    Not from being smart enough to figure it out myself, but from understanding what others have figured out, like James Pollard Espy, Buys Ballot and many others.
    To see a [snip – name calling] like WJ discard their findings as religion and fantasy inspires me to have some fun with him in his own game.

  163. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: June 10, 2015 at 10:47 pm

    “How about this one? Some of the English is a bit iffy but mostly it’s OK.

    http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html

    oldbrew how dare you?😉
    The text has ‘the adiabatic cooling of rising air’ and the ‘hydrostatic balance’ to explain convection.
    How shocking.

  164. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: June 11, 2015 at 4:42 am

    How???
    It’s not my idea that the wv makes air buoyant. It’s what everybody else here seems to believe.
    I just showed that with maximum buoyancy due to wv (100% vs 0% RH) the air at ~90meter already has the same density as the maximum buoyant air at sealevel.
    So pse explain how wv driven convection can create thunderstorms many kilometers high up.

    see https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/beginners-guide-to-convection-cells/comment-page-1/#comment-100965

  165. Roger Clague says:

    oldbrew says:
    June 10, 2015 at 10:47 pm

    How about this one? Some of the English is a bit iffy but mostly it’s OK.
    http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html

    This is a very clear statement of the consensus adiabatic theory of lapse rate. I find it unconvincing.

    It originated here in 1841. https://archive.org/details/philosophystorm01espygoog

    I comment on 3 quotes:
    1.”During the day, the ground warms up because it absorbs the Sun’s radiation. Air parcels in contact with the ground warm up by conduction, become lighter than their surroundings, and rise. At night…… convection stops.”
    So how is T/h maintained at night?
    No, convection continues at night. In my opinion the cause of convection in the atmosphere is the lower density of moist air, not lower density of expanding air. Moist air ( from evaporation and transpiration )continues to cause convection at night.

    2.” ideal because it is not exact,”
    No. Ideal refers to the theory, the concepts. An ideal gas is a theoretical gas composed of many randomly moving point particles
    Chunks, packets, parcels are not point particles. Packets are not moving randomly.
    The basic concept of a theory must be consistent. The adiabatic theory of LR has two different concepts.

    3. “At the tropopause the lapse rate changes and becomes 5 °C/km.”
    At the tropopause the LR pauses, the clue is in the name. That is becomes 0.

    The data
    4. p/h is exponential and continuous; T/h is linear and not continuous
    According to gas law T is linear with p, so p and T should have same curve.

  166. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: June 11, 2015 at 9:29 am

    “It’s not my idea that the wv makes air buoyant. It’s what everybody else here seems to believe.
    I just showed that with maximum buoyancy due to wv (100% vs 0% RH) the air at ~90meter already has the same density as the maximum buoyant air at sealevel.
    So pse explain how wv driven convection can create thunderstorms many kilometers high up.”

    I’ll try to cut through the confusion.

    Air at 100% RH rises, cools, becomes super-saturated and water begins to condense out of the ‘air’. Thus, we no longer have a ‘gaseous atmosphere’ per se, but we ‘do’ have an atmosphere containing ‘water droplets’.

    The thing about ‘water droplets’ is that they have a ‘surface’ that insolation can impinge upon! We now have something akin to ‘ocean surface’ in the sky.

    The ‘droplet size’ and ‘cloud dimension’ determines the amount of insolation energy ‘absorbed’ by the cloud, thus, the ‘cloud’ is warmed ‘further’ by the insolation it receives, prolonging its convection. ‘Clouds’, per se, can be very unstable in daylight, but they subside at night.

    There’s a lot of stuff about wave-lengths and depth to extinction that I’ve left out in the interest of clarity, but do you get the ‘principle’ involved?

    Best regards, Ray.

  167. oldbrew says:

    NOTE: This thread will be closed for comments shortly.

    New post: Atmospheric convection – what does it mean?
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/

    Feel free to copy over any recent comments if required.

    The new post is intended as a continuation of the discussion, as well as being perhaps a different angle for readers.

    Thanks to all contributors, hope to see you on the new thread soon.

    **********************************************************************************

  168. wayne says:

    One last note….

    suricat, what Ben doesn’t seem to realize is that, even ignoring any condensation which would also be involved or insolation, that he is dealing with a ninety meter differential, if even that 90 figure he gave is correct. But like Stephen Wilde, he doesn’t seem to understand the math, the physics behind it, refuse to learn it, and only talks in streams of meteorological words on what he imagines is correct.

    As his packet moves ninety meters upward there would still exist an apx ninety meter difference. Both are becoming less dense as it rises. If it move yet another ninety meters upward there would still be an apx ninety meter difference in the density and so as it goes in physics that his water vapor laden packet is always lighter than that 0% surrounding air in his mis-applied example.

    Will called that percolation and that is not such a bad general term used right there colloquially. Percolation from density alone beside temperature differences. The main dance between the trio P, ρ, T local values is between temperature and density and there is a small change in the specific gas constant due to the releative humidity. Any very local pressure differences move at the speed of sound to equalize as much as possible only because that is what ‘sound’ is.

    That is, he may not realize the calculus aspect.

  169. Ben Wouters says:

    wayne says: June 11, 2015 at 7:43 pm
    One last note….

    suricat, what Ben doesn’t seem to realize is that, even ignoring any condensation……

    If condensation occurs, the RH remains at 100%, only waterdroplets form.
    Even if you manage to somehow push this 100% RH air higher up, its temperature will decrease, making the wv contribution to the lower density less and less.
    Temperature rules…..