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. Ben Wouters says:

    Good initiative 😉

    “When you warm air, it rises. Cool air will sink.”
    A bit too simplistic. Air only rises as long as its density (~temperature) is lower than the density of the surrounding air. So you have to compare continuously the temperature of the rising air vs the temperature of the surrounding air to see if the rising will continue.
    Another reason for air to rise is when wind is forced to climb over a hill / mountain.

    “It (convection) is also responsible for making the wind blow.”
    Wind generally blows from areas with relatively high pressure to areas with relatively low pressure.
    (and is deflected by the coriolis effect)
    There are many ways to create pressure differences.

  2. Mike Flynn says:

    Ben Wouters,

    I’m with you. Obvious observation is that temperature decreases with height, but the wind at the surface can be still, even when air and ground temperatures exceed 35C. Or at sea, in the doldrums or similar, a ship can be becalmed for long periods in the Tropics. Warm air does not necessarily rise.

    A solar pond can have water of say 30C overlaying water of up to 90 C. No convection takes place, which is the object of the exercise. Density, not temperature. Warm water does not necessarily rise.

    Back to the drawing board I’m afraid.

  3. I did my PhD on convection cells.
    One thing that bugs me is when people claim that CO2 “traps” heat in the atmosphere. No it doesn’t! Hot air rises.

  4. oldbrew says:

    It was always a mystery how 0.04% of the atmosphere was going to ‘trap’ anything 😉

  5. Ben Vorlich says:

    @Ben Wouters

    It does say in the title

    Beginner’s guide to convection cells

    The operative words being Beginners and Guide. Implying that this is a primer at the bottom level of knowledge. Your comment, however valid, might have more relevance at Expert level discussion.

  6. oldbrew says: May 2, 2015 at 6:54 pm

    “It was always a mystery how 0.04% of the atmosphere was going to ‘trap’ anything 😉 ”

    OB,
    It is not the 0.04% CO2, but rather the 4% by volume, 2.4% by mass atmospheric water that shifts between WV (the gas) sunside and airborne condensate (no latent heat,but no rain either) darkside.
    This storage between day and night of 5.8 x 10^7 J/m^2 far exceeds all energy that the surface/oceans can temporarily store of periodic insolation. The claim is the Sun heats (raises the temperature) of the surface, which then heats (raises the temperature) of the atmosphere. What BS. This Earth, Sun, and space can and does provide all power (transfer) that generates your cells and all weather. Surface temperature is not involved. Paul Vaughan provides great insight to the ocean/wind control of surface temperatures at every location. Can we not try to figure what this atmosphere actually does.
    The Climatologists and Meteorologists clearly have only fantasy!
    To repeat from the other thread/blog : 🙂
    From the world average annual precipitation of 91cm/yr, we calculate a daily “surface to air” evaporation/condensation to precipitation of 2.8mm of water for a continuous EMR exit flux of 80 W/m^2. This is one major way of discarding waste energy to space after interesting weather. I think that the value of pressure in kPa is always equal to the mass of some g/cm^2 column air above.
    But there is more, the average column water in the atmosphere is 2.4cm 24mm. This much H2O would require above a 30 degree Celsius atmospheric temperature to remain as a “mono-trimer” WV gas! This corresponds to 2.4% by mass, or 4% by volume of gaseous H2O. The atmospheric temperature is always somewhere above this temperature (sunside, tropics) and somewhere else well below this temperature (darkside, high latitude)..
    This suggests an additional gas/condensate exchange of latent heat totally within the atmosphere, and continuously lateral from sunside evaporation to darkside creation of airborne H2O condensate.
    How much of this airborne condensate can be supported by the buoyancy and viscosity of this atmosphere, I am not even qualified to guess,but I will anyhow! 6mm column water, cycling from liquid to condensate would supply all of the additional radiative exitance to space. 9mm would cover the albedo nonsense.
    The other 15-18mm column water could stay in one state, perhaps as high altitude heptamer-trimer baby snow flakes, one molecule thick, that would be buoyant at any altitude, always giving meteorologists the finger with one or more appendages! Please check all my numbers. I make mistooks often. 😦

  7. Alan Poirier says:

    Thank you, Will. I keep telling my friends they need to first understand the entalphy of vaporization before they learn anything else about the climate and weather.

  8. tom0mason says:

    Not being an expert on these things could I ask a couple of basic questions –

    Would I be correct in observing that the diagram from NASA is only an idealization of the cells’ locations. That in this real world those cells are dynamic (wobbly), and vary at any one point in position, width, and thickness (altitude).
    That the position of northern jet stream is a good indicator of approximately where (in the NH) the polar cell and mid-latitude cell’s meeting boundary is positioned.
    Is this a truer picture?

    Is there much cell variation (position, width, and/or altitude) over the day/night cycle ? If so how?

  9. suricat says: May 3, 2015 at 2:29 am

    “I don’t see any data for “Plots at higher altitudes”, but at this altitude you’re at/near the ‘top end’ of convection where ‘it’ (convection) begins to slow down. I concur! The ‘latent quality’ of the ‘product’ (rising atmosphere) exhibits the ‘thermal capacity’ behaviour of a ‘greater mass’ than exists there. AFAIK this is a problem for ‘modellers’ that try to emulate Earth’s atmosphere in the tropo.”

    I gave no data, just my consideration of data from others. I have no desire to prove anything. I do not know!!

    “As for “convection (mass flow)”. It ‘originates’ at ‘land surface’ for mostly temperature mediation, and ‘ocean surface’ for WV mediation, with biasing due to latitude for both ‘insolation rate’ and Earth rotation.
    See you in Beginner’s guide to convection cells 🙂 ”

    I politely disagree with your “originates at land surface”, The expansion of the atmosphere originates from the insolation, never from the surface.. This expansion against the rigid surface requires a movement of the centre of mass of that local atmosphere outward. Please show how such expansion can ever be considered convection (mass flow)?
    -will- 🙂

  10. Alan Poirier says: May 3, 2015 at 1:31 am

    “Thank you, Will. I keep telling my friends they need to first understand the entalphy of vaporization before they learn anything else about the climate and weather.”

    Alan,
    Enthalpy is a difficult word, even for experienced engineers. I prefer J/g in (2400) to vaporize, and 2400 J/gm back out to condense, below 373 Kelvin.. 🙂

  11. Ben Wouters says:

    Ben Vorlich says: May 2, 2015 at 9:12 pm
    “The operative words being Beginners and Guide. Implying that this is a primer at the bottom level of knowledge. Your comment, however valid, might have more relevance at Expert level discussion.”
    Have to disagree. It gets even worse 😉 If you want to have a basic understanding of convection, you NEED to understand how the “static” atmosphere is operating:
    – hydrostatic balance
    – pressure and density gradient
    – pressure gradient force
    – resulting temperature gradient.
    Without a solid understanding of these phenomena, a beginner won’t be able to understand convection.

  12. gbaikie says:

    –tom0mason says:
    May 3, 2015 at 3:16 am

    Not being an expert on these things could I ask a couple of basic questions –

    Would I be correct in observing that the diagram from NASA is only an idealization of the cells’ locations. That in this real world those cells are dynamic (wobbly), and vary at any one point in position, width, and thickness (altitude).
    That the position of northern jet stream is a good indicator of approximately where (in the NH) the polar cell and mid-latitude cell’s meeting boundary is positioned.
    Is this a truer picture?

    Is there much cell variation (position, width, and/or altitude) over the day/night cycle ? If so how?–

    There would be variation seasonally.

    The sun at noon is directly overhead at tropic of Cancer and Capricorn- 23 degree latitude north and south, during winter/summer and at equator at fall and spring Equinox.
    The tropical zone is between 23 degree north and south, and tropics receives most amount of sunlight and has higher average temperature. So as sun relation to equator shifts north or south the most intense amount of heating shifts north or south.

    These are large scale [global effect] and explain for things like trade winds and horse latitudes
    [which tend to be desert regions]. Smaller scale weather pattern would effect these large scale effects- as in sometime is rains in such deserts regions and/or seasonally one could have higher chance of rains occurring.

    One also think of it as two regions are drivers of these global scale convection cells: Tropics and polar region. Warm air rising in tropics [and pulling in lower cooler air] and polar region cold air falling and at lower elevation flowing towards equator, with upper air replacing it.
    The polar regions would have strongest effect during the winter [not being warmed by sunlight] and it would weaken in the polar region during their summer.

    [reply] yes, the NASA graphic is a cartoon or approximation only

  13. Ben Wouters says:

    @Ben Vorlich

    To expand a little:
    without understanding the above mentioned phenomena, you can’t understand why on some days convection only results in those nice little cumulus clouds, why on other days convection explodes into major thunderstorms, why the cloud base of convective clouds is at a certain altitude, why in a high pressure area not much convection is occurring etc. etc.

  14. Ben Wouters says: May 3, 2015 at 7:26 am .
    Ben Vorlich says: May 2, 2015 at 9:12 pm

    (“The operative words being Beginners and Guide. Implying that this is a primer at the bottom level of knowledge. Your comment, however valid, might have more relevance at Expert level discussion.”)

    “Have to disagree. It gets even worse 😉 If you want to have a basic understanding of convection, you NEED to understand how the “static” atmosphere is operating:
    – hydrostatic balance
    – pressure and density gradient
    – pressure gradient force
    – resulting temperature gradient.
    Without a solid understanding of these phenomena, a beginner won’t be able to understand convection.?”

    Indeed Ben,
    And without some understanding of this physical atmosphere, no one can even discern what you may mean by convection. Is this some magical meteorological event, or an actual measurable physical process.? How is such measured? 🙂

  15. Ben Vorlich says:

    Ben Wouters
    I don’t wish to appear to be a troll but the post title says it all. It’s like everything you have to start simple and work up just as a discussion on the Higgs Boson titled “A Beginners Guide To” would be very basic.

    It doesn’t make what you say incorrect just that you could have said that this should be the start of several posts adding information and complexity. Going in at a high level from the off doesn’t help those who know little about a subject but are keen to learn.

    I don’t want to divert discussion from the topic for those who are keen to discuss the minutiae but that is my view on things titled “A Beginners Guide To” so that’s my final word.

  16. wayne says:

    “Can we not try to figure what this atmosphere actually does.”

    Hear, hear, Will. You’ve made some great points above for any tiny effects co2 may have are absolutely dwarfed into insignificance by the water/w.v. cycle. And as Ben said at the top it is that rather small sensible heat portion (thermals/convection) that is the transport upward of the much larger latent heat portion of energy from the surface. Some say the ~18 W/m² sensible is the most insignificant of the three but to me it is the most powerful of them all for without convection water vapor would stagnate at the surface and do no energy transfer at all.

  17. Ben Wouters says:

    Ben Vorlich says: May 3, 2015 at 8:15 am

    I get your point, but there is no simpler way to discuss convection. The things I mentioned ARE the basics. Leaving anything out makes the discussion pointless.
    Every beginning glider pilot should be familiar with these concepts, so I expect that at Tallblokes, “at the cutting edge of science”, we can discuss these basics, especially on a thread called “Beginners guide to convection cells”.

    If we were to stick to “warm air rises”, how then to explain eg that air over our deserts actually sinks?

    [mod note] it’s an open discussion, no problem

  18. Richard111 says:

    Right! A personal observation. No claim to any science. 🙂
    I spent some years, in the dim and distant past, servicing Decca Navigating stations around South Africa. These stations are usually on a high hill with good views all round. One particular station, in South West Africa, on the edge of the Namib Desert, is brought to mind. Much time was spent sitting on the veranda, with a can of cool beer, watching the traffic on the road along the bottom of the valley. This road was several miles away with much dry dusty land between us and the road.
    On days with little to no wind, plenty of sunshine and heat, we would notice ‘dust devils’ appearing and disappearing. They often appeared in groups and would rotate, some times only for minutes. The bigger they were the longer they lasted. The contact point with surface was very small but the tops would be a dusty cloud. You could see they were swirling. General direction of movement would be with any local breeze and these could keep changing direction.
    Now these ‘dust devils’ only seemed to appear during the heat of the day, none in the early morning or late afternoon.

    I find it difficult to believe this effect was not due to convection by air warmed from contact with the very hot desert dust surface. In effect each ‘dust devil’ is a miniature whirlwind.

  19. Ben Wouters says:

    Richard111 says: May 3, 2015 at 8:54 am

    “I find it difficult to believe this effect was not due to convection by air warmed from contact with the very hot desert dust surface.”
    These dust devils ARE due to convection by air warmed from contact with the surface 😉
    In spite of the very high surface temperatures they don’t reach high altitudes, and don’t form clouds. To understand this we have to go into the mechanics of convection, and the basics of the “static” atmosphere.

  20. Ben Wouters says:

    wayne says: May 3, 2015 at 8:20 am

    “without convection water vapor would stagnate at the surface and do no energy transfer at all.”
    Couldn’t agree more 😉

  21. oldbrew says:

    Again for beginners: wiseGEEK – ‘clear answers to common questions’ – says, in its response to ‘What Is a Convection Cell?’:

    ‘The Earth’s atmosphere features convection cells on a vast scale: the equatorial regions receive more heat from the sun than the poles, causing warm air to rise then flow toward higher latitudes, where it descends to flow back toward the equator, forming a huge convection cell on either side. These are known as Hadley cells. Water vapor in the rising air condenses as the air cools at higher altitudes and can form towering cumulonimbus clouds that produce thunderstorms. The air generally descends about 30 degrees north and south of the equator, by which time it has lost most of its moisture; as a result, these regions are usually arid and contain some of the world’s great deserts. The subsequent movement of air back toward the equator is responsible for the trade winds.’

    http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-convection-cell.htm

    So Hadley cells form either side of the equator – see NASA graphic above [click to enlarge it]. That’s why deserts are not on the equator itself (as a rule), but tropical rainforests usually are.

    [credit: mongabay.com]

  22. tom0mason says:

    A quick question
    The title is “Beginners guide to convection cells”, and the only graphic (from NASA) also uses the word ‘cell’ (Hadley cell, Farrell cell, polar, etc). Are they the same meaning?

    If this is the case all well and good.
    If not, for the sake of us outsiders, is it possible to have same definitions?

    Or, to rephrase Douglas Adams – “.. this is obviously some strange usage of the word “cell” that I was previously unaware of”

    [reply] yes, same meaning (see wiseGEEK above)

  23. tom0mason says:

    Oops typo –
    If not, for the sake of us outsiders, is it possible to have some definitions?

  24. tom0mason says:

    Thank-you oldbrew for the heads up.

  25. David Blake says:

    Interesting stuff, and a chance to ask my very amateurish questions.. 🙂

    I’ve always thought that if CO2 can warm the lower atmosphere, and cool the higher atmosphere (by increasing the ability – for wont of a better word – to radiate to space), then this temperature differential would just increase result in greater vertical convection? The heat is mixed upwards thereby equalizing the temperature in very short order…?

  26. David Blake says:

    Typo … “result in greater vertical convection…” Not increase in greater…”

    [amended – mod]

  27. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: May 3, 2015 at 10:25 am

    I feel it is better to think of the Hadley, Ferrell and Polar cells as general CIRCULATION cells.
    Their driving force isn’t convection, but the thermal wind that generally moves air from equator towards the poles at high altitudes. Convection just re-supplies the air that is moving toward the poles.
    see http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap12/thermal_wind.html

    To me a convection cell is just that, a cell where air is rising, like in a thunderstorm etc.

  28. craigm350 says:

    Ben W –

    If you want to have a basic understanding of convection, you NEED to understand how the “static” atmosphere is operating:
    – hydrostatic balance
    – pressure and density gradient
    – pressure gradient force
    – resulting temperature gradient.
    Without a solid understanding of these phenomena, a beginner won’t be able to understand convection.

    Could you please explain then on a basic level what these points are and how they work? What is a static atmosphere as opposed to non static?

    These posts quickly fall into jargon* e.g. ‘hydrostatic balance’, by the more advanced, that a beginner will probably need to look up before they can move on to the next line…and so on…and that’s if their google search brings up anything tangible rather than more insider jargon – often I can understand or already understand a principle but the jargon eludes me. What is needed if adding additional complexity to understanding is a basic explanation of what you are adding. You can’t say for example ‘peddle, gears, steering wheel – now this is the engineering behind an F1 car’ or giving a first algebra lesson by going into string theory!! 😉

    Appreciate if you could elaborate – basically – what you mean. Thanks.
    🙂
    Craig

    * I use jargon here in the sense that in groups, industries etc people use terms and abbreviations they are aware of but very few outsiders are (quite guilty of this myself). To a newcomer it can be intimidating and excluding, even if not intentionally so. As an example ‘dog and bone’ is well known rhyming slang for phone in the UK but I’ve seen many a quizzical face from visitors to our shores who speak excellent English but may not understand regional/local nuances, colloquialisms etc – and vice versa.

  29. Richard111 says:

    Thank you Ben Wouters. So air can be warmed by contact with the surface. What defines a warm surface, or more correctly, what is heat? Heat is molecular vibration. In a solid the molecules can’t move but they can vibrate. This results in warmed objects expanding. The surface molecules can ‘smack’ an air molecule and increase the kinetic speed of the air molecule. As air molecules gain kinetic energy from the surface they ‘push’ nearby air molecules, sharing some of their kinetic energy in the process and creating a volume which is occupied by LESS air molecules. That volume of air being less massy than the surrounding air will start to rise.
    The question now is how does that rising volume of air cool? As I said above inter-molecular collisions between air molecules ‘share’ their kinetic energy. Molecules that gained altitude have possibly lost kinetic speed but have they cooled? No. Because they have gained potential energy from their new altitude above the surface.
    I’ll leave it at that for now. Think about the dust molecules in the ‘dust devils’ discussed earlier. These can and do absorb high energy photons from the sun and increase their vibrational levels helping nearby air molecules maintain their kinetic energy from collisions as they rise. Remember, air molecules can’t absorb high energy photons, neither can they radiate them.
    Fascinating stuff when you add H2O and CO2 molecules to the mix. 🙂

  30. Ben Wouters says:

    craigm350 says: May 3, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    “Could you please explain then on a basic level what these points are and how they work?”
    Easiest for me is to reference to this:
    http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section1a.html#atmospheric_pressure
    A site for recreational pilots, but still very useful for reference.
    Any questions left, just ask.

    “What is a static atmosphere as opposed to non static?”
    First the atmosphere is never static. To discuss convection we have to assume the surrounding air is not moving in the vertical direction. So static here means “not moving vertically”

    For me it helps to envision a planet in outer space, where the surface is heated by a floor heating system. This way you can simplify things enormously
    Basic setup is equal temperature all around (eg 290K). In this atmosphere there will be no wind, no convection, no tropopause/stratosphere etc. Just energy loss from the surface to space THROUGH the atmosphere.
    Creating convection just means turning the heat a little higher in a small area and see what happens.
    General circulation can be created by making the equator warmer and the poles colder.
    Without rotation (no Coriolis effect) there will be just one circulation cell from equator to poles .

  31. Ben Wouters says:

    Richard111 says: May 3, 2015 at 1:48 pm

    “The question now is how does that rising volume of air cool?”
    The rising air cools because it expands due to the reducing pressure of the surrounding air.
    Initially the rising air cools with the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate (DALR) of ~9,8 K/km.
    Once the temperature is low enough for condensation to begin, the release of latent heat will slow this cooling to the Saturated Adiabatic Lapse Rate (SALR).
    The altitude where the condensation begins is also the cloud base for the forming convective cloud (cumulus / cumulonimbus)

  32. oldbrew says:

    Cumulonimbus cloud – Wikipedia

  33. Richard111 says:

    Ben, air expands when a local excess of kinetic energy is expended ‘pushing’ air out of the local volume. Stick a thermometer into that volume and sure, it says ‘cooler’. But where has the energy gone? Why do we bother with calculating the radiative balance of the planet if energy simply disappears by ‘rising and cooling’?

  34. Richard111 says:

    Ben, thanks for the tutorial link. I clocked up some 500+ plus hours on PPL. Most of it around South Africa, the wide open spaces and long empty beaches where no one could see you. Those were the days. Then I got married. Down to Earth with a bang! 🙂

  35. Ben Wouters says:

    Richard111 says: May 3, 2015 at 3:23 pm
    ” Ben, air expands when a local excess of kinetic energy is expended ‘pushing’ air out of the local volume. Stick a thermometer into that volume and sure, it says ‘cooler’. But where has the energy gone?”
    The energy is still there (~ adiabatic process), only the volume has increased, so the temperature has dropped.
    see http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section1b.html#adiabatic_processes

    This process was discovered by James Pollard Espy, already in 1840 or so.
    Fascinating reading: https://archive.org/details/philosophystorm01espygoog
    (the Introduction and Synopsis should do initially)

  36. Ben Wouters says:

    Richard111 says: May 3, 2015 at 3:32 pm
    ” Ben, thanks for the tutorial link. I clocked up some 500+ plus hours on PPL. Most of it around South Africa, the wide open spaces and long empty beaches where no one could see you.”
    Jealous 😉 Only flew into Capetown International.

  37. Ron Clutz says:

    And with the convection you have clouds and rain. Here’s how that fits in.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/here-comes-the-rain-again/

  38. Roger Clague says:

    From the headpost:

    we can illustrate [see video]on a small scale.

    The scale matters. The way heat moves in a room is not the same as the way heat moves in the atmosphere.
    In the atmosphere gravity causes a vertical pressure gradient p/h. This p/h causes T/h. T/h causes convection.
    In a room the internal heat source and cooler top surface causes the temp gradient. There is no pressure or gravity gradient.

    Small scale convection does not illustrate atmospheric convection cells.

  39. oldbrew says:

    ‘The Hadley cell carries heat and moisture from the tropics to the northern and southern mid-latitudes’ – Wikipedia

    [credit: Dwindrim / Wikipedia]

  40. suricat says:

    OMG, this thread is a mess oldbrew! To begin with, the ‘cells’ mentioned in the OP are not ‘convection cells’! They’re ‘Climate Cells’!!! They are brought into being by both ‘convection’ and ‘Coriolis effect’ which is effective ‘globally’, not ‘locally’ like ‘convection cells’. 😦

    I’ll help if I can, but firstly I need to address issues that have been carried over from ‘elsewhere’. 😉 🙂

    Will Janoschka says: May 3, 2015 at 4:54 am

    “I gave no data, just my consideration of data from others. I have no desire to prove anything. I do not know!!”

    That’s an offering of ‘data’ Will! As ‘engineers’, we’re not ‘expected’ to ‘uncover’ any ‘new science’, but the Internet (by default) has become ‘a vehicle’ for ‘science paper publication’. You may well not be able to get a ‘patent’ for any ‘device’, but the ‘science behind it’ may well prove to offer a similar alternative. Take CARE on what you write online! It may become ‘public domain’. 🙂 My ‘online’ presence is always ‘public domain’. 😉

    “I politely disagree with your “originates at land surface”, The expansion of the atmosphere originates from the insolation, never from the surface.. This expansion against the rigid surface requires a movement of the centre of mass of that local atmosphere outward. Please show how such expansion can ever be considered convection (mass flow)?”

    Okay. ‘Expansion from the surface’ sends a ‘pressure wave’ through the entire ‘3D’ depth of the atmosphere. This alters the ‘TOA’ (Top Of Atmosphere) height at ‘~the speed of sound for the relative pressure/altitude (minus the compressibility factor for the local atmosphere)’. This may well ‘easily’ be confused as an ‘expansion of the WHOLE atmosphere’.

    I concur that the ‘origin’ is ‘insolation’ (INcomming SOLar radiATION), but little of this is absorbed in the ‘tropo’ (tropospheric altitudes). By far the greatest ‘absorption’ of insolation is at ‘land surface’ for land observations when considering ‘atmospheric/surface absorbency’, but ‘ocean surface’ absorbs even more than ‘land surface’ to convert the energy received into a ‘latent product’ (‘WV’ [Water Vapour]) which only releases the extra energy gained/absorbed at quite high altitudes.

    However! ‘Expansion’ just isn’t ‘convection’ Will! You’re confounding a ‘global expansion’ with ‘local convection’! Do you realise this?

    Best regards, Ray.

  41. wayne says: May 3, 2015 at 8:20 am

    (“Can we not try to figure what this atmosphere actually does.”)

    “Hear, hear, Will. You’ve made some great points above for any tiny effects co2 may have are absolutely dwarfed into insignificance by the water/w.v. cycle. And as Ben said at the top it is that rather small sensible heat portion (thermals/convection) that is the transport upward of the much larger latent heat portion of energy from the surface. Some say the ~18 W/m² sensible is the most insignificant of the three but to me it is the most powerful of them all for without convection water vapor would stagnate at the surface and do no energy transfer at all.”

    Thank you Wayne!
    As far as the 18 W/m^2 sensible, perhaps you are putting the cart in front of the horse. At 30 degrees Celsius a slight increase in sensible heat “temperature” will decrease air density providing buoyancy from the surround. If that same air becomes saturated with WV at surface pressure it must will increase in volume by 4% while decreasing in mass/weight by 1.6%. A 5.6% increase in buoyancy, with no change in temperature, and absolutely no evidence that the WV 4% volume but 60% density does not percolate rapidly upward through the more dense other air molecules.
    The sensible heat of whatever is rising is limited to 1-2 J/g. The ascending WV latent heat is 2400 J/g of the WV advection, or 10 J/gm of the whole mass if that is what is ascending. In any case the sensible heat portion. is negligible. You are correct with no air mass movement the WV saturated boundary layer would stagnate from hydrogen bonding with the surface. It is the lateral winds, not atmospheric vertical convection, that promotes the transfer of the latent heat of evaporation to the troposphere for the necessary transfer of such to radiant exitance to space before any such H2O can precipitate to the surface. The surface winds of course, are provided be these same convection cells. This confusing circularity must be intentional, demonstrating God. 🙂
    Please give all of your insight to some alternate process! Can we not TRY to figure what this atmosphere actually does.

  42. wayslsuricat says: May 4, 2015 at 3:25 am
    Will Janoschka says: May 3, 2015 at 4:54 am

    (“I gave no data, just my consideration of data from others. I have no desire to prove anything. I do not know!!”)

    “That’s an offering of ‘data’ Will! As ‘engineers’, we’re not ‘expected’ to ‘uncover’ any ‘new science’, but the Internet (by default) has become ‘a vehicle’ for ‘science paper publication’. You may well not be able to get a ‘patent’ for any ‘device’, but the ‘science behind it’ may well prove to offer a similar alternative. Take CARE on what you write online! It may become ‘public domain’. 🙂 My ‘online’ presence is always ‘public domain’. ;)”

    I got arrested again for interfering with government operations!! With these PIGS my ass is in the public domain. These, pigs offer it for a mere pittance, and sell tickets to teenagers for oportunity to kick my chained down ass! 🙂

    (“I politely disagree with your “originates at land surface”, The expansion of the atmosphere originates from the insolation, never from the surface.. This expansion against the rigid surface requires a movement of the centre of mass of that local atmosphere outward. Please show how such expansion can ever be considered convection (mass flow)?”)

    “Okay. ‘Expansion from the surface’ sends a ‘pressure wave’ through the entire ‘3D’ depth of the atmosphere. This alters the ‘TOA’ (Top Of Atmosphere) height at ‘~the speed of sound for the relative pressure/altitude (minus the compressibility factor for the local atmosphere)’. This may well ‘easily’ be confused as an ‘expansion of the WHOLE atmosphere’.”

    Thank you Ray, I must consider that.

    “I concur that the ‘origin’ is ‘insolation’ (INcomming SOLar radiATION), but little of this is absorbed in the ‘tropo’ (tropospheric altitudes). By far the greatest ‘absorption’ of insolation is at ‘land surface’ for land observations when considering ‘atmospheric/surface absorbency’, but ‘ocean surface’ absorbs even more than ‘land surface’ to convert the energy received into a ‘latent product’ (‘WV’ [Water Vapour]) which only releases the extra energy gained/absorbed at quite high altitudes.”

    Ray,
    So you claim. The radiant exitance to space via EMR takes place from all altitudes. The highest increase in such exitance, delta (W/m^2 outward)/ delta altitude, takes place at about 3-4 km asl,. not at high altitude. The exit flux accumulates all the way to 220 km. Go measure 🙂

    I am trying to understand the huge bulge in Earth’s atmosphere, statically in the direction of the Sun, while the Earth spins. What does that do to the atmospheric 2.4 cm/cm^2 column water from Sunside to nightside. Any nightside H2O condensate, not precipitate, must absorb much insolation between 1 and 2.5 microns, while never changing temperature. Where is this in your spendy GCMs?

    Thank You -will-

  43. tom0mason says:

    I cannot see where this will fit in but surely the compressibility of the atmosphere will affect how air moves. E.g. A large body of dry air would more easily displace wet air as the wet air would compress easier to make way for it, but not vice versa.
    No?

  44. tom0mason says: May 4, 2015 at 5:47 am

    I cannot see where this will fit in but surely the compressibility of the atmosphere will affect how air moves. E.g. A large body of dry air would more easily displace wet air as the wet air would compress easier to make way for it, but not vice versa.
    No?

    Tom,
    I do not know. The ideal gas law seems to be true, but it has five terms (variables)! In this Earth atmosphere there is no possible determination of any one term. The other four are always changing nanosecond by nanosecond. If Earthlings were meant to understand, that would have occurred long ago. Welcome to interesting problems 🙂

  45. tom0mason says:

    Will Janoschka,
    My train of thought was with air movements both in the vertical and horizontal planes.

    In the vertical plane I’m looking at the rise of warm damp air hitting the resistive (relatively non-compressable) ‘roof’ of the colder and drier upper atmosphere thus the shape of Cumulonimbus clouds. The expanding top of the clouds defining the compressed area of damp air.

    In the horizontal plane I visualize the movement of cold low-altitude, but dry air mass that comes down from polar regions displacing warmer wet air in the mid-latitude regions. I have an idea that during the cold periods in the earths history, the polar cell air region expanded to displace these mid-latitude damp air masses just by this compression effect.
    That is to say polar cells expanded whilst mid latitude cells were compressed towards the equator becoming more stormy.

    I would be interested in comments as to the veracity of this conjecture.

  46. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: May 3, 2015 at 10:15 pm

    “‘The Hadley cell carries heat and moisture from the tropics to the northern and southern mid-latitudes’ – Wikipedia”
    Wikipedia is wrong here almost completely. The air moving pole ward at high altitude in the Hadley cell has already lost almost all its moisture in the rainstorms near the equator. While moving pole ward the air cools, and thus begins to descend, creating the Trade wind inversion and ultimately the high pressure areas around 30 N and S. During this descent the air warms again according the DALR. The relative humidity of this air is very LOW. Hence our deserts 😉

  47. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 4, 2015 at 3:25 am
    “To begin with, the ‘cells’ mentioned in the OP are not ‘convection cells’! They’re ‘Climate Cells’!!! ”
    The point has been made already. Preferred term seems to be General or Global Circulation Cells.

    “They are brought into being by both ‘convection’ and ‘Coriolis effect’ which is effective ‘globally’, not ‘locally’ like ‘convection cells’.”
    The Coriolis effect is NOT the driving force for the pole ward movement of the air in the Hadley cells. The driving force is the thermal wind, that makes the air “slide down” towards the poles.
    see http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap12/thermal_wind.html
    The Coriolis effect deflects this pole ward moving air eastbound, in the end creating the sub tropical jet stream.

  48. Ben Wouters says:

    tom0mason says: May 4, 2015 at 7:46 am

    “In the vertical plane I’m looking at the rise of warm damp air hitting the resistive (relatively non-compressable) ‘roof’ of the colder and drier upper atmosphere thus the shape of Cumulonimbus clouds. The expanding top of the clouds defining the compressed area of damp air.”
    The shape of the top of cumulonimbus clouds (anvil) is due to the rising air reaching and overshooting its equlibrium level. When sinking back the air spreads, and forms the anvil.
    see http://www.tornadochaser.net/capeclass.html page2 especially.

  49. Ben Wouters says: May 4, 2015 at 7:48 am
    oldbrew says: May 3, 2015 at 10:15 pm

    (‘The Hadley cell carries heat and moisture from the tropics to the northern and southern mid-latitudes’ – Wikipedia”)
    ” Wikipedia is wrong here almost completely. The air moving pole ward at high altitude in the Hadley cell has already lost almost all its moisture in the rainstorms near the equator. While moving pole ward the air cools, and thus begins to descend, creating the Trade wind inversion and ultimately the high pressure areas around 30 N and S. During this descent the air warms again according the DALR. The relative humidity of this air is very LOW. Hence our deserts 😉 ”

    Thank you. The word adiabatic needs much arbitration between meteorologist and engineers.
    The up and down convection seems without power transfer to/from the surround. I hope.we may be able to discuss this appearance without rancor!

  50. tom0mason says:

    Thank-you Ben for the clarification over local convection cells and global [air] circulation cells. I was initially confused as to which (or both!) were being written about when this started.
    TM

  51. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 4, 2015 at 3:25 am

    “I concur that the ‘origin’ is ‘insolation’ (INcomming SOLar radiATION), but little of this is absorbed in the ‘tropo’ (tropospheric altitudes). ”
    see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Solar_spectrum_en.svg
    A substantial part of solar radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere, especially in the IR band by O2, H2O and ALSO CO2. UV is responsible for the warming that creates the tropopause / stratosphere.

    The remaining insolation warms the land surface and mostly (> 70%) the upper layer of the oceans.
    see http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter06/chapter06_04.htm fig 6.7.
    The upper 100 meters or so warm from april to august considerably, and cool down again in autumn / winter. The solar heated land / ocean surface warms the atmosphere, which looses its energy to space in the end.

  52. oldbrew says:

    I found another link that looks interesting at the UK Science Museum website, but will leave optional commentary to others. They also offer a short video (1min.21secs.) with links leading to other videos and info panels.

    ‘Climate system: Movement of wind and water’
    http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/ClimateChanging/ClimateScienceInfoZone/ExploringEarthsclimate/1point1/1point1point2.aspx

    SM graphic

  53. oldbrew says:

    Aha – just found the Science Museum version of how they think the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ works.

    This could be a whole new discussion…
    http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/ClimateChanging/ClimateScienceInfoZone/ExploringEarthsclimate/1point4/1point4point2.aspx#acc-forth

    Footnote: keen warmist and TV presenter Prof. Ian Stewart appears in one of the videos. Enough said 😉

  54. oldbrew says: May 4, 2015 at 9:53 am

    “Aha – just found the Science Museum version of how they think the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ works.This could be a whole new discussion…
    http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/ClimateChanging/ClimateScienceInfoZone/ExploringEarthsclimate/1point4/1point4point2.aspx#acc-forth
    Footnote: keen warmist and TV presenter Prof. Ian Stewart appears in one of the videos. Enough said ;-)”

    OB, thank you for your interference of the opponent! Please in this thread, let us try to express what this atmosphere may be doing. It is obvious that your Climate Clowns have no clue!

  55. pochas says:

    I tire of repeating myself, but here goes. Convection controls the temperature profile throughout the troposphere. If you want to see radiative effects look higher (stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere). Yes, cooling rates are reduced by greenhouse gasses at night and at high latitudes, but the bulk of the intercepted radiation is transferred right on the spot, in daytime, to the atmosphere, whence convection carries it to the radiating zone immediately. Why can you sit around a fire and sing happy camping songs without burning up? Look at the smoke. It rises quickly carrying away the vast bulk of the energy released. The same thing is going on all the time in daytime, all around the planet. And the same thing is missing from the models, which is why they can’t get anything right. I can’t believe educated climate scientists don’t understand this by now. Maybe it’s because if they did their fearsome forecasts of doom based on bogus unphysical assumptions would reduce to benign weather forecasts and their funding would convect away.

  56. oldbrew says:

    pochas: ‘I can’t believe educated climate scientists don’t understand this by now.’

    A lot of them seem to prefer to ‘understand’ the output of hopelessly inaccurate climate models.

  57. Ben Wouters says:

    pochas says: May 4, 2015 at 2:43 pm

    “Convection controls the temperature profile throughout the troposphere.”

    Care to explain how this would work, given that convection is mostly an adiabatic process, convection stops when the rising air reaches an altitude where the surrounding air has the same temperature as the rising air and most convection never reaches above ~ 3000m or so?
    Another thing would be the temperature profile above the desert belt around 30 N, where the air is mostly descending, so no convection to control the temperature profile.

  58. pochas says:

    @Ben Wouters

    “convection stops when the rising air reaches an altitude where the surrounding air has the same temperature as the rising air”

    Yes. That is about the altitude where temperatures approximate the Planck temperature, -18 C and radiation to space becomes important. However, at higher altitudes convection still governs the temperature profile because if radiation cools the gas below the adiabatic temperature profile parcels of gas will descend to a lower altitude. This can cause an unpleasant surprise during jet travel.

    “temperature profile above the desert belt around 30 N, where the air is mostly descending, so no convection to control the temperature profile.”

    The 30 N desert region is simply the descending arm of the Hadley cell. There are violent updrafts along the equator, and what goes up must come down, either as descending dry air or as precipitation. The Hadley cell is the zone of intense convection where most of the energy received from the sun is rejected to space. The equator is also the zone where the sea surface temperature never deviates much from 30 C, demonstrating the efficiency of convective heat transport in this region of maximum convective activity.

  59. Ben Wouters says:

    pochas says: May 4, 2015 at 5:23 pm
    ” That is about the altitude where temperatures approximate the Planck temperature, -18 C and radiation to space becomes important.”
    Actually convection can be stopped at any altitude where the temperature of the “static” atmosphere is higher than the temp. of the rising (and thus cooling) air. Most convection is stopped within a few hundred meters, because no condensation (release of latent heat) occurs. Fair weather cumulus may reach perhaps 2 or 3 thousand meters. Above them no more convection. Only serious showers / thunderstorms may reach all the way to the tropopause, and they are few and far between. So no, convection does not control the temperature profile of the troposphere. It is the other way around, the temperature profile of the troposphere controls convection.

    “However, at higher altitudes convection still governs the temperature profile because if radiation cools the gas below the adiabatic temperature profile parcels of gas will descend to a lower altitude. This can cause an unpleasant surprise during jet travel.”
    Pse explain what the adiabatic temperature profile does in this case. And very interested in the surprises during jet travel.
    (fair warning, I did clock some 18.000+ hrs on commercial jets 😉 )

    “The 30 N desert region is simply the descending arm of the Hadley cell.”
    Correct, but the air is still descending, not rising, so how would convection (rising air) control the temperature profile?

    See https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/beginners-guide-to-convection-cells/comment-page-1/#comment-100531
    and the subsequent one for my take on the Hadley cells.

  60. oldbrew says:

    ‘This can cause an unpleasant surprise during jet travel.’

    Are we talking clear air turbulence?
    http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Clear_Air_Turbulence

  61. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 4, 2015 at 4:40 am

    “I got arrested again for interfering with government operations!! With these PIGS my ass is in the public domain. These, pigs offer it for a mere pittance, and sell tickets to teenagers for oportunity to kick my chained down ass! 🙂 ”

    Yeah, sounds familiar. 😉

    “So you claim. The radiant exitance to space via EMR takes place from all altitudes. The highest increase in such exitance, delta (W/m^2 outward)/ delta altitude, takes place at about 3-4 km asl,. not at high altitude. The exit flux accumulates all the way to 220 km. Go measure 🙂 ”

    I did measure! We’re talking “quite high altitudes” in the ‘troposphere’ (like ‘cloud top’), NOT ‘the atmosphere’ Will. Convection ‘~halts’ at the ~tropopause, where continuing altitudes into the stratosphere are met with a temperature inversion.

    Yes, the “exit flux” accumulates with increasing altitude, but that doesn’t disclose its ‘origin’. As you say “The highest increase in such exitance, delta (W/m^2 outward)/ delta altitude, takes place at about 3-4 km asl”, puts us in agreement. ‘Cloud top’ altitude is the altitude which shows the highest rate of energy ‘exitance’ (this doesn’t include ‘reflected insolation’) from Earth’s systems. However, a portion of this may be insolation’s ‘warming’ of ‘cloud tops’.

    “I am trying to understand the huge bulge in Earth’s atmosphere, statically in the direction of the Sun, while the Earth spins. What does that do to the atmospheric 2.4 cm/cm^2 column water from Sunside to nightside. Any nightside H2O condensate, not precipitate, must absorb much insolation between 1 and 2.5 microns, while never changing temperature. Where is this in your spendy GCMs?”

    They’re not ‘my’ “spendy GCMs” Will. I just couldn’t justify the ‘data cost/byte’ for garbage out!

    So we’re back in the troposphere, higher altitudes in Earth’s atmosphere (where ionised) show a “bulge” on the ‘dark side’ due to solar wind activity.

    The ‘day side’ bulge in the troposphere is caused by ‘temperature and energy increase’. The ‘temperature increase’ is quite obvious, but the ‘out-gassing increase’ from ‘phase changed liquid H2O’ is quite obscure. However, the excess ‘bulge’ that is over and above the expected rate for temperature change can only be mediated by the ‘out-gassing’ of water IMHO. What else could achieve this?

    BTW, does “2.4 cm/cm^2 column water from Sunside to nightside” include WV? It needs to for clarity of ‘nightside to sunside’. The cycle has ~a 24hr period.

    I’ve a question. When do we get to discuss “convection cells” here?

    Best regards, Ray.

  62. pochas says:

    @Ben Wouters, if you’ve got 18,000 hour of air time then assuming you are a pilot you know that the convective region extends up to 10,000 feet and that in daytime below 10,000 feet the ride can get bumpy. That’s because below 10,000 feet convective traffic (upgoing convective columns) is high and above it is low because the heat flux is decreasing because of radiation to space. That doesn’t mean that the gas laws disappear at 10,000 feet. See my response to oldbrew below.

    Descending air columns follow the same laws as the ascending ones. Instead of expanding, the air parcels are being compressed, so they heat up following the same adiabatic gas laws as when they were expanding. The important difference is that the gas is now dry so the lapse rate is higher and the gas arrives at the surface hotter than it was when it left the surface, ready to pick up moisture and begin the cycle again.

    As for how the Hadley cell regulates temperature, it’s the rising columns that do the regulating. Higher surface temperature means higher water vapor pressure, adding to the buoyancy and water content of the convecting columns which carry a greater volume higher in the troposphere even reaching the tropopause. Water condensing as precipitation is a major negative feedback on surface temperature. Then there is Lindzen’s Iris Effect which if I recall correctly means fewer high altitude cirrus clouds allowing increased OLR in the intertropical convergence zone when convective activity is high. This has received recent support in the literature.

    In addition, the higher water vapor pressure near the surface means that the near-surface lapse rate will be lower, bringing the surface temperature closer to the Planck temperature, a cooling effect which will tend to offset any warming caused by CO2 raising the equivalent emissions height.

    “And very interested in the surprises during jet travel.”
    These are the SIGMETS -icing, turbulence, convective (thunderstorms), dust storms, sandstorms, volcanic eruptions, suspended ash. You can see these at aviationweather.gov

    I disagree with the following:
    “Most convection is stopped within a few hundred meters, because no condensation (release of latent heat) occurs.”
    Dry air convects perfectly well without cloud formation.

    Thanks for your questions Ben. I normally try to keep my comments short, but I welcome the opportunity to elaborate.

  63. pochas says:

    @oldbrew,

    “Are we talking clear air turbulence?”

    Yes, your reference is excellent. Above the “Convective Zone” convection assumes a larger scale. Jet streams, high and low pressure regions and their blocking patterns, tropical storms, all of these are convective phenomena that help the earth to shed heat to space (maximize entropy) by moving heat either to the poles or high in the atmosphere where it can be more efficiently radiated.
    It’s an important consequence of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that if convection did not serve this purpose (maximal entropy production), these processes simply would not operate and we would have a stagnant atmosphere with temperatures much higher than we see today, even higher than the warmists’ hottest dreams.

  64. suricat says:May 5, 2015 at 2:32 am
    Will Janoschka says: May 4, 2015 at 4:40 am

    (“So you claim. The radiant exitance to space via EMR takes place from all altitudes. The highest increase in such exitance, delta (W/m^2 outward)/ delta altitude, takes place at about 3-4 km asl,. not at high altitude. The exit flux accumulates all the way to 220 km. Go measure 🙂 ”)

    “I did measure! We’re talking “quite high altitudes” in the ‘troposphere’ (like ‘cloud top’), NOT ‘the atmosphere’ Will. Convection ‘~halts’ at the ~tropopause, where continuing altitudes into the stratosphere are met with a temperature inversion.”

    What did you measure? At 5 km radiative exitance to space is but 5% of the total. at 9 km this exitance is about 50% of the total. The tropopause and stratosphere originate the other 50%! Lotsa stratosphere! Ray, can we not temporally align our orthogonal POVs, so we can viciously agree? My round! 🙂

    “Yes, the “exit flux” accumulates with increasing altitude, but that doesn’t disclose its ‘origin’. As you say “The highest increase in such exitance, delta (W/m^2 outward)/ delta altitude, takes place at about 3-4 km asl”, puts us in agreement. ‘Cloud top’ altitude is the altitude which shows the highest rate of energy ‘exitance’ (this doesn’t include ‘reflected insolation’) from Earth’s systems. However, a portion of this may be insolation’s ‘warming’ of ‘cloud tops’.”

    “that doesn’t disclose its ‘origin’.”: Such measurement must disclose the origin. if EMR exit flux is 5% of total at 5 km and 50% of total at 9 km. 45% exit flux originates from the atmosphere between 5 and 9 km.

    (“I am trying to understand the huge bulge in Earth’s atmosphere, statically in the direction of the Sun, while the Earth spins. What does that do to the atmospheric 2.4 cm/cm^2 column water from Sunside to nightside. Any nightside H2O condensate, not precipitate, must absorb much insolation between 1 and 2.5 microns, while never changing temperature”)

    Please read this again. Nothing at all to do with convection! 🙂

    “So we’re back in the troposphere, higher altitudes in Earth’s atmosphere (where ionised) show a “bulge” on the ‘dark side’ due to solar wind activity.”

    My POV of the little darkside bulge is but Solar tide effect in the Earth’s wonderful compressible fluid.

    “The ‘day side’ bulge in the troposphere is caused by ‘temperature and energy increase’. The ‘temperature increase’ is quite obvious, but the ‘out-gassing increase’ from ‘phase changed liquid H2O’ is quite obscure. However, the excess ‘bulge’ that is over and above the expected rate for temperature change can only be mediated by the ‘out-gassing’ of water IMHO. What else could achieve this??”

    Agreed, that bulge is produced by the increase in atmospheric sensible heat (temperature). The power accumulation (energy) is not the sensible heat. It is in the Solar latent heat of evaporation of H2O condensate to vapor within the atmosphere, not from water on the surface.

    “:BTW, does “2.4 cm/cm^2 column water from Sunside to nightside” include WV? It needs to for clarity of ‘nightside to sunside’. The cycle has ~a 24hr period”

    Sorry I did not mean some difference. That 2.4 cm column water is some deliberate confusing global average of all H2O mass in an atmospheric column independent of state. This value is easily above 15cm over tropical rain forest. However even 2.4 cm requires that all atmospheric temperature be above 30 degrees Celsius for that mass to be in the form of gas (WV). This implies that most of atmospheric H2O is not a gas, but buoyant atmospheric condensate, with little latent heat.

    “I’ve a question. When do we get to discuss “convection cells” here?

    Of your convection cells, excluding Hadley, Ferrel, Polar? Never unless we get some meteorologist willing to defend the concept of “air parcels”!

    -will-

  65. Ben Wouters says:

    pochas says: May 5, 2015 at 4:24 am

    “Descending air columns follow the same laws as the ascending ones. Instead of expanding, the air parcels are being compressed, so they heat up following the same adiabatic gas laws as when they were expanding. The important difference is that the gas is now dry so the lapse rate is higher and the gas arrives at the surface hotter than it was when it left the surface, ready to pick up moisture and begin the cycle again.”
    Great, someone who knows what he is talking about 😉

    “I disagree with the following:
    “Most convection is stopped within a few hundred meters, because no condensation (release of latent heat) occurs.”
    Dry air convects perfectly well without cloud formation.”

    For convection due to uneven surface heating by the sun, the temperature of a parcel that is about to rise must be 2 or 3 K warmer than the surrounding air.
    With the average temperature profile of the static atmosphere (ELR) of ~6,5 K/km and the DALR of 9,8 K/km, even with 3K difference the parcel will reach its equilibrium level within one km and convection stops.
    So yes, a non normal ELR could allow dry convection to higher altitudes, but this is not standard.

    In high pressure areas we often see a temperature inversion around 5000′ or so. This is also a barrier convection has difficulty crossing.

    It usually takes condensation in the rising air (temperature cools according the SALR due to release of latent heat) to make convection to higher altitudes possible

  66. Ben Wouters says:

    pochas says: May 4, 2015 at 5:23 pm
    “The equator is also the zone where the sea surface temperature never deviates much from 30 C, demonstrating the efficiency of convective heat transport in this region of maximum convective activity.”
    To me the 30C maximum is because the sun can’t warm the surface layer more above the temperature of the deep oceans than this.
    Deep oceans temp ~ 3 , average surface temp. ~ 17 C.
    In the Cretaceous the deep oceans were 15 -20K warmer than today, so the surface temperatures were also considerably higher, like 37 C, or even 42 C.

  67. pochas says:

    “So yes, a non normal ELR could allow dry convection to higher altitudes, but this is not standard.”

    Except over deserts, where turkey vultures and glider pilots can reach 18,000 feet on clear air thermals.

    http://www.soarsundance.com/

  68. Ben Wouters says:

    pochas says: May 5, 2015 at 10:52 pm

    “Except over deserts, where turkey vultures and glider pilots can reach 18,000 feet on clear air thermals.”
    Correct. Over deserts we have mostly slowly descending air, that creates an ELR around 9,8K/km.
    So this is a neutral stability situation, allowing surface heated air to rise until it reaches an inversion.
    But the average ELR is ~6,5K/km, which does not support extended dry convection.

  69. Will Janoschkas says:

    pochas says: May 5, 2015 at 4:24 am

    “Descending air columns follow the same laws as the ascending ones. Instead of expanding, the air parcels are being compressed, so they heat up following the same adiabatic gas laws as when they were expanding.”

    Please explain just what laws</b your so called ascending and descending air columns follow?
    What can be an
    adiabatic gas law for a well mixed atmosphere? Show anything adiabatic about a mass of gas moving to a different temperature region.?

    “The important difference is that the gas is now dry so the lapse rate is higher and the gas arrives at the surface hotter than it was when it left the surface, ready to pick up moisture and begin the cycle again.”

    Dry in the sense of less than saturated, or saturated with accompanying airborne H2O condensate that is re evaporated at surrounding temperature increases?

    “In addition, the higher water vapor pressure near the surface means that the near-surface lapse rate will be lower, bringing the surface temperature closer to the Planck temperature, a cooling effect which will tend to offset any warming caused by CO2 raising the equivalent emissions height.”

    In true ClimAstrologist fashion, an invalid claim of CO2 doing something with absolutely no evidence!
    Do you have any idea of what a Planck temperature may be? Is that some sort of radiance at some wavelength, (brightness temperature)? You spout with no meaning!!

    [mod note] tone it down a bit please

  70. Ben Wouters says:

    @pochas

    Suggest to stay away from a discussion with Will Janoschka.
    The guy is just looking to insult people, and lacks the intelligence to understand pretty simple concepts like convection and the DALR and SALR.

    From a previous comment in this thread:

    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. This Earth, Sun, and space can and does provide all power (transfer) that generates your cells and all weather. Surface temperature is not involved. Paul Vaughan provides great insight to the ocean/wind control of surface temperatures at every location. Can we not try to figure what this atmosphere actually does.
    The Climatologists and Meteorologists clearly have only fantasy!”

  71. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 5, 2015 at 8:40 am

    “What did you measure? At 5 km radiative exitance to space is but 5% of the total. at 9 km this exitance is about 50% of the total. The tropopause and stratosphere originate the other 50%! Lotsa stratosphere! Ray, can we not temporally align our orthogonal POVs, so we can viciously agree? My round! 🙂 ”

    Will, you can’t compare ‘outgoing EMR’ (outgoing Electro Magnetic Radiation) at ‘TOA’ (Top Of Atmosphere) with ‘outgoing EMR’ from the troposphere in any way. A lot of ‘outgoing EMR’ at TOA didn’t even penetrate to the tropopause in the first place. 😦

    UVb is the shortest wavelength to penetrate the tropopause, and even that’s dependent upon O3 population in the stratosphere. The more ionising insolation families of UVc, soft & hard X Ray and Gamma Ray insolation bands don’t make it this far (to the tropo) into the atmosphere. However, their atmospheric ‘reactance’ is observed as ‘outgoing EMR’ by satellite TOA observatories.

    IMHO, your ‘ratio-metric analogue’ is faulty. Do you see where I’m coming from? A ‘ratio-metric analogue’ needs to be contained within itself. It’s impossible to relate what goes in and out of the tropopause on a scale of ‘whole atmosphere’ at TOA! Wish I could explain better. 😦

    ““that doesn’t disclose its ‘origin’.”: Such measurement must disclose the origin. if EMR exit flux is 5% of total at 5 km and 50% of total at 9 km. 45% exit flux originates from the atmosphere between 5 and 9 km.”

    Please see the above. Until more ‘unknowns’ become ‘well understood’ we don’t have a ‘clear’ picture. AFAIK Gamma Rays interact with the upper atmosphere to leave a ‘trace’ for CO2 exitance at TOA. 🙂

    “Please read this again. Nothing at all to do with convection! 🙂 ”

    I know and that’s the problem here! It’s about ‘insolation’, and its ‘absence’, upon the affectation to the latent property of H2O. The ‘latent property’ also adds to the ‘specific heat’ value of the atmosphere.

    “My POV of the little darkside bulge is but Solar tide effect in the Earth’s wonderful compressible fluid.”

    Again you seem to ‘move’ the ‘caret’ between ‘whole atmosphere’ and ‘troposphere’! I got confused.

    This ‘threw me’ Will. I offered a ‘bulge’ for ‘whole atmosphere’, I think. See;

    http://phys.org/news/2014-03-scientists-plasma-plume-naturally-earth.html

    for some detail.

    I concur that ‘tidal forces’ may well alter the ‘in-ionised’ atmospheric envelope that encompasses Earth, but there is NO data to confirm this AFAIK. However, Lunar tidal influence would perturb this in every case.

    “Agreed, that bulge is produced by the increase in atmospheric sensible heat (temperature). The power accumulation (energy) is not the sensible heat. It is in the Solar latent heat of evaporation of H2O condensate to vapor within the atmosphere, not from water on the surface.”

    I concur, I think. IMHO the effect of any ‘power’ added/subtracted to/from Earth’s systems by ‘incident insolation,or outgoing EMR’ is ‘reduced’ (hidden energy) by the ‘phase change’ of the local H2O population within the tropo. I’ve been saying this for years, nay, decades. Humph.

    “Of your convection cells, excluding Hadley, Ferrel, Polar? Never unless we get some meteorologist willing to defend the concept of “air parcels”!”

    It’s up to you to decide who you converse with here Will. 😉

    As for the ‘gas laws’, they’re relevant, but have a tendency to get overruled in Earth’s systems. The concept of “air parcels” helps, but is often inaccurate when ‘lighter gasses’ (such as WV) ‘bubble’ upwards and out of the ‘main parcel’, or water condensate ‘precipitates’ downwards and out of the ‘main parcel’ whilst causing much ‘turbulence’ to any ‘parcels’ beneath it during this action.

    I’ve ‘cobbled together’ this post during my spare time. I hope it makes sense, if not, please ask. 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  72. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: May 6, 2015 at 8:05 am

    “@pochas

    Suggest to stay away from a discussion with Will Janoschka.
    The guy is just looking to insult people, and lacks the intelligence to understand pretty simple concepts like convection and the DALR and SALR.

    From a previous comment in this thread:

    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. This Earth, Sun, and space can and does provide all power (transfer) that generates your cells and all weather. Surface temperature is not involved. Paul Vaughan provides great insight to the ocean/wind control of surface temperatures at every location. Can we not try to figure what this atmosphere actually does.
    The Climatologists and Meteorologists clearly have only fantasy!””

    Can’t you recognise ‘irony’ in the written word Ben? I agree that it has no place here, but some posters become ‘so’ frustrated with the response that they receive they descend into the depths of ‘irony’! Will needs ‘valued dialogue’, not ‘the cold shoulder’. Please try to understand what he says and don’t discount it out of hand.

    IMHO Will’s dialogue has import. More than I can say for the concept of ‘an atmospheric parcel’.

    Ray.

  73. Paul Vaughan says:

    wv advection day/night condensate ok beyond that https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/suggestions-10/comment-page-1/#comment-100598 it’s geometry stupid

  74. suricat says: May 7, 2015 at 1:52 am

    “I’ve ‘cobbled together’ this post during my spare time. I hope it makes sense, if not, please ask. 🙂 Best regards, Ray.”

    Thank you Ray!
    I will try to take your lead and comment more slowly, with more explanation for understanding of those with an orthogonal POV.
    For example when I use the phrase “wonderfull atmosphere” I do not mean good or acceptable, I mean “full of wonder”. You may wonder for seven lifetimes, and still have not a clue! 🙂

    My current Thermal radiometric precepts, or POV, Subject to change, after prying from my cold dead hands.:

    1. Never is outgoing flux dependent on self (abs) temperature^4, all is dependent on surround environment and opposing “radiance” at each frequency, and in each direction..

    2. No mass, perhaps semitransparent, ever absorbs any EMR power at any frequency, or from any direction while at or above a temperature of radiative or thermodynamic equilibrium. Such absorption must destroy any concept of equilibrium temperature. Dr. Kirchhoff had much to say about this!

    “”Will, you can’t compare ‘outgoing EMR’ (outgoing Electro Magnetic Radiation) at ‘TOA’ (Top OfPOV Atmosphere) with ‘outgoing EMR’ from the troposphere in any way. A lot of ‘outgoing EMR’ at TOA didn’t even penetrate to the tropopause in the first place. 😦 ”

    Mea culpa, I was not measuring any sort of equilibrium flux, nor any Solar flux. I and my cohorts measured, above from nadir,(directly below), spectral radiative flux to detectors cooled to below 80 Kelvin, sometime much below this. This is is not true exitance, but an analytical value that may approximate, (with analysis), exitance to space from that altitude. In the atmospheric window, 8-14 microns vertical surface flux remained at constant 13W/(m^2x sr) until cloud cover. Then dropped to nadir 8W/(m^2x sr). This never indicated any decrease in atmospheric radiative exitance. The structure of such a cloud can radiate away its cross sectional area of flux not to one PI steradians, but to two PI steradians, an increase in exitance for every increase in altitude. The exit flux comes not from any surface, but from the cross-sectional area of all atmosphere, all the way to your ill defined TOA.

  75. Paul Vaughan says:

    lateral winds ok too

  76. Paul Vaughan says: May 7, 2015 at 6:02 am

    “wv advection day/night condensate ok beyond that
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/suggestions-10/comment-page-1/#comment-100598
    it’s geometry stupid” . “lateral winds ok too”.

    Thank you Paul!, How can we carefully measure such, and learn, rather than the easy to do conceptualize, and fantasize? Then of-course the profitable, paid to do, promote to politicians!

    My question here is, this atmosphere has eight times the necessary column water than needed for the surface to atmosphere water cycle. Why? Is this needed for the fascinating Hurricanes, and Cyclones?

  77. suricat says: May 7, 2015 at 1:52 am

    “I’ve ‘cobbled together’ this post during my spare time. I hope it makes sense, if not, please ask. 🙂 Best regards, Ray.”

    Thank you Ray!
    I will try to take your lead and comment more slowly, with more explanation for understanding of those with an orthogonal POV.
    For example when I use the phrase “wonderful atmosphere” I do not mean good or acceptable, I mean “full of wonder”. You may wonder for seven lifetimes, and still have not a clue! 🙂

    “I know and that’s the problem here! It’s about ‘insolation’, and its ‘absence’, upon the affectation to the latent property of H2O. The ‘latent property’ also adds to the ‘specific heat’ value of the atmosphere.”

    (“My POV of the little darkside bulge is but Solar tide effect in the Earth’s wonderful compressible fluid.”)

    “Again you seem to ‘move’ the ‘caret’ between ‘whole atmosphere’ and ‘troposphere’! I got confused.”

    Is this not spelled “carrot” on the stick in front of the Mule? 🙂

    “This ‘threw me’ Will. I offered a ‘bulge’ for ‘whole atmosphere’, I think. See;
    http://phys.org/news/2014-03-scientists-plasma-plume-naturally-earth.html for some detail.
    I concur that ‘tidal forces’ may well alter the ‘in-ionised’ atmospheric envelope that encompasses Earth, but there is NO data to confirm this AFAIK. However, Lunar tidal influence would perturb this in every case.”

    Sorry again, The Lunar, Solar tidal bulges of the troposphere have been measured with much argument. It is that huge EMR flux bulge taking the tropopause (100 hPa), 0.1 Torr, Up to 40 km always in the direction of the Sun, that affects the WV/condensate value. And the possible learning of “what this atmosphere may be doing”!

    Thank you -will-

  78. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 7, 2015 at 3:05 am

    ” Can’t you recognise ‘irony’ in the written word Ben?”
    Given previous experiences with this character, no. He’s just an insulting jerk.

    “The claim is the Sun heats (raises the temperature) of the surface, which then heats (raises the temperature) of the atmosphere. What BS.”
    Assuming BS means bullshit, it shows he is clueless as well.
    Apparently never walked barefoot on a beach on a sunny day, and (almost) burned the soles of his feet. Or felt the sea breeze coning from the sea when the land heats up much faster than the sea.

    ” but some posters become ‘so’ frustrated with the response that they receive they descend into the depths of ‘irony’!”
    Having given a solid explanation for our exceptionally high temperatures (relative to the moon), and so debunking the GHE’s claim that the atmosphere is warming the surface ~33K above the infamous 255K, I think I have some reason to be frustrated.
    Still no reason to start insulting people, unless continuously provoked as this Janoschka character is doing.

    ” IMHO Will’s dialogue has import. More than I can say for the concept of ‘an atmospheric parcel’”
    For whatever the reason, air moves in coherent volumes that tend to stick together.
    How otherwise would you explain a coldfront, where the temperature difference over very short distances is often large?
    Or a rising thermal so small a glider has to turn steeply to prevent entering the surrounding descending air?
    The concept of a parcel makes it possible to discuss all kinds of phenomena, without having to take the total process into account.
    eg. a thunderstrom is a complex process, but breaking it apart in subprocesses like the rising part below the cloud, the rising part inside the cloud, the sinking part inside the cloud etc. etc. it becomes possible to understand the mechanism of the whole process.

  79. Paul Vaughan says:

    will, full ignorance of geometry won’t satisfy regional tastes.
    know watts missing?
    the recipe call’s for curry…

    7 lifetimes of genius physical conjecture and modeling can’t and won’t match observed regional patterns if differential circulatory geometry remains ignored.

    Physics is the promising light under a lamp post on a dark night in climate science, nowhere near where the sought geometric keys were lost by stubbornly misguided poor blind souls.

  80. Paul Vaughan says:

    “There’s a lady who’s sure all that glitters is gold… Dear lady, can you hear the wind blow? and did you know… There’s still time to change the road you’re on.” — led zeppelin

  81. suricat says:

    Paul Vaughan says: May 7, 2015 at 3:52 pm

    “…”

    *BRILLIANT*. Though, ‘that riff’, has been banned in many music shops in the UK (I think they’re just fed up to the eye teeth with hearing it played by prospective guitar buyers), I ‘still’ love trying to get a better ‘mood’ into it. I haven’t managed to, ‘yet’!

    Best regards, Ray.

  82. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 7, 2015 at 7:44 am

    ““I know and that’s the problem here! It’s about ‘insolation’, and its ‘absence’, upon the affectation to the latent property of H2O. The ‘latent property’ also adds to the ‘specific heat’ value of the atmosphere.”

    (“My POV of the little darkside bulge is but Solar tide effect in the Earth’s wonderful compressible fluid.”)

    “Again you seem to ‘move’ the ‘caret’ between ‘whole atmosphere’ and ‘troposphere’! I got confused.”

    Is this not spelled “carrot” on the stick in front of the Mule?”

    Not unless you want ‘the Mule’ to go in another direction Will! The ‘logical outcome’ is similar though.

    The ‘caret’ is the point of insertion into a text where ‘text’ is missing! IOW, because you ‘change the caret’, your questions are inconsistent with a valid point of logical inquiry. Thus, I’m unsure of how I should answer them.

    “Sorry again, The Lunar, Solar tidal bulges of the troposphere have been measured with much argument. It is that huge EMR flux bulge taking the tropopause (100 hPa), 0.1 Torr, Up to 40 km always in the direction of the Sun, that affects the WV/condensate value. And the possible learning of “what this atmosphere may be doing”!”

    So you should be (“Sorry”)! Again, it’s a 24hr cycle! The atmosphere needs to ‘rest/collapse’ on the ‘dark side’ before insolation can cause its ‘re-expansion’. In curry speak, the meat needs to rest before re-firing!

    Best regards, Ray.

  83. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: May 7, 2015 at 11:42 am

    First and foremost Ben, thank you for your patience. ‘Any’ input can be constructive for the whole, but ‘digesting’ that input may be difficult at times. I’ll respond to your issues that address myself.

    “” IMHO Will’s dialogue has import. More than I can say for the concept of ‘an atmospheric parcel’”
    For whatever the reason, air moves in coherent volumes that tend to stick together.
    How otherwise would you explain a coldfront, where the temperature difference over very short distances is often large?”

    This is where I ‘put my hands up’ (and I think you should too) on the concept of ‘a well mixed atmosphere’ Ben! The nearest I can get to this is ‘an atmosphere that separates and re-mixes again’.

    “Or a rising thermal so small a glider has to turn steeply to prevent entering the surrounding descending air?”

    This just obviates the ‘fineness’ of resolution needed in GCMs to ‘model’ our tropo. It’s just not there, is it.

    “The concept of a parcel makes it possible to discuss all kinds of phenomena, without having to take the total process into account.”

    Whilst I concur, this may well be counter intuitive. Would it not be better to ‘dissect’ the ‘total process’ into its component parts, then ‘join’ them together? A ‘leaky’ ‘parcel’, taken as a ‘model’, can’t ‘pull together’ the processes involved. They need to be ‘added’ as various ‘addendum’ when the ‘processes’ are really the main subject.

    “eg. a thunderstrom is a complex process, but breaking it apart in subprocesses like the rising part below the cloud, the rising part inside the cloud, the sinking part inside the cloud etc. etc. it becomes possible to understand the mechanism of the whole process.”

    Whoa. Stop there! “a thunderstrom is a complex process, but breaking it apart in subprocesses like the rising part below the cloud” (I guess you mean ‘thunderstorm’)

    There is NO “rising part below the cloud” Ben! The precipitation from this cloud causes a ‘downward’ movement of the local atmosphere by way of ‘mass movement’ influencing the ‘downward vector’ of all atmospheric components (vectored mass diffusion). Everything ‘cools’ and humidity ‘increases’ for a “parcel”, but ‘turbulence’ just isn’t represented. It should be.

    RSPV.

    Best regards, Ray.

  84. suricat says: May 8, 2015 at 2:42 am

    Will Janoschka says: May 7, 2015 at 7:44 am
    (“Sorry again, The Lunar, Solar tidal bulges of the troposphere have been measured with much argument. It is that huge EMR flux bulge taking the tropopause (100 hPa), 0.1 Torr, Up to 40 km always in the direction of the Sun, that affects the WV/condensate value. And the possible learning of “what this atmosphere may be doing”!”)

    “So you should be (“Sorry”)! Again, it’s a 24hr cycle! The atmosphere needs to ‘rest/collapse’ on the ‘dark side’ before insolation can cause its ‘re-expansion’. In curry speak, the meat needs to rest before re-firing!”

    It is a temporal cycle, only from a POV somewhere upon the surface of the Earth!
    Doing optics design gives opportunity for many different geometries, all useful sometimes. 🙂

    From a POV with the Sun at the top of the page and the Earth some distance below. The bulge is upward but static. The earth rotation is the only motion. The results of insolation tend to occur at fixed directions from the center of the Earth, with the cyclic spin removed for clarity in that POV. i.e.:
    The maximum upward motion of column water is positioned near the direction of the Sun. The maximum rainfall from that insolation is in a different specific direction, that you may call “later”. Later still is the center of the Hadley/Ferrel cell decent, now offset (in and out of the paper) by 30 degrees latitude. That decent provides the trade winds now travelling in in opposition to the spin of the planet. In some different directions are the maximum and minimum temperatures of each altitude. What are these angular directions? What else here, can we observe about the operation of this atmosphere?
    This is a semi heliocentric POV. It is your earth surface location, that gives your apparent 24hr cycle. It is really one cycle per (day) cycle!. There is another heliocentric POV that can give insight into the annual cycle. This POV need only show axial tilt and distance from Sol..
    A single POV leads to fantasy. learning must be demonstrable in all POVs!
    -will-

  85. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 8, 2015 at 4:44 am

    “This is where I ‘put my hands up’ (and I think you should too) on the concept of ‘a well mixed atmosphere’ Ben! The nearest I can get to this is ‘an atmosphere that separates and re-mixes again’.”
    Obviously the whole atmosphere isn’t well mixed. The concept of air masses is welknown in meteorology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_mass

    “There is NO “rising part below the cloud” Ben! The precipitation from this cloud causes a ‘downward’ movement of the local atmosphere by way of ‘mass movement’ influencing the ‘downward vector’ of all atmospheric components (vectored mass diffusion). Everything ‘cools’ and humidity ‘increases’ for a “parcel”, but ‘turbulence’ just isn’t represented. It should be.”
    see http://www.tornadochaser.net/capeclass.html page 2 especially.
    In stage 1 and 2 of the developing thunderstorm it is still like a normal thermal, only growing larger in an unstable environment.
    Page 3 and further have a nice explanation of CAPE and the workings of the DALR and SALR.

  86. Paul Vaughan says:

    good will: annual yin-yang (not just 24h)

    ben mentioned thermal wind — i had grown doubtful that anyone had such a basic clue

  87. Ben Wouters says:

    Paul Vaughan says: May 8, 2015 at 7:24 am

    “ben mentioned thermal wind — i had grown doubtful that anyone had such a basic clue”

    Wish participants in a discussion about climate had at least a basic understanding of meteorological matters. Would speed up the discussion enormously.

  88. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ben, it would also help if there was the basic conceptual awareness needed to interpret implications of observed decadal cyclic volatility of semi-annual earth rotation variations.

    …but as we’ve observed, most instead opt to pretend that the following can be mysteriously & conveniently violated to support an alternate narrative:
    a. geometric axioms
    b. law of large numbers
    c. law of conservation of angular momentum

    The ongoing attempts to ignore, deny, & deflect a, b, & c are tactically informative. The nature of the agencies we’re dealing with is exposed. They’ve abandoned integrity. That’s a serious decision. Choosing a bluffing strategy in such a rigidly indefensible logical context signals comfortable confidence in reliable persistence of insurmountably deep public ignorance. It also signals active conscious will to deliberately deceive. We’re not dealing with saints & angels.

    Observing evasive human nature is a reliably entertaining pass time.

  89. Paul Vaughan says:

    Stairway 101

    “There’s a feeling I get when I look to the west…” — led zeppelin

    “In my thoughts I have seen rings of smoke through the trees — led zeppelin

    “Yes, there are two paths you can go by…” — led zeppelin

    “If there’s a bustle in your hedgerow, don’t be alarmed now… Your stairway lies on the whispering wind” — led zeppelin

  90. Paul Vaughan says:


    music of the spheres captured by Atlantic Records
    glaring at the spinning 45 “it really makes me wonder” — led zeppelin

    “When all are one and one is all…” — led zeppelin

    The “feeling I get when I look to the West”?
    Better turn East. Eastern superiority is clarified by western climate lies.

    “a new day will dawn for those who stand long…” — led zeppelin

  91. Paul Vaughan says: May 8, 2015 at 7:10 pm

    “…but as we’ve observed, most instead opt to pretend that the following can be mysteriously & conveniently violated to support an alternate narrative:
    a. geometric axioms
    b. law of large numbers
    c. law of conservation of angular momentum
    The ongoing attempts to ignore, deny, & deflect a, b, & c are tactically informative. The nature of the agencies we’re dealing with is exposed. They’ve abandoned integrity. That’s a serious decision. Choosing a bluffing strategy in such a rigidly indefensible logical context signals comfortable confidence in reliable persistence of insurmountably deep public ignorance. It also signals active conscious will to deliberately deceive. We’re not dealing with saints & angels.”

    Paul,
    Part of that human ignorance has always been the fear of the unknown. All religions, hucksters, scientists with no integrity, and all politics, profit from that same fear. This whole atmospheric thing, needs several folk experienced in the design of more and more complex puzzles. That experience may give a sense of scale to the complexity of the atmospheric puzzles! With that sense of the immensity, ordinary humans with personal integrity, can control the fear, admit I do not know, then get on with some learning, while ignoring the deliberate scam!

    “Observing evasive human nature is a reliably entertaining pass time.”

    Watching the deliberate religious scam, by those with no capability to learn, can also be entertaining. For me watching those, promotes feelings of both disgust and pity!

    (Better turn East. Eastern superiority is clarified by western climate lies.

    “a new day will dawn for those who stand long…” — led zeppelin)

    Looking from afar from many POVs may be fruitful. 🙂

  92. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: May 8, 2015 at 7:18 am

    “Obviously the whole atmosphere isn’t well mixed. The concept of air masses is welknown in meteorology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_mass

    That page shows ‘incomplete physics’ Ben. Temperature alone can’t achieve the convective outcomes observed in the case of a ‘thunder-head’, or a ‘cyclone/hurricane’

    If ‘WV’ (Water Vapour) could exist as a ‘single compound’ its ‘specific gravity’ would be 0.6218. Source: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-gravities-gases-d_334.html
    This makes WV ~the ‘lightest’ component of a regional ‘gas mix’ in Earth’s atmosphere (~3/5 the density of the average of all other atmospheric constituents) and that’s enough to cause WV to ‘separate’ from the ‘other gasses’ and ‘percolate upwards’. Thus, causing ‘other’ atmospheric compounds to ‘flow upwards’ (against a gravity well) as well (by way of ‘collective diffusion’).

    Your thoughts?

    “see http://www.tornadochaser.net/capeclass.html page 2 especially.”

    Again, WV density is hardly mentioned here. FWIW, I assumed a fully fledged thunderstorm in your scenario.

    Best regards, Ray.

  93. tchannon says:

    Observation: evaporating water is creating new gas, displacing existing gas.

  94. tchannon says: May 9, 2015 at 4:07 am

    “Observation: evaporating water is creating new gas, displacing existing gas.”

    Kind of Tim,
    The electromagnetic power flux from the Sun, with no temperature increase, results in an expansion that water condensate throughout that part of the atmosphere, doing work (displacing) other atmosphere. This process is never isenthalpic, it must have power or energy loss to entropy! The conversion of that Solar power to mass volume, does latent, or occult storage of power, At high altitude, such occult storage of power, upon conversion back to airborne condensate, provides the power for EMR dispatch of such entropy to space. 🙂

  95. Ben Wouters says:

    Paul Vaughan says: May 8, 2015 at 7:10 pm

    Paul, at present I’m trying to get the idea across that I have a much better explanation for the high temperatures on earth than the GHE has. (atmosphere increasing the surface temperature).
    It’s based on simple physics.
    For the moment I concentrate on debunking the GHE effect. I could use some help and support.

  96. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 9, 2015 at 4:01 am

    “Temperature alone can’t achieve the convective outcomes observed in the case of a ‘thunder-head’, or a ‘cyclone/hurricane’”
    Temperature DIFFERENCES drive convection, and when a convective cloud forms, the release of latent heat drives these temperature DIFFERENCES.
    Differences in relative humidity could be a source for some buoyancy, but in practice can be neglected, because the DIFFERENCES are very small usually.

    WV does not separate from the other gasses. It is an integral part of the gas mix.
    If condensation occurs, the resulting droplets DO separate from the gas, and begin a life of their own.

    “Again, WV density is hardly mentioned here. FWIW, I assumed a fully fledged thunderstorm in your scenario.”
    Because the DIFFERENCES in WV density are very small, so they can be neglected.

    see http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section1a.html#atmospheric_moisture

  97. Ben Wouters says: May 9, 2015 at 7:41 am
    Paul Vaughan says: May 8, 2015 at 7:10 pm

    “Paul, at present I’m trying to get the idea across that I have a much better explanation for the high temperatures on earth than the GHE has. (atmosphere increasing the surface temperature).
    It’s based on simple physics.”

    Your “better explanation” is not needed. There are no high temperatures on this Earth. This Earth, in spite of the fantasy of meteorologists and climatologists, is doing just fine. There is this persistent nonsense of creating fear by those that wish power over others! This atmosphere seems to be a grand puzzle, difficult for earthlings to comprehend! We can only try for learning, in spite of meteorologists and climatologists continual fake Bull Shit! 🙂

  98. Ben Wouters says: May 9, 2015 at 7:50 am
    suricat says: May 9, 2015 at 4:01 am

    (“Temperature alone can’t achieve the convective outcomes observed in the case of a ‘thunder-head’, or a ‘cyclone/hurricane’”)

    “Temperature DIFFERENCES drive convection, and when a convective cloud forms, the release of latent heat drives these temperature DIFFERENCES.”

    All atmospheric mass motion is initiated by power/flux/energy that also create differences in potential.
    This difference in thermal potential strictly limits the rate of any mass movement!

    Temperature or temperature difference are always a measure of potential. Never any initiator of energy transport. Energy transport depends on everything else!

    “WV does not separate from the other gasses. It is an integral part of the gas mix.
    If condensation occurs, the resulting droplets DO separate from the gas, and begin a life of their own.”

    Where ever has such nonsence ever been demonstrated” Your claims are but fantasy! -will-

  99. Paul Vaughan says:

    The differential limits the rate, will says.
    Reassuring to see that stated by at least one commentator.
    Never thought I would see that in 7 lifetimes!

  100. Paul Vaughan says:

    will, your “initiator of transport” comment of course explains the “trees” (ENSO-patterned) scrambling the solar system J+N (longitudinal) & J-N (meridional) “rings of smoke” to conventional methods unconsciously based on false geometric assumptions.

    It’s becoming crystal clear why the game-masters demand anomaly-think of the subjects. It hides the symmetries, blurring the simple process-of-elimination that sorts chaos from mere insolation gradients. Anomalies mix in camouflaging multi-fractal geometry. If this is deliberate, it’s very clever deception.

    With attention to evolving gradients between shadow & light, what we see is at best eye-catching puffs of turbulence across dead-simple axial & longitudinal background gradients. It’s simple: if you want to see clearly, don’t mix the fundamentally differing geometries of (a) turbulence & (b) orbits.

    There’s a lot of goofy nonsense out there in discussion about “internal chaos”, particularly in discussions at ce. We’ve got them cornered via the process-of-elimination. When they start being nonsensical we can just turn to them and say, “You’re mixing geometries.” If they neither acknowledge nor understand, we dismiss them as irrelevant, thus terminating useless interaction.

  101. Paul Vaughan says:

    Will, with respect to potentials vs. triggered potentials I think that’s exactly the point Wunsch was aggressively hammering about wind triggering of thermohaline gradient potentials around sea-ice margins. His strong objections were to the widespread misconceptions that (a) it can happen without mechanical initiation by wind and (b) the location of the triggering can be independent of wind patterns. (I would generalize this whole thing 2 levels further.)

    And of course no wonder there’s coherence between multidecadal-centennial ENSO variance & SAOT (stratospheric aerosol optical thickness) once one conceptually differentiates between potential & triggered potential.

    Potential curves (manifolds) may be clean, but the event triggers no doubt worry health, military, & financial strategists who are supposed to plan for temporary localized aberrations. Trigger-scenario modeling will be a whole lot simpler though once all of the key manifolds are known. There’s no escaping the need to empirically measure the shape of the manifolds. (For those who don’t realize, that’s what I’m doing.)

  102. suricat says:

    tchannon says: May 9, 2015 at 4:07 am

    “Observation: evaporating water is creating new gas, displacing existing gas.”

    I wouldn’t say “displacing existing gas” Tim, more like ‘adding to the existing gasses’, but the ‘coercion’ to the atmosphere could be described as ‘displacement’ by its low ‘gravity’ in the atmospheric mix. 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  103. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: May 9, 2015 at 7:50 am

    (“Temperature alone can’t achieve the convective outcomes observed in the case of a ‘thunder-head’, or a ‘cyclone/hurricane’”)

    “Temperature DIFFERENCES drive convection, and when a convective cloud forms, the release of latent heat drives these temperature DIFFERENCES.”

    I disagree. ‘Latent heat’ reduces ‘temperature difference’, thus, would ‘abate’ convection. If not for the relationship of water and its phase changes that provide H2O with such a ‘light’ gas phase convection would stagnate!

    “Differences in relative humidity could be a source for some buoyancy, but in practice can be neglected, because the DIFFERENCES are very small usually.”

    I must disagree. At equatorial temperatures the WV content can be as high as ~1% of atmospheric gasses. This inclusion percentile puts the ‘convective’ potential at ~4C above the potential of local atmosphere without WV!

    “WV does not separate from the other gasses. It is an integral part of the gas mix.
    If condensation occurs, the resulting droplets DO separate from the gas, and begin a life of their own.

    I concur. WV ‘drives’ the atmosphere by way of a ‘boost’ to convection, but on the ‘dark side’, WV condenses. 😉

    “Because the DIFFERENCES in WV density are very small, so they can be neglected.”

    Think on. 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  104. Paul Vaughan says: May 9, 2015 at 11:55 pm

    “Potential curves (manifolds) may be clean, but the event triggers no doubt worry health, military, & financial strategists who are supposed to plan for temporary localized aberrations. Trigger-scenario modeling will be a whole lot simpler though once all of the key manifolds are known. There’s no escaping the need to empirically measure the shape of the manifolds. (For those who don’t realize, that’s what I’m doing.)”

    Paul,
    I am quite sure I do not understand much of what you present. Potentials and potential differences do need to be considered more deterministic than events. It is the continual evolving shape of the atmospheric manifolds that truly baffle. It is like a Chinese puzzle that goes from a sphere, to a Rubik cube then, to a Ferrari auto, then to a Jennifer Lopez, then to a sphere. This appears cyclic, but never repeats! For insight into thermal electromagnetic flux generation and transport through an ever changing dispersive media, I remain not so confused! 🙂

  105. suricat says:

    suricat says: May 10, 2015 at 5:43 am

    On re-reading my post, it seems a little ‘curt’. This was unintentional Ben!

    Best regards, Ray.

  106. suricat says:

    Paul Vaughan says: May 9, 2015 at 11:55 pm

    “…”

    So, you’re into ‘attractors’ Paul?

    Best regards, Ray.

  107. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 10, 2015 at 5:43 am

    ” I disagree. ‘Latent heat’ reduces ‘temperature difference’, thus, would ‘abate’ convection. If not for the relationship of water and its phase changes that provide H2O with such a ‘light’ gas phase convection would stagnate!”
    Sorry, but your ideas about convection do not match with reality.
    A rising volume of air (parcel) expands due to the pressure gradient, and thus cools.
    As long as no condensation occurs the cooling rate is 9,8K/km, the DALR.
    When condensation starts, the latent heat that is released into the parcel, and the cooling rate is reduced. The reduced rate will continue until all WV has condensed, and the rising parcel will cool again according the DALR.

    ” I must disagree. At equatorial temperatures the WV content can be as high as ~1% of atmospheric gasses. This inclusion percentile puts the ‘convective’ potential at ~4C above the potential of local atmosphere without WV!”
    see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity#/media/File:Relative_Humidity.png
    At 30 C and 100% relative humidity (RH )the amount of WV in air is 28 gr./kg. is ~ 2,8% by weight.
    Over a warm ocean, no fog the RH is eg 75%. Small variations will occur (eg between 70% and 80%) but this is not enough to initiate convection.

    ” I concur. WV ‘drives’ the atmosphere by way of a ‘boost’ to convection, but on the ‘dark side’, WV condenses.”
    WV does not drive the atmosphere. Thermal wind is the driver for the general circulation cells (Hadley etc) Convection transports warm air away from the surface, to either a cooler place near the surfaceor to high in the atmosphere where the air can cool down.
    Not sure what you mean with ‘dark side’. WV condenses any time the temperature of a volume of air reduces below the dew point of that air. This can be during convection (day or night), or eg at night near the surface when fog forms.due to the cooling of the surface and the overlaying air.

  108. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 9, 2015 at 9:17 am

    ” There are no high temperatures on this Earth”

    Average surface temperature Earth ~290K
    Average surface temperature Moon ~ 197K.
    Difference is ~ 93K. while both are at the same distance from our sun.
    So in Will’s phantasy world 93K is ” no high temperature” Dream on.

  109. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 9, 2015 at 9:50 am

    ” “WV does not separate from the other gasses. It is an integral part of the gas mix.
    If condensation occurs, the resulting droplets DO separate from the gas, and begin a life of their own.”

    Where ever has such nonsence ever been demonstrated””

    Poor soul. Never seen a cloud or fog? Blind AND clueless?

  110. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: May 12, 2015 at 12:44 pm

    (” I disagree. ‘Latent heat’ reduces ‘temperature difference’, thus, would ‘abate’ convection. If not for the relationship of water and its phase changes that provide H2O with such a ‘light’ gas phase convection would stagnate!”)

    “Sorry, but your ideas about convection do not match with reality.
    A rising volume of air (parcel) expands due to the pressure gradient, and thus cools.
    As long as no condensation occurs the cooling rate is 9,8K/km, the DALR.
    When condensation starts, the latent heat that is released into the parcel, and the cooling rate is reduced. The reduced rate will continue until all WV has condensed, and the rising parcel will cool again according the DALR.”

    Yes. I fully understand that Ben, but you’re ‘orders of magnitude’ away from the subject of this thread! The thread is already coerced away from its true subject by the continual implication that ‘climate/circulation cells’ represent ‘convection’. They don’t!

    (” I must disagree. At equatorial temperatures the WV content can be as high as ~1% of atmospheric gasses. This inclusion percentile puts the ‘convective’ potential at ~4C above the potential of local atmosphere without WV!”)

    “see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity#/media/File:Relative_Humidity.png
    At 30 C and 100% relative humidity (RH )the amount of WV in air is 28 gr./kg. is ~ 2,8% by weight.
    Over a warm ocean, no fog the RH is eg 75%. Small variations will occur (eg between 70% and 80%) but this is not enough to initiate convection.”

    You have the wrong ref. Ben. HVAC engineers use the mass equiv. of PV=n Rt to obviate the energy transfer property/potential of the ‘medium’ employed.

    For ‘buoyancy’ purposes ‘mass/volume’ is paramount. You need to disclose the ‘volume of WV’ against the ‘volume’ of the ‘dry’ atmosphere, then compare their relative densities to reveal any ‘convective’ element (it took me nearly a week to convert a psychrometric chart to show this) 😦 .

    (” I concur. WV ‘drives’ the atmosphere by way of a ‘boost’ to convection, but on the ‘dark side’, WV condenses.”)

    “WV does not drive the atmosphere.”

    Not alone, but it’s the major contributor.

    “Thermal wind is the driver for the general circulation cells (Hadley etc)”

    What has this to do with ‘convection’ per se???

    “Convection transports warm air away from the surface, to either a cooler place near the surfaceor to high in the atmosphere where the air can cool down.”

    This isn’t a great help Ben, I expect more!

    “Not sure what you mean with ‘dark side’. WV condenses any time the temperature of a volume of air reduces below the dew point of that air.”

    Yes Ben! This usually happens during a ‘nocturnal’ (night time) episode! ‘On the dark side’ of the planet.

    “This can be during convection (day or night), or eg at night near the surface when fog forms.due to the cooling of the surface and the overlaying air.”

    Perhaps you may now begin to understand, at least, the ‘dilemma’???

    However, the subject ‘isn’t’ ‘condensation’. It’s ‘convection cells 101’!

    Best regards, Ray.

  111. Ben Wouters says: May 12, 2015 at 12:48 pm
    Will Janoschka says: May 9, 2015 at 9:17 am

    (” There are no high temperatures on this Earth”)

    “Average surface temperature Earth ~290K
    Average surface temperature Moon ~ 197K.
    Difference is ~ 93K. while both are at the same distance from our sun.
    So in Will’s phantasy world 93K is ” no high temperature” Dream on.”

    You keep sucking fake numbers from the toilet!!
    Just what can an average temperature mean? It is not even a measurement!!
    The Earth’s surface temperature never reaches 106 Celsius. No high temperatures! 🙂

  112. Roger Clague says:

    Ben Wouters says:
    May 12, 2015 at 12:44 pm

    A rising volume of air (parcel) expands due to the pressure gradient, and thus cools.
    As long as no condensation occurs the cooling rate is 9,8K/km, the DALR.

    I don’t agree with this comment. However it is relevant and OT because it is the consensus view on Lapse Rate ( LR ). LR is fundamental to understanding heat transfers in the atmosphere and, in this discussion, convection cells.
    The 10K/km figure is calculated from g/c. g/c comes from
    mgh = mcT
    T/h = g/c
    This is the conservation of energy equation. It is not derived from gas expansion in a pressure gradient.Gas laws do not apply in the atmos which is confined by gravity not a container.

    This 10K/km is never found on Earth. The range is from 5-7K/km.
    The heat is absorbed by VW not N2 or O2.
    Specific heat of air is 1. But using the specific heat of WV =2 gives LR = 5K/km.
    LR causes convection. Convection does not cause LR.
    The atmos is heated from the top down by absorbing EMR, not from the bottom up by convection.

  113. suricat says: |May 9, 2015 at 4:01 am

    “If ‘WV’ (Water Vapour) could exist as a ‘single compound’ its ‘specific gravity’ would be 0.6218. Source: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-gravities-gases-d_334.html. This makes WV ~the ‘lightest’ component of a regional ‘gas mix’ in Earth’s atmosphere (~3/5 the density of the average of all other atmospheric constituents) and that’s enough to cause WV to ‘separate’ from the ‘other gasses’ and ‘percolate upwards’. Thus, causing ‘other’ atmospheric compounds to ‘flow upwards’ (against a gravity well) as well (by way of ‘collective diffusion’).”

    This of course has been demonstrated, (sort of). Saturated WV from below percolates upward keeping the upper air saturated as well, according to temperature at that level. This is one way, heat as latent heat, can rise so rapidly to a 6-7 Km level! WV actually gains latent heat as it cools! Look up the numbers of J/gm between 30 Celsius and minus 30 Celsius! But is this convection or fluidic advection? 🙂

    Ben Wouters says: May 9, 2015 at 7:50 am

    “WV does not separate from the other gasses. It is an integral part of the gas mix.
    If condensation occurs, the resulting droplets DO separate from the gas, and begin a life of their own.”

    Will Janoschka says: May 9, 2015 at 9:50 am

    ”Where ever has such nonsence been demonstrated”

    Ben Wouters says: May 12, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    “Poor soul. Never seen a cloud or fog? Blind AND clueless?”

    Fog, a water condensate, not the WV, just hangs as per fluid dynamics of a compressible fluid. The gas WV with all its latent heat percolates through N2, O2, because of its much lower weight/volume!
    Where ever has Ben’s nonsence been demonstrated? 🙂

  114. suricat says: May 13, 2015 at 2:37 am

    Ben Wouters says: May 12, 2015 at 12:44 pm

    (“Sorry, but your ideas about convection do not match with reality. A rising volume of air (parcel) expands due to the pressure gradient, and thus cools. As long as no condensation occurs the cooling rate is 9,8K/km, the DALR. When condensation starts, the latent heat that is released into the parcel, and the cooling rate is reduced. The reduced rate will continue until all WV has condensed, and the rising parcel will cool again according the DALR.”

    “Yes. I fully understand that Ben, but you’re ‘orders of magnitude’ away from the subject of this thread! The thread is already coerced away from its true subject by the continual implication that ‘climate/circulation cells’ represent ‘convection’. They don’t!”

    BW: (” I must disagree. At equatorial temperatures the WV content can be as high as ~1% of atmospheric gasses. This inclusion percentile puts the ‘convective’ potential at ~4C above the potential of local atmosphere without WV!”)

    ??? “see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity#/media/File:Relative_Humidity.png
    At 30 C and 100% relative humidity (RH )the amount of WV in air is 28 gr./kg. is ~ 2,8% by weight.
    Over a warm ocean, no fog the RH is eg 75%. Small variations will occur (eg between 70% and 80%) but this is not enough to initiate convection.”

    suricat: “You have the wrong ref. Ben. HVAC engineers use the mass equiv. of PV=n Rt to obviate the energy transfer property/potential of the ‘medium’ employed. For ‘buoyancy’ purposes ‘mass/volume’ is paramount. You need to disclose the ‘volume of WV’ against the ‘volume’ of the ‘dry’ atmosphere, then compare their relative densities to reveal any ‘convective’ element (it took me nearly a week to convert a psychrometric chart to show this) 😦 . “suricat

    BW: (” I concur. WV ‘drives’ the atmosphere by way of a ‘boost’ to convection, but on the ‘dark side’, WV condenses.”)

    BW: “WV does not drive the atmosphere.”

    suricat: “Not alone, but it’s the major contributor.”

    BW: “Thermal wind is the driver for the general circulation cells (Hadley etc)”

    suricat: “Not alone, but it’s the major contributor.”

    BW: “Thermal wind is the driver for the general circulation cells (Hadley etc)”

    suricat: “What has this to do with ‘convection’ per se???

    BW: “Convection transports warm air away from the surface, to either a cooler place near the surfaceor to high in the atmosphere where the air can cool down.”

    suricat: “This isn’t a great help Ben, I expect more!”

    BW: “Not sure what you mean with ‘dark side’. WV condenses any time the temperature of a volume of air reduces below the dew point of that air.”

    suricat: “Yes Ben! This usually happens during a ‘nocturnal’ (night time) episode! ‘On the dark side’ of the planet.

    BW: “This can be during convection (day or night), or eg at night near the surface when fog forms.due to the cooling of the surface and the overlaying air.”

    suricat: “Perhaps you may now begin to understand, at least, the ‘dilemma’??? However, the subject ‘isn’t’ ‘condensation’. It’s ‘convection cells 101’! Best regards, Ray.

    Ray,
    I do not think we are getting very far this way! Convection is but mass motion, generally constrained to some compressible fluid! Any force for that movement, and any energy transport of that movement are but details about that particular convection. 🙂

    Roger Clague says: May 13, 2015 at 11:09 am
    Ben Wouters says: May 12, 2015 at 12:44 pm

    (“A rising volume of air (parcel) expands due to the pressure gradient, and thus cools.
    As long as no condensation occurs the cooling rate is 9,8K/km, the DALR.”)

    “I don’t agree with this comment. However it is relevant and OT because it is the consensus view on Lapse Rate ( LR ). LR is fundamental to understanding heat transfers in the atmosphere and, in this discussion, convection cells.
    The 10K/km figure is calculated from g/c. g/c comes from
    mgh = mcT
    T/h = g/c
    This is the conservation of energy equation. It is not derived from gas expansion in a pressure gradient.Gas laws do not apply in the atmos which is confined by gravity not a container.”

    Wow! Are you ever correct here!!! The force of gravitational attraction of masses completely override the gas laws, and any concept of positional PE! All becomes a combinational understanding with fluid dynamics of this partially compressible atmosphere!

    “This 10K/km is never found on Earth. The range is from 5-7K/km.
    The heat is absorbed by VW not N2 or O2.
    Specific heat of air is 1. But using the specific heat of WV =2 gives LR = 5K/km.
    LR causes convection. Convection does not cause LR.
    The atmos is heated from the top down by absorbing EMR, not from the bottom up by convection.”

    Whoa! The -9.8C/km lapse rate should be used whenever airborne WV is less than saturated! Over the western Shara, the air column is seldom saturated daytime, hence high daytime surface temperature. Saturated implies “airborne water condensate” within the air mass. In that case a lapse rate of -5.5C/km may be used! There is no average, only right chere, right now. The actual air temperature is a complex arrangement of temporal insolation, temporal EMR to space, and temporal atmospheric WV, some of which does indeed come from the surface. Any daily, yearly, average temperature of one location, or all locations, is clearly some swinely attempt to sell you knives “that never get dull”!! DO not buy twice 🙂
    LEARN Very similar to “do not look into laser beam with remaining eye”! 🙂

  115. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 13, 2015 at 2:37 am

    ” Yes. I fully understand that Ben, but you’re ‘orders of magnitude’ away from the subject of this thread! The thread is already coerced away from its true subject by the continual implication that ‘climate/circulation cells’ represent ‘convection’. They don’t!”
    The subject of this thread is ” Beginner’s guide to convection cells” and I have been and still am talking about convection cells, like small scale thermals etc. The DALR and SALR are intimately linked to convection cells, so I don’t see where I’m going off topic.

    “For ‘buoyancy’ purposes ‘mass/volume’ is paramount. You need to disclose the ‘volume of WV’ against the ‘volume’ of the ‘dry’ atmosphere, then compare their relative densities to reveal any ‘convective’ element (it took me nearly a week to convert a psychrometric chart to show this) 😦 . ”
    Why not simply use the mixing ratio? They are pre-printed on (every?) thermodynamic diagram.
    Given the temperature and dewpoint of some parcel you can simply plot or calculate the cloudbase in case of convection.

    ” “Convection transports warm air away from the surface, to either a cooler place near the surfaceor to high in the atmosphere where the air can cool down.”

    This isn’t a great help Ben, I expect more!”
    What more do you expect convection to do?

    ” “Not sure what you mean with ‘dark side’. WV condenses any time the temperature of a volume of air reduces below the dew point of that air.”

    Yes Ben! This usually happens during a ‘nocturnal’ (night time) episode! ‘On the dark side’ of the planet”
    Solar initiated convection obviously happens on the bright side of our planet. So a lot of convective clouds like cumulus and cumulonimbus happen specifically during daytime.

    “However, the subject ‘isn’t’ ‘condensation’. It’s ‘convection cells 101’!”
    ?????? COnvection is almost a prerequisite to have any expanded convection.
    Dry convection (no condensation/clouds) hardly ever reaches any higher altitudes, since the rising parcel cools much faster than the environment it is rising in.

  116. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: May 13, 2015 at 11:09 am

    ” The 10K/km figure is calculated from g/c. g/c comes from
    mgh = mcT
    T/h = g/c”

    Don’t know where this comes from, but the DALR isn’t derived this way.
    see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
    from “Types of lapse rates”
    Pay special attention to ” The adiabatic lapse rates – which refer to the change in temperature of a parcel of air as it moves upwards (or downwards) without exchanging heat with its surroundings”
    Notice “moves upwards (or downwards)”

    “This 10K/km is never found on Earth.”
    Put a thermometer in a rising parcel of air and notice how its temperature drops 9,8K/km.
    Also in a high pressure area where the air is slowly subsiding. For large parts of this sinking air you can measure the 9,8K/km lapse rate by sending a weather balloon into the slowly sinking air.

  117. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 13, 2015 at 11:21 am

    “Fog, a water condensate, not the WV, just hangs as per fluid dynamics of a compressible fluid.”
    Fog is the most simple form of condensation (no rising and expansion involved), and even this you do not understand.
    Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog

    “The gas WV with all its latent heat percolates through N2, O2, because of its much lower weight/volume!”
    Janoschka physics? You make this up yourself?
    Percolating WV…….
    Suggest to go back to playing with your IR thermometers or whatever you have been doing.
    Meteorology is obviously way above your intelligence level.

  118. Ben Wouters says: May 13, 2015 at 8:56 pm what is

    suricat says: May 13, 2015 at 2:37 am

    (” Yes. I fully understand that Ben, but you’re ‘orders of magnitude’ away from the subject of this thread! The thread is already coerced away from its true subject by the continual implication that ‘climate/circulation cells’ represent ‘convection’. They don’t!”)

    “The subject of this thread is ” Beginner’s guide to convection cells” and I have been and still am talking about convection cells, like small scale thermals etc. The DALR and SALR are intimately linked to convection cells, so I don’t see where I’m going off topic.”

    Please demonstrate where the adjective ADIABATIC has anything to do with your spouting? (

    (“For ‘buoyancy’ purposes ‘mass/volume’ is paramount. You need to disclose the ‘volume of WV’ against the ‘volume’ of the ‘dry’ atmosphere, then compare their relative densities to reveal any ‘convective’ element (it took me nearly a week to convert a psychrometric chart to show this) 😦 . )

    Is that not a true BItch Ray?!! -grin-

    “Why not simply use the mixing ratio? They are pre-printed on (every?) thermodynamic diagram.
    Given the temperature and dewpoint of some parcel you can simply plot or calculate the cloudbase in case of convection.”

    Your mixing ratio has nothing to do with with what is, only with a meteorologic fantasy!
    Please display any physical evidence of what you claim! You have only fantasy! 🙂

  119. oldbrew says:

    Cloudiest Places on Earth Revealed in Stunning New Image

    The blue-and-white image averages daily cloud observations from the satellite between July 2002 and April 2015. It reveals a mostly hazy Earth with three especially cloudy zones.

    These zones are linked to the global circulation patterns in Earth’s atmosphere. According to NASA’s Earth Observatory, in the mid-latitudes, polar air masses collide with Ferrel cells, which circulate air westward at high altitudes and eastward at the surface. These patterns cause air to rise around 60 degrees north and south of the equator, promoting the formation of clouds in these two zones. These same patterns push air downward between 15 degrees and 30 degrees from the equator, resulting in the cloud-free zones seen in desert areas such as Australia and northern Africa.

    The third particularly cloudy zone is found over the equator, where circulation cells called Hadley cells dominate. In these zones, warm air rises and condenses, creating both clouds and storms, according to the Earth Observatory.

    On the satellite image, these cloudy zones are seen in bright white; the bluer the region, the clearer the skies.

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/cloudiest-places-earth-revealed-stunning-image-195414990.html


    [credit: Yahoo! News]

  120. suricat says:

    oldbrew says: May 13, 2015 at 10:24 pm

    “‘Cloudiest Places on Earth Revealed in Stunning New Image‘”

    Again you perpetuate the ‘myth’ that ‘climate/global circulation cells’ fall into the category of ‘convection cells’. They DON’T! Where are you coming from TB, to allow these statements on your site???

    Give me ‘your definition of a ‘convection cell’ oldbrew, because ‘I’ don’t understand it!

    IMHO a ‘convection cell’ is ‘constrained’ SINGULARLY by the effects of ‘density disparity bounded by gravity’ Nothing else!

    The ‘Hadley cells’ are ‘advected’ (accelerated by latitudinal centrifuge [Coriolis effect]) by global rotation and ‘diffused to higher altitudes’ by greater WV inclusion to the atmosphere at low latitudes (due to increased water evaporation at higher surface temperatures near zero latitude). This configuration also gives rise to the ‘Brewer Dobson’ circulation in the low strat (compare with Venus).

    The ‘Polar cells’ are ‘advected’ by Earth’s rotation again, with a little ‘help’ from the Brewer Dobson circulation. BTW, ‘atmospheric advection’ is initialised by the ‘boundary layer’!

    The ‘Ferrel cells’ just ‘free wheel’ between the Hadley and Polar cells as an ‘idler gear’ between the ‘two’ main gears in each hemisphere.

    When it’s ‘hot’ OB, you’ll turn on a ‘fan’ to help cool yourself. The ‘fan’ causes ‘air movement’ in the local atmosphere, but the local atmosphere is ‘advected’ by the ‘fan’. NOT ‘convected’!!!

    Ray.

  121. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 13, 2015 at 10:12 pm

    “Is that not a true BItch Ray?!! -grin-”

    Yes it was. For ‘me’, that is (being an engineer).

    I don’t think anyone here is interested in ‘convection cells’, I don’t know why I’m still here.

    Best regards, Ray.

  122. suricat says:

    suricat says: May 14, 2015 at 2:27 am

    Furthermore Will, the only ‘lapse rate’ we should be discussing here is the ELR and the why it changes so quickly.

    Best regards, Ray.

  123. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 14, 2015 at 2:11 am

    “IMHO a ‘convection cell’ is ‘constrained’ SINGULARLY by the effects of ‘density disparity bounded by gravity’ Nothing else!”
    Seems you have a serious misunderstanding of what ATMOSPHERIC convection is.
    In the beginning of this thread I stated:
    “If you want to have a basic understanding of convection, you NEED to understand how the “static” atmosphere is operating:
    – hydrostatic balance
    – pressure and density gradient
    – pressure gradient force
    – resulting temperature gradient.
    Without a solid understanding of these phenomena, a beginner won’t be able to understand convection.”

    I suspect you don’t see how especially the pressure gradient and pressure gradient force work in the case of simple convection like a thermal, or a developing cumulonimbus.

    “Furthermore Will, the only ‘lapse rate’ we should be discussing here is the ELR and the why it changes so quickly.”
    When discussing convection you NEED to discuss the DALR and SALR. They decide how convection works!

  124. Paul Vaughan says:

    Good pick OB

  125. Ben Wouters says:

    A good text on sources for lifting air, and especially convection:
    http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section3.html#lifting_sources

  126. Paul Vaughan says:

    Sidorenkov’s book — see section 8.7 (thermal wind, heat engines…)
    ftp://lne-syrte.obspm.fr/pub/bizouard/sidorenkov_2009_book.pdf
    (…how long before this valuable resource vanishes?….)

  127. oldbrew says:

    Is there a terminology problem? The UK Science Museum discusses ‘convection cells’ here:
    http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/ClimateChanging/ClimateScienceInfoZone/ExploringEarthsclimate/1point1/1point1point2.aspx

    They say: ‘Ocean currents and large ‘convection cells’ in the atmosphere transport heat from the Equator towards the poles’

    Under that are headings for ‘tropical convection cells’ and ‘atmospheric layers and convection cells’ where they say:

    ‘The top of the troposphere is defined as the height at which the lapse rate ceases to be positive. This height varies with latitude, because the intense surface heating at the Equator drives deeper convection there, causing the two tropical convection cells to extend higher into the atmosphere than the mid-latitude and polar cells. As a result, the troposphere is up to 15 km high at the Equator, declining to less than 10 km high at the poles.’

    NASA calls them circulation cells in the earlier report [above].

  128. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: May 14, 2015 at 9:07 am

    “Is there a terminology problem?”
    The Hadley etc. cells are circulation cells. They are most certainly NOT driven by convection.
    (unless you believe that some cumulonimbus clouds near the equator can “suck air from ~ 1800 nm away over the surface towards them.
    If you want to give them a name describing their driving force I suggest “Thermal wind cells”.

  129. oldbrew says:

    Thanks Ben. It appears ‘convection cells’ may be a UK term not favoured elsewhere – that’s fine by me as long as we all know what we’re referring to (see graphic in the post above).

  130. tom0mason says:

    Having read, but not necessarily understood (but I am trying) all these post I believe that I am slightly more confused than when I started.
    There are 3 areas that are the most confused —

    1. The geographic cells define large air mass areas, or cells — Hadley, Ferrell, Polar — are, or maybe not, driven by convection as well as Coriolis effect winds.

    2. All areas of the globe, regardless of geographic cell, are (or not ) subject to convection. What if anything do the areas of little advection (e.g. the Doldrums ) tell us about convection — if anything.

    3. How high (or low), within the troposphere, a convection cell reaches is dependent on the convection cell’s location within a geographic cell (or maybe not). And how does all this mesh with observation and our understanding of lapse rates (ELR, DALR, and SALR).

    I imagined these convection cells as moving bubbles of air that puff up between other bubbles of air (some rising, some falling), though how these bubbles are constrained by their geographic location (within a Ferrell, Polar or Hadley cells), and the physics of their immediate locality, are not clear.
    And before anyone says it, the old teachers admonishment still rings in my ears over the decades — Must try harder! — believe me some of us are trying as hard as we can.
    However I do believe that ALL science should be explainable, to anyone that chooses to investigate the topic, by scientists and the lay person alike.

    [reply] try this 80-second video: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/ClimateChanging/ClimateScienceInfoZone/ExploringEarthsclimate/1point1/1point1point2.aspx

  131. Paul Vaughan says:

    1
    sun, temperature, & wind

    visualizing & understanding terrestrial 200hPa
    semiannual midlatitude westerly winds =
    westerlies = mean terrestrial jet streams

    2
    sun, temperature, wind, & ozone

    equator-pole insolation & temperature gradients,
    semiannual midlatitude westerly winds =
    westerlies = mean jet streams, & ozone

    3
    pressure, wind, waves, & gyres

    visualizing & understanding coherence of
    terrestrial surface pressure, wind, waves, &
    currents (ocean gyres)

  132. oldbrew says:

    PV: that looks like a post in its own right – just needs a few lines of intro?

  133. Paul Vaughan says:

    4
    water = hydrology

    multivariate hydrology in the context of sunlight,
    temperature, pressure, wind, & welling

    5
    cloud cover

    low, mid level, high, & total cloud cover

    Important Beginners’ Tips:
    1. Thermal wind is NOT what you think it is.
    2. If you don’t understand thermal wind, you don’t know anything about climate.

    Background Info
    on
    Climatology Animations = Average Annual Cycle Animations
    pages 8-13 here:

    https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/sun-climate-101-solar-terrestrial-primer.pdf

    …includes due credits & links to:
    • JRA-25 Atlas
    • Australian Department of Defence
    • GlobWave Project
    • ERA-40 Atlas

  134. oldbrew says:

    ‘WHAT IS THE THERMAL WIND?’ by METEOROLOGIST JEFF HABY

    ‘the thermal wind is a wind that flows parallel to the temperature gradient in the troposphere’

    http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/407/

  135. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: May 14, 2015 at 8:10 am

    (“IMHO a ‘convection cell’ is ‘constrained’ SINGULARLY by the effects of ‘density disparity bounded by gravity’ Nothing else!”).

    “Seems you have a serious misunderstanding of what ATMOSPHERIC convection is.”

    No I don’t. “ATMOSPHERIC convection” works the same way that it does in a deep pan of cooking oil that’s heated from below, with the exception of the ‘basic configuration’ that you mentioned earlier (vis, the next quote).

    “In the beginning of this thread I stated:
    “If you want to have a basic understanding of convection, you NEED to understand how the “static” atmosphere is operating:
    – hydrostatic balance
    – pressure and density gradient
    – pressure gradient force
    – resulting temperature gradient.
    Without a solid understanding of these phenomena, a beginner won’t be able to understand convection.”

    I suspect you don’t see how especially the pressure gradient and pressure gradient force work in the case of simple convection like a thermal, or a developing cumulonimbus.”

    I concur. The pressure within the fluid alters with increasing altitude whilst the gravitational boundary constraint remains ~constant. This leads us to the DALR. The DALR is then modified by the inclusion of H2O in its saturated state, leading on to the SALR (basic foundation material for understanding atmospheric processes in the troposphere). States between the DALR and the SALR are represented by the ELR, and you get your ‘weather forecast’.

    However, “a thermal, or a developing cumulonimbus” (convection cell) can only be represented by the ELR on the ‘basic configuration’ of the DALR and SALR, which although being the ‘subject title’ (Beginner’s guide to convection cells) of this thread, doesn’t seem to be the line of discussion here!

    (“Furthermore Will, the only ‘lapse rate’ we should be discussing here is the ELR and the why it changes so quickly.”)

    “When discussing convection you NEED to discuss the DALR and SALR. They decide how convection works!”

    Disagree! The DALR and SALR are the basic configurations that ‘exist’ per se for a region. They’re not up for alteration, or discussion, when considering a local convective cell event! Only the ELR! However, again, this isn’t being discussed in this thread. Why? 😦

    Best regards, Ray.

  136. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: May 14, 2015 at 8:19 am

    Ben! This thread isn’t discussing the subject you are posting on. 😦

    I was fooled as well. 😦

    Best regards, Ray.

  137. suricat says:

    oldbrew says: May 14, 2015 at 9:07 am

    “Is there a terminology problem?”

    No! The current discussion on ‘global circulation cells’ doesn’t logically coincide with the ‘title’ of the ‘OP’ (lead post)!

    I’ll concede ‘Global Circulation Cell’ for ‘Climate Cell’ in my following posts. Notwithstanding that the GCC delivers a ‘seasonal’ climate change to each hemisphere!

    Ray.

  138. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: May 14, 2015 at 10:54 am

    “If you want to give them a name describing their driving force I suggest “Thermal wind cells”.”

    Aw, sheesh! This is even more confusing to a ‘101’ subject!

    Ray.

  139. suricat says:

    oldbrew says: May 14, 2015 at 12:48 pm

    “Thanks Ben. It appears ‘convection cells’ may be a UK term not favoured elsewhere – that’s fine by me as long as we all know what we’re referring to (see graphic in the post above).”

    Now you’re ‘taking the piss’ OB! Nature has its ‘ways’ and science attempts to ‘observe’ them with the best accuracy possible. YOU are spreading confusion here!!!

    Ray, out.

  140. oldbrew says:

    Ray: the UK Science Museum and Windows to the Universe refer to Hadley cells as ‘convection cells’. I’m only quoting them, not ‘spreading confusion’. If people prefer ‘circulation cells’ or something else, no problem for me.

    If it’s easier to refer directly to Hadley cells let’s just do that.

  141. suricat says: May 15, 2015 at 1:43 am Disagree!

    “The DALR and SALR are the basic configurations that ‘exist’ per se for a region. They’re not up for alteration, or discussion, when considering a local convective cell event! Only the ELR! However, again, this isn’t being discussed in this thread. Why? 😦 Best regards, Ray.”

    Yes Why? Ray,
    Why do you insist that this thread be limited to some “local convective cell event”? From the lead in drawings this is about all convection cells!! There are differences and similarities between local convection cells and global circulation cells. Why not discuss those? Why do you insist of some ELR that exists nowhere? Dry and saturated are the only contenders!
    While I agree that the term cell generally refers to vertical mass motion involving buoyancy in a compressive fluid in a gravitational field, Is not centrifugal force part of that buoyancy?
    When do we get to the effect and differences between airborne water condensate and WV. Does the density of the condensate part of clouds change with pressure?
    When do we get to discuss the extremely important part EMR exitance from the atmosphere to space? Without this part nothing could come back down!!
    It appears that you’re ‘taking the piss’ Ray! 🙂

  142. Ben Wouters says:

    tom0mason says: May 14, 2015 at 1:19 pm
    “Having read, but not necessarily understood (but I am trying) all these post I believe that I am slightly more confused than when I started.”
    Fully understandable. You see two completely different views on convection being mixed.
    I’m talking about convection as understood and used daily in classical meteorology.
    (classical as in before radiation madness struck)
    I’m confident I can show that this classical view is correct.
    So hold on a little longer. 😉

  143. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 15, 2015 at 1:43 am

    ” “ATMOSPHERIC convection” works the same way that it does in a deep pan of cooking oil that’s heated from below, with the exception of the ‘basic configuration’ that you mentioned earlier”

    Great. Now we have the basis of your ideas.
    Atmospheric convection is totally different from convection in a pan of oil.
    Assuming oil to be completely non-compressible, air definitely is not.
    In the atmosphere we have a density gradient, in oil not.
    If we could have a balloon in the oil, it would not expand while rising.
    An atmospheric balloon will expand enormously, and since expanding gasses cool, we have the basis for our DALR.

    I propose to have a short intro about the setup of the static atmosphere, and once everyone is on the same page bring in convection and condensation.
    Once that is settled we can move on to the Global Circulation Cells.

  144. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 15, 2015 at 1:55 am

    “Ben! This thread isn’t discussing the subject you are posting on.”
    To understand the GCC’s you have to understand the basic setup of the static atmosphere, and also convection. So for me it is no problem to discuss them in one go.

  145. Ben Wouters says: May 15, 2015 at 1:44 pm

    “I propose to have a short intro about the setup of the static atmosphere, and once everyone is on the same page bring in convection and condensation.”

    I agree, except for short! The thermostatic of a compressible fluid in a gravitational field can be deterministic, but never short. If this earth was surrounded by twice the mass of N2 and O2, What would the surface pressure, surface temperature, dry lapse rate, saturated lapse rate be? How much does this change from equator to pole?

    “Once that is settled we can move on to the Global Circulation Cells.”

    Can this/that ever be settled? How about “I do not know’?

  146. Ben Wouters says: May 15, 2015 at 1:24 pm

    “Fully understandable. You see two completely different views on convection being mixed.
    I’m talking about convection as understood and used daily in classical meteorology.
    (classical as in before radiation madness struck)
    I’m confident I can show that this classical view is correct.”
    “So hold on a little longer. 😉 ”

    How interesting. Your classical meteorological demands that space have zero temperature and all conductivity and convection comply with that fantasy. Space has no temperature so no energy transfer by your means. The only transfer of “waste energy” to space is done spontaneously via
    EMR exitance by every molecule of atmospheric mass. 🙂

  147. suricat says:

    I didn’t intend to post here again, but just to clear up a few points, I shall.

    oldbrew says: May 15, 2015 at 9:28 am

    “Ray: the UK Science Museum and Windows to the Universe refer to Hadley cells as ‘convection cells’.”

    Well they’re not. They’re the result of a forced circulation generated by many ‘convection cells’ around the world and are the result of ‘other’ physics that aren’t usually included in the physics, or meteorology, used to describe a ‘convection cell’ type ‘thermal’.

    “I’m only quoting them, not ‘spreading confusion’. If people prefer ‘circulation cells’ or something else, no problem for me.

    If it’s easier to refer directly to Hadley cells let’s just do that.”

    Why ‘start’ a ‘101’ discussion at a ‘gallop’ instead of a ‘trot’???

    The physics involved in GCCs is much more complex than the subject of the thread’s title for “Beginner’s guide to convection cells”!

    Q: How do ‘convection cells’, that can only be ‘local’ at ~1-2 km^2, ‘force’ a ‘global circulation’ of the atmosphere???
    A: Magic! We’ve not been shown the ‘physics’!!!

    Small wonder that tom0mason has a problem following your piece. 😦

    Hang in there tom0mason and see what can happen with ‘diffusion’ here ;

    then think of what would happen as water evaporates ‘constantly’ at the/a surface into the atmosphere. It shows the configuration property of a ‘diffusion pump’:

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

    My past experience was with ‘silicone oil’ based pumps for vacuum plating (thus my understanding of the principle). An analogy for the principle would be an individual trying to return to the football pitch whilst all the fans are exiting the stadium (inertial mass predominance).

    OB! You really do need to include more ‘physics’ before you address the GCC scenario!

    It’s ‘way’ past my bed time.

    Regards, Ray.

  148. oldbrew says:

    The objective was to open a discussion – as requested on another thread IIRC – which seems to have happened 🙂

    All on-topic contributions welcome as usual.

    Here’s the NOAA National Weather Service page on ‘Global Circulations’:
    ‘Instead of one large circulation between the poles and the equator, there are three circulations…’
    http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/circ.htm

  149. Ben Wouters says: May 13, 2015 at 8:56 pm
    “Dry convection (no condensation/clouds) hardly ever reaches any higher altitudes, since the rising parcel cools much faster than the environment it is rising in.”

    Indeed Why? And why do you mistakenly insist that such is an adiabatic process?

  150. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 16, 2015 at 3:27 am

    ” I didn’t intend to post here again, but just to clear up a few points, I shall.”

    I collected a few of your posts from above in this thread:

    ” “ATMOSPHERIC convection” works the same way that it does in a deep pan of cooking oil that’s heated from below”

    ” They’re the result of a forced circulation generated by many ‘convection cells’ around the world and are the result of ‘other’ physics that aren’t usually included in the physics, or meteorology, used to describe a ‘convection cell’ type ‘thermal’”

    ” The pressure within the fluid alters with increasing altitude whilst the gravitational boundary constraint remains ~constant. This leads us to the DALR. The DALR is then modified by the inclusion of H2O in its saturated state, leading on to the SALR (basic foundation material for understanding atmospheric processes in the troposphere). States between the DALR and the SALR are represented by the ELR, and you get your ‘weather forecast’.”

    None of your points make any sense to me. Why are you shying away from a fundamental discussion on the basics of the atmospheric setup, convection, GCC’s etc. as I proposed earlier?

  151. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: May 16, 2015 at 8:45 pm

    “None of your points make any sense to me. Why are you shying away from a fundamental discussion on the basics of the atmospheric setup, convection, GCC’s etc. as I proposed earlier?”

    I’m not. I just think that if you start with the ‘most complex’ science bit, it becomes hard to digest for “a beginner”!

    Below is a message that I didn’t get to post due to ‘temporal’ and ‘energetic’ shortcomings.
    _____________________________________________________

    Before I go to bed:

    Ben Wouters says: May 15, 2015 at 1:44 pm

    “I propose to have a short intro about the setup of the static atmosphere, and once everyone is on the same page bring in convection and condensation.
    Once that is settled we can move on to the Global Circulation Cells.”

    Your itinerary is more instructive than OB’s Ben, but ‘cooking oil’ shows the same property as a DALR for convection.

    I’m knackered and out of here.

    Best regards, Ray.
    _______________________________________________________

    I’m not sure that I have the ‘stamina’ to ‘stay the course’ here Ben. 😦

    It’s important to keep ‘quotes’ within the ‘context’ that the statement was made for best communication (just thought I’d mention that).

    Best regards, Ray.

  152. tom0mason says:

    Thank you Ben, suricat and mods for the assistance it is much appreciated.

    Though I have a question – what laws governs the number of climatic cells (Hadley, Ferrell, polar) on a planet? Size of planet, volume of gas, rotational speed and …?

  153. suricat says:

    oldbrew says: May 16, 2015 at 9:24 am

    “Here’s the NOAA National Weather Service page on ‘Global Circulations’:”

    Okay, I went there and was faced with this scenario:

    ‘Global Circulations explain how air and storm systems travel over the Earth’s surface. The global circulation would be simple (and the weather boring) if the Earth did not rotate, the rotation was not tilted relative to the sun, and had no water.

    In a situation such as this, the sun heats the entire surface, but where the sun is more directly overhead it heats the ground and atmosphere more. The result would be the equator becomes very hot with the hot air rising into the upper atmosphere.

    That air would then move toward the poles where it would become very cold and sink, then return to the equator (above right). One large area of high pressure would be at each of the poles with a large belt of low pressure around the equator.’

    The associated graphic is here:

    This is ‘farcical’ OB! Any planet that always faces the same geographical region towards the direction of insolation can only have ‘ONE’ cell in its configuration! There can’t be any ‘north-south’ ‘variance’ because ‘convection’ is ‘powered’ by the ‘centre of insolation’!

    The ‘Hadley Cells’ disappear and the ‘energy transport’ is made from the ‘centre of insolation’ (the light side of the planet), to ‘the dark side’.

    Ray.

  154. tom0mason says:

    gbaikie Thanks for the reply you have confirmed my opinion on these things — much appreciated.

    Thanks mods for the offer of a video to watch but on this PC and with my eyesight unfortunately not.
    The rest of the sciencemuseum.org site is interesting and educational. Though I hold no truck with calling things ‘greenhouse gas’, as greenhouses require no special gases to operate, and the thought of this world’s atmosphere acting as a greenhouse is just wrong. Using such language (IMO) prejudices the mind to use the wrong track. I would say the gases in question are simply infra-red active or they are not.

  155. tom0mason says: May 17, 2015 at 1:08 am

    “Thank you Ben, suricat and mods for the assistance it is much appreciated.”
    “Though I have a question – what laws governs the number of climatic cells (Hadley, Ferrell, polar) on a planet? Size of planet, volume of gas, rotational speed and …?”

    Tom, yes all of the above, especially (?),
    I am not an expert. For an expert I suggest, as Paul Vaughn does, downloading while still available:
    ftp://lne-syrte.obspm.fr/pub/bizouard/sidorenkov_2009_book.pdf
    Nikolay S. Sidorenkov The Interaction Between Earth’s Rotation and Geophysical Processes
    I have skimmed the book 400 pages, and it is way beyond my pay grade! It is well organized and easy to follow, while nodding up and down, still understanding little! It is obvious to me that Siodorenkov is not a party to any claim of global warming. I use that download to check blog claims, against a lifetime of trying to learn. Nikolay always wins! 🙂

    tom0mason says: May 17, 2015 at 2:59 am

    “gbaikie Thanks for the reply you have confirmed my opinion on these things — much appreciated.
    Thanks mods for the offer of a video to watch but on this PC and with my eyesight unfortunately not.
    The rest of the sciencemuseum.org site is interesting and educational. Though I hold no truck with calling things ‘greenhouse gas’, as greenhouses require no special gases to operate, and the thought of this world’s atmosphere acting as a greenhouse is just wrong. Using such language (IMO) prejudices the mind to use the wrong track. I would say the gases in question are simply infra-red active or they are not.”

    Not only is the language prejudiced The whole concept of how EMR flux is generated and transmitted on or about this planet and its atmosphere, (IMO) is but collective warmist bull shit, both backward and upside down. Your ! Electromagnet radiation is best described by all of Maxwell’s equations never, by thermodynamic laws. For thermal EMR the whole discussion between Kirchhoff, Maxwell, Boltzmann, and Planck must be studied. They are the folk that demonstrated why and how the relativistic EMR politely conforms to thermodynamic laws on or about this planet . Your Climatologists and Meteorologists have clearly demonstrated over and over that they have not a clue! 🙂

  156. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 17, 2015 at 12:35 am

    “I’m not(shying away). I just think that if you start with the ‘most complex’ science bit, it becomes hard to digest for “a beginner”!”

    ” I’m not sure that I have the ‘stamina’ to ‘stay the course’ here Ben. 😦 ”

    Ok. I’m currently busy verticutating verticutting and fertilizing my lawn before the rain of tomorrow . Later on I’ll prepare a post discussing the basics of our atmosphere. When acceptable, we can move on to the next stage.

    tom0mason says: May 17, 2015 at 1:08 am

    ” Thank you Ben, suricat and mods for the assistance it is much appreciated.

    Though I have a question ”
    We’ll come to that later in the discussion (I hope ;-))

  157. oldbrew says:

    The original video in the post was a teacher explaining convection to two teenagers. How was that too complex?

  158. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: May 17, 2015 at 12:48 pm

    “Ok. I’m currently busy verticutating and fertilizing my lawn before the rain of tomorrow . Later on I’ll prepare a post discussing the basics of our atmosphere. When acceptable, we can move on to the next stage.”
    That seems interesting Ben. I look forward to disseminating your proposal.

    Best regards Ray.

    PS. What process is “ verticutating” ??? I’m curious.
    [mod – see below]

  159. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 18, 2015 at 3:41 am

    “PS. What process is “ verticutating” ??? I’m curious.”

    Dutch verb is “verticuteren” My guess for the English equivalent was “verticutate”,
    and I found a site using this verb. Might be totally wrong.
    Here’s a page (in Dutch) that shows the equipment and process:
    http://www.graszoden.nl/gras-onderhoud/gras-verticuteren

    [mod note] maybe verticutting? http://www.dennisuk.com/verticut-tt/

  160. Ben Wouters says:

    Basic setup of our atmosphere.

    Earth is warmed by our sun. Incoming insolation warms the surface and also some areas of the atmosphere directly.
    About 30% of the suns radiation is reflected (albedo) and thus not thermalized. This energy can be disregarded for our purpose.
    Since the sun warms only one half of our Earth, the Earth rotates and has a tilted axis, all kinds of processes influence each other and hide the underlying basic processes.
    To enable the discussion of these basic processes, I’ll create a TestEarth.
    Same size and gravity as Earth, situated in outer space, so no solar warming. I’ll disregard the Cosmic Background radiation.
    TestEarths surface is covered with a Floor Heating System (FHS), so we can warm its surface in all kinds off manners and set the energy flow to each square (kilo)meter individually. No energy can escape to the inner parts of TestEarth.
    Available energy is the same as the sun delivers: 70% (due albedo) of 1364 W/m^2 times the area of a circle with same radius as our Earth.

    We’ll start with some test runs without atmosphere to show the working of TestEarth.
    – we send 100 mW/m^2 to the entire surface. After stabilization TestEarth will have a surface temperature of ~ 35K and radiate 100 mW/m^2 to space. This is assuming emissivity (EM) equals 1. 100 mW/m^2 is roughly the amount of geothermal flux through the Earths crust.

    – next 239 w/m^2. (total insolation after albedo distributed evenly around TestEarth). After stabilization the surface temperature will be ~255K and outgoing radiation 239W/m^2 (EM=1).

    – More like Earth: 2 x 239 = 478 W/m^2 to half the planet. After stabilization temperature of this half will be ~303K, the other half 0K. Average surface temperature ~151K.

    – Finally we’ll warm the surface to 290K (~ Earths average surface temperature), When stabilized TestEarth will radiate ~400 w/m^2 to space, so the FHS has to supply the same amount of energy to maintain the 290K.
    With a lower EM it takes less energy to maintain the 290K since less radiation will leave the surface to space.

    With the surface temperature still at 290K, we cover TestEarth with an insulation blanket, that reduces the energy loss to space to 239 W/m^2. We can reduce the energy flow to the FHS to 239W/m^2, which is equal to the average solar insolation.

    – Last experiment is to replace the insulation blanket with an atmosphere. It also reduces the energy loss to space to 239W/m^2.
    We now have TestEarth with a surface temperature of 290K, covered with an atmosphere that only REDUCES energy loss to space. The FHS re-supplies the energy loss to space. No surface WARMING by the atmosphere required.

    This will be the initial setup for the next post.

    reference: http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section1b.html#atmospheric_temperature

  161. Ben Wouters says:

    “[mod note] maybe verticutting? – http://www.dennisuk.com/verticut-tt/

    Verticutting it is 😉

  162. Ben Wouters says: May 18, 2015 at 1:39 pm

    “Basic setup of our atmosphere.”

    What does this have to do with anything like this Earth or its atmosphere?

    “TestEarths surface is covered with a Floor Heating System (FHS), ”

    This Earth has no FHS! The amount of power or flux in and out is completely spatially/temporally variable at all locations, altitudes, and each with its own variable time frame!

    “– More like Earth: 2 x 239 = 478 W/m^2 to half the planet. After stabilization temperature of this half will be ~303K, the other half 0K. Average surface temperature ~151K.”

    This must be a third grade concept!! Not even the worst climatologists or actual meteorologists would ever propose such a thing! The earth is nowhere a black-body with or without an atmosphere, and it spins with relation to the direction of insolation. All temperatures are variable and no average temperature has any thing to do with EMR in or out!
    EMR flux only has to do with instantaneous opposing radiances at each location on the surface or in the atmosphere, at each frequency, and in each direction. Such radiances can only be determined by direct measurement, never by formula, or assumption!

    “– Finally we’ll warm the surface to 290K (~ Earths average surface temperature), When stabilized TestEarth will radiate ~400 w/m^2 to space, so the FHS has to supply the same amount of energy to maintain the 290K. With a lower EM it takes less energy to maintain the 290K since less radiation will leave the surface to space.”

    The Earth’s total EMR exit flux at any time is controlled by insolation (a variable), local WV (a variable),
    local water condensate (a variable), and a wee bit by local surface temperature! Never by any pre conceived notion of flux. All of these are in turn controlled by local lateral wind velocity. This local wind in turn is controlled by some unknown composite rate of conversion of WV to airborne condensate depending on how quickly that latent heat can be converted to EMR exitance to space from each level, and location of the atmosphere!

    What does any of this have to do with any kind, size, or location of any convection cell, for this beginners guide?

  163. oldbrew says:

    Talking of beginners, a school in Reigate (England) offers ‘A beginners guide to the Spanish Plume‘ with 15 references to ‘convection’ or ‘convective’. Enjoy – hopefully 😎

    ‘The “Spanish Plume” … is a special weather set-up for producing thunderstorms in the UK, as seen below.’
    http://rgsweather.com/2014/06/04/beginners-guide-to-the-spanish-plume/

    The school even has its own weather station: http://rgsweather.com/

  164. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 18, 2015 at 4:06 pm

    Sorry, I forgot we have the resident nitwit who believes the sun can’t warm the surface.

    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.”

  165. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: May 18, 2015 at 4:19 pm

    “Talking of beginners, a school in Reigate (England) offers ‘A beginners guide to the Spanish Plume‘ with 15 references to ‘convection’ or ‘convective’. Enjoy – hopefully :cool:”

    Gives some nice examples how the DALR/SALR versus the ELR decide how convection develops (or not). Hopefully we can get that far in the upcoming discussion..

  166. oldbrew says:

    All: let’s keep the comments moderate or the moderator may have to step in – thanks.

  167. Ben Wouters says: .May 18, 2015 at 6:08 pm
    Will Janoschka says: May 18, 2015 at 4:06 pm

    “Sorry, I forgot we have the resident nitwit who believes the sun can’t warm the surface.”

    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.”)

    Interesting!
    I have no idea of what you may mean by warm or to warm! You have never expressed your meaning. To any, in the vernacular can be “increases the temperature” or the scientific “to add heat energy to” with no reference to temperature. I stand by my exact statement: “The claim is the Sun heats (raises the temperature) of the surface, which then heats (raises the temperature) of the atmosphere. What BS.”!! You have no evidence of such!
    Both the atmosphere and the surface absorb insolation and convert that EMR to other forms of power. The atmosphere absorbs a higher amount of insolation than does the surface. The atmosphere converts to sensible heat (with temperature increase) and much more to evaporation of water condensate with no temperature increase. The near surface does three, sensible heat, latent heat of evaporation, and all conversion via photosynthesis into the hydrocarbon structure of all life on this planet. The “claim” above as written can never be substantiated. Often in the insolated tropics the near air temperature is 10 Celsius above surface temperature. At nighttime the opposite is often true! Please define “warming” in your terms, then describe what “warms” what? 🙂

  168. oldbrew says:..May 18, 2015 at 4:19 pm
    “Talking of beginners, a school in Reigate (England) offers ‘A beginners guide to the Spanish Plume‘ with 15 references to ‘convection’ or ‘convective’. Enjoy – hopefully 😎
    ‘The “Spanish Plume” … is a special weather set-up for producing thunderstorms in the UK, as seen below.’
    http://rgsweather.com/2014/06/04/beginners-guide-to-the-spanish-plume/
    The school even has its own weather station: http://rgsweather.com/

    OB,
    Very nice and excellent example how a complex basic like “convection cells” should be presented. We can help others to learn from our own experience, but only if the other wishes to learn!

    oldbrew says: May 18, 2015 at 6:42 pm
    “All: let’s keep the comments moderate or the moderator may have to step in – thanks.”

    OB we can only try! It gets difficult when called “the resident nitwit” by a certified (-snip-).
    BTW that -snip- was one noun and 27 appropriate adjectives! 🙂 -will-

    [reply] self-censorship is the best kind sometimes

  169. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: May 18, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    “Here’s a page (in Dutch) that shows the equipment and process:
    http://www.graszoden.nl/gras-onderhoud/gras-verticuteren

    Now I get it Ben! You’re ‘raking-up’ and ‘mowing’ your ‘lawn’! English makes a distinction between the horticultural/natural usage/regions of ‘grassed’ areas. If you’ve ‘grown it’ (horticulture) its probably a ‘lawn’, but if you discover it in a ‘natural state’, its ‘savanna’ (especially if its a large area). An ‘area’ of ‘grass’ is almost ‘never’ referred to as ‘grass’ in ‘good English’ (‘cutting the grass’ can be construed as ‘mixing cannabis with a less expensive product’, but that’s a ‘slang’ analogy). 😉 My apology that I didn’t get your meaning the first time. 🙂

    Wow! Its surprising that we can understand the ‘full meaning’ behind one-another’s postings here.

    Best regards, Ray.

  170. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: May 18, 2015 at 1:39 pm

    I see your ‘model’ Earth encountering problems Ben! Its configuration just doesn’t represent a ‘true’ ‘Earth configuration’. IMHO this will be problematic when you try to explain ‘convection cells’.

    “Incoming insolation warms the surface and also some areas of the atmosphere directly.”

    Which ‘areas/regions’ “of the atmosphere directly” Ben? ‘Convection’ is active in the ‘tropo’, are you here, or elsewhere? I’ll leave you to think on this. 😉

    Best regards, Ray.

  171. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 19, 2015 at 2:05 am

    “Now I get it Ben!”
    Indeed I do have a lawn. And I have been verticutting or raking or scarifying 😉
    http://www.lawnsmith.co.uk/topic/scarifying-raking/what-is-raking-scarifying
    Just bought a machine that can both scarify and aerate the lawn:
    http://products.einhell.com/ge-sa-1640.html?___store=com_en

    I’ll make very sure we have no lawns on TestEarth. Back to the atmosphere 😉

  172. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 19, 2015 at 2:30 am

    “Which ‘areas/regions’ “of the atmosphere directly” Ben?”
    The Thermosphere and the Stratosphere. The two areas in the atmosphere where the temperature increases with altitude. On TestEarth we won’t have them, since all energy is coming from the surface.

    “I see your ‘model’ Earth encountering problems Ben! Its configuration just doesn’t represent a ‘true’ ‘Earth configuration’.”
    Obviously not at the moment. Once we have covered the static situation, we can change the configuration to eg. a warm equator and cold poles to see how a single GCC develops.
    Or introduce rotation to show how the Coriolis effect screws up this single cell.
    TestEarth is very flexible, but no lawns 😉

  173. Ben Wouters says:

    Basic setup of our atmosphere 2.

    On TestEarth we now have an overall surface temperature of 290K, and the surface/atmosphere losing ~239 W/m^2 to space, which is resupplied by the FHS.
    This atmosphere is extremely boring. No horizontal pressure/temperature differences, so no wind.
    Equal surface temperatures, so no convection (so no clouds)
    Since all energy is coming from the surface, the temperature will decrease continuously with altitude until we run out of atmosphere: the exosphere. No tropopause/stratosphere or other layers.

    We can start a whole discussion about the temperature lapse rate, water vapor (WV) content vs altitude etc.etc. I’ll just assume this will all be comparable to the values on Earth.

    Pressure.
    At any altitude the pressure is equal to the weight of the air column above that altitude.
    Surface pressure is thus always higher than the pressure at any altitude above that point on the surface.
    Due to this pressure gradient we also have a density gradient.
    Air is compressible, so near the surface the density is highest, rapidly decreasing with altitude.

    Since the atmosphere on TestEarth is static, the atmosphere will be in Hydrostatic Equlibrium (HEq)
    This means that for every altitude in the atmosphere the upward pressure from the underlying air is equal to the weight of the column air above that. This internal pressure of the air is caused by its temperature.
    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.

    Lets look at a layer of air, eg 100 meters thick. When the atmosphere is in HEq the pressure from below is equal to the weight of the air above this layer PLUS the weight of the layer itself and the layer “floats” in equilibrium.
    If we now somehow manage to warm a small part of this layer (parcel), the density of this parcel will decrease, so its weight will decrease as well.
    For the parcel we still have the same pressure from below, the weight of the air above is also the same, but its own weight is now lower. The difference between the the two is the buoyancy force. The lighter parcel will be “pushed” upwards.
    If a parcel is heavier than the surrounding air it will sink since its own weight plus the weight of the air above it is too much for the pressure from below.

    The pressure differences in the vertical plane are enormous.
    eg on Earth with a surface pressure of eg 1000 hPa, the 500 hPa level will be around 5,5 km or so.
    That is ~100 hPa pressure difference over just one kilometer.
    Had we comparable pressure differences in the horizontal plane, the wind speeds would be bizarre. Fortunately we have gravity keeping things in check in the vertical plane.

    Next post we’ll discuss what happens with the rising or sinking parcels.

  174. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: May 19, 2015 at 11:02 am

    “…”

    Enough said about ‘lawns’. 😉

    Ben Wouters says: May 19, 2015 at 11:09 am

    (“Which ‘areas/regions’ “of the atmosphere directly” Ben?”)

    “The Thermosphere and the Stratosphere. The two areas in the atmosphere where the temperature increases with altitude. On TestEarth we won’t have them, since all energy is coming from the surface.”

    Well noted! ‘Convection’ is halted at the ‘tropopause’ where a ‘temperature inversion’ develops due to ‘biasing’ between ‘OLR’ (Outgoing Longwave Radiation [that initiates the ‘convection’ we’re looking at]) and ‘INSOLATION’ (INcoming SOLar radiATION [that heats both the atmosphere and the surface to produce EMR at all levels/altitudes]). Thus, we only have a troposphere (maybe a ‘tropopause’) in the model.

    This would ignore the ‘Brewer Dobson’ circulation in the lower strat. Is there a way this could be included?

    (“I see your ‘model’ Earth encountering problems Ben! Its configuration just doesn’t represent a ‘true’ ‘Earth configuration’”)

    “TestEarth is very flexible, but no lawns 😉 ”

    I concur, but no ‘density disparity’ either! ‘Temperature difference alone’ doesn’t ‘disclose’ the ‘differences in density’ observed in Earth’s atmosphere! I should ‘mark’ here that ‘density disparity’ ‘DRIVES’ ‘convection’ (light stuff floats).

    I’ve seen your “Basic setup 2” and IMHO you can’t make that post without addressing the ‘density disparity’ issue that has NO temperature signature (latent participation)!

    Best regards, Ray.

  175. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 20, 2015 at 2:02 am

    “Thus, we only have a troposphere (maybe a ‘tropopause’) in the model”
    Correct, but NO tropopause. The temperature inversion that starts at the tropopause is caused by the interaction between O2 and O3 with solar UV, that creates the warming in the stratosphere.
    On TestEarth all energy is coming from the surface.

    Brewer Dobson circulation is irrelevant on TestEarth, especially at the beginners level 😉

    “I concur, but no ‘density disparity’ either!”
    Not sure what you mean with ‘density disparity’. On TestEarth the density reduces with altitude, just as on Earth. According the ICAO International Standard Atmosphere sea level density is 1,225 kg/m^3 and at eg 300 hPa level 0,457 kg/m^3.
    http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/groundschool/umodule2.html#isa
    Lets assume the same numbers for TestEarth, but above the tropopause level the temperature, pressure and density continue to decrease.

    If you were referring to WV, we can assume initially dry air only. Once the mechanism for convection is understood we can introduce WV. eg. 50 or 70 % Relative Humidity (RH) all around TestEarth and at every altitude.
    Realize that at temperatures below 0C (or -10C if you want) the amount of WV in a volume of air is approaching zero, so the difference in density between fully saturated air and air without any WV becomes negligible.

    “I’ve seen your “Basic setup 2″ and IMHO you can’t make that post without addressing the ‘density disparity’ issue that has NO temperature signature (latent participation)!”
    I try to demonstrate that an atmosphere in HEq MUST have a certain temperature lapse rate (Environmental Lapse Rate (ELR). On Earth this value is ~6,5K/km in the troposphere. Any deviation from the HEq results in rising or sinking of the volume involved, until HEq is re-established. This is the reason I created TestEarth, to have an atmosphere that is completely in HEq.

  176. Ben Wouters says: May 20, 2015 at 9:42 am
    suricat says: May 20, 2015 at 2:02 am
    (“I’ve seen your “Basic setup 2″ and IMHO you can’t make that post without addressing the ‘density disparity’ issue that has NO temperature signature (latent participation)!”)

    “I try to demonstrate that an atmosphere in HEq MUST have a certain temperature lapse rate (Environmental Lapse Rate (ELR). On Earth this value is ~6,5K/km in the troposphere. Any deviation from the HEq results in rising or sinking of the volume involved, until HEq is re-established. This is the reason I created TestEarth, to have an atmosphere that is completely in HEq.”

    In all your posts you refer to a dry LR and a saturated LR.
    Are you now claiming an in between ELR? Why?
    Why do you try, an atmosphere in HEq, whatever that may mean ?
    Why do you try, something more and more non-physical with every detail?
    Why do you try, only a model that assumes your “fantasy of convection”, is the only one?

  177. oldbrew says:

    I suspect ‘HEq’ is hydrostatic equilibrium.

    ‘It follows that the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium can be rewritten’

    http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node54.html

  178. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: May 20, 2015 at 12:31 pm

    “I suspect ‘HEq’ is hydrostatic equilibrium”

    Correct. I used the full term once above with the abbreviation:
    “Since the atmosphere on TestEarth is static, the atmosphere will be in Hydrostatic Equlibrium (HEq)”
    I propose to use the following link for an entry level explanation of the HEq since this discussion is aimed at beginners:
    http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section1a.html#atmospheric_pressure

  179. oldbrew says: May 20, 2015 at 12:31 pm
    “I suspect ‘HEq’ is hydrostatic equilibrium”

    Your equation only works for the dry lapse rate, not some average!
    Why do convection cells need any hydrostatic equilibrium? What is static?
    Why does hydrostatic equilibrium require a constant lapse rate for a discussion on any form of convection cell when convection itself is never static?
    Why does this feel just like the BS from Climate Clowns?
    Why not start at the beginning, as in “what is observed”, Rather than force some fake why?

  180. Roger Clague says:

    Ben Wouters says:
    May 20, 2015 at 9:42 am
    Correct, but NO tropopause.
    The temperature and height of the tropopause are essential to understanding and modelling the atmosphere.
    The temperature inversion that starts at the tropopause is caused by the interaction between O2 and O3 with solar UV, that creates the warming in the stratosphere.

    It’s not a temperature invertion, it is a pause.To pause is to stop. The temperature stops increasing.
    Temperature does not start increasing.
    The graphs show increasing temperature above the tropopause but are wrong.
    http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/radiosondes_instrument.gd.html#5.
    Radiosonde soundings measure a change in the temperature of the whole device, 5gm, caused by the surrounding air.
    Radiosonde soundings charts stop at 100mb, at 20km
    Temperatures above 20km are measured from satellites
    They measure radiation from individual molecules of oxygen
    The height of the start of tropopause is caused by the radiating temperature of the Earth. The temp at which it radiates what it is absorbing. It is 220K not 255K.
    Individual molecules in the thin stratosphere cannot be the cause of the temp of the bulk of the atmos.
    The cause of the tropopause is from below not above.

  181. oldbrew says:

    ‘Your equation only works for the dry lapse rate, not some average!’ – WJ

    It’s the Texas Uni result of a series of equations, see nos. 322-326 in the link.
    Where do they start going wrong in your view? (e.g. 323 or…)

    Equilibrium is a hypothetical concept of course.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_equilibrium
    [Wikipedia note: ‘This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.’ (May 2010)]

  182. oldbrew says: May 20, 2015 at 2:17 pm

    ‘Your equation only works for the dry lapse rate, not some average!’ – WJ

    “It’s the Texas Uni result of a series of equations, see nos. 322-326 in the link.
    Where do they start going wrong in your view? ”

    They are not wrong, they are incomplete!
    Your equation has no part for water vapour or airborne water condensate!
    The first thing noticeable about convection cells is that the are part of the whole hydrological process. Where are the water terms?

  183. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: May 20, 2015 at 1:55 pm

    “The temperature and height of the tropopause are essential to understanding and modelling the atmosphere.”
    Imo it is more essential to understand what happens BELOW the tropopause.
    That is where most weather happens.

    But Test Earth doesn’t have a tropopause, so I’m not engaging in a discussion on it.

  184. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: May 20, 2015 at 2:17 pm

    “Equilibrium is a hypothetical concept of course.”
    Hydrostatic Equilibrium (HEq) of our atmosphere is anything but a hypothetical concept.
    It is the base for understanding why we even HAVE an atmosphere.
    On Earth the atmosphere obviously will never be completely in HEq, due to all kinds of processes.
    That’s the reason for TestEarth, to discuss what process disturbs the HEq in what way.

  185. oldbrew says:

    ‘On Earth the atmosphere obviously will never be completely in HEq, due to all kinds of processes.’

    Agreed – that’s what I meant by hypothetical. That’s not to say it’s not relevant, I didn’t mean to suggest that.

  186. oldbrew says:

    ‘Where are the water terms?’ – WJ

    I linked to node 54. Press ‘Next’ [lower left] for nodes 55 and 56.

  187. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: May 20, 2015 at 3:59 pm

    “I linked to node 54. Press ‘Next’ [lower left] for nodes 55 and 56.”
    Suggest to remove the link to this site. Some serious nonsense on it….
    They don’t even see the difference between the ELR and DALR/SALR.

    http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
    http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Process_lapse_rate

  188. oldbrew says:

    Let’s move on, it was just an intermediate student course.

  189. oldbrew says: May 20, 2015 at 3:59 pm

    “I linked to node 54. Press ‘Next’ [lower left] for nodes 55 and 56.” Thank you!
    This guy is very clear and interesting to read. With some I disagree:
    “In particular, most infrared radiation, which carries heat energy, passes straight through the lower atmosphere and heats the ground. In other words, the lower atmosphere is heated from below, not from above.” Is misleading as “except for isothermal surface evaporation” much more heat is supplied to the troposphere by direct insolation in the 0.8 to 2.6 micron band!
    But: “Clearly, an atmosphere whose lapse rate is less than the adiabatic value is stable. On the other hand, if the atmospheric lapse rate exceeds the adiabatic value then, after rising a little way, the packet will be less dense than its immediate surroundings, and will, therefore, continue to rise due to buoyancy effects. Clearly, an atmosphere whose lapse rate is greater than the adiabatic value is unstable.” Is exact, and the reason EMR flux from the surface is disallowed. Such would have a lapse rate of -(13-17C)/km and everywhere be unstable. Its a water world! 🙂

    oldbrew says: May 20, 2015 at 4:53 pm

    “Let’s move on, it was just an intermediate student course.” OK 🙂

    Ben’s REF LAPSE RATE: “The term applies ambiguously to the environmental lapse rate and the process lapse rate, and the meaning must often by ascertained from the context.”
    Seems to be a deliberate intent to confuse, as is true with most current meteorology.

    Are we having fun yet? Now what?

    [mod note] ‘This guy’ is a university professor

  190. Ben Wouters says:

    ” [mod note] ‘This guy’ is a university professor”

    and this university professor is totally clueless.
    Just for fun I suggest this page: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node56.html
    It is called “The adiabatic atmosphere”
    .
    He shows that the lapse rate for the atmosphere should be about 10K/km.
    Apparently unaware that the average lapse rate in the tropopause is ~ 6,5 K/km.
    Just 50% too high, good enough for university work apparently.

  191. oldbrew says:

    Prof: ‘We have also shown that the lapse rate of the temperature should be about 10 degrees centigrade per kilometer in dry air, but somewhat less than this in wet air.’

    ‘Somewhat less’ is not a figure but it’s OK as far as it goes?

  192. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: May 20, 2015 at 11:02 pm

    “‘Somewhat less’ is not a figure but it’s OK as far as it goes?”

    Not really. Actually it is utter nonsense. If you send up a weather balloon to measure ao the temperature vs altitude, it doesn’t matter at all if the air the balloon passes through is dry, damp or air with droplets in it (cloud). You just measure the temperature.
    In the process of rising and cooling, or sinking and warming air the amount of WV makes a huge difference. Not for the ‘static’ atmosphere.

  193. suricat says:

    ‘GUYS’! Please! I’ve not had time to read the links, but ‘pretty much’ know what they’re about.

    Its ‘quite evident’, even from ‘first principles’, that a volume of atmosphere which contains WV is ‘less dense’ than the same volume of atmosphere that’s ‘void of/has less constituent’ WV! This in itself promotes ‘convection’, without the added ‘enthalpy’ of ‘latent energy’ released by any increase in altitude.

    Let’s face it, the tropo is never in a state of “HEq” and that’s the reason we employ ‘meteorology’ in an attempt to ‘forecast’ what the ‘tropo’ will do next!

    IMHO, Ben’s only showing “HEq” as a ‘start position’ to later demonstrate the ‘how/why’ of ‘convective cells’. This doesn’t mean that I agree with his proposal (I think it would be better to start with the ‘attractors’ that initiate the process, but that’s just my POV), but it does mean that I think you all should wait until his ‘final conclusion’ is shown. Let’s ‘comment’ on ‘disambguity’, but leave any ‘conflagration’ until the ‘model’ is complete.

    This ‘is’ a “Beginner’s Guide” when all is said and done.

    Best regards, Ray.

  194. Anything but fantasy air packets! Can lower surround air innate an upward plume from an area of different land use? How? Where does this plume go? Does any of this air circulate (return)? Who has measured? Does WV advect more rapidly than more dense air taking its latent heat to higher levels? How can anyone measure? How far east do Hadley cells travel while going +/- 30 latitude?
    what are the average and max lengths of the trade winds? Does anyone know? Why not begin at the beginning and discover, rather than accept any more Climate BS!

  195. tom0mason says:

    A most interesting discussion here and has spurred me on to keep investigating convection. So far I believe that the aviators, and their many on-line handbooks and tutorials have the most practical, observable and verifiable explanations. Though there are some holes in it.
    Also such things as the The Foehn effect, or Föhn in German are most interesting in showing how temperatures can vary in a very unintuitive manner.

    One thing I find peculiar in climate science is the very labored idea of ‘well mix gases’ in the atmosphere. This is patently a theoretical construct as, by the evidence of my own eyes, there are clouds moving across the sky. If this were the case surely this planet’s sky would be uniformly gray everywhere as the water vapor gets well mixed?
    As it is a cloud delineate the periphery of an air packet, and has obvious shape and volume. Also I have been told these clouds can hold very different energy levels and temperatures from the surrounding clear air. Also, could not these clouds retain a different chemical makeup — the water they carry could dissolve and release, in a dynamic way, soluble chemicals like say dissolved CO2/carbonic acid (along with any Sulfur oxides, ammonia etc) — when compared to the surrounding clear air?
    So, is the air between the ground and the tropopause truly “well mixed gases”?

  196. Roger Clague says:

    Ben Wouters says:
    May 20, 2015 at 10:54 pm

    He shows that the lapse rate for the atmosphere should be about 10K/km.
    Apparently unaware that the average lapse rate in the tropopause is ~ 6,5 K/km.

    Why is the average LR = 6.5K/km and not 10K/km?
    LR = T/h = g/c
    Using c for air = 1 J/gK gives 10K/km which is wrong
    It is water vapour that is absorbing
    I suggest the correct c is for water vapor = 2 J/gK which gives LR = 5K/km.

  197. oldbrew says:

    WJ says: ‘Why not begin at the beginning’

    In a dynamic system there is no obvious beginning.

  198. oldbrew says: May 21, 2015 at 12:52 pm

    (WJ says: ‘Why not begin at the beginning’)

    “In a dynamic system there is no obvious beginning.”

    Agreed “obvious when in”! When trying to learn, especially for beginners, “beginning” is the start!
    Why not start with what is observable and unknown, because we are beginners? Why start as some suggest, with the fantasies that only have produced this CAGW mess? Tom Mason seems to say that pilots seem to have the best observations! He also has many good questions (unknowns). I suggest a proper start is to carefully examine the vast difference in a slice thin disk normal to the spin axis of the earth and the same size disk parallel to or containing the spin axis! IMV this would flush out many unknowns that must affect “convection cells”, as a 101 course! 🙂

  199. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 21, 2015 at 2:38 am

    “IMHO, Ben’s only showing “HEq” as a ‘start position’ to later demonstrate the ‘how/why’ of ‘convective cells’. ”
    Correct. I still understand convective cells to be the rising volumes of air as in thermals, thunderstorms etc.
    Hadley cells etc. are Global Circulation Cells.
    I’ll address them later on.

  200. Ben Wouters says:

    tom0mason says: May 21, 2015 at 9:54 am

    The Föhn effect is often used in meteorological exams, since it has rising and cooling air according the DALR and SALR respectively, followed by descending and warming air according the SALR and DALR. To have a Föhn effect it is necessary to have precipitation on the upwind side of the mountain range. No precipitation, no Föhn effect.

    “This is patently a theoretical construct as, by the evidence of my own eyes, there are clouds moving across the sky.” Be careful here. WV is an invisible gas. The absence of clouds doesn’t mean no WV.

    Some nice cumulus clouds. Under each cloud a rising thermal will be found, invisible. Only indication is when a cumulus cloud develops as in this image.

    I understand that N2 and O2 are pretty well mixed, except at very high altitudes.
    WV and ozone are the non uniformly distributed gasses.

    “So far I believe that the aviators, and their many on-line handbooks and tutorials have the most practical, observable and verifiable explanations. Though there are some holes in it.”
    Could you elaborate a bit on those holes?

  201. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: May 21, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    “Why is the average LR = 6.5K/km and not 10K/km?”
    Seems to be the ELR that is required to have our atmosphere in or very near HEq.
    Depends ao on surface temperature, mass of atmosphere, gravity, rate of energy loss to space etc.

    “LR = T/h = g/c
    Using c for air = 1 J/gK gives 10K/km which is wrong”
    The DALR = g/c. The DALR is ONLY valid for the temperature change of a rising or sinking parcel.
    So 9,8 K/.km is not wrong but correct for the DALR.

  202. Ben Wouters says: May 21, 2015 at 3:22 pm
    Roger Clague says: May 21, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    (“Why is the average LR = 6.5K/km and not 10K/km?”)
    “Seems to be the ELR that is required to have our atmosphere in or very near HEq.”

    I guess that is why no part if Earth’s atmosphere is ever in hydrostatic equilibrium!
    For understanding, this atmosphere is perhaps the most complex fluid dynamics situation ever!
    The fluid dynamics of the Earth’s oceans are trivial in comparison. No earthling or group of earthlings are close to understanding even ocean dynamics.

    “Depends also on surface temperature, mass of atmosphere, gravity, rate of energy loss to space etc.”
    Indeed and only the SCAMMERS claim to understand this atmosphere!

    (“LR = T/h = g/ Using c for air = 1 J/gK gives 10K/km which is wrong”)

    This lapse rate is correct for any earth troposphere that is “not” converting latent heat to sensible heat! In specific locations where that latent heat conversion powers all EMR to space, no change in temperature is required. The damn stuff still moves up and down with a temperature gradient that seems to be close to ALR/2! Is this ever called understanding?
    Only by folk that try to sell “you” a set of knives that never get dull!

  203. Ben Wouters says: May 21, 2015 at 3:15 pm
    tom0mason says: May 21, 2015 at 9:54 am

    (“The Föhn effect is often used in meteorological exams, since it has rising and cooling air according the DALR and SALR respectively, followed by descending and warming air according the SALR and DALR. To have a Föhn effect it is necessary to have precipitation on the upwind side of the mountain range. No precipitation, no Föhn effect.”)

    “This is patently a theoretical construct as, by the evidence of my own eyes, there are clouds moving across the sky.” Be careful here. WV is an invisible gas. The absence of clouds doesn’t mean no WV.”

    Indeed, What is your point? Clouds indicate saturated WV plus much water condensate supported by the fluid dynamics of this atmosphere. Nice observations but no understanding, only fantasy!
    ———————————————————————————————————————–
    “Some nice cumulus clouds. Under each cloud a rising thermal will be found, invisible. Only indication is when a cumulus cloud develops as in this image.”

    You insist that below each such cloud a surface thermal plume with upward velocity, that supports such a cloud. Such clouds move with lateral location up to 30 km. do the conditions of upward plume move with that cloud?

  204. Ben Wouters says:

    When thinking about how to best explain the different types of lapse rates, I found this page:
    http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~fovell/AS3downloads/lapse_rates.pdf

    Explains everything a beginner needs to know about parcels, ELR, DALR and MALR (=SALR).

    Try to post on convection later, bit short on time.

  205. Roger Clague says:

    The Air Parcel Concept Where does the concept come from and why?

    It is the continuum hypothesis from fluid dynamics
    Fluid Dynamics of the Atmosphere and Ocean chapter 6Dynamics of http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=9084&pt=2&p=12046

    A packet is a particle. It is a cube of side length 10^-3cm = 10^-9cm^3 = 10^10 molecules
    This is big enough for us to consider continuous fields. Newtons Laws are applied to this particle.
    Chapter 6
    http://www.whoi.edu/sbl/liteSite.do?litesiteid=8155&articleId=12247

    The Ideal Gas is introduced for “state variables density and pressure” of a gas, the atmosphere
    The Ideal Gas Law is derived from Newtons Law applied to single atomic particles not 10^10 atoms in a packet
    http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~fovell/AS3downloads/lapse_rates.pdf

    “The temperature outside of the parcel is dropping because the parcel is moving away from the surface, the troposphere’s primary heat source.”

    My comment: Temperature caused by distance is a fluid dynamic continuous field model

    “The temperature inside the parcel is dropping because its volume is expanding in response to the decreasing pressure.”

    Temperature caused by gas pressure change is an Ideal gas single atom model

    Particles cannot be atomic and continuous.
    Particles in a model cannot be non atomic to each other and atomic within themselves.

  206. oldbrew says: May 22, 2015 at 8:33 pm

    “Lots of air parcels here…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process#Adiabatic_heating_and_cooling
    return
    No movement of any mass is adiabatic!
    The compression, expansion “cycle” in Diesel is adiabatic, energy from angular momentum compresses isentropically, expansion returns the same energy to angular momentum. Neither stroke
    is adiabatic but the cycle is adiabatic,

  207. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 21, 2015 at 3:15 am

    “Anything but fantasy air packets!”

    I concur.

    “Can lower surround air innate an upward plume from an area of different land use? How?”

    Yes! ‘UHI’ and ‘tropical rain forest’.

    “Where does this plume go?”

    It isn’t a “plume” (as such), its a region of ‘altered temperatures’, or ‘altered hydrology’, that mixes by advection to the altitude of the ‘locally advected’ ‘cloud base’.

    “Does any of this air circulate (return)? Who has measured? Does WV advect more rapidly than more dense air taking its latent heat to higher levels? How can anyone measure? How far east do Hadley cells travel while going +/- 30 latitude?
    what are the average and max lengths of the trade winds? Does anyone know? Why not begin at the beginning and discover, rather than accept any more Climate BS!”

    ‘Advection’ isn’t ‘convection’ so I’ll not answer this here.

    Best regards, Ray.

  208. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: May 21, 2015 at 3:15 pm

    “…”

    With your directly previous post in mind, land contour must force advected atmosphere way above the ‘local cloud base’ to achieve a ‘Foehn effect’. This is ‘not’ ‘convection’! Its ‘forced’ ‘convection’ and yet another obfuscation that obscures the attractors involved in a manifold! Be careful here.

    However, as for:

    (“So far I believe that the aviators, and their many on-line handbooks and tutorials have the most practical, observable and verifiable explanations. Though there are some holes in it.”)

    “Could you elaborate a bit on those holes?”

    IMHO, ‘they’ don’t fly so close to the ground!

    Best regards, Ray.

  209. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: May 21, 2015 at 3:22 pm

    (““Why is the average LR = 6.5K/km and not 10K/km?”)

    “Seems to be the ELR that is required to have our atmosphere in or very near HEq.
    Depends ao on surface temperature, mass of atmosphere, gravity, rate of energy loss to space etc.”

    I think its the ‘etc.’ that we’re here for Ben. Can you show this later in your model? The ‘hydrostatic equilibrium’ model can only be a ‘possible’ ‘start point’ for the ‘introduction’ of ‘energy attractors’ that ‘compete’ for the energy within ‘the/a system’.

    Best regards, Ray.

  210. suricat says: May 23, 2015 at 1:18 am
    Will Janoschka says: May 21, 2015 at 3:15 am

    (“Anything but fantasy air packets!”)

    “I concur.”

    (“Does any of this air circulate (return)? Who has measured? Does WV advect more rapidly than more dense air taking its latent heat to higher levels? How can anyone measure? How far east do Hadley cells travel while going +/- 30 latitude?
    what are the average and max lengths of the trade winds? Does anyone know?”)
    Why not begin at the beginning and discover, rather than accept any more Climate BS!”

    “‘Advection’ isn’t ‘convection’ so I’ll not answer this here. Best regards, Ray.”

    OK,
    I do not understand your distinction in this atmosphere. Convection is a combination of diffusion and advection with no distinction between lateral and vertical, and no distinction between natural and forced. The river water is advecting to the ocean, however, river bottom silt is convecting to the ocean,(being carried by the fluid).
    The word “cell” implies some circular process. To me this means that a “thermal” is convection but not a cell, a thunder-head or tornado is a convection cell, and a Hadley cell with the motion not only of air but also sensible and latent heat is truly a large extended convection cell, including stratospheric westerlies and surface trade winds! I agree that all have differences and perhaps “convection cell 101” is similar to “Describe the known universe, give three examples”! Perhaps You or OB can suggest an acceptable limitation in scope and why! 🙂 -will-

  211. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 21, 2015 at 10:35 pm

    “…”

    Its a ‘concept/model’ that can be ‘modified’ Will! An attempt to initialise a ‘start point’ for a ‘continuum’! Though, I concur. Its difficult to ‘enhance’ a ‘model’ when it’s based on “HEq”. 😦

    Best regards, Ray.

  212. suricat says: May 23, 2015 at 2:13 am

    “I think its the ‘etc.’ that we’re here for Ben. Can you show this later in your model? The ‘hydrostatic equilibrium’ model can only be a ‘possible’ ‘start point’ for the ‘introduction’ of ‘energy attractors’ that ‘compete’ for the energy within ‘the/a system’. Best regards, Ray.”

    Thank you Ray,
    I still cannot “wrap head around” ‘energy attractors’. The only ‘attractor’ I can see is not for energy but only for mass, that attracts all other mass, even with a larger mass in between. Is this some E=mc^2 thing? I can understand potentials and potential differences. Is the lower potential an attractor? Is a resistor connected to a battery, sucking on the charge, dispatching sensible heat to wherever an attractor? This to me seems like the concept that an incandescent lamp is a “dark sucker”. Flip the switch, suck out the dark! When it does not work any more, you can tell it is full of dark, by the dark spot on one side. 🙂 Is there some “attractors for dummies” I can get? -will-

  213. suricat says: May 23, 2015 at 2:44 am

    “Its a ‘concept/model’ that can be ‘modified’ Will! An attempt to initialise a ‘start point’ for a ‘continuum’! Though, I concur. Its difficult to ‘enhance’ a ‘model’ when it’s based on “HEq”. 😦 Best regards, Ray.”

    Ray,
    The concept/model is the whole basis of CO2 CAGW. Have a fantasy and get other idiots to agree! Easy to do with access to supercomputers that are programmed to perform like a fast Playstation-64! 😦 I suggest to first admit, and list, all that is unknown of this Earth system! By then all of us will be comfortably dead! No more questions! 🙂 I hope someone has a better idea! -will-

  214. wayne says:

    ‘energy attractors’?? Like Will, that is a toughie on the brain.

    Suricat, you thinking of energy attractors like the frigid poles here on Earth? Maybe blank outer space? But if you ever find one can you let me in on it? 😉 There would be plenty to pass around.

  215. wayne says: May 23, 2015 at 4:32 am

    ” ‘energy attractors’?? Like Will, that is a toughie on the brain. Suricat, you thinking of energy attractors like the frigid poles here on Earth? Maybe blank outer space? But if you ever find one can you let me in on it? 😉 There would be plenty to pass around.

    Thanks Wayne,
    There seems to be more fantasy among sceptics than among Climate Clowns. 🙂
    If fantasy is the way to get some opposing POV, such is much preferable to fantasy consensus!
    Bring it on please! -will-

  216. oldbrew says:

    Possible start point: atmospheric convection?
    http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/hyd/cond/conv.rxml

    The original idea was to explain why Hadley cells and their equivalents (see graphic at start of post) exist and where convection fitted into the process.

    IIRC we were asked to create a new thread, but now it seems nobody knows what this thread is for 😉

    ‘Convection is the transfer of heat by the actual movement of the heated material.’
    Example shown: pot of water on a stove.
    http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_1_2_7t.htm

  217. Ben Wouters says:

    Basic setup of our atmosphere 3.

    A few remarks on the HEq.
    So far on TestEarth we had the surface temperature at 290K.
    With different surface temperatures the atmosphere will expand or contract.
    Switching off the FHS, the temperature will drop rapidly, the atmosphere will shrink, and eventually will lay on the surface a solid layer of ice (N2, O2, and a little H2O).
    Increasing the surface temperature will result in an expanding atmosphere, that reaches farther away from the surface. Eventually the highest molecules may even reach escape velocity and leave for space.
    So the atmosphere can be in HEq with different surface temperatures and thus different energy contents for the entire atmosphere, as long as at each altitude the pressure from below is equal to the weight of the remaining atmosphere above pushing down.

  218. Ben Wouters says: May 23, 2015 at 9:03 am

    “Basic setup of our atmosphere 3.A few remarks on the HEq.
    So far on TestEarth we had the surface temperature at 290K.
    With different surface temperatures the atmosphere will expand or contract.
    Switching off the FHS, the temperature will drop rapidly, the atmosphere will shrink, and eventually will lay on the surface a solid layer of ice (N2, O2, and a little H2O).
    Increasing the surface temperature will result in an expanding atmosphere, that reaches farther away from the surface. Eventually the highest molecules may even reach escape velocity and leave for space.
    So the atmosphere can be in HEq with different surface temperatures and thus different energy contents for the entire atmosphere, as long as at each altitude the pressure from below is equal to the weight of the remaining atmosphere above pushing down.”

    Please show the latitude, longitude, and altitude where your so called HEq has ever been detected?

    [mod note] see here: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/beginners-guide-to-convection-cells/comment-page-1/#comment-101350

  219. oldbrew says: May 23, 2015 at 8:35 am

    “Possible start point: atmospheric convection?
    http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/hyd/cond/conv.rxml

    So now you want to discuss thermals, rather than convection cells?

    “The original idea was to explain why Hadley cells and their equivalents (see graphic at start of post) exist and where convection fitted into the process. IIRC we were asked to create a new thread, but now it seems nobody knows what this thread is for 😉 ”

    Yes indeed, shit happens, now what? Is this supposed to be discussion of “ersatz meteorology”, “ersatz attractors”, or something else? Opinions abound. 🙂

    ‘Convection is the transfer of heat by the actual movement of the heated material.’

    Convection is the transfer of “anything” except the moving fluid itself, which is advection!
    Convection “cells” imply a circular process like a Hadley cell! 🙂

  220. Ben Wouters says:

    Basic setup of our atmosphere 4.

    Convection.

    In meteorology convection is the upward movement of air due to density differences.
    Due to the HEq. this is totally different from horizontal advection
    Other forms of vertical movement exist of course such as orographic lifting (air pushed up a mountain by horizontal pressure differences (wind)), convergence (air masses colliding and pushing each other up, like the trade winds from the NH and SH), turbulence due friction etc.

    For an explanation of the terminology I refer to: http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~fovell/AS3downloads/lapse_rates.pdf

    I’ll use Environmental Lapse Rate (ELR) for the temperature change with increasing altitude for the STATIC atmosphere.
    On TestEarth the ELR is 6,5 K/km.
    Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate (DALR) for the internal temperature change of a parcel that moves vertically within the static atmosphere that is in HEq.
    Saturated (or Moist) Adiabatic Lapse Rate (SALR) for the internal temperature change of a parcel that moves vertically within the static atmosphere that is in HEq. AND where WV is condensing, releasing latent heat.

    In all cases vertically moving air is doing so in an atmosphere that has a distinct temperature, pressure and density profile.
    With the surface temperature on TestEarth at 290K, HEq. and for the moment no WV present, we must create a disturbance in the HEq to see how convection works. Let’s use a gigantic hot air balloon, warm the air inside, then tear it open to release that air.
    With the air in the balloon at 295K, we release the warm air, and due to its lower density it will rise.
    We’ll follow a small parcel inside the bubble, so we don’t have to worry about the shape of the bubble, friction at the edge etc.
    While rising the whole bubble, and thus the parcel expands, due to the decreasing pressure with altitude of the static atmosphere. Due to this expansion, the parcel cools as well, according the DALR, 9,8 K/km (~10K/km)
    At 1000m altitude the static air temperature will be 283,5K, the rising parcel has cooled to 285K, so still buoyant.
    Around 1500m the parcel has become colder than the static air, so no more buoyancy left. Due to its vertical speed it may overshoot a little, then sink back to to its equilibrium level.
    When leaving the surface the bubble “made room” for surrounding air to move in. It will take a little time for everything to settle down. Then we are back to the same boring atmosphere we started with 😉

  221. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: May 22, 2015 at 8:15 pm

    Parcels or packets are used in many disciplines to make understanding of the processes easier.

    ““The temperature outside of the parcel is dropping because the parcel is moving away from the surface, the troposphere’s primary heat source.”

    My comment: Temperature caused by distance is a fluid dynamic continuous field model”
    This dropping of the temperature with altitude is a direct consequence of the HEq.
    No dynamics involved.

  222. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 23, 2015 at 1:46 am

    “With your directly previous post in mind, land contour must force advected atmosphere way above the ‘local cloud base’ to achieve a ‘Foehn effect’. This is ‘not’ ‘convection’! Its ‘forced’ ‘convection’ and yet another obfuscation that obscures the attractors involved in a manifold! Be careful here.”

    The local cloudbase is a direct consequence of the vertical movement of the rising air.
    Obviously this isn’t convection, it’s called orographic lifting.
    Not sure where the attractors and manifold come in, but on the top of the mountain range the wind speeds are highest due to the venturi effect.

  223. oldbrew says:

    How it works: “Everyone knows that hot air rises and this experiment demonstrates that idea as well as the principles of convection currents. As the tea bag burns, hot air is being created, as well as a thermal, or convection current, under the bag. When the tea bag burns down into a small enough ball of ashes, the convection current causes it to shoot up in the air.” [Quoted directly from Steve Spangler Science.]
    Category: Entertainment

  224. Roger Clague says:

    oldbrew says:
    May 22, 2015 at 8:33 pm
    Lots of air parcels here…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process#Adiabatic_heating_and_cooling

    There are no air parcels in this description of adiabatic processes.
    The mathematical equation for an ideal gas undergoing a reversible (i.e., no entropy generation) adiabatic process

    The adiabatic process is for an ideal gas.

    An ideal gas is a theoretical gas composed of many randomly moving point particles

    An adiabatic process requires point particles. A point has no volume.
    But an air parcel is not a point particle. It is deliberately not a point particle, so as to be able to ignore atomic properties.
    It is a cube of side 10^-3. It’s volume is 10^-9cm^3. That is 10^10 atoms

    The air parcel is an impossible, inconsistent, concept.

    It said to be made up of point particles, atoms ( so Ideal gas law can be used ) and continuous particles, 10 ^10 atoms ( so fluid dynamics can be used ) at the same time

  225. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: May 23, 2015 at 11:25 am

    “An ideal gas is a theoretical gas composed of many randomly moving point particles

    An adiabatic process requires point particles. A point has no volume.”

    What doe you not understand about the word ‘many’ as used in “many randomly moving point particles”?

    “But an air parcel is not a point particle.” Brilliant observation, and your point (particle) is?

  226. oldbrew says:

    ‘Air Parcel- An imaginary small body of air that is used to explain the behavior of air. A parcel is large enough to contain a very great number of molecules, but small enough so that the properties assigned to it are approximately uniform throughout.’

    Weather Terms: http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/box/glossary.htm
    (‘Terms used by meteorologists, forecasters, weather observers, and in weather forecasts.
    Compiled from several sources’)

  227. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: May 23, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    Thanks. Can’t believe we have a discussion about simple concepts like this, or very basic concepts like Hydrostatic Equilibrium.
    I did mention it for beginners, did not expect having to defend the concept 😉

  228. Roger Clague says:

    What doe you not understand about the word ‘many’ as used in “many randomly moving point particles”?
    “But an air parcel is not a point particle.” Brilliant observation, and your point (particle) is?

    Can’t believe we have a discussion about simple concepts like this,

    It is often discussion of basic concepts that is most interesting and rewarding. It is not because I am a beginner. I have an honours degree in chemistry from Bristol University. The problem is you are not willing to look at your own understanding of basic concepts.

    Properties of an air packet
    http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/box/glossary.htm

    air packet is “uniform throughout”
    Wouters air packet has “many randomly moving point particles”
    Moving points must have spaces between them. Spaces and points have different properties.
    So an air packet with spaces and points is not uniform throughout. Sometimes you meet matter and then space.
    Uniform throughout means you are continuously meeting matter with no spaces.
    An air packet cannot be uniform throughout and have moving points in it.
    The gas laws cannot be combined with fluid dynamics to understand the atmosphere.

  229. Roger Clague says:

    Formatted wrongly so I’ii post again

    Ben Wouters says
    What doe you not understand about the word ‘many’ as used in “many randomly moving point particles”?
    “But an air parcel is not a point particle.” Brilliant observation, and your point (particle) is?

    Can’t believe we have a discussion about simple concepts like this,
    It is often discussion of basic concepts that is most interesting and rewarding. It is not because I am a beginner.
    I have an honours degree in chemistry from Bristol University. The problem is you are not willing to look at your own understanding of basic concepts.
    Properties of an air packet
    http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/box/glossary.htm
    uniform throughout
    Wouters; “many randomly moving point particles”
    Moving points must have spaces between them. Spaces and points have different properties.
    So an air packet with spaces and points is not uniform throughout. Sometimes you meet matter and then space.
    Uniform throughout means you are continuously meeting matter with no spaces.
    An air packet cannot be uniform throughout and have moving points in it.

  230. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: May 23, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    “The problem is you are not willing to look at your own understanding of basic concepts.”
    Parcels is anything but a ‘basic concept’. It’s just a tool to help understand complex systems.
    eg. an every day thermal develops from multiple small ones, grows into a bigger one, starts to rotate, is broken up by windshear etc.etc.
    If you think you can describe this complete process with mathematical precision, great, but you would be the first one afaik.
    By imagining a small part of the whole system, eg a cm^3, m^3 or so that has the same properties as the whole system things become simpler.
    For a thermal same properties means same density, same composition, same temperature, same WV content etc. as the originating air and all properties uniformly spread around in the parcel.
    So you can’t use a parcel that has eg a non uniform temperature distribution.

    oldbrew says: May 23, 2015 at 1:35 pm
    ‘Air Parcel- An imaginary small body of air that is used to explain the behavior of air. A parcel is large enough to contain a very great number of molecules, but small enough so that the properties assigned to it are approximately uniform throughout.’
    That is all there is to it.

  231. Ben Wouters says:

    To get an idea of the complexity of thermals see:
    http://www.rcsoaring.com/docs/thermals_2006.pdf

    Yet by using the simple parcel concept it is possible to predict whether thermals will develop, how high their cloud base will be, their strength etc.

  232. Ben Wouters says: May 23, 2015 at 10:02 pm

    “To get an idea of the complexity of thermals see:
    http://www.rcsoaring.com/docs/thermals_2006.pdf

    This is to be convection cells not thermals way different.

    “Yet by using the simple parcel concept it is possible to predict whether thermals will develop, how high their cloud base will be, their strength etc.”

    Your air parcel concept can only lead to your extremely distorted fantasy of how this atmosphere may work! You discard all that is important!

  233. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 21, 2015 at 11:06 pm

    (““Some nice cumulus clouds. Under each cloud a rising thermal will be found, invisible. Only indication is when a cumulus cloud develops as in this image.”)

    “You insist that below each such cloud a surface thermal plume with upward velocity, that supports such a cloud. Such clouds move with lateral location up to 30 km. do the conditions of upward plume move with that cloud?”

    No Will! ‘Convection Plumes’ ‘convect’ from ‘the surface’ to ‘~the local cloud-base’ ‘only’. They’re localised and are generated by local surface conditions/properties.

    At ‘cloud-base altitude’ the WV constituent begins to separate from the atmosphere as ‘water droplets’ (condensate) and begins to form ‘clouds’ of water at altitude. These ‘clouds’ are an ‘absorber’ (they show properties of absorption, diffusion and reflection dependant on the wave-length presented by EMR) of insolation, thus, at ‘cloud-base’, atmospheric behaviour changes and ‘Convection Plumes’ become what the weather forecaster and aviation disciplines call ‘Thermals’ (during ‘daylight hours’).

    ‘Thermals’ involve a much higher ‘energy density’ scenario than ‘Convective Plumes’ due to the ‘extra’ energy added by insolation.

    Sorry Will, Ben and everyone. I can’t keep up with the pace of this thread. I’ll ‘pop up’ where I think my dialogue may be useful. 😦

    Best regards, Ray.

  234. suricat says:

    suricat says:May 24, 2015 at 1:17 am

    “…”.

    I’ll add that ‘clouds’ also affect ‘OLR’ (Outgoing Long-wave Radiation) where they are locally present. Especially for a ‘nocturnal’ scenario!

    Best regards, Ray.

  235. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 24, 2015 at 1:17 am

    ” ‘Convection Plumes’ ‘convect’ from ‘the surface’ to ‘~the local cloud-base’ ‘only’. They’re localised and are generated by local surface conditions/properties.”
    Convection plumes (is convection cells, is thermals) do continue to rise above the cloudbase. It is the same cell, only at cloudbase condensation has started, releasing latent energy and thus adding extra buoyancy to the still rising thermal.

  236. Ben Wouters says:

    Basic setup of our atmosphere 5.

    In the previous post we saw how air without WV rose to ~1500m before buoyancy stopped.
    Now we’ll see what happens when WV is added.
    At 290K, air with Relative Humidity (RH) 50% is slightly less dense than air at RH 0%.
    Air at 290K 0% RH has the same density as air at 289K 50%RH.
    see http://www.denysschen.com/catalogue/density.aspx

    Same scenario, air heated inside balloon to 294K, but now WV is part of the gas mix, RH is 50%.
    This air has the same density as in the earlier experiment.

    Air at 295K RH 50% has to be cooled to ~289K to reach 100% RH. At this temperature condensation will start.

    After release of the air it will rise, again cooling according the DALR.
    At ~600m static air temperature is ~286K, the rising air has cooled to 288K, still buoyant.
    Now condensation starts in the rising air, and a cloud forms.
    The rising air still expands and would cool due to this expansion according the DALR,
    BUT due to the condensation and the related release of latent heat the cooling rate is much lower now: the SALR.
    While rising and cooling, more and more WV condenses, so eventually (almost) all WV has condensed, and the rising air will cool again according to DALR.

    In this case the air will continue to rise to ~7000m, compare this to the ~1500m for completely dry air.

    On TestEarth the ELR is 6,5K/km. On Earth the ELR is different for every location and time.
    To understand convection we always have to look at the ACTUAL ELR vs the DALR and SALR.

  237. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 23, 2015 at 11:21 pm

    “Your air parcel concept can only lead to your extremely distorted fantasy of how this atmosphere may work! You discard all that is important!”
    Coming from someone who doesn’t know about or understand Hydrostatic Equilibrium, the basic concept for understanding our atmosphere.

    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?”
    For every location on this Earth the atmosphere MUST be in or very close to HEq.
    Otherwise you show where on Earth we have increasing pressure density with altitude.

  238. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: May 24, 2015 at 10:09 am

    “Terminology guide: ELR, DALR, SALR etc.
    http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/geography/weather-conditions/revise-it/lapse-rates-and-microclimate
    Knowledge every aspiring (para)gliding pilot must have to understand thermals, and their dangerous big brothers. thunderstorms.

  239. Ben Wouters says:

    “Terminology guide: ELR, DALR, SALR etc.
    http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/geography/weather-conditions/revise-it/lapse-rates-and-microclimate
    Hadn’t read to the end:
    “DALR:
    When a mass of air rises, its temperature decreases adiabatically. The air expands and loses heat energy as it rises and if it is unsaturated, it loses 10 degrees for every 1000m of ascent.”

    The rising air does NOT lose heat energy (adiabatic), its temperature drops due to expansion.

    [reply] OK, but it does say ‘the air expands’

  240. Roger Clague says:

    oldbrew says:
    May 24, 2015 at 10:09 am
    Terminology guide: ELR, DALR, SALR etc.

    http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/geography/weather-conditions/revise-it/lapse-rates-and-microclimate

    I agree this a good starting point for further discussion. It is a simple and clear summary of current thinking on Lapse Rate.
    It is significant that these definitions are for a geography exam not a science exam.
    No distinction is made between observations and theories.
    Environmental lapse rate: This is the expected decrease in temperature with height through the lower atmosphere, approximately 6.5 degrees per 1000m. It varies according to height, time of year, and over different surfaces

    ELR = 6.5K/km is an b> observation

    Adiabatic lapse rate: Used to explain what occurs as a parcel of air rises, decreases in pressure and temperature, but increases in volume.

    ALR is a theory which aims to explain the observed ELR
    That ALR is a theory to explain ELR is not understood.

    Is ALR a good theory to explain ELR? No

    1. It is a flawed theory
    2. It does no predict ELR.

    Why flawed
    Parcel size is chosen so that atomic properties can be ignored.
    Adiabatic expansion causing cooling is explained using an atomic model of gas.
    Adiabatic cooling is an atomic theory.
    An atomic theory explains the properties of the whole atmosphere by applying laws to atoms. There is no need or place for an intermediate scale of 10^-9cm^3 packets.
    mgh = mcT conservation of energy
    m can be an atom or the whole atmosphere

    Failed Prediction
    ALR is calculated as 10K/cm. but ELR =6.5K/km

    To cover the failed prediction another concept condenses from nowhere- latent heat.

  241. Ben Wouters says:

    Roger Clague says: May 24, 2015 at 12:35 pm

    “ALR is a theory which aims to explain the observed ELR.”

    Who is claiming this nonsense???
    Everyone with some basic knowledge about our atmosphere should know better.

  242. Ben Wouters says: May 24, 2015 at 1:52 pm
    Roger Clague says: May 24, 2015 at 12:35 pm

    (“ALR is a theory which aims to explain the observed ELR.”)

    “Who is claiming this nonsense???
    Everyone with some basic knowledge about our atmosphere should know better.”

    Ben: You only demonstrate that “you” have no basic knowledge about our atmosphere!

    Roger C. demonstrates the inherent difficulties of the fluid dynamics with a compressible fluid in a gravitational field. Thank you!

    OB tries to keep something going! Thank You!.

    Wayne, Suricat, and myself admit “do not know”, but from experience, recognize BS and shake head in disbelief! Would someone please define what a convection cell is, and is not? 🙂

    Ben Wouters and Steven Wilde express the standard “meteorological/atmospheric physics” as currently taught to undergraduates. What bull shit. When combined with the complete inversion of how thermal EMR is generated and propagated, lead directly to the CAGW nonsense! No thanks!
    Others then, even more incompetent, exploit these well meaning fantasies, for their own profit.
    Each has an opinion and an ass! Wives have two asses! 🙂

  243. Roger Clague says: May 24, 2015 at 12:35 pm

    “To cover the failed prediction another concept condenses from nowhere- latent heat.”

    Isn’t that the real bitch puppy? We measure the entropy required to evaporate, or sublimate water to a gas at every temperature. Perhaps the most accurate and repeatable measurements made ever by earthlings! Most of this entropy is reversible, or recoverable, upon condensing or freezing! Along with the other 56 atmospheric partial derivatives with respect to anything else, who will go way out on a limb and claim latent heat does “this” in earth’s atmosphere? This is exactly why the need for four PI steradians of polite opposing POVs! How many “steradians” (volradians) in fourspace? 🙂

  244. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 24, 2015 at 7:10 pm

    ” Ben Wouters and Steven Wilde express the standard “meteorological/atmospheric physics” as currently taught to undergraduates. What bull shit. When combined with the complete inversion of how thermal EMR is generated and propagated, lead directly to the CAGW nonsense! No thanks!
    Others then, even more incompetent, exploit these well meaning fantasies, for their own profit.”

    @Moderators

    Any particular reason why this insulting nitwit is still allowed to post on this site?

  245. wayne says:

    “Any particular reason why this insulting nitwit is still allowed to post on this site?”

    Ben, because if it was just you left here spouting your mostly-wrong-in-the-real-details and too-simple meteo 101 grand ‘knowledge’ that I read and leared when 12 years old I would have no reason to return to this site. Will is no nitwit. You are no genius that understands all and are going to ‘teach’ us your holy grail as you see it. As for Will’s hold-nothing-back style, I personally like it, and when it’s aimed at me I take it more as a frieldly poke to look carefully at what I just said and laugh instead.

  246. oldbrew says:

    It would be better if we focussed on the discussion and not on undermining each other on a personal level, otherwise we may have to close the thread down.

  247. tallbloke says:

    Will J: This is exactly why the need for four PI steradians of polite opposing POVs!

    I haven’t had time to keep up with this thread, but I’ll be watching more closely from now on. The Talkshop is famous for being a speakeasy where ideas are attacked rather than people, in everyday language that can include some sweary words (within limits).

    Please don’t force me to make anyone sit on the naughty step.

    Thanks

  248. tallbloke says: May 24, 2015 at 10:11 pm

    (‘Will J: This is exactly why the need for four PI steradians of polite opposing POVs!”)

    “I haven’t had time to keep up with this thread, but I’ll be watching more closely from now on. The Talkshop is famous for being a speakeasy where ideas are attacked rather than people, in everyday language that can include some sweary words (within limits).”

    Thank you Roger,
    Some words are for emphasis, as in “emphasis on the wrong (sylable)!”
    This atmosphere and its surroundings are much more difficult to understand than this ocean!
    The atmosphere is a no brainier compared to English politics!

    The wonderful, is the appreciation of the hard task of constructing this Earth. With not the constructors, God, or any critters that are now, or may be cavorting later upon this surface or atmosphere, ever being able to understand any of how, or why, while obeying all that is.

    “Please don’t force me to make anyone sit on the naughty step.”
    Got any lovelies near the naughty step? over.

    Thanks…. and back to you! 🙂

  249. oldbrew says: May 24, 2015 at 9:50 pm

    “It would be better if we focussed on the discussion and not on undermining each other on a personal level, otherwise we may have to close the thread down.”

    What is this beside WAR between some Engineers, and erzats Meteorologists?

    Oldbrew, I have asked many times of what is this discussion. You seem not to accept a polite discussion between Poland and Russia in WWII!! 🙂

  250. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: May 24, 2015 at 7:11 am

    (” ‘Convection Plumes’ ‘convect’ from ‘the surface’ to ‘~the local cloud-base’ ‘only’. They’re localised and are generated by local surface conditions/properties.”)

    “Convection plumes (is convection cells, is thermals) do continue to rise above the cloudbase. It is the same cell, only at cloudbase condensation has started, releasing latent energy and thus adding extra buoyancy to the still rising thermal.”

    I only know how to consider a ‘convection cell’ from ‘the surface’ to the ‘cloud-base’ Ben. At the ‘cloud-base’ and ‘above’ we enter the realm of ‘cloud convection cells’, and ‘that’s something else’!

    The thing ‘clouds’ do best is to ‘diffuse insolation’. However, this is done at a cost to the cloud. Whilst some insolation is diffused to the point of ‘reflection’ (AKA, ‘albedo’ [a poorly formulated property]), ‘absorption’ also takes place in the ‘cloud droplet population’. Thus, the ‘cloud’ evaporates at a rate determined by the cloud’s ‘droplet size’ (the bigger the droplet, the greater the absorption [this is associated with the ‘depth to extinction’ in a ‘water medium’ for EMR wavelengths that make up the spectra of insolation to ‘cloud tops’]).

    In the ‘cloud convection cell’ scenario ‘insolation’ carries more weight than ‘OLR’ from the surface! Although, the greatest absorption exists in the ‘far IR’ spectra (seemingly coincident with ‘latent heat release’), insolation ‘tips the scale’ to an evaporation rate that perpetuates convection by releasing more WV from a ‘water’ state. Thus, ‘boosting convection’ with the removal of a ‘heavy density compound’ (water) and replacing it with a ‘light density compound’ (WV).

    Don’t you see this ‘disconnect’ at ‘cloud-base’ Ben?

    Best regards, Ray.

  251. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: May 24, 2015 at 10:11 pm

    “Please don’t force me to make anyone sit on the naughty step.”

    I’d be happy with that, but ‘pse’ don’t consider OB’s remedy!

    This ‘stuff’ is what the IPCC can’t understand (computa se’z NO!). 😉

    We just need to get to the point where the little ‘light’ goes on! 🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  252. The thing ‘clouds’ do best is to ‘diffuse insolation’. However, this is done at a cost to the cloud. Whilst some insolation is diffused to the point of ‘reflection’ (AKA, ‘albedo’ [a poorly formulated property]), ‘absorption’ also takes place in the ‘cloud droplet population’.

    OK
    “Thus, the ‘cloud’ evaporates at a rate determined by the cloud’s ‘droplet size’ (the bigger the droplet, the greater the absorption [this is associated with the ‘depth to extinction’ in a ‘water medium’ for EMR wavelengths that make up the spectra of insolation to ‘cloud tops’]).”

    Mostly true, condensate of 2-10 microns diameter absorb mightily of insolation. Larger drizzle drops reflect more! 🙂 Clouds are only visible with condensate greater than 20 microns. 50 microns do rainbows!

  253. Ben Wouters says:

    wayne says: May 24, 2015 at 9:37 pm

    “too-simple meteo 101 grand ‘knowledge’ that I read and leared when 12 years old”

    Fine, then please explain to WJ some of that too-simple meteo, especially the Hydrostatic Equilibrium (HEq) our atmosphere is in, the consequence this has for convection and other forms of rising and sinking air in the atmosphere, like the Föhneffect.
    Also explain to him that the DALR and SALR have nothing to do with the actual temperature profile of the atmosphere, but only with the temperature change vs altitude of rising or sinking air.

    It would also help if you can make him understand that the sun actually IS able to increase the temperature of the land surface or oceans, that this is not BS (Bull Shit?)

    And finally that WV does not percolate through N2 and O2 due to its lower density, but is just part of the gas mix. Perhaps a few words about vapor partial pressure would help.

    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!”

  254. wayne says:

    Ben, I just love to spend a day or two getting knee deep in your contention with Will’s statements, I always find them very thought provoking and the first thing I would do is ask him to clarify just to make sure you understand the exact contexts. I guess you two are not on the same level. Why don’t you ask Will yourself? Will’s a trained engineer and from what I gather a very good one so he is probably speaking on a totally different level of exactness than you.

    Take hydrostatic equilibrium, first sentence in a definition I quickly found: “a fluid is said to be in hydrostatic equilibrium or hydrostatic balance when it is at rest, or when the flow velocity at each point is constant over time.” Ok, you seems to say above to OB as he says “Equilibrium is a hypothetical concept of course” which is true and you reply “On Earth the atmosphere obviously will never be completely in HEq, due to all kinds of processes.”. So we have hypothetical concept that Earth’s atmosphere is never in which you insist it is. I think this is what Will is complaining about. Very loosely all atmospheres constantly attempting to approach a vertical hydrostatic equilibrium because that is what a gravitational field imposes on compressible gases.

    I also find Will’s statement on your statement of your contention that the heating of the atmosphere is by the surface, this is particularly interesting for I have had the same thoughts on that statement. Don’t know how deep you are into equations, math and physics but our atmosphere absorbs directly about 80 of the 240 W/m² that averages and is not being reflected. But air has a very low heat capacity than rock, dirt or water and takes little energy to raise it’s temperature so it immediately seems logical that it is not the warmed dirt and rock that warms our atmosphere but the solar radiation absorbed directly by the atmosphere. Also, the Earth is 70%+ water or plants material that both do not warm much by the solar radiation but give off huge volumes of water vapor instead, that rises, and the condensation is 1) what helps warm the entire atmosphere and 2) the small droplets that Will just mentioned above are a primary reason why the atmosphere is even able to absorb that 1/3 portion in the first place.

    Maybe you are not thinking deep enough and should question some of your more purely conceptual and general stances as ‘true’.

    I did an experiment last summer on that very thought. Placed a thermometer just under the surface, about 1/32″ deep so direct sunlight would not be the causes of the rise. Another measuring the air temperature above. Don’t know if it always holds true but the temperature of the air was going up faster than that of the soil surface an amazingly was always higher than the soil. So is it the soil warming the air? This was in the early morning as the temperatures were rapidly rising on a clear day, hit about 98F that day, so does this hold true throughout the entire day? Never have taken the time to get that answer.

    Like I said I would love to continue and have tons to question in this area but I am deep in writing a very complicated program at this moment and have to protect myself from not letting my mind wander too far away… I fear losing my exact place I was at, that has happened to me before and if you can imagine the complexity of writing a ‘more intelligent’ recursive finite automata state machine engine ground up you might know why my head is hurting right now instead of having some fun here. 😉

  255. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 25, 2015 at 1:03 am

    “Don’t you see this ‘disconnect’ at ‘cloud-base’ Ben?”

    Obviously something changes at cloud base, but it is the same volume of air that keeps rising.
    In the simple single cell convection case, no rain will develop, and the lifetime of this convection cell is maybe 10-15 minutes. Too short to see a noticeable influence of insolation.
    see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulus_cloud#Formation

    A different matter are rain- and thunderstorms, but to me this goes beyond beginners level.
    Most influence imo have the large layers of ‘static’ clouds, that cover large parts of the sky and absorb lots of insolation.

  256. Ben Wouters says:

    wayne says: May 25, 2015 at 10:58 am

    “Why don’t you ask Will yourself?”

    Will Janoschka says:
    “What is this beside WAR between some Engineers, and erzats Meteorologists?”
    (correct spelling would be “ersatz” btw)
    “Others then, even more incompetent,”

    His only reason for posting seems to be to insult meteorologist etc., without having the beginning of an understanding of the subject, thus frustrating any discussion.
    I mostly just ignore him, since I haven’t seen any useful contributions to this discussion.

    “Take hydrostatic equilibrium, first sentence in a definition I quickly found: “a fluid is said to be in hydrostatic equilibrium or hydrostatic balance when it is at rest, or when the flow velocity at each point is constant over time.””

    Quote from a lecture on hydrostatic equilibrium:
    “The atmosphere is very close to hydrostatic balance most of the time,
    except at isolated locations when the vertical profile becomes statically
    unstable. In that situation, convection will happen to restore stability.
    This takes place on a very short time scale (~ a few hours), therefore
    after some spatial and temporal averaging the atmosphere is
    generally statically stable; For many applications, it is enough to
    replace the vertical momentum equation by the hydrostatic equation.

    Perhaps the only exception is in the tropics, where the atmosphere
    could be marginally unstable even in the time mean.”

    ” Also, the Earth is 70%+ water or plants material that both do not warm much by the solar radiation”
    see http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter06/chapter06_04.htm

    Figure 6.7 shows the ocean temperatures during one year to ~200 m deep. Notice the temperature increase from April 90 to Aug 90. (sun returning to the NH)
    To an ersatz meteorologist it seems obvious that the sun is causing this warming.
    What is the engineers explanation?

  257. Ben Wouters says:

    Ben Wouters says: May 24, 2015 at 10:05 am

    ” For every location on this Earth the atmosphere MUST be in or very close to HEq.
    Otherwise you show where on Earth we have increasing pressure with altitude.”

    @oldbrew
    Where I wrote ‘pressure’ this obviously should be ‘density’.
    Would you pse change it to prevent confusion? [done]

  258. wayne says:.May 25, 2015 at 10:58 am

    “Ben, I just love to spend a day or two getting knee deep in your contention with Will’s statements,”
    Thank you Wayne for such support!

    For others I should express my POV on CAGW. I do not mean to disparage Ben, I do not even know Ben, I disparage his writing as meteorological fantasy, with no evidence. Just like I disparage the writing of Tim Folkert,and Joel Shore on the concept that all with temperature “must” radiate EMR flux, then the ridiculousness of back radiation. Both air packets, and back radiation, at times promote limited understanding for some,(to get the test answers correct), but “insist upon” later discarding of what was taught. Many times that is very difficult, after being brainwashed! 🙂
    Weather forecasting (meteorology) I admire, discerning the deterministic from the statistical, with the whole thing unknown, I would not try! Observing A then B then C over and over can help to predict C. It is the meteorological effort to explain why A then B then C that falls flat on its face. Such is much worse than Astrology. Trust no word of any that claim knowledge of atmospheric physics!

    “I did an experiment last summer on that very thought. Placed a thermometer just under the surface, about 1/32″ deep so direct sunlight would not be the causes of the rise. Another measuring the air temperature above. Don’t know if it always holds true but the temperature of the air was going up faster than that of the soil surface an amazingly was always higher than the soil. So is it the soil warming the air? This was in the early morning as the temperatures were rapidly rising on a clear day, hit about 98F that day, so does this hold true throughout the entire day? Never have taken the time to get that answer.”

    Unless the air thermometer was under an umbrella, you are measuring the effect of insolation, not air temperature. Not bitching just checking measurement procedure! This same test “with umbrella” has been done at all latitudes. Isolation air temperature higher than surface is common at latitudes less than 40 degrees. Who is heating who?

    Ben Wouters says:May 25, 2015 at 1:26 pm

    (” Also, the Earth is 70%+ water or plants material that both do not warm much by the solar radiation”
    see http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter06/chapter06_04.htm )

    “Figure 6.7 shows the ocean temperatures during one year to ~200 m deep. Notice the temperature increase from April 90 to Aug 90. (sun returning to the NH)
    To an ersatz meteorologist it seems obvious that the sun is causing this warming.
    What is the engineers explanation?”

    Engineers explanation, I do not know! Measurements indicate that the NH receives (root 2)
    1.414 times the insolation in summer over that of winter. The Sun changes radiative exitance that seems to have no effect by the Earth’s rotational inclination.
    Your Fig.6.7 shows a variance of 4 Celsius from summer to winter. What is the variance of near surface air temperature, max, min, or average from summer to winter! Please demonstrate that the surface heats (increases temperature or sensible heat) of the atmosphere. Almost 200 W/m^2 change, integrated over 12 hours of atmospheric latent heat (energy), happens from dayside to nightside each day! 80 W/m^2 come from the surface with NO temperature change. The insolation conversion of atmospheric water condensate to WV and back, must be isothermic. but changes atmospheric weight to volume by 4%. This is “the” factor in convection cells!

  259. Ben Wouters says: May 25, 2015 at 6:09 pm
    Ben Wouters says: May 24, 2015 at 10:05 am

    (” For every location on this Earth the atmosphere MUST be in or very close to HEq.
    Otherwise you show where on Earth we have increasing pressure with altitude.”)

    “@oldbrew
    Where I wrote ‘pressure’ this obviously should be ‘density’.
    Would you pse change it to prevent confusion?”

    Density (mass per unit volume), insists on no other forces! In this atmosphere within a gravitational field the term is “weight per unit volume”!! This defines buoyancy and the ability of one to lift the other. Temperature and humidity both affect weight per unit volume! Go figure! 🙂

  260. wayne says:

    “Unless the air thermometer was under an umbrella, you are measuring the effect of insolation, not air temperature.”

    Not under an umbrella but in the shade, of course, otherwise that would be a big no, no! What queued this was that I had set for a week or more noticing this, all still, hot, normal clear days, noticing how fast the temperature would rise in the morning as the sun rose but go out and put your hand on the soil, grass, trees and concrete and see if you can find anything that feels even warm enough to be the cause of that always rapid temperature rise of the air. When considering this keep in mind the relative local area coverage by each (here mostly grass and trees). I think it is that 1/3rd absorption by the atmosphere directly. May flex with the R.H. though and especially if cloudy or foggy.

  261. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: May 25, 2015 at 12:53 pm

    (suricat says: May 25, 2015 at 1:03 am
    “Don’t you see this ‘disconnect’ at ‘cloud-base’ Ben?”)

    “Obviously something changes at cloud base, but it is the same volume of air that keeps rising.”

    Logic forces me to disagree on that point. From the ‘cloud-base’ upwards the ‘LR’ alters from the ‘ELR’ to the ‘SALR’ until ‘cloud top’ is achieved, where insolation to ‘cloud top’ promotes WV production and stimulates further convection.

    “In the simple single cell convection case, no rain will develop, and the lifetime of this convection cell is maybe 10-15 minutes. Too short to see a noticeable influence of insolation.
    see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulus_cloud#Formation

    From your ‘link’:- “In this phase, water vapor condenses on various nuclei present in the air, forming the cumulus cloud. This creates the characteristic flat-bottomed puffy shape associated with cumulus clouds.[4][5] The size of the cloud depends on the temperature profile of the atmosphere and the presence of any inversions.[6] ”

    ‘”forming the cumulus cloud”‘ is a ‘telling phrase’! It goes on to say that “This creates the characteristic flat-bottomed puffy shape associated with cumulus clouds.[4][5]” when the basic reason for the ‘shape’ of the ‘cloud’ ‘isn’t addressed’!

    The ‘cloud’ is ‘absorbing insolation’, and thus ‘convection’ is ‘improved’ by the ‘re-evaporation’ of water at its upper surface/altitude. This alone would account for the ‘shape’ of the cloud.

    Do you need more evidence? 🙂

    ‘Clouds’ are but ‘reservoirs in the sky’ that regulate the ‘sweat’ from Earth’s climatic systems. 😉

    Best regards, Ray.

  262. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 25, 2015 at 7:37 pm

    ” It is the meteorological effort to explain why A then B then C that falls flat on its face. Such is much worse than Astrology. Trust no word of any that claim knowledge of atmospheric physics!”

    Actually meteorology is very good in explaining what happened AFTER the fact.
    Prediction is more problematic beyond a couple of days.
    But since you are not even able to explain the temperature rise in the upper 100 m or so near Bermuda I showed, perhaps better be quiet until you DO have an explanation?
    ( to an ersatz meteorologist the rise in surface temperature is over 6 degrees, but I do know reading charts and graphs can be challenging)

    “Please demonstrate that the surface heats (increases temperature or sensible heat) of the atmosphere.”
    I do hope you’re not implying that the atmosphere could heat the surface???
    Heat capacity of the entire atmosphere is equal to ~3 meter of ocean water.
    Temperature of the atmosphere is almost everywhere lower than the surface temperature, except in the case of a temperature inversion.

  263. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 25, 2015 at 8:21 pm
    “Temperature and humidity both affect weight per unit volume!”
    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.
    The density in our atmosphere is mostly controlled by pressure, hence the density gradient in the atmosphere. This obviously requires understanding of the hydrostatic equilibrium our atmosphere is (nearly) in.

  264. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 26, 2015 at 1:33 am
    “From the ‘cloud-base’ upwards the ‘LR’ alters from the ‘ELR’ to the ‘SALR’ until ‘cloud top’ is achieved, where insolation to ‘cloud top’ promotes WV production and stimulates further convection.”
    Not really, if insolation would heat the cloud top, it would reduce wv production.
    (warmer air can hold more wv)

    For a short lived single cell convection, lets consider the ELR as constant.
    When leaving the ground, the rising air will cool according the DALR, until the top of the thermal has cooled enough to let condensation start: cloudbase. Now the rising, condensing air cools according the SALR. While rising further the cloud develops, its contour being decided by the form of the rising thermal.
    After reaching its equlibrium level, rising stops, the air will sink back and the cloud disappears.

    Nice time lapse showing the process:

    Nice impression of a 457km triangle flight with a glider plane. See cloudbase and Cumulus clouds from close up:

  265. Ben Wouters says:

    wayne says: May 25, 2015 at 11:02 pm

    “I think it is that 1/3rd absorption by the atmosphere directly.”
    What I’ve seen is that the bulk of the atmospheric absorption is in the Thermosphere and upper Stratosphere (the reason for their inverted temperature profile).
    In the troposphere only a few percent of insolation is absorbed.

  266. Roger Clague says:

    Will Janoschka says:
    May 24, 2015 at 7:10 pm

    Roger C. demonstrates the inherent difficulties of the fluid dynamics with a compressible fluid in a gravitational field.

    For example
    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
    The clue is in the name. They started applying fluid dynamics to oceans and later extended to the Atmosphere.
    Their course on fluid dynamics of the Atmosphere and Ocean

    http://www.whoi.edu/sbl/liteSite.do?litesiteid=8155

    Ch1 to 5 are about non-compressible liquid water.
    Ch 6 is called Thermodynamics and equations of Motion
    That sounds very impressive. After all they are the 2 most important laws of physics.
    But the 1st sentence tells us the chapter is about pressure and density.
    That is a compressible fluid, a gas, air. They do this by introducing the gas law
    My objections to this are
    1. The particles in fluid dynamics can deform but not be compressed.
    2. Gravity is not a part of fluid dynamics
    3. Temperature is not part of fluid dynamics
    4 Gas laws don’t work for unbounded gravity constrained atmosphere

    The correct law to use is the law of conservation of energy
    Gravitation energy + internal heat energy = constant
    mgh =mct
    t/h = g/c
    No fluid dynamics, no gas laws and no hydrostatic equilibrium (barometric equation)

  267. wayne says:

    “… the bulk of the atmospheric absorption is in the Thermosphere and upper Stratosphere ”

    “In the troposphere only a few percent of insolation is absorbed.”

    Is that a good example of what you learn from meteo books and courses? Or maybe you are also just a life-time member of the Royal Meteorology Society like Wilde and thats where you learned this. I’m quite curious where this stuff comes from. Got any links or equations?

  268. Ben Wouters says: May 26, 2015 at 10:41 am
    Will Janoschka says: May 25, 2015 at 7:37 pm
    (” It is the meteorological effort to explain why A then B then C that falls flat on its face. Such is much worse than Astrology. Trust no word of any that claim knowledge of atmospheric physics!”)

    Actually meteorology is very good in explaining what happened AFTER the fact.
    Prediction is more problematic beyond a couple of days.

    It is the fake explanation of how this atmosphere works, like you try to do, that falls flat on its face!
    Why not admit “i do not know” like all the rest, then try to learn from the experience of others.

    “But since you are not even able to explain the temperature rise in the upper 100 m or so near Bermuda I showed, perhaps better be quiet until you DO have an explanation?”
    -snip snide remark-

    To repeat for those that refuse to read:
    Engineers explanation, I do not know! Measurements indicate that the NH receives (root 2) 1.414 times the insolation in summer over that of winter. The Sun changes radiative exitance that seems to have no effect by the Earth’s rotational inclination.
    Your Fig.6.7 shows a variance of 4 Celsius from summer to winter. What is the variance of near surface air temperature, max, min, or average from summer to winter!

    (“Please demonstrate that the surface heats (increases temperature or sensible heat) of the atmosphere. Almost 200 W/m^2 change, integrated over 12 hours of atmospheric latent heat (energy), happens from dayside to nightside each day! 80 W/m^2 come from the surface with NO temperature change. The insolation conversion of atmospheric water condensate to WV and back, must be isothermic. but changes atmospheric weight to volume by 4%. This is “the” factor in convection cells!”)

    “I do hope you’re not implying that the atmosphere could heat the surface???”

    The near surface (30cm) air temperature during insolation of the Sahara Sahel is often 10 Celsius higher than that of the sand. Energy transfer goes both ways!!

    “Heat capacity of the entire atmosphere is equal to ~3 meter of ocean water.”

    That is only the sensible heat comparison between all air and liquid water! 1 cm of water converted to airborne WV has 800 times that energy storage in latent heat!! Where is your measurement of your imaginary “Air Parcel” lapse rate being different at all from that of its environment? That has always been your claim “SALR or DALR”, nothing in between! 🙂

    “Temperature of the atmosphere is almost everywhere lower than the surface temperature, except in the case of a temperature inversion.”

    Where are your dirt temperature v.s. air temperature 30 cm above the dirt. Only above the boundary layer are air temperatures less! Temperature inversion may happen whenever WV is converted to condensate! If that condensation were “complete” the atmospheric temperature increase would be above 20 Celsius, except that condensation, is accompanied be vast convection and EMR in the direction of space! -will-

  269. Roger Clague says: May 26, 2015 at 1:17 pm

    Will Janoschka says: May 24, 2015 at 7:10 pm

    (‘Roger C. demonstrates the inherent difficulties of the fluid dynamics with a compressible fluid in a gravitational field.”)

    “For example Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
    The clue is in the name. They started applying fluid dynamics to oceans and later extended to the Atmosphere. Their course on fluid dynamics of the Atmosphere and Ocean”

    Thank you for confirming that the academics have no clue of this is!

    “My objections to this are
    1. The particles in fluid dynamics can deform but not be compressed.
    2. Gravity is not a part of fluid dynamics
    3. Temperature is not part of fluid dynamics
    4 Gas laws don’t work for unbounded gravity constrained atmosphere”

    I agree! Those that have measured call this aerodynamics. Aircraft builders and submarine builders, have completely different rules. There is almost no translation between languages! Many times each use the same words for entirely different concepts! This is why those that have not spent half a lifetime working in a specific field, called habilitation should never try to teach in that field. They simply have not made sufficient “own” errors to have any understanding. 🙂

    The correct law to use is the law of conservation of energy
    Gravitation energy + internal heat energy = constant
    mgh =mct
    t/h = g/c

    t/h = -g/Cp perhaps! You can put the only (-) wherever! For conservation I prefer t/h + g/Cp = zero. This COE law for a gravitational atmosphere only replaces the Clausius virial theorem with two static gradients, temperature and pressure, in this atmosphere. Many folk claim some “gravitational potential energy of mass” supported by buoyancy! Double dipping! This is missing with submarines!

    “No fluid dynamics, no gas laws and no hydrostatic equilibrium (barometric equation)”

    Agree! Not if you wish to “try” to understand. No “air parcels” either! Is this a goal unreachable by earthlings? 🙂 -will-

  270. wayne says: May 26, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    (“… the bulk of the atmospheric absorption is in the Thermosphere and upper Stratosphere ”

    “In the troposphere only a few percent of insolation is absorbed.”)

    “Is that a good example of what you learn from meteo books and courses?”

    Thank you, Giggle! :- ) :-* -will-

  271. Paul Matthews says:May 2, 2015 at 4:46 pm

    “I did my PhD on convection cells. One thing that bugs me is when people claim that CO2 “traps” heat in the atmosphere. No it doesn’t! Hot air rises.”

    Here is a guy that tries to learn. Why not consider his observations. No need to accept, only the careful consideration of “some maybe”!

  272. suricat says:

    Ben Wouters says: May 26, 2015 at 10:59 am
    suricat says: May 26, 2015 at 1:33 am

    (“From the ‘cloud-base’ upwards the ‘LR’ alters from the ‘ELR’ to the ‘SALR’ until ‘cloud top’ is achieved, where insolation to ‘cloud top’ promotes WV production and stimulates further convection.”)

    “Not really, if insolation would heat the cloud top, it would reduce wv production.”

    Er, No! An increase in ‘water droplet temperature’ at ‘cloud-top’ alters the ‘vapour pressure balance’! Let’s not forget that the ‘atmosphere’ (air) above the cloud-top ‘ISN’T’ ‘saturated’!

    This is ‘a’ reason why ‘cloud-base altitude’ alters. We need to get into ‘atmospheric column H2O content’ and ‘other criteria’ before we can properly discus this property.

    However, this is well above the “Beginner’s Guide” level. I respectfully suggest that you keep your ‘explanations’, like your “You Tube” links, to an altitude below ‘cloud-base’.

    “For a short lived single cell convection, lets consider the ELR as constant.
    When leaving the ground, the rising air will cool according the DALR, until the top of the thermal has cooled enough to let condensation start: cloudbase. Now the rising, condensing air cools according the SALR. While rising further the cloud develops, its contour being decided by the form of the rising thermal.
    After reaching its equlibrium level, rising stops, the air will sink back and the cloud disappears.”

    Wrong! The condensate tries to ‘precipitate’, but ‘the cloud’ absorbs insolation and ‘boils off’ into the ‘local atmosphere’ where WV can survive!

    Have you ever asked yourself; why do ‘clouds’ exist at altitude? Why do ‘clouds’ present in a region where the surrounding ‘atmosphere’ (air) isn’t saturated and why do ‘clouds’ ‘float’ in the atmosphere? I have. It’s a point on ‘density disparity’ and its governed by the ‘reactance’ of the property/properties of H2O to insolation.

    Best regards, Ray.

  273. suricat says: May 27, 2015 at 1:47 am

    “Have you ever asked yourself; why do ‘clouds’ exist at altitude? Why do ‘clouds’ present in a region where the surrounding ‘atmosphere’ (air) isn’t saturated and why do ‘clouds’ ‘float’ in the atmosphere? I have. It’s a point on ‘density disparity’ and its governed by the ‘reactance’ of the property/properties of H2O to insolation.”

    Ray, here as a “sparky” I must disagree! Reactance is the imaginary part of impedance, The real part is called resistance! To try to get to this atmosphere your reactance is properly called viscosity.
    And no one ever understands viscosity especially in a compressible fluid! Your notation of how atmospheric WV and water condensate confuses everything is well taken! Whenever will earthlings get a clue? All the best -will-

  274. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 27, 2015 at 3:12 am

    “Ray, here as a “sparky” I must disagree! Reactance is the imaginary part of impedance, The real part is called resistance!”

    I concur.

    “To try to get to this atmosphere your reactance is properly called viscosity.”

    No it isn’t. I tried to introduce this concept with the ‘deep fat pan’ scenario (not ‘compressible’ I know), but it was met with misunderstanding.

    How do/could we explain the ‘concept’ of ‘miscibility’ (the reluctance/ability to ‘mix’)?

    ‘Attractor weighting’ is the only way forward that I can consider for this scenario! Your thoughts?

    Best regards, Ray.

  275. Ben Wouters says:

    wayne says: May 26, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    “Is that a good example of what you learn from meteo books and courses?”
    No, just the numbers I found on my trusted reference for anything meteo.
    They make sense as well. The Thermosphere is hit by everything the sun sends our way, so its temperature is extremely high, but then its is density very low.
    More relevant of course the Stratosphere, where most high energy UV is absorbed.
    I was a little surprised by the low absorption in the Troposphere.
    see http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section1b.html#atmospheric_temperature

  276. Ben Wouters says:

    “Will Janoschka says: May 26, 2015 at 7:33 pm

    “It is the fake explanation of how this atmosphere works, like you try to do, that falls flat on its face!
    Why not admit “i do not know” like all the rest, then try to learn from the experience of others.”

    I’m not interested in learning obvious nonsense as how the sun can NOT warm the surface as you seem to promote.
    The meteo as I know and understand it has a pretty comprehensive explanation for how this atmosphere works.

    “Almost 200 W/m^2 change, integrated over 12 hours of atmospheric latent heat (energy), happens from dayside to nightside each day! 80 W/m^2 come from the surface with NO temperature change. ”
    Ever noticed that a large part of this world is covered with oceans? Insolation reaches to 100 m or more into the oceans, warming them.
    A sunny day in the tropics gives something like 6 or 7 kW/hr/m^2 total energy.
    Assuming all this energy is absorbed in the upper 10 m will heat this 10 m just half a degree or so.
    ( I do assume that you understand that water has a high heat capacity)

    “The near surface (30cm) air temperature during insolation of the Sahara Sahel is often 10 Celsius higher than that of the sand. Energy transfer goes both ways!!”
    I do believe the atmosphere over the Sahara extends beyond 30 cm?
    What are the temperatures at eg 1000m 5000m etc in such a situation?
    During the night we see In many places a temperature inversion. Nothing to worry about.
    http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter3/rad_invers.html

  277. Ben Wouters says:

    Will Janoschka says: May 26, 2015 at 9:10 pm

    wayne says: May 26, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    (“… the bulk of the atmospheric absorption is in the Thermosphere and upper Stratosphere ”

    “In the troposphere only a few percent of insolation is absorbed.”)

    “Is that a good example of what you learn from meteo books and courses?”

    Thank you, Giggle! :- ) :-* -will-

    Funny, never knew Will is also used as a girls name.

  278. Ben Wouters says:

    suricat says: May 27, 2015 at 1:47 am

    I don’t see why you are so adamant in distinguishing between the situation below and above cloudbase. It is the same vertically moving air.

    Two quotes from my trusted meteo source:
    “Generally, upward motion of moist air is a prerequisite for cloud formation, downward motion dissipates it. Ascending air expands, cools adiabatically and, if sufficiently moist, some of the water vapour condenses to form cloud droplets. Fog is likely when moist air is cooled not by expansion but by contact with a colder surface.”

    “Cloud droplets tend to fall but their terminal velocity is so low, about 0.01 metres/sec, that they are kept aloft by the vertical currents associated with the cloud construction process; but droplets will evaporate when coming into contact with the drier air outside the cloud. Some of the droplets are larger than others and consequently their falling speed is greater. Larger droplets catch up with smaller ones and merge or coalesce with them, eventually forming raindrops. Raindrops grow with the coalescence process and reach maximum diameters — in tropical conditions — of 4–7 mm before air resistance disintegrates them into smaller raindrops; this starts a self-perpetuating process. It takes about one million cloud droplets to form one raindrop.”

    “Have you ever asked yourself; why do ‘clouds’ exist at altitude? Why do ‘clouds’ present in a region where the surrounding ‘atmosphere’ (air) isn’t saturated and why do ‘clouds’ ‘float’ in the atmosphere?”
    Yes obviously, and the answer (almost) always is: rising air

  279. oldbrew says:

    Link: ‘Here we will discuss articles on the “Hockey Schtick” climate change blog which are similar also to articles on Tallbloke’s Talkshop. Each blog site recognises that gravity plays a part, but they misunderstand the convective heat transfer process.’

    http://www.climate-change-theory.com/HS.html

  280. Roger Clague says:

    This posted by Ben Wouters is a good statement of meteorology

    http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology

    These statements illustrate my problem with packets

    1.2 Gas laws and basic atmospheric forces
    1. The random molecular activity within a parcel of air exerts a force in all directions and is measured in terms of pressure energy per unit volume, or static pressure.
    2. In meteorological terms a parcel is a mass of air small enough that the whole mass moves or behaves as a single object
    Meteorology is not a pure science it is the observed properties of the atmosphere. The concept of a parcel of air works to some extent.
    In theoretical science the properties of concepts is important
    A parcel cannot be a single object, that is not made up of atoms and have molecular motion within it.

  281. oldbrew says:

    Pen and paper at the ready class? OK, go…

  282. oldbrew says: May 27, 2015 at 1:54 pm

    “Link: ‘Here we will discuss articles on the “Hockey Schtick” climate change blog which are similar also to articles on Tallbloke’s Talkshop. Each blog site recognises that gravity plays a part, but they misunderstand the convective heat transfer process.’”

    Are you now promoting Doug Cotton’s view of the world?

  283. oldbrew says: May 27, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    “Pen and paper at the ready class? OK, go…”

    Did you actually watch and listen to that clip?
    Which one of all those statements do you agree with? Any? See any contradictions? How many?

  284. oldbrew says:

    Not promoting these things, just airing them for possible discussion.

    I did watch the video. Obviously things are simplified for beginners, which may grate with more advanced students 😉

  285. oldbrew says: May 27, 2015 at 4:19 pm

    “Not promoting these things, just airing them for possible discussion.”

    Check the source!!!

    “I did watch the video. Obviously things are simplified for beginners, which may grate with more advanced students 😉 ”

    From the static screen:
    More dense = more pressure So… cold air is more dense so it is under more pressure.
    Less dense = less pressure So… warm air is less dense so it is under less pressure.
    ————————————————————————————————————————
    Higher altitude = less pressure, So… higher altitude more warm. 🙂
    There is a difference between simplified for beginners and deliberately stupid!!!
    Which one of all those statements do you agree with? Any? See any contradictions? How many?
    It only gets worse! I do believe that such is actually taught to innocent children!

  286. Ben Wouters says: May 27, 2015 at 12:37 pm
    Will Janoschka says: May 26, 2015 at 9:10 pm
    wayne says: May 26, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    BW (((“… the bulk of the atmospheric absorption is in the Thermosphere and upper Stratosphere In the troposphere only a few percent of insolation is absorbed.”)))

    wayne ((“Is that a good example of what you learn from meteo books and courses?”))

    WJ (“Thank you, Giggle! :- ) :- * -will-“)

    BW “Funny, never knew Will is also used as a girls name.”

    Funny, never knew Ben has no clue to a direct slap in the face! 🙂

  287. Roger Clague says: May 27, 2015 at 2:22 pm

    “These statements illustrate my problem with packets”
    Your problems are valid.
    ——————————————————————-
    1.2 Gas laws and basic atmospheric forces
    1. The random molecular activity within a parcel of air exerts a force in all directions and is measured in terms of pressure energy per unit volume, or static pressure.
    2. In meteorological terms a parcel is a mass of air small enough that the whole mass moves or behaves as a single object
    Meteorology is not a pure science it is the observed properties of the atmosphere. The concept of a parcel of air works to some extent.
    In theoretical science the properties of concepts is important
    A parcel cannot be a single object, that is not made up of atoms and have molecular motion within it.——————————————————————

    Fluid dynamics is engineering not meteorology The dynamics of an incompressible fluid (water)
    is very complex but measurable. To understand more we need better measurements. Some of these concepts apply to gas (compressible) in a bottle.

    None of these concepts apply to this Earth’s atmosphere constrained only by gravitational force. This atmosphere has a minimum of 200 partial differential equations with less than 12 orthogonal variables. Engineers look at this and cannot decide whether to scratch their head or scratch their ass. This damn thing may very well be imponderable!

    What do we do with all the Meteorologists, Climatologists, and Atmospheric scientists that claim they know? We certainly do not want an inactive volcano. They might get back out! 🙂

  288. wayne says:

    “A sunny day in the tropics gives something like 6 or 7 kW/hr/m^2 total energy.”

    Another example of total incorrect information from Ben, sorry Ben. Please, do clue us into where you extract this information you say you are teaching us. A printout chart from a bolometer in far south Spain measuring their new solar panels (utility company) showed even on the very best of days you sometimes would get some one-minute peaks of 1050 J/s/m². That for an hour is 3.78 megajoules per hour if it were to stay at that same 1050 W/m² level for an hour, which is doesn’t. But, a kWh is 3.6 megajoules per hour which puts you off by a factor of 6 or 7 from reality. Now if you would have instead said 6 to 7 kW/day/m² total energy because of the form factor of our sphere and that only one-half is ever and always lit I wouldn’t have to correct your thinking yet again.

    I just don’t want people reading your words as you theach them to get mislead into thinking the sun is six to seven time hotter than it really is.

  289. wayne says: May 28, 2015 at 1:43 am

    (“A sunny day in the tropics gives something like 6 or 7 kW/hr/m^2 total energy.”)

    “Another example of total incorrect information from Ben, sorry Ben. Please, do clue us into where you extract this information you say you are teaching us. A printout chart from a bolometer in far south Spain measuring their new solar panels (utility company) showed even on the very best of days you sometimes would get some one-minute peaks of 1050 J/s/m². That for an hour is 3.78 megajoules per hour if it were to stay at that same 1050 W/m² level for an hour, which is doesn’t. But, a kWh is 3.6 megajoules per hour which puts you off by a factor of 6 or 7 from reality. Now if you would have instead said 6 to 7 kW/day/m² total energy because of the form factor of our sphere and that only one-half is ever and always lit I wouldn’t have to correct your thinking yet again.”

    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 this?
    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 “only” connection between temperature and energy!

    “I just don’t want people reading your words as you teach them to get mislead into thinking the sun is six to seven time hotter than it really is.”

    Again a reference to the Sun’s temperature while only referring to energy transfer!
    Stop it! Please write what you mean! BS abounds! 🙂 -will-

  290. wayne says:

    Will, you are exactly correct and I needed that kick in the shins! 😉 I did sit there and used the term temperature didn’t I, and that’s not correct, it is about energy transfer. I guess to get 7 kWh/hr (don’t we just wish) not only could the cause be a litelly hotter sun but we could also be in a tighter orbit closer to the same temperature sun, either would do.

    Thanks for being such a great proofreader!

  291. Paul Matthews says: May 2, 2015 at 4:46 pm

    “I did my PhD on convection cells.
    One thing that bugs me is when people claim that CO2 “traps” heat in the atmosphere. No it doesn’t! Hot air rises.”
    Thank you Paul,
    With that much effort can you please tell us idiots what a convection cell may be, and define what it is not? Conjecture and BS abound! 🙂 -will-

  292. wayne says: May 28, 2015 at 3:45 am

    “Will, you are exactly correct and I needed that kick in the shins! ;)”

    I disagree, you are one of the few that understand “clarity”, and despise the deliberate intent to confuse!

    “I did sit there and used the term temperature didn’t I, and that’s not correct, it is about energy transfer. I guess to get 7 kWh/hr (don’t we just wish) not only could the cause be a litelly hotter sun but we could also be in a tighter orbit closer to the same temperature sun, either would do.”

    OK, I do that all the time! This is the need for critics! If you believe in God, and I believe in all of them, cavorting with the lovelies in Greece! This local Earth God would only need to wink, to get a tighter orbit!

    “Thanks for being such a great proofreader!” And thank you for your kind understanding! -will-

  293. oldbrew says:

    Another video for the critics to consider:

  294. Roger Clague says:

    oldbrew says:
    May 27, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    The basic idea put across by this video is that atmosphere convection is like convection in a room.
    Heat is coming from the low point of the space in a room and also heat in the atmosphere comes from the surface of the Earth.
    This is not right
    .
    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%

    Heat not from surface is 2 x heats from surface

    You might say the latent heat comes from the surface. But is certainly it not like heating a room

    In my opinion the T/h in the atmos. is caused by gravity.
    This temperature gradient causes convection. It is not convection causing T/h, the temperature gradient.

    Ocean currents compared to atmosphere convection
    Ocean Currents are horizontally driven by tropical/ polar temperatures.
    Atmosphere convection is vertically driven surface/ tropopause temperature difference.

    The video is simplistic and wrong. But unfortunately it’s what everyone believes.

  295. Ben Wouters says:

    wayne says: May 28, 2015 at 1:43 am

    ““A sunny day in the tropics gives something like 6 or 7 kW/hr/m^2 total energy.”

    Another example of total incorrect information from Ben, sorry Ben.”

    Afaik a DAY is a normal English word, understood to be 24 hrs.
    So if I write “6 or 7 kW/hr/m^2 total energy” a day I did expect it to be abundantly clear that it is the TOTAL energy over 24 hrs. It seems I have to lower my expectations.
    Writing ‘6 or 7 kWhr/m^2/day’ a day seems superfluous to me.
    You could have pointed out that the ‘/’ between kW and hr is incorrect though.

    I you want to correct someone, make sure you don’t make a mistake yourself:
    “Now if you would have instead said 6 to 7 kW/day/m² total energy”
    6 or 7 KW per day on a square meter doesn’t make much sense to me.

    My source:
    http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/average-solar-radiation

    Still interested in your explanation about absorption in our atmosphere of insolation.
    If not in the Thermosphere and Stratosphere, what does explain their inverted temperature profile in your opinion? Where is it absorbed? How much?

  296. Ben Wouters says:

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

    “In my opinion the T/h in the atmos. is caused by gravity.”

    The temperature at each altitude in our atmosphere is the one that is necessary to PREVENT gravity from collapsing the atmosphere to the surface.
    The weight (mass & gravity) of the air column above each level in the atmosphere MUST be counter acted by the UPWARD pressure from the underlying column.
    If the two do match exactly we have hydrostatic balance.
    If the two do NOT match exactly we have a buoyancy force, causing convection.

    “Ocean Currents are horizontally driven by tropical/ polar temperatures.”
    Ocean SURFACE currents are wind driven.

  297. Ben Wouters says:

    oldbrew says: May 27, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    “Pen and paper at the ready class? OK, go…”
    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 😉 Amazingly, since the subject is pretty straightforward.
    Wayne was able to comprehend it all at the age of twelve.
    Perhaps Wayne can chime in and help the others in understanding this too-simple subject so that we can move on?

  298. Ben Wouters says: May 28, 2015 at 2:34 pm

    oldbrew says: May 27, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    (“Pen and paper at the ready class? OK, go…”)

    “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 😉 Amazingly, since the subject is pretty straightforward.”

    Your fantasy of convection and convection cells simple, straightforward, and wrong! I do not wish to prove you wrong. I wish that you would demonstrate your fantasy is correct. Where are the measurements? This has to do with this atmosphere, not with your dreams!

    “Wayne was able to comprehend it all at the age of twelve.
    Perhaps Wayne can chime in and help the others in understanding this too-simple subject so that we can move on?”

    Why would Wayne bother? We have many individual fantasies! Only you wish to move on, accepting your fantasy. The rest of us would like to understand the basics! Your stuff is about only some thermal created by a 4 acre parking lot surrounded by trees in Alabama.. It in no way explains the lifting of saturated air over a 4 acre stock tank surrounded by open range in west Texas. Why do they both go up? Which one is less dense?