![[credit: NASA]](https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/air_cloud1.gif)
[credit: NASA]
A few weeks ago we put up a post to discuss the role of convection in the Earth’s atmosphere:
Beginner’s guide to convection cells
The introduction, linked to a short video, said:
‘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.’
That may have seemed straightforward to some, but a few hundred comments later controversy continues, so we’re starting a new post using this website for reference : Lapse Rate, Moisture, Clouds and Thunderstorms
This doesn’t imply endorsement of every statement it makes, but gives us a background to further discussion.
In its introduction it says:
‘One of the key factors to understand in this context is the vertical motion of air parcels, a process referred to as convection.’
That’s probably enough to get the discussion, which is in effect a continuation from the earlier post, started.
[Note: comments on the earlier post (Beginner’s guide – link above) are now closed]
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Convection phenomenon undermines the idea of the atmosphere as the “greenhouse”. The heated at the Earth’s surface air masses rise up and lose heat due to pressure reduction and expansion of gases, the molecules of which they lose part of their kinetic energy. At an altitude of 10 kilometers we invariably the temperature at -50 C or even lower.
[…] ren on Atmospheric convection –… […]
Technical devices give results that would never occur in normal weather conditions. The infrared radiators are used filaments which temperature may be 2400oC. They require high-energy (from 1000 to several thousand. W). This creates the conditions in which the infrared emission is very large, so what in ordinary natural conditions on Earth is not possible. We also know that the impact of such radiant point is in practice and takes place at short distances. Increasing the distance from the radiator bring to disperse infrared heating to the disappearance of ownership (their impact becomes trace and undetectable). Natural weather conditions it is not infrared. There is no burning filament, or high-power electric current. We are dealing with very different temperatures, and thus, with much less power infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface.
Even that reaches from the sun enormous amount of infrared radiation of the highest frequency does not have a heat capacity of air, the more infrared rendered to a low frequency such capacity will not. This confirms the technical experience and practice using infrared light. Also, infrared heaters do not heat the air, and act on irradiated objects. Recommendable are some infrared heaters manufacturers, who often describe the principle of operation of these devices.
The NASA graphic came from here: http://virtualskies.arc.nasa.gov/weather/5.html
The temperature of the stratosphere increases with the amount of chemical reactions involving UV light. It grows in areas where there are O2 molecules (as a result of the formation of ozone).
The chart shows how during the winter heat escapes from the troposphere.
Radiant heaters quickly provide heat to those closest to the heater, rather than providing heat for an entire room. They’re heating objects and not the air, so even in a large space partial heating is possible. (for example only the shipping and receiving area instead of the entire warehouse) Oil-filled radiators look like old-fashioned radiators that are found in many older homes. However, these are radiant electric heaters that are permanently filled with oil. Many of the models available come with wheels so they are easy to move around your home. This type of heater provides a steady heat source for an entire room.
http://www.deltat.com/radiant_infrared_heating_intro.html
@oldbrew
That may have seemed straightforward to some, but a few hundred comments later controversy continues, so we’re starting a new post using this website for reference : Lapse Rate, Moisture, Clouds and Thunderstorms
You need to remove the ‘/’ in the link to make it point to the correct page.
[reply] thanks – updated
Haven’t read it completely yet, but the linked page does provide an adequate description of the convection process.
To me convection is the rising of volumes of air due to density differences with the surrounding air, which is in hydrostatic equilibrium.
The addition of water vapor to air (making the air humid) reduces the density of the air, which may at first appear counter-intuitive. This occurs because the molar mass of water (18 g/mol) is less than the molar mass of dry air (around 29 g/mol). For any gas, at a given temperature and pressure, the number of molecules present is constant for a particular volume (see Avogadro’s Law). So when water molecules (water vapor) are added to a given volume of air, the dry air molecules must decrease by the same number, to keep the pressure or temperature from increasing. Hence the mass per unit volume of the gas (its density) decreases.
The density of humid air may be calculated as a mixture of ideal gases. In this case, the partial pressure of water vapor is known as the vapor pressure. Using this method, error in the density calculation is less than 0.2% in the range of −10 °C to 50 °C. The density of humid air is found by:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air
Is the above formula shows that the decrease in air density with an increase in water vapor gives higher the temperature at constant pressure?
Yes ren, correct, just adding the humidity will also raise the T at constant pressure by T = P/(Rs ρ). The N molecules/volume will remains constant. I am sure you know this but Ben might not realize that in the TD he is using to argue about does not primarily depend on the mass/volume, it depends on the number of particles per volume.
As Susskind put it in one of his courses, you can have a ‘gas’ of golf balls or bowling ballls and all of the equations still hold and apply… but of course the bowling balls are moving much slower!
As to Ben Wouters says June 11, 2015 at 7:08 pm
Ben, first things first… do you know those equations in the link you just popped up are not closed form equations, that is, equations of state but are instead differentials?
If you take values that are close as we can get to our real atmosphere over any thing but infinitesimal ‘z’s you don’t get the correct answer. i can give you those equations if you will even look at them, they look very similar to those above but they are not identical.
Take the lower equation in your link and accept the SA76 as close test values for Δz, P, g, R and T:
P = 101325 * exp( -(9.80665 * 11000 / (287.05 * 288.15)) ) = 27499 Pa. but 27499 is not correct. The correct figure is 22632 Pa.
But that would also be correct if you used calculus and integrated it.
Now use one of the closed form equations:
P = P0 * (T/T0)^(cp * M / R)
P = 101325 * (216.65 / 288.15) ^ ( (1508.7 * 0.0289644) / 8.31432 ) = 22632 Pa which is precisely what the SA76 in OB’s link tells us is the mean pressure for the Earth’s atmosphere at 11,000 meters. Your hydrostatic and using geopotential heights (z’s) to boot.
Both equations are correct in their own light but the way to think what they are saying to you are completely different and you have to approach each differently.
I guess what I am searching and wondering here is do you even know all of the aspects of the math that you are using to form your arguments with others here? That might answer quite a lot. Don’t want to combat your insistence of ‘you are right’ and everyone else is wrong if you don’t have the tools to see your own flaws in some of your statements.
Roger Clague says: June 11, 2015 at 11:13 am
“oldbrew says: June 10, 2015 at 10:47 pm
How about this one? Some of the English is a bit iffy but mostly it’s OK.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html”
“This is a very clear statement of the consensus adiabatic theory of lapse rate. I find it unconvincing.
It originated here in 1841. https://archive.org/details/philosophystorm01espygoog
I comment on 3 quotes:
1.”During the day, the ground warms up because it absorbs the Sun’s radiation. Air parcels in contact with the ground warm up by conduction, become lighter than their surroundings, and rise. At night…… convection stops.”
So how is T/h maintained at night?”
Assuming we live on the same planet, I don’t think you’ll find a place where the temperature drops to 0K during the night.
As long as the surface has a temperature above 0K it will lose energy to space, mostly through the atmosphere maintaining a temperature profile, dictated by the HEq.
The sun warms the surface during the day (and summer), during the night (and winter) the surface
cools. Oceans are much better in storing this energy than soil.
I like Nasif Nahle’s approach, as diagramed here:
The math is here:
http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Transfer.html
ren says: June 11, 2015 at 7:54 pm
“The addition of water vapor to air (making the air humid) reduces the density of the air, which may at first appear counter-intuitive. This occurs because the molar mass of water (18 g/mol) is less than the molar mass of dry air (around 29 g/mol). For any gas, at a given temperature and pressure, the number of molecules present is constant for a particular volume (see Avogadro’s Law). So when water molecules (water vapor) are added to a given volume of air, the dry air molecules must decrease by the same number, to keep the pressure or temperature from increasing. Hence the mass per unit volume of the gas (its density) decreases.”
Ren,
Your equation is correct, but only for the “gaseous” part of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is always made up of all four “atmospheric phases” of matter, which always make any calculation using “the gas laws” in error for this atmosphere. There is gas, (O2,N2, and WV form of H2O), Airborne liquids, (of specific density and shape), and airborne colloids (mostly H2O condensate, but also wee snowflakes with no known force to lateral surface area,” pressure”), and solids, (snow,ice, soot, insects, birds, and aircraft) that go into the local pressure (force/m^2) and the local density (g/m^3).
The ratio of the two, (force x distance) completely describe how gravitational potential energy is distributed within this air, (atmosphere not gas)! This and the important conversion of airborne water condensate to WV by insolation, with no temperature or mass change, and the corresponding conversion of WV back to airborne water condensate, powering vast amounts of EMR flux to space,again with no temperature or mass change, are the important considerations in all atmospheric motions both vertical and lateral. Actual EMR flux (when observed) very reluctantly obeys the laws of thermodynamics, sometimes!!! 🙂
No amount of meteorological fantasy can ever explain the very complex fluid dynamics of this “atmosphere”. We must start over with a clear understanding of just what this “atmosphere” is and what it is not! Lesser measures can only result in “the same dirt road leading only to the swamp”!
A much better diagram then what Wikipedia has.
Ron Clutz says: June 11, 2015 at 8:55 pm
“I like Nasif Nahle’s approach, as diagramed here:”
Dr. Nahle, A trained biologist, is very good at graphics presenting all Climate Clown nonsense from a different POV! It remains scientific nonsense. Dr. Nahle has some training in thermodynamics and electrodynamics but certainly not sufficient hands on work, to be habilitated into such areas. Such presentation should be carefully considered, then discarded! -will-
Salvatore Del Prete says:June 12, 2015 at 12:15 am
“A much better diagram then what Wikipedia has”
I agree, but no required longitudinal motion that indicates the origin of all “surface” trade winds or higher latitude westerlies. This graph has no indication of stratospheric opposing longitudinal velocities, that airlines depend upon to make a profit! 🙂
Ben Wouters says: June 11, 2015 at 8:21 pm
Wayne says: June 11, 2015 at 7:43 pm
(“One last note….
suricat, what Ben doesn’t seem to realize is that, even ignoring any condensation……”)
From Ben with always the last word “If condensation occurs, the RH remains at 100%, only waterdroplets form. Even if you manage to somehow push this 100% RH air higher up, its temperature will decrease, making the wv contribution to the lower density less and less.
Temperature rules…..”
Never ever happens! No mater if gas or airborne water condensate, the mass remains and the volume slowly adjusts to remain in buoyancy. Any elevation in altitude will permit higher radiative exitance to space, all powered by the conversion of evaporative latent heat to power EMR flux to space, with no change in temperature. Atmospheric temperature is never any “initiator” of any atmospheric action, or process. Temperature is but a useful indicator of what is! Temperature never rules…… give any indication, observation, or measurement of such! Fantasy abounds! 🙂
Just a comment with regard to the mentioned fish tank. Convection occurs in fluids which includes gases and liquids. It originates from heated surfaces. It can be seen if you put a glass pyrex bowl containing water on the hot plate of a stove. For natural convection which only involves buoyancy (ie no wind or current or forced movement) the dimensionless Nusselt number is proportional to the product of a power of the Grashoff number and a power of the Prandtl number. These power figures depends on the fluid and temperature conditions and are around 0.25. In forced turbulent conditions (ie forced convection) the Nusselt number is proportional to a product of a power of the Reynolds number and a power of the Prandtl number. Those power figures are roughly 2/3 for the Reynolds number and 1/3 for the Prandtl number.
So called Climate Scientists who have never studied engineering “heat and mass transfer” know nothing about this and of course are unable to devise meaningful models. Engineers have made measurements in large scale wind tunnels (particularly to determine damage and building design data for cyclones) but unfortunately research money is going to climate alarmists who have no suitable technical qualifications and understanding.
wayne says: June 11, 2015 at 8:39 pm
On the other thread I asked a very simple question:
“Ben Wouters says:
June 11, 2015 at 9:02 am
wayne says: June 10, 2015 at 5:53 pm
“Ben, Ben… error… density is not some constant vertically. Please recompute.”
Ben Wouters says: June 10, 2015 at 1:49 pm
Air at sealevel, 15C 0% RH, density = 1,221 kg/m^3
at 90 meter, temperature now 14C and RH 0% the density is also 1,213 kg/m^3
where ‘also’ refers to ‘Air at sealevel, 15C 100% RH, density = 1,213 kg/m^3′
Ben Wouters says: June 10, 2015 at 10:35 am
“What everybody here seems to miss is that our atmosphere has a DENSITY GRADIENT.”
And your point is ??”
Still waiting for an answer.
“I guess what I am searching and wondering here is do you even know all of the aspects of the math that you are using to form your arguments with others here? That might answer quite a lot. Don’t want to combat your insistence of ‘you are right’ and everyone else is wrong if you don’t have the tools to see your own flaws in some of your statements.”
Simple convection like a thermal isn’t exactly rocketscience. Thunderstorms and supercells are much more complex systems.
Except for the derivation of the DALR not much math is needed once you understand that a thermal rises in an atmosphere that is in hydrostatic equlibrium.
The DALR and SALR describe the temperature change vs altitude for rising or sinking air, as nicely explained in the above linked article.
Convection in this atmosphere is not comparable to convection in a fluid.
Salvatore Del Prete says, June 12, 2015 at 12:15 am:
“A much better diagram then what Wikipedia has.”
This is even better. And more realistic. (Note, it’s a still frame from either of the two equinoxes. The situation evolves dynamically through the year, with the progression of the focus of solar heating (and evaporation), the seasons.)
wayne says: June 11, 2015 at 7:43 pm (from the leader thread)
“suricat, what Ben doesn’t seem to realize is that, even ignoring any condensation which would also be involved or insolation, that he is dealing with a ninety meter differential, if even that 90 figure he gave is correct. But like Stephen Wilde, he doesn’t seem to understand the math, the physics behind it, refuse to learn it, and only talks in streams of meteorological words on what he imagines is correct.”
I see now.
“As his packet moves ninety meters upward there would still exist an apx ninety meter difference. Both are becoming less dense as it rises. If it move yet another ninety meters upward there would still be an apx ninety meter difference in the density and so as it goes in physics that his water vapor laden packet is always lighter than that 0% surrounding air in his mis-applied example.”
Yes, this is only the ‘acceleration factor’. 😦
Air is a ‘thermal insulator’. Just like ‘bath water’ when you ‘run a bath’, the temperatures don’t mix well (yes, I know the ‘thermal capacities’ are totally different, but you should ‘get’ the principle involved).
Taking a “parcel” of atmosphere in isolation can’t resolve the issues that are involved with a ‘convection’ that is accelerated upwards by its environment. The (leaky) “parcel” becomes ‘less dense’ than its environs, thus, is ‘pushed upwards’ (against the ‘gravity gradient’) by its environmental surroundings that are ‘more dense’. ‘Convection’ ‘has begun/begins’!
As the ‘convection’ increases in altitude, its thermal energy remains ~constant relative to its ‘environs’ (both the ‘thermal’ and the ‘environs’ that generated the ‘thermal convection’ are ‘equally presented’ within an ‘adiabatic’ phenomenon as the altitude increases). Warm air can only undergo ‘energy loss’ by ‘radiation’, or ‘mixing’ with the environment. However, ‘mixing’ only ‘widens the convecting area’, whilst slowing the convection rate. I understand your concern.
“That is, he may not realize the calculus aspect.”
Hah! I’m not sure that I do either wayne. I’m more a ‘pattern’ man. 😉
Best regards, Ray.
Ben Wouters says: June 10, 2015 at 10:35 am
“What everybody here seems to miss is that our atmosphere has a DENSITY GRADIENT.”
And your point is ??”
With such thoughts in your mind about all of the absolutly scientifically ignorant commenters here except you Ben Wouters why give you some answer, besides you are beyond help and [snip]
ren says:
June 11, 2015 at 5:46 pm
The heated at the Earth’s surface air masses rise up and lose heat due to pressure reduction and expansion of gases, the molecules of which they lose part of their kinetic energy.
This is the adiabatic theory of Lapse Rate (LR). I am not convinced.
There is no heating of surface air at night yet the LR does not change, convection, storms and rain continues.
Surface air rises because due to evaporation and transpiration of H2O not expansion.
The density of moist air is lower than that of dry air.
When air rises it loses heat not to work done against expansion. Rising air does work against gravity.
Loss of Kinetic energy = mcT = gain of mgh gravitational potential energy
Lapse rate =T/h = g/c
wayne says: June 12, 2015 at 9:41 am
“With such thoughts in your mind about all of the absolutly scientifically ignorant commenters here except you Ben Wouters why give you some answer, besides you are beyond help and [snip]”
Seems you haven’t read the lecture linked in the thread header:
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html
Fully supports my position.
eg ‘What determines stability is the difference in density between the rising parcel and the environment. At the same pressure density differences are determined by temperature differences (ideal gas law). The rate of change of temperature with height in a dry air parcel – the adiabatic lapse rate – is fixed: 9.8 °C/km, but the rate of change with height in the surrounding atmosphere varies from place to place and time to time. The measured local vertical profile of temperature in the air is called the environmental lapse rate.’
If you’re beginning to realize you have been wrong since age twelve, sorry, but don’t blame the messenger, blame yourself.
Salvatore Del Prete says: June 12, 2015 at 12:15 am
“A much better diagram then what Wikipedia has.”
I feel this one fits better with the underlying process:
http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section4.html#tropospheric_circulation
To be sure, these General Circulation Cells are not driven by convection, so probably beyond the scope of this thread.
Ben Wouters says:
June 11, 2015 at 8:39 pm
maintaining a temperature profile, dictated by the HEq
The pressure profile is also dictated by the hydrostatic equation (HEq) and is exponential
Why is the T profile not exponential, it is straight? It is not dictated by HEq
Infrared irradiation is not necessary to heat the body, and the temperature is raised – collisions of particles and vibration – atoms, may emit photons even without the influence of any radiation. The heat can be called, for example, by friction, without providing radiation from the outside and also obtain infrared light (and not only because the visible as well). Infrared radiation is only one of many factors causing an increase in temperature, among which we still have pressure – the main source of heat in our world, it is the cause of heat the interior of stars and planets, chemical reaction heat, friction, contact the resort with a higher temperature and taking over its kinetic energy particles, and the influence of other types of radiation. Temperature enforces emission of infrared rays. The higher it is, the greater the energy is emitted. But although the infrared emission is a symptom of increased temperature, the same temperature increase does not require that unit infrared radiation.
http://ekotest.republika.pl/Efekt%20cieplarniany%20-%20krytyka%20i%20dyskusja%20strona%202.html
Adiabatic Temperature Change and Stability
In “The Atmosphere” we discovered that air temperature usually decreases with an increase in elevation through the troposphere. The decrease in temperature with elevation is called the environmental lapse rate of temperature or normal lapse rate of temperature. Recall that the normal lapse rate of temperature is the average lapse rate of temperature of .65o C / 100 meters. The environmental lapse rate of temperature is the actual vertical change in temperature on any given day and can be greater or less than .65o C / 100 meters. Also recall that the decrease in temperature with height is caused by increasing distance from the source of energy that heats the air, the Earth’s surface. Air is warmer near the surface because it’s closer to its source of heat. The further away from the surface, the cooler the air will be. It’s like standing next to a fire, the closer you are the warmer you’ll feel. Temperature change caused by an exchange of heat between two bodies is called diabatic temperature change. There is another very important way to change the temperature of air called adiabatic temperature change.
Adiabatic temperature change of air occurs without the addition or removal of energy. That is, there is no exchange of heat with the surrounding environment to cause the cooling or heating of the air. The temperature change is due to work done on a parcel of air by the external environment, or work done by a parcel of air on the air that surrounds it. What kind of work can be done? The work that is done is the expansion or compression of air.
Imagine an isolated parcel of air that is moving vertically through the troposphere. We know that air pressure decreases with increasing elevation. As the parcel of air moves upward the pressure exerted on the parcel decreases and the parcel expands in volume as a result. In order to expand (i.e.. do work), the parcel must use its internal energy to do so. As the air expands, the molecules spread out and ultimately collide less with one another. The work of expansion causes the air’s temperature to decrease. You might have had personal experience with this kind of cooling if you’ve let the air out of an automobile or bicycle tire. Air inside the tire is under a great deal of pressure, and as it rushes outside it moves into a lower pressure environment. In so doing, the parcel quickly expands against the outside environment air. By placing your hand in front of the valve stem, you can feel the air cool as it expands. This is called adiabatic cooling.
As air descends through the troposphere it experiences increasing atmospheric pressure. This causes the parcel volume to decrease in size, squeezing the air molecules closer together. In this case, work is being done on the parcel. As the volume shrinks, air molecules bounce off one another more often ricocheting with greater speed. The increase in molecular movement causes an increase in the temperature of the parcel. This process is referred to as adiabatic warming.
The rate at which air cools or warms depends on the moisture status of the air. If the air is dry, the rate of temperature change is 1oC/100 meters and is called the dry adiabatic rate (DAR). If the air is saturated, the rate of temperature change is .6oC/100 meters and is called the saturated adiabatic rate (SAR). The DAR is a constant value, that is, it’s always 1oC/100 meters. The SAR varies somewhat with how much moisture is in the air, but we’ll assume it to be a constant value here. The reason for the difference in the two rates is due to the liberation of latent heat as a result of condensation. As saturated air rises and cools, condensation takes place. Recall that as water vapor condenses, latent heat is released. This heat is transferred into the other molecules of air inside the parcel causing a reduction in the rate of cooling.
http://www.theairlinepilots.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=435&sid=95ebd356233742e25df185c631debb20
METEOROLOGIST JEFF HABY
Convective instability occurs when dry mid-level air advects over very warm and moist air in the lower troposphere. Convective instability is released when dynamic lifting from the surface to the mid-levels produces a moist adiabatic lapse rate of air lifted from the lower troposphere and a dry adiabatic lapse rate from air lifted in the middle troposphere. Over time, this increases the lapse rate in the troposphere and can cause a troposphere with little or no Surface Based CAPE to change to one with large SBCAPE (relative to a parcel of air lifted from the surface). Dry air cools more quickly when lifted compared to moist saturated air.
Convective instability exists when the mid-levels of the troposphere are fairly dry and high dewpoints (and near saturated conditions) exist in the PBL. Water vapor imagery detects moisture in the 600 to 300 millibar range in the troposphere. A dark color on water vapor imagery implies a lack of moisture in the middle and upper levels of the troposphere. The surface, 850 mb, and 700 mb charts can be used to assess the low level moisture profile. The best way to analyze convective instability is by the use of a Skew-T diagram. A hydrolapse (rapid decrease of dewpoint with height) will exist at the boundary between the near saturated lower troposphere and dry mid-levels.
http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/214/
Ben Wouters says: June 12, 2015 at 11:54 am
“To be sure, these General Circulation Cells are not driven by convection, so probably beyond the scope of this thread.”
So says the great ersatz meteorologist BAW! “Convection” is properly any spontaneous or forced advection (fluid motion) that also transfers “something” beside the fluid from place to place including other fluids! Which is exactly the scope of this thread.
Atmospheric circulation is the large-scale movement of air, and is a means by which thermal energy is distributed on the surface of the Earth, together with the much slower (lagged) ocean circulation system. The large-scale structure of the atmospheric circulation varies from year to year, but the basic climatological structure remains fairly constant.
Latitudinal circulation occurs because incident solar radiation per unit area is highest at the heat equator, and decreases as the latitude increases, reaching minima at the poles. It consists of two primary convection cells, the Hadley cell and the polar vortex, with the Hadley cell experiencing stronger convection due to the release of latent heat energy by condensation of water vapor at higher altitudes during cloud formation.
Longitudinal circulation, on the other hand, comes about because the ocean has a higher specific heat capacity than land (and also thermal conductivity, allowing the heat to penetrate further beneath the surface) and thereby absorbs and releases more heat, but the temperature changes less than land. This brings the sea breeze, air cooled by the water, ashore in the day, and carries the land breeze, air cooled by contact with the ground, out to sea during the night. Longitudinal circulation consists of two cells, the Walker circulation and El Niño / Southern Oscillation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection
Ben Wouters says: June 12, 2015 at 11:54 am
“To be sure, these General Circulation Cells are not driven by convection, so probably beyond the scope of this thread.”
(Will responds with some sort of gibberish)
Ben is basically correct. Unstable convection is not the *only* source of vertical displacement. Anyone who knows & studies meteorology knows this. The other two main sources of lift are 1) Kinematic lift (Jet stream upper-level divergence ‘drawing’ air aloft from below) and 2) Isentropic lift (low-level air advected & forced to flow up & over more dense air as in a Warm/Cold front). Both kinematic & isentropic are broad, large-scale lifting with slow vertical velocities where convection are strong localized lifting and all contribute to the General Circulation Cells but the convection is to a much lesser extent.
As to the Haby Hints, I don’t quite agree with him in regards to convection & water vapor in the upper levels.
1) In the tropics, you can have deep-layer water vapor (little dry air) & still have convection (i.e. tropical cyclones) and…
2) You can have deep-layer very dry air & still have convection…they are called ‘thermals’ & sail plane pilots “love’ them. The only thing water vapor does in the convective process is make the ‘thermal’ visible.
Part II of the link in the post: ‘II. Convection – a form of heat transfer’
‘Convection is a form of heat transfer, as is the process of radiation which we examined in the previous lecture. Convection takes place in liquids and gases and distinguishes them from solids. It works because in a fluid, “chunks” of matter (which we will refer to as parcels) can move up or down with respect to the rest of the fluid as they are being heated or cooled, respectively.’
OK so far?
ren says: June 11, 2015 at 5:52 pm
“Even that reaches from the sun enormous amount of infrared radiation of the highest frequency does not have a heat capacity of air,”
Whatever might you mean by the “heat capacity of air”? Do you mean the specific heat of the air mass. or something else? The actual heat capacity of this atmosphere is properly the latent heat of evaporation of the 2.6 g/cm^2 of column water suspended in this atmosphere. Such aitborne heat capacity amounts to 3100 Joules for every square centimetre of earth’s surface. The continuous evaporation of this airborne water condensate into WV from insolation, than the spreading of WV, and its eventual condensation back to airborne water condensate powering exitance to space via only EMR flux.
It is this continious process that powers “every” updraft, downdraft, lateral wind of any sort, along with all the power of all vortices including hurricanes and tornadoes. How is it that meteorologists have never grasped the significance of such latent heat exchange not even involving the planetary surface?
“the more infrared rendered to a low frequency such capacity will not. This confirms the technical experience and practice using infrared light.”
This confirms what exactly? EMR flux, though never heat, interacts with the atmosphere explicitly as stated above!
“Also, infrared heaters do not heat the air, and act on irradiated objects. Recommendable are some infrared heaters manufacturers, who often describe the principle of operation of these devices.”
Almost all infrared heaters transfer most of that energy by spontaneous or forced convection.
Your attempt at explaining IR electromagnetic radiative flux, clearly indicates no training, education, or experience with electrodynamics!
oldbrew says: June 12, 2015 at 10:21 pm
“Part II of the link in the post: ‘II. Convection – a form of heat transfer’”
Only to some form of meteorologist trying to snow you with unexplainable fantasy!
“Convection is a form of heat transfer, as is the process of radiation which we examined in the previous lecture.”
Never! Emr flux is never heat! Heat requires mass for expression as sensible heat or phase change. EMR flux requires on mass. It is completely relativistic energy. The flux may proceed at the velocity of light ” only” because because it requires no mass (or heat) for expression of energy.
“Convection takes place in liquids and gases and distinguishes them from solids. It works because in a fluid, “chunks” of matter (which we will refer to as parcels) can move up or down with respect to the rest of the fluid as they are being heated or cooled, respectively.’”
This is the meteorological fantasy expression of the meteorological fantasy of convection. Solids when constrained have no spontaneous means of advection (motion) Only the meteorologists insist that convection need be restricted to spontaneous vertical advection in an enclosed adiabatic parcel while advecting only sensible heat while transferring none of the advecting energy or sensible heat! Please believe, this atmosphere never ever does that! There is simply no physical reason. It is again an attempt at a perpetuum mobile of the second kind! Spontaneous vertical convection occurs “only” if such convection can facilitate an elevation of sensible heat or latent heat to an altitude for more effective dispatch to space via EMR flux. Such heat energy “never” returns to a lower altitude! 🙂
“OK so far?”
Not unless you wish all to emulate a brainwashed meteorologist! That which brought about the CAGW scam! 🙂
JKrob says: June 12, 2015 at 9:44 pm
Ben Wouters says: June 12, 2015 at 11:54 am
(“To be sure, these General Circulation Cells are not driven by convection, so probably beyond the scope of this thread.”)
“Will responds with some sort of gibberish”
Welcome, JKrob!! Please point out a single technical error and I will agree!
“Ben is basically correct. Unstable convection is not the *only* source of vertical displacement. Anyone who knows & studies meteorology knows this.”
More correctly, Brainwashed into this! Is vertical displacement “convection” or only vertical advection, from whatever force. When exactly, does the advection become convection? Why the distinction?
“The other two main sources of lift are 1) Kinematic lift (Jet stream upper-level divergence ‘drawing’ air aloft from below) and 2) Isentropic lift (low-level air advected & forced to flow up & over more dense air as in a Warm/Cold front). Both kinematic & isentropic are broad, large-scale lifting with slow vertical velocities where convection are strong localized lifting and all contribute to the General Circulation Cells but the convection is to a much lesser extent.”
Correct: from the Bible of Meteorology, Volume VII page 377!
More important is the upward velocity via centrifugal force of the airborne water condensate that must accompany any saturated WV. This condensate can only increase in density and upward velocity at increasing altitude! 🙂
I do not know what qualification Will Janoschka has but he sure is not an engineer and demonstrates he has no correct ideas about heat transfer. Oldbrew is correct. Section 5 of the Chemical Engineering Handbook is headed “Heat & Mass Transfer” . On page 5-8 it states “There are three fundamental types of heat transfer: conduction, convection and radiation. All three types may occur at the same time” There are two forms of convection -natural convection explained with equations on page 5-13 and forced convection explained with equations on pages 5-14 to 5-19. There is in fact a fourth type of heat transfer -Phase Change which is explained with equations and charts on pages 5-20 to 5-23. Radiation is covered on pages 5-23 to 5-40 with equations, charts and tables. Things such as clouds of particles, flames, soot and combustion chambers are covered with equations, and charts for data in the second part of the pages on radiation.
Pages 5-42 to 5-79 covers mass transfer which is often combined with heat transfer as is the case with evaporation. Using dimensionless numbers there are analogies between momentum, heat and mass transfer.
Section 6 of the Chemical Engineering Handbook is titled “Fluid and Particle dynamics” . It is necessary to understand this to also understand the previous section on “Heat & Mass” transfer.
I suggest that anyone who has no (chemical or mechanical) engineering qualifications and experience can not possibly model atmospheric conditions and climate changes nor can they write sensible comments about what is actually occurring. I have seen that so-called Climate Science do not know the basics of the Stefan-Boltzman equation or the Kirchhof Law. They certainly have no idea about evaporation.
Ben Wouters says: June 12, 2015 at 11:46 am
“eg ‘What determines stability is the difference in density between the rising parcel and the environment. At the same pressure density differences are determined by temperature differences (ideal gas law). The rate of change of temperature with height in a dry air parcel – the adiabatic lapse rate – is fixed: 9.8 °C/km, but the rate of change with height in the surrounding atmosphere varies from place to place and time to time. The measured local vertical profile of temperature in the air is called the environmental lapse rate.’”
I couldn’t find where this quote came from in the link so I guess its just ‘your’ statement Ben. If it is, you didn’t think through the ‘logic’ of your words. 😦
‘What determines stability is the difference in density between the rising parcel and the environment.’
This is confusing. ‘Difference in density’ actually causes ‘instability’! Bad choice of words.
‘At the same pressure density differences are determined by temperature differences (ideal gas law).’
This is just ‘wrong’. The inclusion of a much lighter/heavier gas to the overall ‘gas mix’ also alters the ‘density’ in accordance with the Ideal Gas Law for ‘mixed gasses’.
Ben, there are two ‘natural’ attractors that counter the ‘gravity field in Earth’s atmosphere’ (generate convection) AFAIK (I exclude an occluded front, a mountain in the way, Coriolis Effect and a Diffusion Pump Scenario as these are all ‘forced’). These are ‘an atmosphere that’s more greatly ‘warmed’ by surface conditions (e.g. UHI) for temperature difference, and ‘gas mix difference’ for the local content of WV at that location’. ‘Gas mix’ as well as ‘higher temperature’ can generate a ‘lower density’ that offers a ‘counterpoise’ (force against the ‘gravity gradient’) to gravity.
Pse remember that a ‘force against the ‘gravity gradient” is an ‘acceleration vector’, thus, ‘squared’ by its ‘effort per second’.
‘The rate of change of temperature with height in a dry air parcel – the adiabatic lapse rate – is fixed: 9.8 °C/km, but the rate of change with height in the surrounding atmosphere varies from place to place and time to time. The measured local vertical profile of temperature in the air is called the environmental lapse rate.’
I concur, but would remind you that the DALR is a ‘theoretical construct’ that’s used against the ELR for ‘weather prediction’. The DALR can’t predict the outcome of the weather without a full understanding of the ELR at the location that the prediction has in focus. Thus, weather forecasts rely on data gained at the local level to, hopefully, predict any ‘future outcome’.
What/where does/has this have anything to do with ‘atmospheric convection’ per se?
Pse loose your ‘weather man’ garb and get ‘into’ the ‘physics’ aspect of the thread. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
cementafriend says: June 13, 2015 at 2:43 am
“I do not know what qualification Will Janoschka has but he sure is not an engineer and demonstrates he has no correct ideas about heat transfer.”
Think again ‘caf’. Will is an excellent engineer, but his discipline lays in the direction of radiative tec..
When it comes to ‘heat transfer’ within Earth’s atmosphere, you probably shouldn’t ask Will, but anything to do with EMR exitance from Earth’s systems, Will’s the guy to ask. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: June 13, 2015 at 3:39 am
“Pse loose your ‘weather man’ garb and get ‘into’ the ‘physics’ aspect of the thread. 🙂 ”
Perhaps the physics or the physical need to be carefully delineated from the “all” or “real” !
The physical is but that small part of the “is”, that has been detected, observed, or measured.
That small physical is the only part of the real to which “science” can ever be applied. All else of the “real” must be Religion, Fantasy, or Politics. Never requiring repeatable evidence, only belief!
All the best -will-
Will Janoschka
For me, these are important evidence that can be used in practice, for example. aviation and the orbital flights. Error for example in the calculation of temperature can cost you dearly.
cementafriend says:
Oldbrew is correct. Section 5 of the Chemical Engineering Handbook is headed “Heat & Mass Transfer” . On page 5-8 it states “There are three fundamental types of heat transfer: conduction, convection and radiation. All three types may occur at the same time”.
For a surface area greater importance is the radiation, convection to the atmosphere.
Convection (circulation) transfers the heat from the equator.
You can see that clouds absorb infrared radiation.
Click.
Dictionary definitions for ‘convection‘:
noun
1.
Physics. the transfer of heat by the circulation or movement of the heated parts of a liquid or gas.
2.
Meteorology. the vertical transport of atmospheric properties, especially upward (distinguished from advection).
3.
the act of conveying or transmitting.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/convection
‘advection‘
noun
1.
Meteorology. the horizontal transport of atmospheric properties (distinguished from convection ).
2.
the horizontal flow of air, water, etc.
Roger Clague says: June 12, 2015 at 5:17 pm
“Ben Wouters says:
June 11, 2015 at 8:39 pm
maintaining a temperature profile, dictated by the HEq
The pressure profile is also dictated by the hydrostatic equation (HEq) and is exponential
Why is the T profile not exponential, it is straight? It is not dictated by HEq”
DENSITY GRADIENT.
Will Janoschka says: June 12, 2015 at 9:01 pm
“Ben Wouters says: June 12, 2015 at 11:54 am
“To be sure, these General Circulation Cells are not driven by convection, so probably beyond the scope of this thread.”
So says the great ersatz meteorologist BAW!”
@moderators: any reason why WJ is continuously allowed to insult meteorologist and myself, and when I correctly call this nitwit a nitwit I get sniped for name calling?????
[mod] OK that’s one each but no more please
JKrob says: June 12, 2015 at 9:44 pm
“Ben Wouters says: June 12, 2015 at 11:54 am
“To be sure, these General Circulation Cells are not driven by convection, so probably beyond the scope of this thread.”
(Will responds with some sort of gibberish)”
Welcome to the amazing world of WJ. 😉
On the other thread I collected some of his gems, worth repeating here:
Will Janoschka says: May 23, 2015 at 9:28 am
“Please show the latitude, longitude, and altitude where your so called HEq has ever been detected?”
Will Janoschka says: May 2, 2015 at 9:57 pm
“The claim is the Sun heats (raises the temperature) of the surface, which then heats (raises the temperature) of the atmosphere. What BS.”
Will Janoschka says: May 13, 2015 at 11:21 am
“The gas WV with all its latent heat percolates through N2, O2, because of its much lower weight/volume!”
Will Janoschka says: June 3, 2015 at 3:35 am
“Please, I know little of how convection may occur. My “assumption” was that all conversion of latent heat upon condensation was directly converted to EMR radiative flux. “
Will Janoschka says: June 12, 2015 at 11:49 pm
“Is vertical displacement “convection” or only vertical advection, from whatever force. When exactly, does the advection become convection? Why the distinction?”
Poor Will, doesn’t even know the difference between horizontal and vertical.
Let me explain: in the atmosphere horizontal movement of air is driven by horizontal pressure differences and called wind.
Vertical movement is mostly driven by density differences, called convection. Exception eg when horizontally moving air is forced up by some obstacle.
suricat says: June 13, 2015 at 3:39 am
“I couldn’t find where this quote came from in the link so I guess its just ‘your’ statement Ben. If it is, you didn’t think through the ‘logic’ of your words. :(”
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html
Header reads:
The Climate System
EESC 2100 Spring 2007
section V. The stability of dry air – dry convection.
and you’l find the quoted text.
“‘At the same pressure density differences are determined by temperature differences (ideal gas law).’
This is just ‘wrong’. The inclusion of a much lighter/heavier gas to the overall ‘gas mix’ also alters the ‘density’ in accordance with the Ideal Gas Law for ‘mixed gasses’.”
Sure, and the effect is negligible. Assuming the rising air to be at 100% RH (cloud has formed),
the surrounding air will usually have a RH as well, so the difference is very small and not even close to the difference due to a few degrees in temperature.
Furthermore at the low temperatures we find in the troposphere the wv content of air is close to zero, even at 100% RH.
suricat says: June 13, 2015 at 3:39 am
‘The rate of change of temperature with height in a dry air parcel – the adiabatic lapse rate – is fixed: 9.8 °C/km, but the rate of change with height in the surrounding atmosphere varies from place to place and time to time. The measured local vertical profile of temperature in the air is called the environmental lapse rate.’
“I concur, but would remind you that the DALR is a ‘theoretical construct’ that’s used against the ELR for ‘weather prediction’.”
Wrong, it is the ACTUAL change of the temperature of a parcel that rises in surrounding air that is in HEq.
It seems you don’t see the relevance of HEq. Rising or sinking of air is caused by a ‘disturbance’ in the HEq. These disturbances occur when air has the ‘wrong’ density for the level it is at.
“What/where does/has this have anything to do with ‘atmospheric convection’ per se?”
It IS atmospheric convection !!!!
Currently, we have a strong ionization of the atmosphere, which increases the number of cloud condensation nuclei. With an increased ionization increase the amount of rain clouds.
The water vapor product is a measurement of the water vapor concentration over the oceans. Indeterminate data in the product below usually results from the inability to take accurate measurements from the polar ice caps and areas of rainfall. Regions on display include the Western Hemisphere and the Eastern Hemisphere. This product is updated every four hours.
The current wind speed product is a measurement of the wind speed over the oceans. Indeterminate data in the product below usually results from the inability to take accurate measurements from the polar ice caps and areas of rainfall. Regions on display include the Western Hemisphere and the Eastern Hemisphere. This product is updated every four hours.
You can see how important for the circulation is winter polar vortex.
@moderators: any reason why WJ is continuously allowed to insult meteorologist and myself, and when I correctly call this nitwit a nitwit I get sniped for name calling?????
[mod] OK that’s one each but no more please
Do I have credits for all insults on the other thread? 😉
Will Janoschka says: June 12, 2015 at 11:49 pm
“More important is the upward velocity via centrifugal force of the airborne water condensate that must accompany any saturated WV. This condensate can only increase in density and upward velocity at increasing altitude! :-)”
Upward velocity of airborne water condensate, like in FALLING rain etc?
Not sure if ‘excellent engineers’ are aware of gravity?
@suricat
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html
IV. Atmosphere under gravity – hydrostatic balance.
In the vertical direction, gravity is by far the most important external force acting on the atmosphere. It is the reason for the existence of this crucial envelop of gases around the Earth.
The atmosphere does not collapse under the downward pull of gravity because of the energy embedded in the movement of the air molecules. This movement creates the force of pressure which counters the gravitational pull on the atmosphere. The balance between the force of pressure and gravity is the hydrostatic balance.
Can it be said is that the pressure difference drives the movement of air on a large scale?
ren says: June 13, 2015 at 12:30 pm
“Can it be said is that the pressure difference drives the movement of air on a large scale?”
Horizontal movement (wind) is driven by HORIZONTAL pressure differences, which are relatively small.
The enormous pressure differences that exist VERTICALLY, do not cause movement of air, as long as they are balanced by gravity pulling down. (Hydrostatic Equilibrium).
When it comes to predicting the weather, it helps to have as much information available as possible. Meteorologist have created some very sophisticated mathematical models that can predict the weather more accurately than ever before, yet without the fundamental data concerning what the weather is doing now, these models are useless.
The wind forms the basis of atmospheric circulation, which governs the weather and climate.
Some areas of Earth receive more heat from the Sun than other areas. This leads to differences in air temperature, density and pressure, which in turn, cause the air to move – creating wind.
The movement of air constitutes the general circulation of the atmosphere, transporting heat away from equatorial regions towards the poles, and returning cooler air to the tropics.
Rising warm air is associated with areas of low surface-pressure called cyclones, while areas of high surface-pressure, known as anticyclones, are associated with subsiding air. These pressure differences are balanced by air motion – wind.
Since Earth rotates and is spherical, winds to not move directly from high to low pressure areas. The greater the difference in air pressure between two regions, the stronger the wind will be. The wind continues to blow until the pressure difference changes.
The Coriolis force explains why winds generally blow perpendicular to the direction of the pressure difference.
The Coriolis force acts at right angles to the direction of motion, so as to cause deflection to the right in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere. The force increases from zero at the equator to a maximum at the poles. Winds are therefore deflected relatively little at low latitudes and at higher latitudes the degree of deflection is much larger.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/The_Living_Planet_Programme/Earth_Explorers/ADM-Aeolus/Overview
JKrob says:
June 12, 2015 at 9:44 pm
The only thing water vapor does in the convective process is make the ‘thermal’ visible.
I do not agree. The convective process needs buoyancy.
What is causing the buoyancy at night? It is obviously not the sun heating and expanding air.
The buoyancy is caused by the lower density of moist air. Evaporation and transpiration continue in the dark.
suricat says:
June 13, 2015 at 3:39 am
I concur, but would remind you that the DALR is a ‘theoretical construct’ that’s used against the ELR for ‘weather prediction’.
This is a good point
For predicting instability it does not matter if you use DALR – ELR or ELR.
DALR is wrong but the DALR – ELR scale still works.
Ben Wouters says:
June 13, 2015 at 12:29 pm
The atmosphere does not collapse under the downward pull of gravity because of the energy embedded in the movement of the air molecules. This movement creates the force of pressure which counters the gravitational pull on the atmosphere. The balance between the force of pressure and gravity is the hydrostatic balance.
HEq is P =density x gravity x height pressure/h is linear for aliquid
p/h is exponential for a gas
In the standard treatment the linear HEq is changed to exponential by adding the Gas law.
The hydrostatic equation is from fluid dynamics using the packet concept, Gas laws are derived using the atomic/molecular concept.
Using both in the same theory is not OK.
Advection of Geostrophic Vorticity by the Thermal Wind (vertical motion at 600 hPa).
Equilibrium Level Convective Cloud Top Temperature (Most Unstable Parcel, including surface.based)
ALL THE PARAMETERS
for one forecast time
oldbrew says: June 13, 2015 at 9:50 am
——————————————————————————————————
Dictionary definitions for ‘convection‘: noun
1. Physics. the transfer of heat by the circulation or movement of the heated parts of a liquid or gas.
2. Meteorology. the vertical transport of atmospheric properties, especially upward (distinguished from advection).
3. the act of conveying or transmitting.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/convection
‘advection‘ noun
1.Meteorology. the horizontal transport of atmospheric properties (distinguished from convection ).
2.the horizontal flow of air, water, etc.
———————————————————————————————————
I agree to your dictionary’s “colloquial” meanings.
Is that your intent in a thread called “atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean”?
Some folk here are striving for some meaning or understanding, rather than the fantasy promoted by the vested political CAGW Climate Clowns, and their associated Climate Buffoons claiming knowledge of Meteorology.
In the hard sciences “advection” comes in two types spontaneous and forced and means only the motion of mass (no direction is implied) indeed the planets in orbit are in a state of advection. Only if the orbit is circular can that advection be considered spontaneous, else it is mixed! The flow of water, in a river, is generally spontaneous even if going over a falls. If that river has diffused bottom silt then that river advection gives convection to the silt in whatever direction of the water.
The Meteorologists haven claimed ownership of many words and phrases, without any justification then change the meaning of such words and phrases to suit their fantasy and religion! The obvious result is CAGW. The fantasies are fine for confusing the innocent into accepting “that fake why” as some reason for the measurable “is”. Why not have the fakers produce some repeatable evidence that “may” demonstrate some viability for their own “why”! All they have are writings from some prior religious meteorologist! 🙂
ren says: June 13, 2015 at 9:25 am
“You can see that clouds absorb infrared radiation.”
Indeed clouds absorb much more insolation than they reflect. The clouds many times have higher radiance in the direction of space, than the adjacent air mass. The increased radiance is promoted by the slight increase in temperature of airborne water condensate which must accompany the production of more WV via insolation! 🙂
Ben Wouters says: June 13, 2015 at 12:55 pm
ren says: June 13, 2015 at 12:30 pm
(“Can it be said is that the pressure difference drives the movement of air on a large scale?”)
“Horizontal movement (wind) is driven by HORIZONTAL pressure differences, which are relatively small”
Small differential pressure, huge surface area, -> .huge mass movement with all that energy powering “WINDFARMS”!
“The enormous pressure differences that exist VERTICALLY, do not cause movement of air, as long as they are balanced by gravity pulling down. (Hydrostatic Equilibrium).”
It is the vertical ratio of pressure/density with units of WORK (force x distance) that limit all airborne vertical mass motion, with or without heat transfer, No process in this atmosphere is ever adiabatic! 🙂
Ben Wouters says: June 13, 2015 at 12:29 pm
“The balance between the force of pressure and gravity is the hydrostatic balance.”
And where in four-space is your “hydrostatic balance” ever observed! Complete religious fantasy!
Ben Wouters says: June 13, 2015 at 12:03 pm
Will Janoschka says: June 12, 2015 at 11:49 pm
(“More important is the upward velocity via centrifugal force of the airborne water condensate that must accompany any saturated WV. This condensate can only increase in density and upward velocity at increasing altitude! 🙂 ”)
“Upward velocity of airborne water condensate, like in FALLING rain etc?
Not sure if ‘excellent engineers’ are aware of gravity?”
Deliberate denial of any airborne water condensate, not WV, little or no latent heat but always present suspended in this atmosphere. A measurable part of atmospheric surface pressure!
The meteorologists now refuse to measure this, as such measurement would blow away any CAGW! .Scams abound!
Will: “The increased radiance is promoted by the slight increase in temperature of airborne water condensate which must accompany the production of more WV via insolation! ”
Exactly, Cloud re-evaporation. Happens here nearly every morning with the overcast burn-off. Shows up on the radiosondes as large displacements in the dew point at the cloud altitudes.
Ben Wouters says: June 13, 2015 at 11:35 am
———————————————————————————————–
@moderators: any reason why WJ is continuously allowed to insult meteorologist and myself, and when I correctly call this nitwit a nitwit I get sniped for name calling?????
[mod] OK that’s one each but no more please
———————————————————————–
“Do I have credits for all insults on the other thread? 😉 ”
Certainly Ben,
Knock yourself out! Please try to discern those directed at you, and those directed at professional lying Meteorologists! 🙂
Ben Wouters says: June 13, 2015 at 10:54 am
suricat says: June 13, 2015 at 3:39 am
(“What/where does/has this have anything to do with ‘atmospheric convection’ per se?”)
“It IS atmospheric convection !!!! ”
So claims the magnificent BAW! 🙂
wayne says: June 14, 2015 at 12:40 am
(Will: “The increased radiance is promoted by the slight increase in temperature of airborne water condensate which must accompany the production of more WV via insolation! ”)
“Exactly, Cloud re-evaporation. Happens here nearly every morning with the overcast burn-off. Shows up on the radiosondes as large displacements in the dew point at the cloud altitudes.”
To even try to understand “this” atmosphere we must come to understand the spontaneous effect of airborne water condensate, the aerosol, and its how it can deflect the huge radiant flux coming from a wee 68 micro-steradians sun and its process of exiting “all” into four PI steradians, at a much lower temperature.
Can earthlings ever understand such? Doubtful! Perhaps the surviving Roaches can do better! 🙂
Got’cha Will. I can tell you are used to dealing in irradiance and I am not, my steradians is coming out just a bit lower, 10.8 micro-steradians. Any help where I seem to be screwing up that calc? Don’t know why I love to check every number, be familiar with every equation, but I do, by instinct or inherit skepticism. 😉
wayne says:
June 14, 2015 at 3:15 am
“Got’cha Will. I can tell you are used to dealing in irradiance and I am not, my steradians is coming out just a bit lower, 10.8 micro-steradians. Any help where I seem to be screwing up that calc? Don’t know why I love to check every number, be familiar with every equation, but I do, by instinct or inherit skepticism. 😉 ”
Wayne The angular subtense of the solar photosphere as measured at a distance of 1 Au is 10.8 milliradian. The angular diameter of the sun at this distance. Divide that by two, for radius, then square, and multiply by PI to get steradians. Adjust that for the high radiance of the Sun’s chromosphere at short wavelengths. Your guess is as good as mine, but who is buying the next round! 🙂
BTW Will, just got back home and re-read my words and that “Got’cha” might be taken two ways. Written in a hurry. It was that I understood what you were getting at, had nothing to do with the value in question and thanks for the clarification, the round’s gladly on me if we should ever cross paths.
ren says: June 11, 2015 at 8:04 pm
” The above formula shows that the decrease in air density with an increase in water vapor gives higher the temperature at constant pressure?”
Huh! Please explain how such , independent of formula, is ever expressed in this atmosphere?
At the equator much water condensate not WV is is elevated to the stratosphere by centrifugal force of the surface circular air velocity of 1000 MPH. This is true CONVECTION!. Such airborne condensate can only become wee snowflakes or ice crystals in the stratosphere. Such never precipitates except at the very low pressure poles! Just another example of what water condensate can do in this atmosphere! Such is never acknowledged by any meteorologist!
Will, that has given me something new to think about. Thanks.
Will, I have a problem with that thought: “At the equator much water condensate not WV is is elevated to the stratosphere by centrifugal force of the surface circular air velocity of 1000 MPH.”
The velocity is correct, roughly, but there is not nearly enough centrifugal force to force some mass (your condensate) upward when gravity is pulling it downward since assuming that condensate is heavier that the air. The force you mention is there, without a doubt, is part of the reason the tropo is so high at the equator and low at the poles but seems to me it would, one, slow any descent. and two, raise the altitude where some equilibrium occurs compared to some other location with less centrifugal force present.
Besides, if there were enough centifugal force to do such everthing at the equator would simply float away wouldn’t it. 🙂
Did you not wait for me to buy that round?
wayne says: June 14, 2015 at 6:51 am
“BTW Will, just got back home and re-read my words and that “Got’cha” might be taken two ways. Written in a hurry. It was that I understood what you were getting at, had nothing to do with the value in question and thanks for the clarification, the round’s gladly on me if we should ever cross paths.”
Wayne, my best was working for a company that encouraged dialog between the spooks and others at the Steak and Ale at a very large table on Friday afternoon. There were perhaps 18 engineers and 20 wives or specials at that table. We would do engineering speak while discussing! Eventually one wife or special would speak such ” I have no f**king idea of what you fools are speaking”! At that point someone that wanted to get laid, rather than viciously attacked! would speak in terms that any can understand. You would be amazed at the provocative questions from the ladies!. Anyhow, those that insisted on speaking bought a round. Most just mumbled, had another swallow then pondered! To this day I have no idea if the company or the company customers, were forking over for such deliberate drunkenness!
wayne says: June 14, 2015 at 8:14 am
Will, I have a problem with that thought: “At the equator much water condensate not WV is is elevated to the stratosphere by centrifugal force of the surface circular air velocity of 1000 MPH.”
“The velocity is correct, roughly, but there is not nearly enough centrifugal force to force some mass (your condensate) upward when gravity is pulling it downward since assuming that condensate is heavier that the air. The force you mention is there, without a doubt, is part of the reason the tropo is so high at the equator and low at the poles but seems to me it would, one, slow any descent. and two, raise the altitude where some equilibrium occurs compared to some other location with less centrifugal force present.”
With the gravity gradient and buoyancy a whole different set of equations must prevail!
“Besides, if there were enough centifugal force to do such everthing at the equator would simply float away wouldn’t it. 🙂 ”
Yes, please show anything ordinary of weather at this equator!
“Did you not wait for me to buy that round?”
I are self sufficient and currently much dronk! Thank you for your concern! 🙂
Ok, being late, mind out of gear, I best wait till morning to re-read this entire thought line.
Richard111 says: June 14, 2015 at 7:07 am
“Will, that has given me something new to think about. Thanks.”
And thank you also! Wait for more that earthlings cannot possibly understand of this wonderful atmosphere! Understanding ist verboten! We can only kick back and wonder about the wonderful!
Space shuttle view of cloud systems forming by convection of air masses over the Pacific Ocean. Evaporation consumes heat and leads to surface cooling. Higher up condensation of the water
vapour releases heat, which leads to warming of the atmosphere. By convection both heat and water vapour is removed from the surface and are transported up into the atmosphere. The picture covers an horizontal distance of about 40 km from left to right.
The heat that is released by condensation of water vapour and cloud formation is deposited in the middle and upper troposphere. From here the heat is able to radiate into space, thereby ensuring that the planet as such will not overheat. Some of the condensated water vapour will fall as precipitation, transporting water back to the planet surface and removing water vapour from the atmosphere. On average, all of the water evaporated from the surface must at some point condensate and fall back to the surface as precipitation. After it reaches the surface, the water is once again available to remove more heat through evaporation, starting the cycle all over again.
WARMS CLOUDS ATMOSPHERE, NOT SURFACE.
Cloud albedo
Cloud albedo is a measure of the reflectivity of a cloud. High values mean that the cloud can reflect more solar radiation. Cloud albedo varies from less than 10% to more than 90% and depends on drop sizes, liquid water or ice content, thickness of the cloud, and the sun’s zenith angle. The smaller the drops and the greater the liquid water content, the greater the cloud albedo, all other factors the same.
http://www.climate4you.com/index.htm
Please see how quickly cyclones in the Pacific off the coasts of Mexico ocean surface cooled down.
http://weather.gc.ca/saisons/animation_e.html?id=month&bc=sea
Will Janoschka says: June 13, 2015 at 11:17 pm
“Some folk here are striving for some meaning or understanding, rather than the fantasy promoted by the vested political CAGW Climate Clowns, and their associated Climate Buffoons claiming knowledge of Meteorology.” etc etc
@moderators
How long will you continue tolerating this nonsense?
The poor soul is totally clueless, and makes any discussion virtually impossible.
[reply] that one escaped as no names were mentioned, but there are limits
Will Janoschka says: June 14, 2015 at 12:11 am
Horizontal pressure differences like 1 hPa over ~20 km already create very strong winds, like 50 kts.
Vertically we have 500 hPa over ~5,5 km, and the atmosphere nicely floats around.
Requires understanding of the Hydrostatic Equilibrium, which obviously is too much for Wills IQ.
Will Janoschka says: June 14, 2015 at 12:20 am
“And where in four-space is your “hydrostatic balance” ever observed!”
Try the WHOLE atmosphere, with a possible exception for very high up, very low density and pressure, where other effects MAY take over.
Will Janoschka says: June 14, 2015 at 6:51 am
“At the equator much water condensate not WV is is elevated to the stratosphere by centrifugal force of the surface circular air velocity of 1000 MPH. This is true CONVECTION!. Such airborne condensate can only become wee snowflakes or ice crystals in the stratosphere. Such never precipitates except at the very low pressure poles!”
Another gem by Will, I’ll add it to the collection.
Let me help: difference in gravity between equator and poles is a staggering 0,53 %.
Going up in the atmosphere the ‘gravity gradient’ is ~0,11% reduction / 3000 m.
So yes, this would explain how wv from the warm tropical oceans (that are not warmed by the sun according to Will ) can percolate through N2 and O2. The resulting tropical downpours then create rain that is falling upwards. This last part is still a bit confusing to me.
Correct so far?
Will Janoschka says: June 14, 2015 at 6:51 am
“This is true CONVECTION!. Such airborne condensate can only become wee snowflakes or ice crystals in the stratosphere. Such never precipitates except at the very low pressure poles! ”
On planet earth the poles are situated under the HIGH pressure part of the Polar cell, and can be considered ‘deserts’, with little precipitation.
So close, but not quite. Actually just totally wrong (again).
wayne says: June 14, 2015 at 8:14 am
“The velocity is correct, roughly, but there is not nearly enough centrifugal force to force some mass (your condensate) upward when gravity is pulling it downward since assuming that condensate is heavier that the air. The force you mention is there, without a doubt, is part of the reason the tropo is so high at the equator and low at the poles”
You could have mentioned the difference in surface temperatures between poles and equator.
Results in eg. the 500 hPa level being below 5000m at the poles and around 6000m near the equator. Same for eg the 100 hPa level, much higher at the equator.
Makes the following text from Robinson & Catling logical:
A minimum atmospheric temperature, or tropopause, occurs
at a pressure of around 0.1 bar in the atmospheres of Earth1,
Titan2, Jupiter3, Saturn4, Uranus and Neptune4, despite great
differences in atmospheric composition, gravity, internal heat
and sunlight. In all of these bodies, the tropopause separates
a stratosphere with a temperature profile that is controlled
by the absorption of short-wave solar radiation, from a region
below characterized by convection, weather and clouds5,6.
However, it is not obvious why the tropopause occurs at the
specific pressure near 0.1 bar. Here we use a simple, physically
based model7 to demonstrate that, at atmospheric pressures
lower than 0.1 bar, transparency to thermal radiation allows
short-wave heating to dominate, creating a stratosphere.
Notice:
“a stratosphere with a temperature profile that is controlled
by the absorption of short-wave solar radiation”
ren says: June 14, 2015 at 10:05 am
Interesting and mostly relevant, but as you may have noticed some posters here do not even understand the workings of simple convection like a thermal.
Let’s try to get past that stage first 😉
(suricat says: June 13, 2015 at 3:39 am)
Ben Wouters says: June 13, 2015 at 10:54 am
(“I concur, but would remind you that the DALR is a ‘theoretical construct’ that’s used against the ELR for ‘weather prediction’.”)
“Wrong, it is the ACTUAL change of the temperature of a parcel that rises in surrounding air that is in HEq.
It seems you don’t see the relevance of HEq. Rising or sinking of air is caused by a ‘disturbance’ in the HEq. These disturbances occur when air has the ‘wrong’ density for the level it is at.”
How ‘presumptuous’ of you! I fully understand the relevance of HEq. I ‘reiterate’ “the DALR is a ‘theoretical construct’”! Here’s the ‘driest’ place on the planet;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_Desert#Aridity
where WV and water continue to make up the atmospheric constituents.
Perhaps a ‘physics definition’ differs from a ‘weather definition’? For ‘The Applied Sciences’, air is never ‘dry’ until ‘all’ ‘water’ and ‘vapour’ are ‘absent’. H2O is a strong reagent that can produce some ‘nasty’ acids during many processes.
If you can ‘physically measure’ water, or WV, its not ‘dry’. Thus, the DALR must be a ‘mathematical model’, hence, a ‘theoretical construct’.
I can’t keep up with this thread so I’ll skip a bit.
Ben Wouters says: June 14, 2015 at 11:22 am
“Let me help: difference in gravity between equator and poles is a staggering 0,53 %.
Going up in the atmosphere the ‘gravity gradient’ is ~0,11% reduction / 3000 m.”
I thought you said that this was subject was not within the scope of this thread?
It would be better to ‘calculate’ the ‘counterpoise’ required by Earth’s gravity to overcome Earth’s centrifuge for a more meaningful result. It isn’t much, it is why ‘mass comparator scales’ are preferred to the usual ‘spring balance’ and ‘load cell’ weighing methods (this includes a latitudinal calibration for the Mercury Barometer).
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: June 14, 2015 at 11:59 am
“Perhaps a ‘physics definition’ differs from a ‘weather definition’?”
We could rename the DALR into NSALR vs the SALR if it helps you
(NSALR = Non-Saturated Adiabatic Lapse Rate)
I wouldn’t mind. And call the ELR ‘local temperature profile’ while we’re at it.
Problem is that the rest of world uses DALR, SALR and ELR.
As long as it’s clear that the NSALR and SALR describe the change of the internal temperature of air RISING or SINKING in surrounding air that is in HEq.
“I fully understand the relevance of HEq.”
Perhaps you could explain it in engineers terms to WJ and others then.
Will Janoschka says: June 14, 2015 at 12:20 am
“And where in four-space is your “hydrostatic balance” ever observed! Complete religious fantasy!”
Convection in the atmosphere…
Link = ‘http://youtu.be/5kDWVac38BE?list=PL3wsGij5ig-GzM56jGvHkCZlm_rLhErPB’
A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation.
@ 30 C, 100% humidity is 0.03 kg/m^3
@ 30 C, the density of dry air is 1.16 kg/m^3
Adding 0.03 kg/m^3 of water would remove an equal number of N2 & O2 molecules. Since N2 & O2 have greater mass, this means removing more than 0.03 kg of dry air — about 0.03 * (29/18) = 0.048 kg, for a net decrease of -0.018 kg/m^3. Or 0.018/1.16 = 1.6%.
We could get the same change in density by raising the temperature by 1.6% of 303K = ~ 5 K (or 5 C). Or put another way, it would take ~20% change in absolute humidity to equal 1 C change in temperature. (At lower temperatures it would take an equal change in absolute humidity and hence a larger change in relative humidity. The reverse at higher temps).
I’m not am expert, but it seems that local changes in temperature of 1 C are more typical than 20% changes in absolute humidity. This would say that temperature is a more important factor than humidity for driving convection. (But of course both play roles.)
Is the atmosphere in hydrostatic balance?
http://www.astro.uwo.ca/~jlandstr/planets/webfigs/atmospheres/slide1.html
Pressure in a liquid, such as water, changes steadily with depth. This is called hydrostatic balance.
Pressure in the atmosphere changes exponentially with height. This is not hydrostatic balance.
Will says: “It is the vertical ratio of pressure/density with units of WORK (force x distance)”
No, not quite. Pressure/density has units of (F/A) / (m/V) = F*d/m. This is work per kilogram.
“And where in four-space is your “hydrostatic balance” ever observed! Complete religious fantasy!”
This is one of the most anti-scientific statements I have ever heard! Basically if something is not perfectly correct, then it religious fantasy.
Science is about finding good approximations for how the universe works, and then making them better. According to this, a “horizontal surface” is “religious fantasy” since no surface is ever perfectly level. “Uniform temperature” is “religious fantasy” since there are always microscopic fluctuations. All of Newtonian mechanics is “religious fantasy” because is differs from the (more) correct relativistic and quantum mechanical answers.
I will say that Will *is* correct that true hydrostatic equilibrium is never actually observed in the atmosphere. The slightest breeze or convection means something is not in equilibrium. But this does not make hydrostatic equilibrium “religious fantasy” — it makes hydrostatic equilibrium an amazingly useful first approximation.
Ben Wouters says: June 14, 2015 at 11:05 am
“Horizontal pressure differences like 1 hPa over ~20 km already create very strong winds, like 50 kts. Vertically we have 500 hPa over ~5,5 km, and the atmosphere nicely floats around.”
That’s what gravity “tries to do” in this atmosphere even with is massive water condensate and massive aircraft too! The pressure tries to change to support all mass above. Yet we still have both wind and convection.
“Requires understanding of the Hydrostatic Equilibrium, which obviously is too much for Wills IQ.”
(In continuum mechanics, 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.)
Please show the location in this atmosphere that meets this definition? We do not need meteorological BS (that like the atmosphere changes minute by minute).
Ben Wouters says: June 14, 2015 at 1:24 pm
“We could rename the DALR into NSALR vs the SALR if it helps you
(NSALR = Non-Saturated Adiabatic Lapse Rate)
I wouldn’t mind.”
I don’t think this would help. There would still be issues of ‘SH’ (Specific Humidity) and ‘latitude’ that influence ‘the slope’ for an ‘NSALR’.
“And call the ELR ‘local temperature profile’ while we’re at it.”
Why? It isn’t, its the local ‘temperature or pressure/altitude’ profile. Isn’t it?
“Problem is that the rest of world uses DALR, SALR and ELR.”
Would that be because an NSALR wouldn’t be a ‘constant paradigm’, thus, can’t be used as a ‘standard’? Let’s keep the DALR, but come to understand it better and give it a fixed latitude.
“As long as it’s clear that the NSALR and SALR describe the change of the internal temperature of air RISING or SINKING in surrounding air that is in HEq.”
No. That would be ‘density change’ that causes rise or fall (when we exclude advection), but both rise and fall cause temperature and pressure change. An ‘LR’ (Lapse Rate) is an ‘observation’ of what was there when it was measured (or perhaps a model from an accumulation of previous observations). Some intuitive insight is needed to be able to identify the dynamics that brought this LR into being if it was a single measurement, but if its a ‘model’ from an accumulation of previous observations, we need to know the data that produced the ‘model’.
Similarly, HEq is a ‘model’ that is ‘mostly’ accepted, but rarely ‘observed’.
“Perhaps you could explain it in engineers terms to WJ and others then.”
Probably not. HEq is a ‘first principles’ model that is rarely met in nature, but a necessary paradigm for ‘working out what goes on’ for everything associated with it. 😉
“Will Janoschka says: June 14, 2015 at 12:20 am
“And where in four-space is your “hydrostatic balance” ever observed! Complete religious fantasy!””
I concur. Though, with less vigour. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
Ben Wouters says: June 14, 2015 at 11:28 am
Will Janoschka says: June 14, 2015 at 6:51 am
(“This is true CONVECTION!. Such airborne condensate can only become wee snowflakes or ice crystals in the stratosphere. Such never precipitates except at the very low pressure poles! ”)
BW:”On planet earth the poles are situated under the HIGH pressure part of the Polar cell, and can be considered ‘deserts’, with little precipitation. So close, but not quite. Actually just totally wrong (again).”
Please explain how all that ice got on top of Antarctica?
oldbrew says: June 14, 2015 at 1:45 pm
Your ‘link’ is inactive, so I cut’n pasted the destination into my IE browser destination box and got ‘chaos’. Please ‘fix’ this.
Best regards, Ray.
Ben Wouters says: June 14, 2015 at 11:41 am
“Notice:”
“a stratosphere with a temperature profile that is controlled
by the absorption of short-wave solar radiation”
A temperature profile that is controlled by the ability of that stratosphere to radiate its “wee heat” because of “wee mass” to space via EMR. Notice that even stratospheric temperature decreases at night-time. A profile is just that, some sort of illusion! it has no location! More meteorological BS, like some Global Temperature, that also can have no meaning except as some political ploy! 🙂
tjfolkerts says: June 14, 2015 at 2:48 pm
“…”
Hi TJ! Glad you’re here to add to the dialogue. Your input adds weight to clarity. 🙂
“A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation.”
Perhaps too ‘quick’. Please ‘pace yourself’!
“@ 30 C, 100% humidity is 0.03 kg/m^3”
For what? This isn’t ‘atmosphere’ is it! It looks more like the density of WV as a ‘separate gas’, if it could exist, within Earth’s atmosphere. It isn’t either. Is it?
“@ 30 C, the density of dry air is 1.16 kg/m^3”
How ‘dry’ is “dry”?
I’ll skip your post to;
“(But of course both play roles.)”
What are they?
Best regards, Ray.
Ben Wouters says: June 14, 2015 at 1:24 pm
Will Janoschka says: June 14, 2015 at 12:20 am
(“And where in four-space is your “hydrostatic balance” ever observed! Complete religious fantasy!””
So where is “it”?? You treat “hydrostatic balance”, and “air parcel” as things that exist, they do not exist in this physical. They are only a concept, a fantasy! You keep trying to delude folk with your fantasy! We have an atmosphere, why not try to describe our atmosphere rather than your fantasy of how your “fantasy atmosphere” may work!.
Roger Clague says: June 14, 2015 at 3:07 pm
“Pressure in a liquid, such as water, changes steadily with depth. This is called hydrostatic balance.
Pressure in the atmosphere changes exponentially with height. This is not hydrostatic balance.”
I concur. Hydrostatic balance ‘can only/was only’ intended to ‘present’ within an ‘incompressible’ fluid. The ‘compressibility’ of the atmospheric medium ‘dissociates’ the standard. However, there are parallels of logic. Can we build on these?
Best regards, Ray.
tjfolkerts says:
June 14, 2015 at 3:42 pm
“I will say that Will *is* correct that true hydrostatic equilibrium is never actually observed in the atmosphere. The slightest breeze or convection means something is not in equilibrium. But this does not make hydrostatic equilibrium “religious fantasy” — it makes hydrostatic equilibrium an amazingly useful first approximation.”
It makes “hydrostatic equilibrium”, like “air parcels”, statistical mechanics, and your kinetic theory of everything, somewhat useful concepts, as long as they remain concepts! It is a deliberate falsification to attempt to make them part of this physical! When someone says that air parcels exist and move up an down in this atmosphere “adiabatically”, that then “is” religious fantasy! 🙂
suricat says:June 15, 2015 at 1:20 am
“I concur. Hydrostatic balance ‘can only/was only’ intended to ‘present’ within an ‘incompressible’ fluid. The ‘compressibility’ of the atmospheric medium ‘dissociates’ the standard. However, there are parallels of logic. Can we build on these?”
That is a good idea, start over, with the argument of Lowschmidt and Maxwell/Boltzmann as to whether the atmosphere should be considered isobaric and isothermal, or do the temperature/pressure/density gradients need be considered, and if so, how should they be considered!
-will-
Will Janoschka says: June 14, 2015 at 6:51 am
“At the equator much water condensate not WV is is elevated to the stratosphere by centrifugal force of the surface circular air velocity of 1000 MPH. This is true CONVECTION!. Such airborne condensate can only become wee snowflakes or ice crystals in the stratosphere. Such never precipitates except at the very low pressure poles!”
Let me help: difference in gravity between equator and poles is a staggering 0,53 %.
Going up in the atmosphere the ‘gravity gradient’ is ~0,11% reduction / 3000 m.
So yes, this would explain how wv from the warm tropical oceans (that are not warmed by the sun according to Will ) can percolate through N2 and O2. The resulting tropical downpours then create rain that is falling upwards. This last part is still a bit confusing to me.
Correct so far?
suricat says: June 14, 2015 at 11:56 pm
“I don’t think this would help. There would still be issues of ‘SH’ (Specific Humidity) and ‘latitude’ that influence ‘the slope’ for an ‘NSALR’.”
Latitude IS incorporated since the DALR = g / cp = 9,8 K/km
So DALR at the equator ~9,78 K/km and at the poles 9,82 K/km, fine with me.
Humidity of the rising volume only comes into play once condensation has started and the release of latent heat begins, then the temperature change vs altitude of the rising volume changes from DALR into SALR.
““And call the ELR ‘local temperature profile’ while we’re at it.”
Why? It isn’t, its the local ‘temperature or pressure/altitude’ profile. Isn’t it?”
It’s temperature vs elevation or temperature vs pressure.
http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Environmental_lapse_rate
See http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html
Whole section IV. Atmosphere under gravity – hydrostatic balance.
What is not clear / do you not agree with?
“HEq is a ‘first principles’ model that is rarely met in nature, but a necessary paradigm for ‘working out what goes on’ for everything associated with it. ;)”
I understand eg astrophysicists have other ideas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_equilibrium
Ben Wouters says: June 15, 2015 at 11:26 am
“Latitude IS incorporated since the DALR = g / cp = 9,8 K/km”
‘Apples and oranges’, ‘cp’ is a calculation based on a ‘mass quantity’ and ‘LR’ is a calculation/observation based on ‘linear measurement’! The ‘mass’ of a ‘parcel’ expands and contracts in volume (ignoring any diffusion) whilst maintaining its ‘mass’.
Enough said.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: June 15, 2015 at 12:11 pm
“‘Apples and oranges’, ‘cp’ is a calculation based on a ‘mass quantity’ and ‘LR’ is a calculation/observation based on ‘linear measurement’! The ‘mass’ of a ‘parcel’ expands and contracts in volume (ignoring any diffusion) whilst maintaining its ‘mass’.”
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
under ‘Mathematical definition’.
What do you not agree with in the how they arrive at DALR = g/cp = 9,8 K/km?
@suricat
http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
esp.: “The term applies ambiguously to the environmental lapse rate and the process lapse rate, and the meaning must often by ascertained from the context.”
http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Process_lapse_rate
Ben Wouters says: June 15, 2015 at 12:34 pm
suricat says: June 15, 2015 at 12:11 pm
(“‘Apples and oranges’, ‘cp’ is a calculation based on a ‘mass quantity’ and ‘LR’ is a calculation/observation based on ‘linear measurement’! The ‘mass’ of a ‘parcel’ expands and contracts in volume (ignoring any diffusion) whilst maintaining its ‘mass’.”)
“See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
under ‘Mathematical definition’.
What do you not agree with in the how they arrive at DALR = g/cp = 9,8 K/km?”
That fake definition along with your ELR and SALR are but meteorological LIES that try to approximate the maximum, average, and minimum lapse rate as measured. They have no physical reality anywhere in this atmosphere. Just like all else you claim. You have no evidence of your claims. You have only religious mysticism that is way less scientific than astrology!!! Present even one measurement of any of your claims?
Ben Wouters says: June 15, 2015 at 11:09 am
Will Janoschka says: June 14, 2015 at 6:51 am
(“At the equator much water condensate not WV is is elevated to the stratosphere by centrifugal force of the surface circular air velocity of 1000 MPH. This is true CONVECTION!. Such airborne condensate can only become wee snowflakes or ice crystals in the stratosphere. Such never precipitates except at the very low pressure poles!”)
“Let me help: difference in gravity between equator and poles is a staggering 0,53 %.
Going up in the atmosphere the ‘gravity gradient’ is ~0,11% reduction / 3000 m.”
What does this have to do in an atmosphere whose pressure/density vs altitude completely cancel any gravitational effects even if that atmosphere were 50% by mass airborne water condensate? It does not matter the liquid/gas ratio as long as the pressure/density negate all gravitational effects!
Ben Wouters says: June 15, 2015 at 11:26 am
suricat says: June 14, 2015 at 11:56 pm
(“I don’t think this would help. There would still be issues of ‘SH’ (Specific Humidity) and ‘latitude’ that influence ‘the slope’ for an ‘NSALR’.”)
“Latitude IS incorporated since the DALR = g / cp = 9,8 K/km
So DALR at the equator ~9,78 K/km and at the poles 9,82 K/km, fine with me.”
Of course it is fine with you! Since none of what you spout has any scientific validity!
“Humidity of the rising volume only comes into play once condensation has started and the release of latent heat begins, then the temperature change vs altitude of the rising volume changes from DALR into SALR.”
And your evidence for such a incredulous claim? Please no meteorological BS, just evidence!
““And call the ELR ‘local temperature profile’ while we’re at it.”
Why? It isn’t, its the local ‘temperature or pressure/altitude’ profile. Isn’t it?”
It’s temperature vs elevation or temperature vs pressure.
http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Environmental_lapse_rate
See http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html
Whole section IV. Atmosphere under gravity – hydrostatic balance.
What is not clear / do you not agree
None of it! Where is there any evidence that this is correct in this atmosphere? It is but a story with no proof! This is but more CAGW fakery! It all started with the Meteorological fantasy that if a “story” is good enough for some measurements it must be true! Never any investigation of scientific validity!
Will Janoschka says: June 15, 2015 at 2:24 pm
Ben Wouters says: June 15, 2015 at 11:09 am
Will Janoschka says: June 14, 2015 at 6:51 am
(“At the equator much water condensate not WV is is elevated to the stratosphere by centrifugal force of the surface circular air velocity of 1000 MPH. This is true CONVECTION!. Such airborne condensate can only become wee snowflakes or ice crystals in the stratosphere. Such never precipitates except at the very low pressure poles!”)
“Let me help: difference in gravity between equator and poles is a staggering 0,53 %.
Going up in the atmosphere the ‘gravity gradient’ is ~0,11% reduction / 3000 m.”
“What does this have to do in an atmosphere whose pressure/density vs altitude completely cancel any gravitational effects”
More help needed apparently: the centrifugal force at the equator that causes true CONVECTION according to your poor little brain, actually only slightly reduces the effect of gravity.
So fortunately people are not flying of into space at the equator, and rain is still falling down there.
“an atmosphere whose pressure/density vs altitude completely cancel any gravitational effects”
Normal people call this Hydrostatic Equlibrium 😉
Here’s a list of religious sites. Just go to one of them and see if you can find like-minded people:
http://www.blogmetrics.org/religion#ultimate
Ben Wouters says:
June 15, 2015 at 3:28 pm
Ben falsely claims I wrote:
“What does this have to do in an atmosphere whose pressure/density vs altitude completely cancel any gravitational effects”
————————————————————–
Will Janoschka says: June 15, 2015 at 2:24 pm
(“What does this have to do in an atmosphere whose pressure/density vs altitude completely cancel any gravitational effects even if that atmosphere were 50% by mass airborne water condensate? It does not matter the liquid/gas ratio as long as the pressure/density negate all gravitational effects!”)
“More help needed apparently: the centrifugal force at the equator that causes true CONVECTION according to your poor little brain, actually only slightly reduces the effect of gravity.
So fortunately people are not flying of into space at the equator, and rain is still falling down there.
“an atmosphere whose pressure/density vs altitude completely cancel any gravitational effects”
Normal people call this Hydrostatic Equlibrium ;-)”
Normal people recognize that the atmosphere contains water! not water vapour, but airborne water condensate. This is not relative humidity a gas, but actual liquid water! an aerosol colloid that is lofted by centrifugal forces. Lots of that at the equator. Only meteorologist fail to notice, or admit the existence of, such atmospheric water, as that would destroy the claimed fantasy! Meteorologists cannot even explain the structure of such important aerosol colloid. Clueless! 🙂
Will Janoschka says: June 15, 2015 at 4:16 pm
“This is not relative humidity a gas, but actual liquid water! an aerosol colloid that is lofted by centrifugal forces.”
Meteorologist call that water clouds, which form when rising air cools below the dew point for that air. (remember SALR?)
“Centrifugal forces”, apparently you don’t even realize how big a fool you make of yourself.
Excellent engineer 😉
Will, you may be citing here your disagreements with Ben without knowing some of the history of what he is defending. Like fighting with one hand tied behind your back. You do know don’t you that to him he has formed a brand new theory of climatoogy that completely explains Earth’s temperature with no radiation considerations at all? Much like Stephen Wilde defending his brand new therory(ies) of KE, and PE, and adiabatic loops that to him make the world warm. Are you aware of his former articles here?
To me this best sums up his mindset:
Ben Wouters says: March 5, 2014 at 8:40 am:
“So yes, the sun can heat things locally to very high temps, but on average is incapable of preventing the deep oceans from freezing without the help of geothermal.”
Kind of a ‘bottom up’ freezing of the oceans the way I read it though personally I have never seen water freeze from the bottom upward due to water’s strange properties of density.
I was just reading some of Ben’s history and thought you might be clued in.
suricat says:
June 15, 2015 at 1:20 am
Hydrostatic balance ‘can only/was only’ intended to ‘present’ within an ‘incompressible’ fluid.
In the fluid dynamics of an incompressible liquid such as water. That is hydrostatic balance. The pressure is directly proportional to depth.
Air is not a compressible fluid. It is a gas and can be modeled by kinetic atomic theory
Hydrostatic p =density x gravity
Kinetic p= RT/V
These are different concepts of pressure
The consensus is to use the gas law, based on Kinetic motion to adjust for this new property of compressibility
I don’t agree that a gas can be described by a fluid theory adjusted with an equation based a different concept of pressure
The way to unite gravity and temperature in the atmosphere is through conservation of energy
gravitational potential = kinetic heat
mgh = mcT leading directly to
lapse rate LR =T/h = g/c
wayne says: June 15, 2015 at 5:11 pm
“You do know don’t you that to him he has formed a brand new theory of climatoogy that completely explains Earth’s temperature with no radiation considerations at all? ”
From the Introduction:
“With the surface temperatures set by the temperature of the deep oceans plus solar heating of the surface layer, the atmosphere only has to reduce the heat loss from the surface to space to arrive at a balanced energy budget for planet Earth.”
I did assume at Tallblokes some things would be obvious.
But I’ll explain: ‘solar heating of the surface’
Is done by radiation of course, but obviously I wasn’t prepared for engineers who believe that the sun can’t warm the surface.
‘the atmosphere only has to reduce the heat loss from the surface to space to arrive at a balanced energy budget for planet Earth.’
I did assume it would be obvious that energy loss from the surface or atmosphere to space can only be via radiation.
“a brand new theory of climatoogy”
Actually my ideas make the classical meteorology valid again, without GHE, backradiation or similar nonsense. But it seems not many here are aware what the classical meteorology stood for.
Roger Clague says: June 15, 2015 at 6:33 pm
“I don’t agree that a gas can be described by a fluid theory adjusted with an equation based a different concept of pressure”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_equilibrium
‘Astrophysics
In any given layer of a star, there is a hydrostatic equilibrium between the outward thermal pressure from below and the weight of the material above pressing inward. ‘
You may want to inform the astrophysicists as well that they are wrong.
Further down:
Atmospherics
In the atmosphere, the pressure of the air decreases with increasing altitude. This pressure difference causes an upward force called the pressure gradient force. The force of gravity balances this out, keeping the atmosphere bound to Earth and maintaining pressure differences with altitude.
The pressure gradient force is the force which results when there is a difference in pressure across a surface. In general, a pressure is a force per unit area, across a surface. A difference in pressure across a surface then implies a difference in force, which can result in an acceleration according to Newton’s second law, if there is no additional force to balance it. The resulting force is always directed from the region of higher-pressure to the region of lower-pressure. When a fluid is in an equilibrium state (i.e. there are no net forces, and no acceleration), the system is referred to as being in hydrostatic equilibrium. In the case of atmospheres, the pressure gradient force is balanced by the gravitational force, maintaining hydrostatic equilibrium. In the Earth’s atmosphere, for example, air pressure decreases at increasing altitudes above the Earth’s surface, thus providing a pressure gradient force which counteracts the force of gravity on the atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure-gradient_force
We must distinguish between phenomena in the atmosphere globally and locally. Globally, the atmosphere tends to balance.
Ben Wouters Claims I wrotes: June 15, 2015 at 4:35 pm
“This is not relative humidity a gas, but actual liquid water! an aerosol colloid that is lofted by centrifugal forces.”
Will Janoschka actually wrote: June 15, 2015 at 2:24 pm
(“What does this have to do in an atmosphere whose pressure/density vs altitude completely cancel any gravitational effects even if that atmosphere were 50% by mass airborne water condensate? It does not matter the liquid/gas ratio as long as the pressure/density negate all gravitational effects!”)
(“What does this have to do in an atmosphere whose pressure/density vs altitude completely cancel any gravitational effects even if that atmosphere were It does not matter the liquid/gas ratio as long as the pressure/density negate all gravitational effects!”)
Will Janoschka for clarification actually wrote: June 15, 2015 at 4:16 pm
(“Normal people recognize that the atmosphere contains water! not water vapour, but airborne water condensate. This is not relative humidity a gas, but actual liquid water! an aerosol colloid that is lofted by centrifugal forces. Lots of that at the equator. Only meteorologist fail to notice, or admit the existence of, such atmospheric water, as that would destroy the claimed fantasy! Meteorologists cannot even explain the structure of such important aerosol colloid. Clueless! 🙂 “)
Ben then says: “Meteorologist call that water clouds, which form when rising air cools below the dew point for that air. (remember SALR?)”
What is the total weight of the cloud as opposed to air with no water content? Meteorologists, or those that claim some knowledge thereof cannot, even explain the structure of such important aerosol colloid. Clueless! 🙂 They also take no note of the effect of such unmeasured water.
I clearly said 50% by mass airborne water condensate…. If this were the case worldwide, surface pressure must be 200 kPa or 29 psia. Those that claim some knowledge of meteorology cannot even understand the physical implications of there own so called Heq! They cannot think!
And also Ben adds deliberate insult:
“Centrifugal forces”, apparently you don’t even realize how big a fool you make of yourself.
Excellent engineer 😉 ”
The “much” additional airborne condensate at the equator only adds about 1% to the actual weight of the atmospheric column. The centrifugal force from the 1000 MPH eastward travelling surface need only overcome this “increase” in pressure for the water laden trade winds to be carried aloft to the stratosphere!
Excellent ersatz meteorologist 🙂
wayne says: June 15, 2015 at 5:11 pm ……….
Thanks Wayne,
I knew this two threads ago. My point here is to show that no one knows how this atmosphere or convection actually work! It is all a deliberate hoax, deliberately brought on by Meteorological Academics !! Ben is but the classical CAGW troll! No evidence what so ever! 🙂
all the best -will-
ren says: June 15, 2015 at 9:02 pm
“We must distinguish between phenomena in the atmosphere globally and locally. Globally, the atmosphere tends to balance.”
Thank you Ren,
You are much better at meteorology than most! Could you calculate for the folk here what the global surface pressure would be for an atmosphere that had no more than 95% RH anywhere?
What would be that pressure with no airborne water condensate. no insects, birds, or aircraft, All just a gas mixture?
“My point here is to show that no one knows how this atmosphere or convection actually work!”
Will, I totally agree with that statement. That is why I passed that link to Anastassia’s work, the first I have seen of someone trying to get some first-principle glances into what actually occurs concerning convection, subsidation, condensation and evaporation on a large scale. In high school chemistry one fact I had to roll over and over again in my mind while trying to logic it out, my mind was more on girls then, is why one mole of any gas, any mixture, any particle size, atoms, molecules, condensate always occupies 22.4 liters at STP, a different volume at other temperatures or pressures. Just seemed so anti-intuitive, but it is true, and I firmly found out first-hand in some experiments in a analytical chemistry college course’s lab. But of course the mass of that mole or particles within that 22.4 liters (volume) determines the density then. I think this is what you are getting at in a round about way.
Each of your ‘condensate’ particles (droplets) has, what?, at least a trillion tiny water molecules and their number of part of that mole so what is to happen when water vapor condenses into a cloud? What is to happen if a cloud absorbs solar irradiance and re-evaporates? Getting close? Evaporation/condensation is a dynamic balance, both are always occurring simultaneously at the air/water interface and the rate of each depends on the local environment, that is temp, pressure, wind, friction, etc.
Please translate the “their”, darn, my last quik sp. correction and I should read my own sentences for the context… it should reads “they are’.
My typing really sucks! An error in my correction. Brother! I spend more time fixing the missing characters, wrong characters, translated characters than it takes the time to write the comment itself… just ignore those slipping through in the future. Almost just made another in this comment.
wayne says: June 15, 2015 at 11:04 pm
(“My point here is to show that no one knows how this atmosphere or convection actually work!”)
“Will, I totally agree with that statement. That is why I passed that link to Anastassia’s work, the first I have seen of someone trying to get some first-principle glances into what actually occurs concerning convection, subsidation, condensation and evaporation on a large scale”
Yes and thank you!
I did read that very convincing paper on how the latent heat upon condensation creates all of the energy for lateral wind and “wind farms”. Being an illiterate “sparky” I assumed such powered only the EMR flux to space! Thanks again!
“In high school chemistry one fact I had to roll over and over again in my mind while trying to logic it out, my mind was more on girls then, is why one mole of any gas, any mixture, any particle size, atoms, molecules, condensate always occupies 22.4 liters at STP, a different volume at other temperatures or pressures. Just seemed so anti-intuitive, but it is true, and I firmly found out first-hand in some experiments in a analytical chemistry college course’s lab. But of course the mass of that mole or particles within that 22.4 liters (volume) determines the density then. I think this is what you are getting at in a round about way.”
Kind of! A gas must expand to fill any volume “under local constraints”. Airborne water condensate “not a gas” and gives a big finger to Avogadro’s number or Loschmidt’s number! I are an aerosol colloid and must adjust to some volume so I may say afloat, “under local constraints”. Precipitation is for the big bullies, bye bye!
“Each of your ‘condensate’ particles (droplets) has, what?, at least a trillion tiny water molecules and their number of part of that mole so what is to happen when water vapor condenses into a cloud?”
For visual observation at least that many. At 10 microns wavelength interval, 5 million can start to show their own temperature. 95% of sky cover! The process and the shape of the developing colloid is guessed to be an extension of an observable snowflake except only one molecule thick in the direction of the gravitational vector.!
“What is to happen if a cloud absorbs solar irradiance and re-evaporates? Getting close?”
The invisible stuff goes to vapor first with any insolation, still while absorbing 2400 J/gm of that insolation. This is the “stuff” that must be repeatably measured before earthlings have a clue! 🙂
“Evaporation/condensation is a dynamic balance, both are always occurring simultaneously at the air/water interface and the rate of each depends on the local environment, that is temp, pressure, wind, friction, etc.”
Indeed, but you identify only those that has an RMS power of kTB, with no directional flux!
Statistical bull shit! In which way is the actual potential difference and the direction of the spontaneous flux? BTW in this atmosphere the spontaneous reaction “single pol”e time constant to any change whatsoever is approx 6 minutes. Even hourly measurements have little significance in this atmosphere.
all the best! -will-
wayne says: June 15, 2015 at 11:19 pm
“My typing really sucks! An error in my correction. Brother! I spend more time fixing the missing characters, wrong characters, translated characters than it takes the time to write the comment itself… just ignore those slipping through in the future. Almost just made another in this comment”
Hey guy, my permanent dyslexia is typing “on” for “no” My friends just giggle! .
Oh yes, if you get radiation involved in what I was speaking of, yes, big difference, huge. Infact to prevent misreading in such an experiment you have to keep thermal radiation OUT of the picure, caancelled. My intuitions seems to say that in an atm. radiation alone nealy make the other factors I listed insignificant and if radiation is ignored you are correct, total BS. I wasn’t meaning for it to be taken that way.
BTW Will, one more thing I need to tell you so you don’t get the wrong impression about myself. You probably noticed an article on the left of Talkshop page that has the word ‘meteorological’ in it, not my word. Someone else picked the title and it should have said more like ‘astrophysical’ or something like that. It’s about all thick atmospheres. I have been meaning to ask Rog to remove that from the sidebar anyway for what I was searching for at that time, and later found, is wrong, wrong, wrong. Close, related yes, but wrong. I was hunting. You followed what I laid out in that long article months ago, that is what I found, no “new theory” here or anything like that, just identifying some very curious relation for well known and established equations on general atmospheres.
For a good reason these meteo hyper-enthusiasts tend to embarrass me to no end to even be halfway associated because I chose to comment here sometimes. Please don’t draw that association, it doesn’t exist.
wayne says: June 16, 2015 at 3:31 am
” BTW Will, one more thing I need to tell you so you don’t get the wrong impression about myself. You probably noticed an article on the left of Talkshop page that has the word ‘meteorological’ in it, not my word.”
Wayne,
You have clearly distinguished yourself from all those that refuse to think! The rest of us, just stumble along. I ask my kitten about what is?, and get a very precise and correct answer “Whers my food”?! 🙂
For instance, the pressure-gradient force prevents gravity from collapsing Earth’s atmosphere into a thin, dense shell, whereas gravity prevents the pressure gradient force from diffusing the atmosphere into space.
It all starts with gravity.
Wayne,
I read that thread!
“One more note on G=2/3. Ramanathan(1987?) listed the g at 0.332, Miskolczi (2007) lists the g of 0.333. I just took the more than evident of g=exactly 1/3 to give the G as 1-1/3 or 2/3. Assuming here a simple geometric explanation which may not be really true.”
Please check the Rudy Clausius Virial theorem and check his ratio for Ke to Pe even for planets!
Thank you so much Will!
I certainly will look into that and any other info or approaches like that is certainly appreciated. Spent so many hours on that one investigation once I realized… I’ll be d*mnned, this IS matching the various probes on the other planets and moons and Earth so perfectly (well, no, +/- a K or two across tens of kilometers) right up to the strato and there radiation takes over bending it from linear to eventually isothermal in each case.
It so shocked me that I have now been spending my spare time searching for who else in the past has already discovered this same set of relations, surely it has already been realized. Surely. The equations are so incredibly simple… it is the single controlling exponent(s) that is where the complexity lies, not too complex but that is what took all of my time unraveling the why, why does it all boil down to the degrees of freedom of the constituent gas atoms and molecules and why today on the vast internet can I not find a reference of such relation. My guess, if it is there, it is buried in the very old books. Might be in the one you just gave me.
Ben Wouters says: June 15, 2015 at 6:52 pm
“Actually my ideas make the classical meteorology valid again, without GHE, backradiation or similar nonsense. But it seems not many here are aware what the classical meteorology stood for.”
Will Janoschka says: June 15, 2015 at 9:43 pm
“Ben is but the classical CAGW troll! ”
Assuming you DO understand simple English, pse explain.
“And also Ben adds deliberate insult:
“Centrifugal forces”, apparently you don’t even realize how big a fool you make of yourself.
Excellent engineer 😉 ””
Absolutely, after being warned several times, you continue spouting this nonsense.
see http://www.space-electronics.com/Literature/Precise_Measurement_of_Mass.PDF
Try to understand page 6 Latitude correction,and then realize that you DID make a big fool of yourself.
wayne says: June 15, 2015 at 11:04 pm
“My point here is to show that no one knows how this atmosphere or convection actually work!”
“Will, I totally agree with that statement. ”
Coming from probably the only glider pilot in the world that went looking for thermals over water, since that is where wv makes the air less dense or something. Please.
Simple convection is well understood, but apparently not so with engineers.
ren says: June 16, 2015 at 6:09 am
“For instance, the pressure-gradient force prevents gravity from collapsing Earth’s atmosphere into a thin, dense shell, whereas gravity prevents the pressure gradient force from diffusing the atmosphere into space.
It all starts with gravity.”
It’s becoming obvious we’re dealing with a group of closed-minded engineers who don’t want to understand something simple like basic convection as in thermals.
wayne says:
June 15, 2015 at 11:04 pm
“My point here is to show that no one knows how this atmosphere or convection actually work!”
Will, I totally agree with that statement
I take it you mean no one knows how convection works in the atmosphere.
There are two theories of how the equatorial Hadley cells are maintained
We agree that the upward force, buoyancy, is caused by reduced density
Is the reduced density caused by:
1 expansion of packets of air
2 moist air having lower molar mass
Molar mass of H2O/molar mass of N2 = 18/28 = 0.64
The expansion of packets explanation combines fluid theory (packets) and gas laws (expansion)
The moist air- less dense explanation uses only Kinetic theory of gas (not gas laws)
I’m guessing that electricity must come into it somewhere.
Roger Clague says: June 16, 2015 at 10:33 am
“There are two theories of how the equatorial Hadley cells are maintained”
Actually only one, and convection is NOT the main driver of the Hadley cells.
Since the Hadley cells cover about half the surface of the earth, convection is obviously happening in their ‘work’ area. Actually the poleward flow of the Hadley cell suppresses convection.
“We agree that the upward force, buoyancy, is caused by reduced density
Is the reduced density caused by:
1 expansion of packets of air
2 moist air having lower molar mass
Molar mass of H2O/molar mass of N2 = 18/28 = 0.64”
No, buoyancy is caused by density DIFFERENCES with the surrounding air.
1) The expansion of packets does explain why rising, non condensing air won’t rise very high.
To maintain buoyancy to high altitudes as happens eg in cumulonimbus clouds, the release of latent heat in the rising cloud is absolutely necessary to maintain buoyancy all the way up.
oldbrew says: June 16, 2015 at 10:59 am
“I’m guessing that electricity must come into it somewhere.”
You’l surely find lightning in some of the cb’s in the ITCZ..
” You’l surely find lightning in some of the cb’s in the ITCZ..”
To be sure: ITCZ stands for:
Inter-tropical CONVERGENCE zone, not Inter-tropical Convection Zone 😉
Ben Wouters says: June 15, 2015 at 6:52 pm
“Actually my ideas make the classical meteorology valid again, without GHE, backradiation or similar nonsense. But it seems not many here are aware what the classical meteorology stood for.”
Ben Wouters Claims that : June 16, 2015 at 9:10 am
Will Janoschka says: June 15, 2015 at 9:43 pm
“Ben is but the classical CAGW troll! ”
———————————————————————————————————
Will Janoschka actually writes : June 15, 2015 at 9:43 pm
Thanks Wayne,
I knew this two threads ago. My point here is to show that no one knows how this atmosphere or convection actually work! It is all a deliberate hoax, deliberately brought on by Meteorological Academics !! Ben is but the classical CAGW troll! No evidence what so ever! 🙂
————————————————————————————————
“Assuming you DO understand simple English, pse explain.”
Sure! The above is a great example of what a CAGW troll always does. Never actually reads, but copies another’s words “out of context” and attacks!! Does that help your understanding of a CAGW troll?“
Ben Wouters Claims that : June 16, 2015 at 9:10 am
Will Janoschka says: June 15, 2015 at 9:43 pm
And also Ben adds deliberate insult:
“Centrifugal forces”, apparently you don’t even realize how big a fool you make of yourself.
Excellent engineer 😉 ”
“Absolutely, after being warned several times, you continue spouting this nonsense.”
Was that not meant as a deliberate insult?
“see http://www.space-electronics.com/Literature/Precise_Measurement_of_Mass.PDF
Try to understand page 6 Latitude correction,and then realize that you DID make a big fool of yourself.”
Your reference is for a measurement of gravitational forces at various distances from some COM!
I of course was writing of the centrifugal forces from a rotating body with a tip velocity of 1000 MPH.
This has nothing to do with gravity acting in the opposite direction with a surrounding atmosphere that has all ready compensated for gravity with pressure.
Ben you spout about things like “hydrostatic equilibrium” without having any understanding of that subject. It is just some words that you read somewhere that sound important. You have demonstrated here in your writings that you have not a clue about “atmospheric convection”! Only a CAGW troll tries to sound important while understanding nothing of the subject! What is it, that makes you think that meteorologists were ever correct about anything? 🙂
Ben Wouters says: June 16, 2015 at 9:13 am
wayne says: June 15, 2015 at 11:04 pm
“My point here is to show that no one knows how this atmosphere or convection actually work!”
“Will, I totally agree with that statement. ”
“Coming from probably the only glider pilot in the world that went looking for thermals over water, since that is where wv makes the air less dense or something. Please.
Simple convection is well understood, but apparently not so with engineers.”
@mods Another deliberate troll insult, this time directed at Wayne!
Please demonstrate any understanding of convection or convection cells All you ever refer to are thermals which cannot be a “cell” because such is thermally induced. 🙂
Ben Wouters says: June 16, 2015 at 11:17 am
Roger Clague says: June 16, 2015 at 10:33 am
(“There are two theories of how the equatorial Hadley cells are maintained”
Actually only one, and convection is NOT the main driver of the Hadley cells.
Since the Hadley cells cover about half the surface of the earth, convection is obviously happening in their ‘work’ area. Actually the poleward flow of the Hadley cell suppresses convection.
“We agree that the upward force, buoyancy, is caused by reduced density
Is the reduced density caused by:
1 expansion of packets of air
2 moist air having lower molar mass
Molar mass of H2O/molar mass of N2 = 18/28 = 0.64″)
————————————————————————
——–Ben as a CAGW troll leaves out the real meaning from Roger———
(“The expansion of packets explanation combines fluid theory (packets) and gas laws (expansion)
The moist air- less dense explanation uses only Kinetic theory of gas (not gas laws)”)
“No, buoyancy is caused by density DIFFERENCES with the surrounding air.
1) The expansion of packets does explain why rising, non condensing air won’t rise very high.
To maintain buoyancy to high altitudes as happens eg in cumulonimbus clouds, the release of latent heat in the rising cloud is absolutely necessary to maintain buoyancy all the way up.”
Does Ben’s spouting make any sense to anyone except Ben?
“Anyone else”, please explain what Ben wrote or might have meant ?
Ben Wouters says: June 16, 2015 at 11:21 am
oldbrew says: June 16, 2015 at 10:59 am
(“I’m guessing that electricity must come into it somewhere.””
“You’l surely find lightning in some of the cb’s in the ITCZ..”
“To be sure: ITCZ stands for:
Inter-tropical CONVERGENCE zone, not Inter-tropical Convection Zone”
Why? Where are the Cb’s in “that” zone?
Roger Clague:
There are two theories of how the equatorial Hadley cells are maintained
We agree that the upward force, buoyancy, is caused by reduced density
Is the reduced density caused by:
1 expansion of packets of air
2 moist air having lower molar mass
Molar mass of H2O/molar mass of N2 = 18/28 = 0.64
Hi roger. You know, I never had really homed in on (be that interested in) the hadley cell ’causes’ before, so my mind is wide open. I think you might even add a third possible to “There are two theories of how the equatorial Hadley cells are maintained”.
What of the global scale pressure? The Hadley cell operates with way over half of the entire atmosphere. Between 30S and 30N that accounts for exactly one half but the atmosphere is much higher at the equator due to centrifugal force than at the poles so the is what gets the “way over half” part. If you have air generally moving upward under the sun point (sun point is better than saying equator due to the seasonal tilt) and generally downward near the ±30 latitudes there should be a general high there and a low pressure under the sun. This brings in the topic of convergence.
I can see where the global Hadley cell could be wholly explained (or at least partially) by just that aspect. The pressure difference forces air toward the sun point from both sides, the north hemisphere and the south hemisphere converging near the equator and that would force upward movement or, that is, convection. The upward movement would cause the condensation which would also help intensify the low pressure there (Dr. Makarieva’s theory).
Something like that. Your number [2] on the lower molar mass would fit right in there also, would that not? Also tending to cause an average global scale low under the sun point?
This would imply that if you would look at the pressure high above near the tropause in both respective cases you should find a general higher pressure in respect to that near the thirty latitudes, exactly opposite of what would be found near the surface. I have no idea whether that thought holds any water but can visualize that being a self propogating system but just don’t call that a ‘heat engine’, it would more imply a ‘lack of heat engine’ the cold upper air causing the condensation and the volume collapse at a global scale.
Roger, I just said ‘volume collapse’ and that is not really a correct thought. It would be more a collapse of the number of particles due to the condenstation, the volume remaining constant causing a lower global scale low.
Darn it. Darn it!
“Roger, I just said ‘volume collapse’ and that is really a correct thought. ”
should read instead
“Roger, I just said ‘volume collapse’ and that is not really a correct thought. ”
[corrected – mod]
wayne says: June 16, 2015 at 8:10 pm
“What of the global scale pressure? The Hadley cell operates with way over half of the entire atmosphere. Between 30S and 30N that accounts for exactly one half but the atmosphere is much higher at the equator due to centrifugal force than at the poles so the is what gets the “way over half” part. If you have air generally moving upward under the sun point (sun point is better than saying equator due to the seasonal tilt) and generally downward near the ±30 latitudes there should be a general high there and a low pressure under the sun. This brings in the topic of convergence.”
Wayne,
This works not only at the sun point, but around the globe. in the convergence zone or “doldrums”. This is where the air goes straight up with then resultant low surface pressure because of the centrifugal fan with 1000 MPH blade tips, in an atmosphere that has a exponential pressure “increase” toward the surface “negating” any gravitational effects. How much of a delta kPa can that fan “do” at the equator?. Would high surface atmospheric water condensate increase or decrease that delta kPa? How about vertical velocity? Is this convection? at 60o N and S it is only 500 MPH but something is going up around there also! Are we having fun yet?
Yes of course you are correct. I just picked that (bad choice) term because I didn’t want to say equator since what I was speaking of cycles about the Tropic of Cancer and Capicorn. 😉 Too lazy. That was supposed to imply the latidude under the sun spot and I should have just stated that plainly.
You know, I can’t still can’t think of a ‘term’ that specifies that properiy but one is probably out there as usual.
Wait. Well, but “latitude of the sun”, duh. 😉 I meant one single word term.
Will, good questions and that first one “How much of a delta kPa can that fan “do” at the equator?. Would high surface atmospheric water condensate increase or decrease that delta kPa? ” had already crossed my mind. And yes, what of the vertical velocity. Is there enough velocity times the mass (momentum) by that to move the entire cycle? I don’t even know the speed of this Hadley Cell, one cycle a month, a year, a week? I have no idea yet. Have you read that somewhere?
But I can sit on my patio around this time through august watching the puffy clouds always streaming due north here, day on day, sometimes a month without a single drop of rain and this gets right at your point of re-evaporation. They dissapate, they form in front of your eyes over and over. At 15 mph, my guess, and if this were the Hadley and not the Ferrell, it would take about 270 days to make the circuit at that speed.
No that is not even close to correct. That is 276 HOURS. Eleven to twelve days if at 15 mph for a complete cycle of about 4100 miles.
Ben Wouters says: June 15, 2015 at 12:34 pm
“see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
under ‘Mathematical definition’.
What do you not agree with in the how they arrive at DALR = g/cp = 9,8 K/km?”
I don’t ‘disagree’ with the data Ben! I disagree with your assimilation of it. From your quote/link;
“Note: In some cases, \Gamma or \alpha can be used to represent the adiabatic lapse rate in order to avoid confusion with other terms symbolized by \gamma, such as the specific heat ratio[4] or the psychrometric constant.[5]”.
The “psychrometric constant [5]” exists at/as a ‘constant pressure’ (Cp)! The “specific heat ratio” is a ‘property’ of the ‘mass’ that its related to. This generates ‘issues’ with a ‘parcel’ that faces the ‘decompression/compression’ of “a ‘convected’ ‘parcel'”!
The “specific heat ratio[4]” is again based upon an STP environment that doesn’t relate to the environs realised in Earth’s atmosphere.
Sorry for the delayed response. 😦
Best regards, Ray.
wayne says: June 17, 2015 at 3:04 am
“Wait. Well, but “latitude of the sun”, duh. 😉 I meant one single word term.”
“INCLINATION” +/- 23o What to what, is left as an exercise!
Equatorial plane to orbital plane? too many words!! Is that sinusoidal in latitude?
“I don’t even know the speed of this Hadley Cell, one cycle a month, a year, a week? I have no idea yet. Have you read that somewhere?”
No! I was just popping stuff that should be known by now! Mabe “not knowing” is the goal! Isn’t the term Hadley Cell enough to stop you from asking questions? Jew stupid or somptun?
“this gets right at your point of re-evaporation.”
Where is this in the energy budget? Such may not affect surface temperature, if consistent! Wad jew mean by consistent, white man? Never changing? That would be a first!
wayne says: June 17, 2015 at 3:08 am
“No that is not even close to correct. That is 276 HOURS. Eleven to twelve days if at 15 mph for a complete cycle of about 4100 miles.”
Where did the 4100 miles come from? +/- 30o n,s but how far east then down to be trade winds back. Why do they even come back? Are we running out of air? Ahh! highs, and lows, just to screw with the minds of all left sane! 🙂
The about 4100 miles is 30 degrees times 60 nautical miles per degree time 1.15 miles per nautical mile time two, once there and once back, one around the Hadley cell. Now I will check myserf.., did I goof? I did that on the fly.
No, I get 4140 miles actually. Yeah, that is right. 30 degrees is 1/12 of the circum so 2120 times 12 is 25440 miles times 1.609 km/miles so 40640 km… a little too high. That is why I said ‘about’. I think 40030 km is close to the correct value.
Topical: balanced dynamics & convection in the tropical troposphere
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015MS000467/abstract
Andrew
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/what-happened-last-year%E2%80%99s-atlantic-hurricane-season
http://www.sat24.com/world.aspx?region=am
Changes in pressure and wind in the troposphere also depend on the strength of jet stream and pressure changes in the stratosphere.
Will Janoschka says: June 16, 2015 at 5:55 pm
““see http://www.space-electronics.com/Literature/Precise_Measurement_of_Mass.PDF
Try to understand page 6 Latitude correction,and then realize that you DID make a big fool of yourself.”
Your reference is for a measurement of gravitational forces at various distances from some COM!
I of course was writing of the centrifugal forces from a rotating body with a tip velocity of 1000 MPH.”
From the above link:
‘1. Latitude The acceleration of gravity varies from 9.780 m/s2 at the equator to 9.832 m/s2
at the poles (a difference of 0.53%). This is in part due to the centrifugal force resulting from the rotation of the earth, which varies from zero at the north pole to a maximum value at the equator, and in part due to the bulge of the earth at the equator, resulting in a greater distance to the mass center of the earth.’
So in this enormous difference in acceleration of gravity between poles and equator (0,53%)
the centrifugal force due to earths rotation has already been included.
Will Janoschka says: June 17, 2015 at 1:29 am
“This works not only at the sun point, but around the globe. in the convergence zone or “doldrums”. This is where the air goes straight up with then resultant low surface pressure because of the centrifugal fan with 1000 MPH blade tips, in an atmosphere that has a exponential pressure “increase” toward the surface “negating” any gravitational effects. How much of a delta kPa can that fan “do” at the equator?.”
I would say: back to the drawing board, but then I’m not an engineer.
While you’re at it, what about the Walker circulation, not unimportant in ENSO?
Some air going ‘straight down’ near the equator. Increased local gravity, heavy air? What gives?
wayne says: June 17, 2015 at 2:34 am
“You know, I can’t still can’t think of a ‘term’ that specifies that properiy but one is probably out there as usual.”
Meteorologists would call that the Heat or Thermal Equator.
http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Heat_equator
But what do they know.
suricat says: June 17, 2015 at 3:10 am
“I don’t ‘disagree’ with the data Ben! I disagree with your assimilation of it.”
I think I understand that you agree that the DALR (whatever Greek letter is used) is
g / cp = ~9,8K/km. Correct?
If so, what do you disagree with in my ‘assimilation’of it?
“Sorry for the delayed response. :(”
No problem whatsoever.
Will Janoschka says: June 16, 2015 at 6:31 pm
” “No, buoyancy is caused by density DIFFERENCES with the surrounding air.
1) The expansion of packets does explain why rising, non condensing air won’t rise very high.
To maintain buoyancy to high altitudes as happens eg in cumulonimbus clouds, the release of latent heat in the rising cloud is absolutely necessary to maintain buoyancy all the way up.”
Does Ben’s spouting make any sense to anyone except Ben?
“Anyone else”, please explain what Ben wrote or might have meant ?”
Try eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_convection
Under Thunderstorms:
‘ The latent heat release from condensation is the determinate between significant convection and almost no convection at all.’
Poor Will, still don’t get it ?
Ben Wouters says: June 17, 2015 at 2:25 pm
Will Janoschka says: June 17, 2015 at 1:29 am
(“This works not only at the sun point, but around the globe. in the convergence zone or “doldrums”. This is where the air goes straight up with then resultant low surface pressure because of the centrifugal fan with 1000 MPH blade tips, in an atmosphere that has a exponential pressure “increase” toward the surface “negating” any gravitational effects. How much of a delta kPa can that fan “do” at the equator?.”)
“I would say: back to the drawing board, but then I’m not an engineer.”
“That” is certainly obvious from your posts here!!
Shitcan all Climate Buffoons using meteorology based on the religion of temperature!
Hire some competent engineers like those at JPL and Lockheed. These folk have some background in aerodynamics and fluid dynamics. They would at least know where to start asking questions of: This rotating sphere with surface velocity up to 1000 MPH rotating in a self imposed compressible fluid atmosphere with the only motion constraint on that atmosphere a single gravitational force always in the direction of the center of that sphere!!
Computational fluid dynamics has already studied this much!! They have Identified the air lift points and the likely angular location, with respect to the spin axis, of instabilities and likely vortexes all depending on Reynolds number and local viscosity of that atmosphere. All this has been done without the added complexities of vast temperature gradients formed by the uneven insolation.
“While you’re at it, what about the Walker circulation, not unimportant in ENSO?
Some air going ‘straight down’ near the equator. Increased local gravity, heavy air? What gives?”
Why bother? The “Walker circulation” is but another religious meteorological conceptual model, having no relationship to how this Earth’s atmosphere may operate. 🙂
Ben Wouters says: June 17, 2015 at 2:59 pm
Try eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_convection
Under Thunderstorms:
‘ The latent heat release from condensation is the determinate between significant convection and almost no convection at all.’
All meteorological fantasy with no relation to this atmosphere! Please show any physical evidence of this fantasy? 🙂
Ben Wouters says: June 17, 2015 at 2:33 pm
“I think I understand that you agree that the DALR (whatever Greek letter is used) is
g / cp = ~9,8K/km. Correct?”
As a ‘LR’, yes. However, this data is unhelpful when trying to ‘visualise/differentiate’ ‘mass movements’ and the ‘force/forces’ behind it all.
If Earth’s ‘spin/rotation rate’ added NO kinetic to the atmosphere we would only see an enormous Hadley Cell in each hemisphere N & S of the equator.
When we add the ‘kinetic effort’ from Earth’s rotation rate, we now see that the surface speed of rotation at the surface adds energy to the atmosphere at the ‘boundary layer’ level. This is usually called ‘Earth Centrifuge’, because the kinetic added is related to ‘centrifugal force/effect’ (this also leads on to the ‘Coriolis Effect’).
‘Centrifugal Force’ is a fictitious ‘force’. Its really ‘mass inertia’ dressed up as something else. When we cause a ‘massive body’ to change its direction of ‘natural trajectory’, a ‘force’ is needed to ‘alter its natural trajectory’. This ‘force’ goes by the name of ‘centripetal force’ and is supplied by ‘gravity’ for Earth’s atmosphere.
For Earth’s systems, the rate of ‘centrifugal advection’ is determined by the latitude at Earth’s surface. Ke = ‘1/2 mass’/’velocity^2’. Thus, greatest kinetic ‘kick’ at the Equator and least kinetic ‘kick’ near the poles. Take the ‘radius’ to Earth’s surface from the ‘spin axis’ to approximately calculate the ‘centrifugal component’.
From this we can deduce that ‘Earth’s centrifuge’ counters ‘Earth’s gravity’. Thus, the effort in ‘counterpoise’ that Earth’s centrifuge presents at a given ‘latitude’ (radius from the rotation axis) ‘alters’ the ‘effectiveness’ of the effect that ‘Earth’s gravity’ can impose on mass to move freely in the ‘z’ (vertical) direction.
That’s ‘one’ reason why I think your pursuit of understanding from a ‘lapse rate’ will be unhelpful Ben. The ‘LR’ self corrects for latitude and doesn’t tell you why/how!
In ‘old money’, counterpoise from Earth’s rotation is ~3 inches/second^2 at the equator, compared to the gravity constant of 32 feet/second^2. However, that’s enough to generate a ‘gravity gradient’ towards the poles at altitude.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: June 18, 2015 at 2:49 am.
Oops. I used ‘/’ instead of ‘x’ for the ‘Ke =’ bit! 😦
Getting rusty in my old age.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: June 18, 2015 at 2:49 am
Ben Wouters says: June 17, 2015 at 2:33 pm
((“I think I understand that you agree that the DALR (whatever Greek letter is used) is
g / cp = ~9,8K/km. Correct?”))
(“As a ‘LR’, yes. However, this data is unhelpful when trying to ‘visualise/differentiate’ ‘mass movements’ and the ‘force/forces’ behind it all.”)
“If Earth’s ‘spin/rotation rate’ added NO kinetic to the atmosphere we would only see an enormous Hadley Cell in each hemisphere N & S of the equator.”
Huh! you lost me there!, Are you saying that there would be an enormous increase increase in volume at the equator, because of local solar thermal effects (insolation)?
“When we add the ‘kinetic effort’ from Earth’s rotation rate, we now see that the surface speed of rotation at the surface adds energy to the atmosphere at the ‘boundary layer’ level. This is usually called ‘Earth Centrifuge’, because the kinetic added is related to ‘centrifugal force/effect’ (this also leads on to the ‘Coriolis Effect’).”
Huh who said dat? Please explain so others may understand?
(‘Centrifugal Force’ is a fictitious ‘force’. Its really ‘mass inertia’ dressed up as something else. When we cause a ‘massive body’ to change its direction of ‘natural trajectory’, a ‘force’ is needed to ‘alter its natural trajectory’. This ‘force’ goes by the name of ‘centripetal force’ and is supplied by ‘gravity’ for Earth’s atmosphere.)
What total nonsense! Centrifugal force is that radial “force’, that is the causation of radial flow or flux (outward)in addition to the huge tangential flux because of turbulent or laminar flow/flux!
————————————————————————–
“For Earth’s systems, the rate of ‘centrifugal advection’ is determined by the latitude at Earth’s surface. Ke = ‘1/2 mass’/’velocity^2′. Thus, greatest kinetic ‘kick’ at the Equator and least kinetic ‘kick’ near the poles. Take the ‘radius’ to Earth’s surface from the ‘spin axis’ to approximately calculate the ‘centrifugal component’.
From this we can deduce that ‘Earth’s centrifuge’ counters ‘Earth’s gravity’. Thus, the effort in ‘counterpoise’ that Earth’s centrifuge presents at a given ‘latitude’ (radius from the rotation axis) ‘alters’ the ‘effectiveness’ of the effect that ‘Earth’s gravity’ can impose on mass to move freely in the ‘z’ (vertical) direction”
——————————————————————-
Ray I think the above was from you! and thank you!.
What happens at the equator with massive, high density liquid water is also suspended at the equator because of this huge upward mass flow rate?
-will-
Ray, doesn’t that also have to do with the Koorin (sp?) experiment in Australia and an explanation of the then-mysterious night boundary level jets they detected consistently within the data but for a long time no one could pin down an explaination? IIRC a purely gravitational/rotational effect as you just described, A differential force generated strictly from the rotation.
Ben Wouters says:
June 17, 2015 at 2:59 pm
Try eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_convection
The Sun warms the ground, which in turn warms the air directly above it. The warmer air expands, becoming less dense than the surrounding air mass, and creating a thermal low.[3][4] The mass of lighter air rises, and as it does, it cools due to its expansion at lower high-altitude pressures. It stops rising when it has cooled to the same temperature as the surrounding air.
Maximum Height of cloud formation
Mid-level rain clouds only reach 6 000m Storm clouds and ice clouds go higher.
Buoyancy stops at 6 000m why?
If buoyancy is caused by expansion against pressure then it should follow the exponential pressure curve and continue past 6 000m
At 6 000m the temperature has fallen to -20C. Air at -20C cannot hold water.
If buoyancy is caused by lower density of moist air then buoyancy will stop at -20C as is observed.
Buoyancy caused by water vapour explains max height of rain cloud.
Buoyancy caused by expansion does not.
suricat says: June 18, 2015 at 2:49 am
“From this we can deduce that ‘Earth’s centrifuge’ counters ‘Earth’s gravity’. Thus, the effort in ‘counterpoise’ that Earth’s centrifuge presents at a given ‘latitude’ (radius from the rotation axis) ‘alters’ the ‘effectiveness’ of the effect that ‘Earth’s gravity’ can impose on mass to move freely in the ‘z’ (vertical) direction.”
Agree, plus the effect of the non spherical earth, where on the equator the distance to the center of mass is greater than on a pole, thus resulting in a slightly lower gravity.
So the Effective Gravity (Ge?) at sea level is the combined effect of real gravitational pull, minus varying effect across latitude of non spherical earth and centrifugal effect due to rotation.
So Ge is lowest at the equator and largest at the poles.
Some values for Ge at sea level
Lat 0: 9,780 m/s^2
Lat 30: 9,792 m/s^2
Lat 60: 9,819 m/s^2
Lat 90: 9,832 m/s^2
The effect of altitude is ~0,11% lower Ge for every 3000m. Different latitudes have a negligible effect on this number.
Assuming equal atmospheric mass above each latitude this would result in a weight of the entire atmospheric column (= surface pressure) of eg 1000 hPa at the equator and ~1005 hPa at the poles. So the effect of earths rotation is a very slight pressure gradient from poles to equator.
“This is usually called ‘Earth Centrifuge’, because the kinetic added is related to ‘centrifugal force/effect’ (this also leads on to the ‘Coriolis Effect’).”
Not sure what you’re saying here, but the Coriolis Effect has nothing to do with the centrifugal effect of earths rotation.
Anything at rest at the equator (people, houses, air, water) moves with the earths rotational speed of ~1670 km/h,
If eg ocean water moves to the north from the equator, it continues initially to move with that same speed, while the solid earth under it rotates at a slower rate (eg ~1613 km/h at 15N).
So APPARENTLY the water is turning to the east (NH right turn, SH left turn)
This is the reason for the breaking up of the Equator -> Pole circulation in multiple cells.
Will Janoschka says: June 17, 2015 at 11:29 pm
Irrelevant background noise.
Will Janoschka says: June 17, 2015 at 11:35 pm
Irrelevant background noise.
Roger Clague says: June 18, 2015 at 11:23 am
“Buoyancy stops at 6 000m why?”
It stops rising when it has cooled to the same temperature as the surrounding air.
Depends on the local temperature profile as measured twice daily.
see http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html
“If buoyancy is caused by expansion against pressure then it should follow the exponential pressure curve and continue past 6 000m”
BUOYANCY IS CAUSED BY DENSITY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RISING AIR AND THE SURROUNDING AIR.
Surrounding air is at the local temperature profile, rising air cools due expansion (DALR) or expansion minus effect of latent heat release due condensation (SALR).
“Air at -20C cannot hold water.”
Mostly correct, although super cooled water is certainly possible, but it absolutely can hold ice particles.
Ben Wouters says:
June 18, 2015 at 4:58 pm
Roger Clague says: June 18, 2015 at 11:23 am
“Buoyancy stops at 6 000m why?”
The evidence for my claim about raincloud height
http://www.nplindia.org/rain-bearing-cloudrain-height-distribution-over-indian-subcontinent
BenW saysIt stops rising when it has cooled to the same temperature as the surrounding air
ALR theory does not predict the height and temperature at which convection stops
I think buoyancy stops when air becomes dry. That is below -20C and above 6 000m
Buoyancy is caused by density difference.
That density difference is caused by moisture, no moisture no convection at 6 000m
Roger Clague says: June 19, 2015 at 10:22 am
“The evidence for my claim about raincloud height
http://www.nplindia.org/rain-bearing-cloudrain-height-distribution-over-indian-subcontinent ”
Some evidence. I see a table ranging from below 3 to above 6 km.
Quick read indicates this is the altitude of the 0C level over various places in India.
Wether clouds extend above the 0C level isn’t mentioned, but this is to be expected.
“BenW saysIt stops rising when it has cooled to the same temperature as the surrounding air”
Actually it is a direct quote of your post I referred to.
“ALR theory does not predict the height and temperature at which convection stops”
Where do you get this nonsense from?
ALR practice is perfectly capable to predict whether convection will occur, whether clouds will form,
at what altitude their cloudbase will be, to what altitude their tops will extend, whether rain or hail is likely etc.etc.
All from a plot of local temp. profile vs altitude and the temp. and dewpoint of the air when it begins to ascend.
“I think buoyancy stops when air becomes dry. That is below -20C and above 6 000m”
That would certainly explain why CB’s can rise to 15 – 18km sometimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulonimbus_cloud
Normal rain clouds (nimbostratus) usually don’t extend much above 3km.
Above that clear skies usually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbostratus_cloud
Ben Wouters Who MUST have tho only truth says: June 19, 2015 at 3:45 pm
Roger Clague says: June 19, 2015 at 10:22 am
(“BenW saysIt stops rising when it has cooled to the same temperature as the surrounding air”)
(“ALR theory does not predict the height and temperature at which convection stops”)
BW: “ALR practice is perfectly capable to predict whether convection will occur, whether clouds will form, at what altitude their cloudbase will be, to what altitude their tops will extend, whether rain or hail is likely etc.etc.”
ALR practice is not even a conjecture subject to scientific validation! It is only a religious fantasy used by meteorologists trying to promote a religion fallen to scorn!
BW: “All from a plot of local temp. profile vs altitude and the temp. and dewpoint of the air when it begins to ascend”.
Don’t forget various planets going to and from the 12 houses. As far as meteorology is concerned if it is not a temperature or temperature difference “dew point” It cannot exist in this atmosphere!
(“I think buoyancy stops when air becomes dry. That is below -20C and above 6 000m”)
BW: “That would certainly explain why CB’s can rise to 15 – 18km sometimes.”
Your fantasy cannot ever explain these cloud altitudes at the equator..
Hire some competent engineers like those at JPL and Lockheed. These folk have some background in aerodynamics and fluid dynamics. They would at least know where to start asking questions of: This rotating sphere with surface velocity up to 1000 MPH rotating in a self imposed compressible fluid atmosphere with the only motion constraint on that atmosphere a single gravitational force always in the direction of the center of that sphere!!
Computational fluid dynamics has already studied this much!! They have Identified the air mass lift points (equator and 60o latitude) and the likely angular location, with respect to the spin axis, of instabilities and likely vortexes all depending on Reynolds number and local viscosity of that atmosphere.
All this has been done without the added complexities of vast temperature gradients formed by the uneven insolation. The effects of insolation on “airborne water condensate” is likely the very greatest contributor to the widespread distribution of insolation energy about this planet. This comes way later!! None of this is ever even considered in meteorology!
“Normal rain clouds (nimbostratus) usually don’t extend much above 3km.
Above that clear skies usually.”
Yep, just like Roger says above! 🙂
Opinion from a different blog/person:
Meteorology is a brain-dead paradigm. Convection can’t explain the jet streams but the jet streams can explain the phenomena that has haphazardly been labelled as convection.
Be aware that meteorologists refuse to discuss/debate theory, just like climatologists
Climatologists learned how to decieve the public by following meteorology’s example.
Guys, I’ll respond only to Ben for now. He seems to have some details ‘back-to-front’!
Ben Wouters says: June 18, 2015 at 4:40 pm
“Agree, plus the effect of the non spherical earth, where on the equator the distance to the center of mass is greater than on a pole, thus resulting in a slightly lower gravity.
So the Effective Gravity (Ge?) at sea level is the combined effect of real gravitational pull, minus varying effect across latitude of non spherical earth and centrifugal effect due to rotation.
So Ge is lowest at the equator and largest at the poles.”
Neither an ‘oblate’ sphere, or a ‘perfect’ sphere make much difference. The planet rotates at a given rate of revolutions, per given period. ‘Lower latitudes’ (closer to the equator) must always possess a greater peripheral speed than higher latitudes simply because of the geometric shape/configuration of a planet (the overriding/deterministic factor is the distance at ’90 degrees’ from the ‘axis of spin’ to the ‘planet’s surface’ [pi x D, or 2pi x r]. The greater the distance from the rotation axis, the greater the effect from ‘centrifuge’).
Its important to mention here that the ‘gravity constant’ is upheld throughout. Any ‘change’ of ‘gravitational influence’ is affected by the ‘ke’ (kinetic energy from the planet’s rotation) in ‘counterpoise to the gravity gradient’ imposed by ‘planetary rotation’ per se.
When you mention “Ge”, I first think of the ‘germanium’ element. This could be confusing to chemical engineers. Perhaps ‘g-ke’ would be better received. Thus, “‘ke’ at/from ‘the surface’ (at sea level perhaps), also ‘offsets’ natural convection by way of ‘inertial’ influence”? Yes?
“Some values for Ge at sea level
Lat 0: 9,780 m/s^2
Lat 30: 9,792 m/s^2
Lat 60: 9,819 m/s^2
Lat 90: 9,832 m/s^2”
I can’t verify your stated values Ben, but the general ‘trend’ may seem plausible to some. However, its totally ‘wrong’! Have you any idea of the amount of energy required to force an ‘acceleration rate’ of ‘~9,000 metres’ in the ‘first second’ of ‘the applied force’ from a ‘standing start’? An ‘exploding nuclear bomb’ would find it ‘hard to deliver’ this ‘rate of acceleration’. 😦
How may I help? 🙂
“The effect of altitude is ~0,11% lower Ge for every 3000m. Different latitudes have a negligible effect on this number.”
???!
Our discussion has progressed to the level of ‘about’ the ‘surface’ (boundary layer), with a possible consideration for the affectation to the atmospheric configuration that can/may exist above this altitude! I’m trying to describe ‘advection’, with a viewpoint on how/why it’s confused acceptance with ‘convection’ is so wide-spread.
I’ll; take this further at the risk of more ‘off thread’ comment.
“Not sure what you’re saying here, but the Coriolis Effect has nothing to do with the centrifugal effect of earths rotation.”
Earth Centrifuge and Coriolis Effect are specific names for a particular scenario, but are ‘generated’ and ‘observed’ BY, AND IN, ALL ROTATING BODIES OF MASS!!!
Both, the ‘forces’ that exist within a ‘centrifuge’, and the ‘Coriolis Effect’ that presents itself from ‘other perspectives’, tend to ‘mimic’ ‘gyroscopic behaviour’. 😉
Get back to me when you realise, and can differentiate, these issues. If not, ask for help. I don’t know how to help you more on these points Ben.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: June 20, 2015 at 9:11 am
“How may I help? 🙂 ”
Reading the links I supply would be a good first step.
““Some values for Ge at sea level
Lat 0: 9,780 m/s^2
Lat 30: 9,792 m/s^2
Lat 60: 9,819 m/s^2
Lat 90: 9,832 m/s^2″
I can’t verify your stated values Ben, but the general ‘trend’ may seem plausible to some. However, its totally ‘wrong’!”
See http://www.space-electronics.com/index.php
These are the guys that build the equipment that is used worldwide to measure all kinds of mass properties of spacecraft: http://www.space-electronics.com/Industries/LargeSpacecraft.php
Their president wrote: http://www.space-electronics.com/Literature/Precise_Measurement_of_Mass.PDF
Suggest you take very good notice of this text, before digging an ever deeper hole for yourself as WJ already did.
“Earth Centrifuge and Coriolis Effect are specific names for a particular scenario, but are ‘generated’ and ‘observed’ BY, AND IN, ALL ROTATING BODIES OF MASS!!!”
Actually the Coriolis Effect is only observed for ‘objects’ MOVING OVER a rotating surface.
Stationary objects on a rotating surface do NOT experience this effect. Same for ‘objects’ that move exactly East/West or West/East on earth.
See for a very simple explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcPs_OdQOYU
Will Janoschka says: June 20, 2015 at 1:25 am
““Normal rain clouds (nimbostratus) usually don’t extend much above 3km.
Above that clear skies usually.”
Yep, just like Roger says above! 🙂 ”
Roger Clague says: June 19, 2015 at 10:22 am
“I think buoyancy stops when air becomes dry. That is below -20C and above 6 000m ”
Try to understand that 3km is not the same as 6000m.
3km = 3000m and is actually 50% of 6000m.
suricat says: June 20, 2015 at 9:11 am
Guys, I’ll respond only to Ben for now. He seems to have some details ‘back-to-front’!
Ben Wouters says: June 18, 2015 at 4:40 pm
(“Agree, plus the effect of the non spherical earth, where on the equator the distance to the center of mass is greater than on a pole, thus resulting in a slightly lower gravity.)
“So the Effective Gravity (Ge?) at sea level is the combined effect of real gravitational pull, minus varying effect across latitude of non spherical earth and centrifugal effect due to rotation.
So Ge is lowest at the equator and largest at the poles.”)
My bold!
“Neither an ‘oblate’ sphere, or a ‘perfect’ sphere make much difference. The planet rotates at a given rate of revolutions, per given period. ‘Lower latitudes’ (closer to the equator) must always possess a greater peripheral speed than higher latitudes simply because of the geometric shape/configuration of a planet (the overriding/deterministic factor is the distance at ’90 degrees’ from the ‘axis of spin’ to the ‘planet’s surface’ [pi x D, or 2pi x r]. The greater the distance from the rotation axis, the greater the effect from ‘centrifuge’).”
Thank you!
Ben and perhaps all meteorologists seem to believe:
1. That the troposphere is in orbit about the Earth and obeys Keplers laws.
2. The Earth does not rotate, the Sun goes round, so there is no actual centrifugal force, and the required atmospheric mass ejection normal to the spin axis.
“Its important to mention here that the ‘gravity constant’ is upheld throughout. Any ‘change’ of ‘gravitational influence’ is affected by the ‘ke’ (kinetic energy from the planet’s rotation) in ‘counterpoise to the gravity gradient’ imposed by ‘planetary rotation’ per se.”
“When you mention “Ge”, I first think of the ‘germanium’ element. This could be confusing to chemical engineers. Perhaps ‘g-ke’ would be better received. Thus, “‘ke’ at/from ‘the surface’ (at sea level perhaps), also ‘offsets’ natural convection by way of ‘inertial’ influence”? Yes?”
(“Some values for Ge at sea level
Lat 0: 9,780 m/s^2
Lat 30: 9,792 m/s^2
Lat 60: 9,819 m/s^2
Lat 90: 9,832 m/s^2″)
“I can’t verify your stated values Ben, but the general ‘trend’ may seem plausible to some. However, its totally ‘wrong’! Have you any idea of the amount of energy required to force an ‘acceleration rate’ of ‘~9,000 metres’ in the ‘first second’ of ‘the applied force’ from a ‘standing start’? An ‘exploding nuclear bomb’ would find it ‘hard to deliver’ this ‘rate of acceleration’. :(”
From Ben’s response he reiterates the same with a reference that has correct values. Perhaps was using old German notation where the comma is now a decimal point.
“How may I help? :)”
“Perhaps a new thread examining how meteorology got all answers so totally wrong, including the definition of advection and convection. Do they all think that convection is only thermals?”
(“The effect of altitude is ~0,11% lower Ge for every 3000m. Different latitudes have a negligible effect on this number.”)
“???!”
Here again Ben is using the comma for the decimal point. Happens often from Europe!
,
“Our discussion has progressed to the level of ‘about’ the ‘surface’ (boundary layer), with a possible consideration for the affectation to the atmospheric configuration that can/may exist above this altitude! I’m trying to describe ‘advection’, with a viewpoint on how/why it’s confused acceptance with ‘convection’ is so wide-spread.”
Perhaps it is only a meteorology distinction, vertical vs horizontal! All advection seems to convect some energy with that mass motion! Perhaps not with gas bubbles advecting vertically in a liquid. The HVAC folk even use “convection” for forced ventilation, with no thermal anything.
Will Janoschka says: June 21, 2015 at 12:47 am
““So the Effective Gravity (Ge?) at sea level is the combined effect of real gravitational pull, minus varying effect across latitude of non spherical earth and centrifugal effect due to rotation.
So Ge is lowest at the equator and largest at the poles.”)
My bold!
2. The Earth does not rotate, the Sun goes round, so there is no actual centrifugal force, and the required atmospheric mass ejection normal to the spin axis.”
Seems you want to make a point concerning the centrifugal force due to the rotation of the earth.
Be specific.
Explain mass ejection?
“From Ben’s response he reiterates the same with a reference that has correct values. Perhaps was using old German notation where the comma is now a decimal point.”
I do understand that there are still some countries where they use feet, miles etc. and possibly also the dot as decimal separator. Seems a bit backward to me.
Ben Wouters says:
June 19, 2015 at 3:45 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulonimbus_cloud
Peaks typically reach to as much as 6,000 m (20,000 ft),”
That is the usual maximum height of rain cloud is 6 000.
How do you explain this?
“with extreme instances as high as 23,000 m (75,000 ft)”
I think we can ignore “extreme instances” for now.
“Well-developed cumulonimbus clouds are characterized by a flat, anvil-like top (anvil dome),
The cloud gets wider higher up because of reducing pressure.
caused by wind shear
There no wind at the tropopause
or inversion near the tropopause. “
The tropopause is what is says, a pause, the temperature becomes constant, does not change.
Why is the top of cumulonimbus cloud flat?
Why is there a tropopause?
Why is it at 220K, -50C?
Roger Clague says, June 21, 2015 at 10:03 am:
“Why is there a tropopause?
Why is it at 220K, -50C?”
The tropopause is the planetary balance point between convection and radiation. In remarkably consistent fashion it tends to sit between the 200 and 50 mb pressure levels (centred around the 100 mb level) on all planets and moons in the solar system with a substantially massive atmosphere:
(From Robinson & Catling 2014.)
The interesting thing is that this seems to happen regardless of defined levels of atmospheric IR opacity, based on the absolute content of actually IR-active constituents. It is rather the result of overall (bulk) air density, pertaining to the average frequency of molecular collisions.
BTW, the average global tropopause height is ~12 km, at ~210K (-63C):
Roger Clague says: June 21, 2015 at 10:03 am
Peaks typically reach to as much as 6,000 m (20,000 ft),”
That is the usual maximum height of rain cloud is 6 000.
How do you explain this?”
Usual maximum height of rainclouds is ~3000m (nimbostratus).
All cumulus type clouds are vertically developing clouds due convection.
They need to reach a certain altitude before they can produce rain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulus_humilis_cloud
won’t produce rain, congestus and cumulonimbus clouds DO produce rain or hail.
They are all governed by the same principle: convection.
““with extreme instances as high as 23,000 m (75,000 ft)”
I think we can ignore “extreme instances” for now.”
Why? It is the same physical process, whether we discuss a cumulus humilis or a cumulonimbus.
““Well-developed cumulonimbus clouds are characterized by a flat, anvil-like top (anvil dome),
The cloud gets wider higher up because of reducing pressure.
caused by wind shear”
“There no wind at the tropopause
or inversion near the tropopause. “
The tropopause is what is says, a pause, the temperature becomes constant, does not change.”
On planet Earth the highest windspeeds (outside hurricanes or tornadoes) are found near the tropopause level: jetstreams.
Lower stratosphere has a more or less constant temperature, above that layer the temperature begins to increase vs altitude: temp. inversion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#/media/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg
“Why is the top of cumulonimbus cloud flat?”
http://www.tornadochaser.net/capeclass.html page 2
“Why is there a tropopause?”
it is the level where the reducing influence of surface heating of the atmosphere starts to be overtaken by the warming due to solar UV higher in the stratosphere.
“Why is it at 220K, -50C?” It isn’t.
Kristian says: June 21, 2015 at 12:23 pm
Thank you Kristian very much. Among the things you pointed out one is of particular importance:
“The interesting thing is that this seems to happen regardless of defined levels of atmospheric IR opacity, based on the absolute content of actually IR-active constituents. It is rather the result of overall (bulk) air density, pertaining to the average frequency of molecular collisions.”
This is what I have been concentrating on. Here are some of my own notes (in process) and if you will take the time to look at that chart one line at a time you should also come to the conclusion that this is a very, very curious view of multiple atmospheres. The asterisks mark the data taken from NASA or the probes data/radiosonde data itself for Earth, Vega 2, Galileo and Huygen probes. Where there is an equation at the far right in square brackets, that is how that line was calculated from the lines above that line.
R 8.31432 universal gas constant Atm Earth Venus Jupiter Titan ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- M 0.028964 0.043450 0.002220 0.027386 * atm mol mass Rs 287.053 191.354 3745.189 303.597 spec gas const [R/M] g 9.80665 8.87000 24.79000 1.35200 * grav accel Khs 0.034163 0.046354 0.006619 0.004453 atm hydro stat const [g/Rs] dof 5.00 6.00 3.00 5.00 atm deg of freedom (theoretically) px 2.50 3.00 1.50 2.50 polytropic index [dof/2] hcr 1.40 1.33 1.67 1.40 heat cap ratio [(px+1)/px] T0 288.15 737.00 390.00 93.70 * bottom layer temp P0 101325 9321900 2249400 146700 * '' '' pressure D0 1.22500 66.09978 1.54003 5.15694 '' '' density [P/(T*Rs)] H0 0 0 0 0 '' '' geo pot height T1 213.65 312.00 246.13 65.20 * upper layer temp P1 22632 53500 564500 23932 * '' '' pressure D1 0.36903 0.89611 0.61240 1.20891 '' '' density [P/(T*Rs)] H1 11000 55046 65282 32000 * '' '' geo pot height dof? 5.011 6.003 3.003 5.001 log(P0/P1)/log(T0/T1) (per probe data) q2 ? 1.249 1.200 1.499 1.250 log(P0/P1)/log(D0/D1) (per probe data) dof? 5.011 6.003 3.003 5.001 1+1/(q2-1) (per probe data) </pre?This ties directly to that graphic you posted above. I hear people saying the lower env. lapse is going to change due to temperature or radiation and what I come up with is it is never going to occur without some massive changes in the primary degrees of freedom of the primary gas components found at low temperatures (all but primary energy levels frozen out).
(I hope wordpress will format that chart correct. Crossed fingers!)
Ben Wouters says: June 21, 2015 at 9:28 am
Will Janoschka says: June 21, 2015 at 12:47 am
Ray: ((““So the Effective Gravity (Ge?) at sea level is the combined effect of real gravitational pull, minus varying effect across latitude of non spherical earth and centrifugal effect due to rotation.So Ge is lowest at the equator and largest at the poles.”)) my bold!
WJ: (“Ben and perhaps all meteorologists seem to believe:
1. That the troposphere is in orbit about the Earth and obeys Keplers laws.
2. The Earth does not rotate, the Sun goes round, so there is no actual centrifugal force, and the required atmospheric mass ejection normal to the spin axis.”)
Well is it 1 or 2, Ben?
“Seems you want to make a point concerning the centrifugal force due to the rotation of the earth.
Be specific. Explain mass ejection?”
I was thanking Ray, for once more trying to inform Ben of what the Earth’s centrifuge means, with the experssion of a counterpoise to gravitational force..
The point is: If you take away all if your floor heating, all of energy radiated to space, and all of insolation, there would be “almost” the same convection (air mass motion) in this atmosphere as is measured now! The 200 mbar pressure level at the equator would still be at twice the altitude of that at the poles. There would still be a westerly jet stream over the equator, and another very wobbly one at approx 60o latitude.
There would still be a surface low at the equator and at that 60o latitude, and surface highs at the poles and 30o latitude. The Earth would still be colder at high altitude and at the poles, and have higher temperature near the surface and at the equator. all due to “only” the rotation of the earth, and its troposphere, as determined by the surface roughness of the earth’s surface and the viscosity of the near surface atmosphere.
I have not myself measured the radial mass flow from a rotating sphere myself. According to fluid dynamics if I remember correctly that radial ejection per unit axial length is proportional to the sq root of the tip velocity at that location. for this earth that would mean a maximum at the equator and zero at each pole, with the ejection normal to the spin axis, only directly opposing gravitational force at the equator and at an angle to gravitational force according to the latitude.
The result is close to what is measured but has no basis in temperature or temperature differences. This forced advection in every direction is the “fundamental” basis for all convection in this atmosphere.
Is that specific enough? 🙂
Will Janoschka says: June 21, 2015 at 7:36 pm
” I was thanking Ray, for once more trying to inform Ben of what the Earth’s centrifuge means, with the experssion of a counterpoise to gravitational force..”
“I have not myself measured the radial mass flow from a rotating sphere myself.” etc etc
Wow. all this from Earth’s centrifuge…..
Counterpoise at the equator is ~ 0,034 m/s^2. At the poles 0 m/s^2
Reduced gravity at the equator due to the bulge of the earth ~ 0,018 m/s^2
Effective gravity at the poles 9,832 m/s^2
Effective gravity at the equ. 9,780 m/s^2
Any numbers for that radial mass flow with gravity of 9,780 m/s^2 pulling everything (including air, raindrops etc) towards the earth at the equator.
It would take a crazy engineer to explain how this tiny difference can drive eg 200 kts jetstreams and all other phenomena you mention.
Meteorologist disregard this difference, because they understand that the resulting pressure gradient of ~ 5 hPa / 5400 nm MIGHT result in a windspeed of ~ 0,5 kts.
Ben Wouters says: June 21, 2015 at 11:29 pm
Will Janoschka says: June 21, 2015 at 7:36 pm
(“I have not myself measured the radial mass flow from a rotating sphere” )
I have observed others watching the flow of coloured incense introduced at the “polar” centre of that rotating sphere climb up the surface and be ejected outward mostly at the equator. This is in an isobaric lab setting. Their mass flow numbers seemed to be carefully done!
“Wow. all this from Earth’s centrifuge…..”
Indeed all of this!! 🙂
“Counterpoise at the equator is ~ 0,034 m/s^2. At the poles 0 m/s^2
Reduced gravity at the equator due to the bulge of the earth ~ 0,018 m/s^2”
For a pressure differential of (0.034+0.018) = (0.052/9.8) x 1000 millibars or 5.5 millibars!
“Effective gravity at the poles 9,832 m/s^2. Effective gravity at the equ. 9,780 m/s^2
Any numbers for that radial mass flow with gravity of 9,780 m/s^2 pulling everything (including air, raindrops etc) towards the earth at the equator.”
You have stated that a few millibars pressure differential horizontally may cause wind velocity of 50 m/s over vast areas!
Why do you think that a that small vertical pressure differential would not cause the same air vertical velocity and mass transfer over vast areas? What is the difference??
“It would take a crazy engineer to explain how this tiny difference can drive eg 200 kts jetstreams and all other phenomena you mention.”
All a crazy engineer ever needs to explain is “it works”, or “aw shit”.!! It takes something like a meteorologist at the State Fair to sell a set of knives “that never get dull”. 🙂
“Meteorologist disregard this difference, because they understand that the resulting pressure gradient of ~ 5 hPa / 5400 nm MIGHT result in a windspeed of ~ 0,5 kts.”
What agricultural excrement (is that allowed)? The delta 5hPa is per nanometre resulting in very high air mass flow, always in the direction of some lower energy potential!
What understanding or measurement? All meteorology has to offer is fantasy!
Ben Wouters says: June 20, 2015 at 10:32 am
“Reading the links I supply would be a good first step.”
I haven’t felt the need to Ben. Your ‘dialogue’ described the ‘content’ well.
“See http://www.space-electronics.com/index.php
These are the guys that build the equipment that is used worldwide to measure all kinds of mass properties of spacecraft: http://www.space-electronics.com/Industries/LargeSpacecraft.php
Their president wrote: http://www.space-electronics.com/Literature/Precise_Measurement_of_Mass.PDF
Suggest you take very good notice of this text, before digging an ever deeper hole for yourself as WJ already did.”
Why direct me to a ‘commercial’ site where the ‘company’ is trying to ‘sell its wares’? WJ didn’t ‘dig a hole’. You did it for him Ben!
Let’s get back to “Some values for Ge at sea level”! This is better represented as ‘g’ (the gravity constant) ‘-‘ (minus) the ‘ke’ (kinetic energy) acceleration factor for the ‘local’ atmosphere at the latitude where the observation was made.
“Lat 0: 9,780 m/s^2” relates to ‘the acceleration factor reduction’ for ‘Earth’s rotation’ AT ITS SURFACE relative to the distance from the ‘axis of Earth rotation’! In NO WAY can this be an acceleration force at/from any point of Earth’s surface for advection! However, as Will points out at ‘Will Janoschka says: June 21, 2015 at 12:47 am’, if we replace the ‘comma’ with a ‘decimal point’ mark, it reads better. My bad for not realising this. Thus, it should read “Lat 0: 9.780 m/s^2”! Thanks Will. 🙂
“Actually the Coriolis Effect is only observed for ‘objects’ MOVING OVER a rotating surface.”
That’s obvious, but ‘fixed objects’ also display a ‘changing weight measurement’ at ‘different latitudes’ when mass is measured with a ‘spring balance’, or ‘load cell’.
“Stationary objects on a rotating surface do NOT experience this effect.”
Of course not. They’re ‘fixed’ to the ground, but read my previous comment.
“Same for ‘objects’ that move exactly East/West or West/East on earth.”
No! ‘Objects’ at the equator undergo a ‘vertical’ Coriolis effect, thus, ‘rotational energy’ translates into ‘vertical’ ‘ke’! I’ll use the ‘rising parcel of air’ analogy that you’re familiar with. However, because surface pressure is also affected by the Coriolis effect, the buoyancy supplied by the atmosphere is another confusing factor for observation. This is best understood from ‘first principles’.
Have you ever questioned ‘why’ a “parcel” falls ‘retrograde’ to Earth’s rotational ‘rate’ as it ‘rises’ at ‘0 latitude’ (the equator)? Beware Ben. Its an energy ‘mix’ that’s difficult to differentiate from the energetic component parts at its ‘origin’.
Theoretically, as a ‘parcel of air’ rises in Earth’s atmosphere it encounters a reducing pressure environment and it also becomes ‘disconnected’ from the ‘advecting force’ that it gained within the ‘boundary layer’, but its new environment ~doesn’t slow its ‘speed’ of rotation.
As the ‘parcel’ continues to rise in its new environment it finds itself in a position that is further from the ‘spin axis’ than the distance where it ‘gained’ its ‘rotational ke component’. Thus, the ‘parcel’ is unable to ‘keep up’ with the ‘rotation’ of the planet beneath it. As the ‘parcel’ continues to rise it’s unable to match the ‘rate of spin’ and falls ‘retrograde’ (backwards) to the planet’s rotation.
At the equator, ‘parcel’ motion is ‘always’ East to West.
If you want to climb into the ‘West to East’ scenario, we need to discus the dynamics of ‘turbines’ first.
I’m still here for you Ben. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
Ben Wouters says on June 21, 2015 at 11:29 pm:
Ben, tiny difference, yes, but do you not know that the figure 0.034 m/s² is an acceleration, not a velocity itself? Air under that constant acceleration can reach most any veloocity given enough time and if you ignore opposing friction and turbulence. Can that tiny acceleration maintain a 200 kt wind, you tell me why not. Put your science cap on if you even have one.
suricat says: June 22, 2015 at 1:41 am
Ben Wouters says: June 20, 2015 at 10:32 am
(“Reading the links I supply would be a good first step.”)
“I haven’t felt the need to Ben. Your ‘dialogue’ described the ‘content’ well.No! ‘Objects’ at the equator undergo a ‘vertical’ Coriolis effect, thus, ‘rotational energy’ translates into ‘vertical’ ‘ke’! I’ll use the ‘rising parcel of air’ analogy that you’re familiar with. However, because surface pressure is also affected by the Coriolis effect, the buoyancy supplied by the atmosphere is another confusing factor for observation.”
Quire nice Ray! What is, is what is, Climb around on that puppy and try to measure No need for the hypergolic agricultural excrement of political others!
——————————————————————————————————————————
This is best understood from ‘first principles’.
Have you ever questioned ‘why’ a “parcel” falls ‘retrograde’ to Earth’s rotational ‘rate’ as it ‘rises’ at ‘0 latitude’ (the equator)? Beware Ben. Its an energy ‘mix’ that’s difficult to differentiate from the energetic component parts at its ‘origin’.
Theoretically, as a ‘parcel of air’ rises in Earth’s atmosphere it encounters a reducing pressure environment and it also becomes ‘disconnected’ from the ‘advecting force’ that it gained within the ‘boundary layer’, but its new environment ~doesn’t slow its ‘speed’ of rotation.
As the ‘parcel’ continues to rise in its new environment it finds itself in a position that is further from the ‘spin axis’ than the distance where it ‘gained’ its ‘rotational ke component’. Thus, the ‘parcel’ is unable to ‘keep up’ with the ‘rotation’ of the planet beneath it. As the ‘parcel’ continues to rise it’s unable to match the ‘rate of spin’ and falls ‘retrograde’ (backwards) to the planet’s rotation.
At the equator, ‘parcel’ motion is ‘always’ East to West.
———————————————————————————————————————-
“If you want to climb into the ‘West to East’ scenario, we need to discus the dynamics of ‘turbines’ first.”
The directional insolation of this atmosphere, plus the generated latent heat of insolation on airborne water condensate can make an intelligent anyone scream “I want my Momma” .
The true answer to understanding this atmosphere remains “beats the shit out of me”!
Thank you Ray
As a pilot Ben is trained to correctly operate an aircraft. I as an engineer I are trained to correctly operate
a rail-road locomotive, That wonderful ship captain is trained to operate that ship. All that training has nothing to do with “understanding”, only the ability to take corrective action before the “aw shit”
Will Janoschka says: June 22, 2015 at 1:38 am
“For a pressure differential of (0.034+0.018) = (0.052/9.8) x 1000 millibars or 5.5 millibars!”
Yes, ~5 hPa as I stated above, but the differential is between pole and equator, which are 5400 nm apart. But to understand this you have to understand what atmospheric pressure actually is …..
“You have stated that a few millibars pressure differential horizontally may cause wind velocity of 50 m/s over vast areas!”
http://www.waypointamsterdam.com/predicting_winds.html or similar tables.
2 mb HORIZONTAL pressure difference over 200 nm gives a geostrophic wind (= horizontally moving air) speed of ~7 kts.
So 5 mb over 5400 nm gives almost no wind at all.
“Why do you think that a that small vertical pressure differential would not cause the same air vertical velocity and mass transfer over vast areas? What is the difference??”
Gravity and hydrostatic balance. Way to difficult for an engineer apparently.
suricat says: June 22, 2015 at 1:41 am
“No! ‘Objects’ at the equator undergo a ‘vertical’ Coriolis effect, thus, ‘rotational energy’ translates into ‘vertical’ ‘ke’! I’ll use the ‘rising parcel of air’ analogy that you’re familiar with. However, because surface pressure is also affected by the Coriolis effect, the buoyancy supplied by the atmosphere is another confusing factor for observation. ”
Not sure where you’re going, but this has nothing to do with the Coriolis effect.
Coriolis effect works in the horizontal plane.
see http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section1b.html#atmospheric_momentum
I do realize that air at eg 10 km above the equator has to move a bit faster (less than 1 m/s) than air at the surface to keep up with the rotational speed of the earth. At least in the troposphere friction will take care of this tiny difference in the absence of other forces.
wayne says: June 22, 2015 at 3:25 am
“Ben, tiny difference, yes, but do you not know that the figure 0.034 m/s² is an acceleration, not a velocity itself?”
I do, and the same is true for gravity. So all the 0,034 m/s^2 does is slightly reduce the effect of gravity. So a falling stone at the poles will accelerate slightly faster towards the earth than at the equator (disregarding air resistance)
So how would air at the equator be at a constant acceleration?????
Gravity is still trying to crash the atmosphere on the surface. Only reason this does not happen is the internal pressure of the air => HYDROSTATIC BALANCE.
I’ve been at the equator, and rest assured, people do NOT float away from the surface due to the rotation of the earth and neither does air.
Ben Wouters says:
June 21, 2015 at 4:05 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#/media/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg
According to this tropopause is 218K and Lapse rate is 6.4K/km
http://www.tornadochaser.net/capeclass.html
“Buoyancy and the vertical pressure gradient force tend to balance each other.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure-gradient_force
In the case of atmospheres, the pressure gradient force is balanced by the gravitational force, maintaining hydrostatic equilibrium. In the Earth’s atmosphere, for example, air pressure decreases at increasing altitudes above the Earth’s surface, thus providing a pressure gradient force which counteracts the force of gravity on the atmosphere.
Most definitions of pressure-gradient force are for horizontal gradients. That is causing winds.
In the above definition the pressure gradient force opposes gravity.
Buoyancy also opposes gravity.
Buoyancy and pressure-gradient force both act in the same direction and so cannot balance.
This shows a basic confusion by COMET and NOAA about buoyancy.
Roger Clague says: June 22, 2015 at 12:26 pm
“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#/media/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg
According to this tropopause is 218K and Lapse rate is 6.4K/km”
Standard atmosphere is a kind of average to ao calibrate flight instruments against.
On earth the tropopause is anywhere between 8-9 km at the poles up to 17-18 km at the equator.
Temperatures range from -50C to -80C or so.
“Most definitions of pressure-gradient force are for horizontal gradients. That is causing winds.
In the above definition the pressure gradient force opposes gravity.
Buoyancy also opposes gravity.
Buoyancy and pressure-gradient force both act in the same direction and so cannot balance.”
Buoyancy exists when the pressure gradient force and gravity do NOT balance.
The reason why a parcel of air that is less dense than the surrounding air (which IS in hydrostatic equilibrium) rises. It is PUSHED upwards.
“This shows a basic confusion by COMET and NOAA about buoyancy.”
Fine, go tell them.
suricat, I am confused (not really but let’s say I am confused and might be wrong, I’ll take the stance that Ben should take).
What you describe as vertical Coriolis is:
“No! ‘Objects’ at the equator undergo a ‘vertical’ Coriolis effect, thus, ‘rotational energy’ translates into ‘vertical’ ‘ke’! I’ll use the ‘rising parcel of air’ analogy that you’re familiar with. However, because surface pressure is also affected by the Coriolis effect, the buoyancy supplied by the atmosphere is another confusing factor for observation. ”
I don’t really think ke here is the best way to approach this but I see it as an acceleration and Ben sees it as a small 1 m/s static difference in velocity effect. That is, in his effect the acceleration due to the small velocity difference would approach zero as the mass which was accelerated and sped higher up to meet that 1 m/s difference. That is, in that case, any acceleration under consideration would vanish with altitue.
Contrarily, I think I see that differential effect you speak of as being an acceleration that never decreases, is always ‘there’, the Earth is always spinning that creates these accelerations, and in that case this constant acceleration would have no velocity bounds due to near infinite time except for the real friction we all realize is there and does exists but we are also speaking here of an absolutely gigantic area being affected over a long time scales so the ‘edges’ where this friction is manifest to oppose and slow this acceleration over difference latitudes would be very small at any local scale, but also some friction/turbulence would always be there. That would support higher velocities.
Which is correct?
suricat, I probably should have said “Which is more correct?” without implying absolutes.
wayne says, June 21, 2015 at 6:48 pm:
Thanks, wayne. Very interesting. I will most certainly have a look.
I hope in that regard that you can also find the time, if you’re so inclined, to check out my two latest blog posts:
Why atmospheric MASS, not radiation? Part 1
Why atmospheric MASS, not radiation? Part 2
wayne says: June 22, 2015 at 8:56 pm
suricat, I am confused (not really but let’s say I am confused and might be wrong, I’ll take the stance that Ben should take).
What you describe as vertical Coriolis is:
(“No! ‘Objects’ at the equator undergo a ‘vertical’ Coriolis effect, thus, ‘rotational energy’ translates into ‘vertical’ ‘ke’! I’ll use the ‘rising parcel of air’ analogy that you’re familiar with. However, because surface pressure is also affected by the Coriolis effect, the buoyancy supplied by the atmosphere is another confusing factor for observation. ”)
“I don’t really think ke here is the best way to approach this but I see it as an acceleration and Ben sees it as a small 1 m/s static difference in velocity effect. That is, in his effect the acceleration due to the small velocity difference would approach zero as the mass which was accelerated and sped higher up to meet that 1 m/s difference. That is, in that case, any acceleration under consideration would vanish with altitude.”
Finally a reasonable discourse between folk that can think, but think differently (POV)!
The 1m/s increase in velocity is but Ben’s fantasy that never can occur in this rotating atmosphere.
This atmosphere (at all pressures) has not sufficient viscosity to transfer local angular momentum radially outward to produce the (slightly) higher tangential velocity, in fact it decreases (slightly) as the air mass moves outward. In Ray’s terms increasing height air masses are retrograde longitudinally (angularly) but generate little or no shear forces, as in Ben’s illusions.
“Contrarily, I think I see that differential effect you speak of as being an acceleration that never decreases, is always ‘there’, the Earth is always spinning that creates these accelerations, and in that case this constant acceleration would have no velocity bounds due to near infinite time except for the real friction we all realize is there and does exists but we are also speaking here of an absolutely gigantic area being affected over a long time scales so the ‘edges’ where this friction is manifest to oppose and slow this acceleration over difference latitudes would be very small at any local scale, but also some friction/turbulence would always be there. That would support higher velocities.”
Interesting again, and thank you! The delta 5hPa per “nominal length” results in very high air mass flow, always in the direction of some lower energy potential! There is a surface radial atmospheric mass transfer normal to the rotational axis due to surface “tip velocity”.
This rotational KE provides tangential, not rotational surface air mass momentum. It is the outward radial component of that t-momentum that causes the lift in this (trying to remain in hydrodynamic equilibrium), atmosphere!
The decreasing density of the gas with altitude (pressure) and the counterpoise increasing airborne column water density with altitude, insists, that the true answer to understanding this atmosphere for any earthling or group of earthlings “with a wee but of personal integrity” remains strictly “beats the shit out of me”! 🙂
Now back to this Earth’s interesting physical! Who is buying the next round? 🙂
Kristian says: June 23, 2015 at 12:03 am
wayne says, June 21, 2015 at 6:48 pm:
“Thanks, wayne. Very interesting. I will most certainly have a look.I hope in that regard that you can also find the time, if you’re so inclined, to check out my two latest blog posts:
Why atmospheric MASS, not radiation? Part 1
Why atmospheric MASS, not radiation? Part 2”
Kristian,
I have skimmed your Part 1! Nicely done! I would critique: The atmospheric temperature gradient is measurable. The total EMR exitance, “planetary total exitance” called “radiative intensity” in any direction, has never been measured by anyone! At the Moon earthlings could do that, for only exitance near normal to Earth’s spin axis. All of our satellites are way to close to make such a measurement! Currently we have no measurement of insolation “absorbed” by the surface and atmosphere! Earthlings have no clue as to the solar radiative power input to this planet and its atmosphere. Earthlings have no clue as to the radiative power exit from this planet and its atmosphere. When Oh when can we get measurements from those that know how to measure? We have only computer guesses from scientists, jerking off in the cloakroom! 🙂
I cannot prove without correct measurements, that 90% of radiant “exitance” originates in the atmosphere, not from the surface!! Surface temperature is never a consideration. 🙂 I will certainly “try” to understand your Part 2. Thank you!!
-will-
Thank you Kristian. I’m already starting to reading you articles and will do so multiple times until I thoroughly understand all you are saying. I have always agreed with one point you consistently make… it take ghgs in the upper atmospheres to shed the atmosphere’s heat is absorbs or makes it way all of the way to the surface. Venus and Titan are two that are prominent in atmospheric absorption/emission and the surface is the bit player in those cases.
First, I’m not trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes and am also not looking to have these numbers to match exactly some theoretical exact figure, that never happens in real measurements, there is always some small plus/minus error that you have to live with.
You might look at an earlier stab at https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/a-small-sceptical-voice-in-the-lukewarm-wilderness/comment-page-4/#comment-92749 that is close but not exact to what I just gave above.
Upon delving into whether the Std. Atm. 1976 is correct I have found there are multiple claims that the temperature given at avreage 11 km troposphere is too warm by a few degrees. Many sites seem to just list it at -60°C instead of -56.5°C that the S.A. states. Upon letting that one figure approach the cooler figure then the mysterious (to me) ‘.2558’ fraction portion of 5.2558 for Earth disappears approaching zero and upon that change Earth then show a degrees of freedom of right at 5 for its N2/O2 atm just like Titan does for its N2 atm. They are all now right at whole numbers. Still don’t know exactly why. That is one change in the last months.
There are many easily accessible equation that show a multitude of equations explaining the relationships between all of those variables that I didn’t include but just ask if you find this worth delving into. I did. Also I then knew little of the polytropic process in contrast to the adiabatic process and the has cleared up much of why these relationships occur. The degrees of freedom relate to both the heat capacity ratios and the polytropic index. Those then also relate to the exact exponent in other equations, etc, etc. Quite interesting how this tangle of equations are all interrelated and all derive from the base of the gravitational acceleration and molar mass along with R of any atmosphere.
To me this seems to be saying explicitly that the surface (of any lower troposphere level’s) temperature found in any atmosphere is completely from the solar radiation and exactly where that is being absorbed/reflected on input, nothing more ever appears in the equations.
Also, look at these if you like:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/standard-atmosphere-model-and.html
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-homework-problem-to-end-all.html
He is plunking right around in the same area on all atmospheres but he takes the stance there is this 3/2 multiplier that I also found earlier (see sidebar but I had it backwards) but that is close but still not correct and that falls apart when considering Titan where nearly all input is absorbed by the atmosphere itself.
Well, said enough.
wayne says: June 23, 2015 at 3:05 am
Also, look at these if you like:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/standard-atmosphere-model-and.html
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-homework-problem-to-end-all.html
“He is plunking right around in the same area on all atmospheres but he takes the stance there is this 3/2 multiplier that I also found earlier (see sidebar but I had it backwards) but that is close but still not correct and that falls apart when considering Titan where nearly all input is absorbed by the atmosphere itself.”
Thank you Wayne, for your very readable references. Much to ponder there! Perhaps with new communication, the filthy serfs can learn. Would that not piss GOD off?
“I cannot prove without correct measurements, that 90% of radiant “exitance” originates in the atmosphere, not from the surface!! ”
Yes you pretty much can do that very thing Will and that is what I laid out to Dr. R. G. Brown (RGB) in a simple spreadsheet of what roughly occurs with our surface and atmosphere but I separated day from nighttime. I knew those were just averages but I pride a bit that he, being a pretty good physicist, though I disagree with many of his current stances… he gave me an A+ in his following comment about what that spreadsheet indicated.
It went something like this, …. wait, I just scrapped the paragraphs trying to lay that out for you in words. Just go to the ESRL site under, under, here it is: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html and pick a location, check DW Solar, DW IR, UW IR, Solar Net, IR Net and Total Net… view a few. We know little leaves the surface as IR… look at the Infrared Net line, about -50 at night and maybe reaching -150 during the daytime. I am looking at the Table Mountain site on June 21st, day before yesterday. But notice the upwelling IR and downwelling IR lines… they hardly change much from day to night so it is definitely not the surface IR but the IR from the atmosphere itself the way I see it and that is merely following the local temperature at every local atmosphere in the atmosphere. Easy. See if you agree. All the solar influx, much absorbed by the atmosphere itself, is doing is pushing the infrared more negative during the daytime while the downwelling IR barely budges. See what you gather from those plots and what that indicates. I believe you are right but not sure of the 90%, maybe 87%? 😉 I don’t know how to extract that, never tried to, but the data is there to download.
Since the boundary layer, Ben’s world, goes all over place, cold, hot, daytime, nighttime, cold fronts, warm fronts, summer, winter yet notice how very little the IR lines change over locations, days and seasons. Does that not mean you are right that it is mostly all from the atmpshere itself? I think so.
wayne says: June 23, 2015 at 8:15 am
(“I cannot prove without correct measurements, that 90% of radiant “exitance” originates in the atmosphere, not from the surface!! ”)
“Yes you pretty much can do that very thing Will and that is what I laid out to Dr. R. G. Brown (RGB) in a simple spreadsheet of what roughly occurs with our surface and atmosphere but I separated day from nighttime. I knew those were just averages but I pride a bit that he, being a pretty good physicist, though I disagree with many of his current stances… he gave me an A+ in his following comment about what that spreadsheet indicated”
Wayne,
I must politely, but violently “if need be” disagree 🙂 with your orthogonal POV. Dr. Brown, of Duke University considers EMR to be “heat”! Nothing can be further from the physical measurements of EMR flux! EMR flux can never be determined by the electromagnetic field strength of any possible emitter at any frequency. It is much like gravitational potential (force) that can never be realized with a rock on top of a post. The downward gravitational “force” is always completely canceled by the opposing upward force of that post. With EMR the opposing force is called “radiance” at each and every frequency. With thermal EMR, the opposing radiance from some mass with the same temperature must completely cancel any energy transfer, just like the post! th and observee potentials are equal and opposing. We can all kick back and observe the lower temperature that must accept the excess EMR energy from the higher temperature emitter. This EMR flux has nothing to do with mass, or the expression of the mass sensible heat (energy) now called temperature. Tthe EMR flux is always proportional to the difference in radiance at each frequency, and in each direction. There are no particles associated with EMR power transfer between .di8fferent masses
[mod: no idea why this snagged in moderation –Tim]
wayne says: June 23, 2015 at 8:15 am
(“I cannot prove without correct measurements, that 90% of radiant “exitance” originates in the atmosphere, not from the surface!! ”)
“Yes you pretty much can do that very thing Will and that is what I laid out to Dr. R. G. Brown (RGB) in a simple spreadsheet of what roughly occurs with our surface and atmosphere but I separated day from nighttime. I knew those were just averages but I pride a bit that he, being a pretty good physicist, though I disagree with many of his current stances… he gave me an A+ in his following comment about what that spreadsheet indicated”
Wayne,
I must politely, but violently “if need be” disagree 🙂 with your orthogonal POV. Dr. Brown, of Duke University considers EMR to be “heat”! Nothing can be further from the physical measurements of EMR flux! EMR flux can never be determined by the electromagnetic field strength of any possible emitter at any frequency. It is much like gravitational potential (force) that can never be realized with a rock on top of a post. The downward gravitational “force” is always completely canceled by the opposing upward force of that post. With EMR the opposing force is called “radiance” at each and every frequency. With thermal EMR, the opposing radiance from some mass with the same temperature must completely cancel any energy transfer, just like the post! th and observee potentials are equal and opposing. We can all kick back and observe the lower temperature that must accept the excess EMR energy from the higher temperature emitter. This EMR flux has nothing to do with mass, or the expression of the mass sensible heat (energy) now called temperature. Tthe EMR flux is always proportional to the difference in radiance at each frequency, and in each direction. There are no particles associated with EMR power transfer between .di8fferent masses
@ mods
My two previous posts didn’t show up. What gives?
wayne says: June 22, 2015 at 8:56 pm
“suricat, I am confused (not really but let’s say I am confused and might be wrong, I’ll take the stance that Ben should take).”
Let’s give that approach a try then.
“Ben, tiny difference, yes, but do you not know that the figure 0.034 m/s² is an acceleration, not a velocity itself? Air under that constant acceleration can reach most any veloocity given enough time and if you ignore opposing friction and turbulence. Can that tiny acceleration maintain a 200 kt wind, you tell me why not. Put your science cap on if you even have one.”
If I understand you correctly, due to the rotation of the earth air at the equator accelerates away from the surface, and speeds up eventually to jetstream speeds near the tropopause.
Why does this acceleration stop around tropopause level? (~max wind speeds)
Why are these jetsreams around 30 N/S , and not around the equator?
Where does the other jetstream band around 60N/S come from?
While we’re discussing this, let’s realize that we’re now well over 600 posts into a discussion about something embarrassingly simple as convection in an atmosphere that is in hydrostatic balance with gravity.
**** since the previous post came through, third attempt.
wayne says: June 23, 2015 at 8:15 am
“I cannot prove without correct measurements, that 90% of radiant “exitance” originates in the atmosphere, not from the surface!! ”
Most energy budgets for earth have ~6% of total incoming solar leaving from the surface directly to space, and 64% leaving from the atmosphere.
or
http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/meteorology/section1b.html#atmospheric_temperature
Assuming 30% reflection this leaves 70% of incoming solar thermalized somewhere within system earth. The same energy has to leave again for a balanced budget.
Means 6/70* 100 = 8,5% of outgoing radiation comes directly from the surface, the remaining 91,5% thus from the atmosphere.
Is this disputed somehow (give or take a few percent) ?
Kristian says
I hope in that regard that you can also find the time, if you’re so inclined, to check out my two latest blog posts:
Why atmospheric MASS, not radiation? Part 1
Why atmospheric MASS, not radiation? Part 2
The averaged planetary flux to space is conceptually seen as originating from a hypothetical blackbody “surface” or ‘radiating level’ somewhere inside the planetary system, tied specifically to a calculated emission temperature. This level can be viewed as the ‘average depth of upward radiation’ or the ‘apparent emitting surface’ of the planet as seen from space. Normally it is termed the ERL (‘effective radiating level’) or EEH (‘effective emission height’).
The idea behind the ERL is very simple, but does it accord with reality?
Good question
Effective radiating level
Actually it is the radiating temperature we are interested in, not the height.
That is the temperature of Earth and atmosphere system as seen from space.
It is calculated as 255K using the equation for blackbody surfaces.
However the Earth atmosphere system includes the 20+km layer of air, and is obviously not a surface.
The radiating temperature of the Earth is the tropopause temperature. This is constant day and night and over most of the surface, 60 N to 60S, from 12km up at 220K. Higher temperatures higher up are measured by radiation from molecules, not the bulk of the air.
The radiating temperature, 220K, is less than the bb temperature, 255K.
This is because it is not at a surface. As you pointed out, radiation is also coming from all layers/heights inside the atmosphere.
wayne says:
June 23, 2015 at 3:05 am
Also, look at these if you like:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/standard-atmosphere-model-and.html
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-homework-problem-to-end-all.html
This is the abstracted planetary atmosphere.
The hydrostatic equation includes g. Gravitation force needs two masses. That is the mass of the Earth and the mass of the atmosphere. There is no Earth in the model, no gravity, no cause of the reducing density shown in the diagram.
A realistic model must start with the Earth and its gravity
Folks: – I have no idea why comments are going missing or other strangeness.
Ben, not sure where any other mods are at the moment and I’m busy.
Roger Clague, politely, I can see you have never delved into this area of any depth of the equations he is giving and don’t think that I am saying his equations are somehow ‘correct’, not so. But what you don’t seem to see is that within his 4/21 exponent, or any such exponent in this area of thermodynamics, that simple value has the gravity built within that value. Also in that single exponent are the heat capacity, the heat capacity ratio, the gas constant and looking at that complex single valued exponent from a different direction you can also even extract the mean environmental lapse rate, the degrees of freedom of the primary gases apparently, the hydrostatic constant for any atmosphere, etc. I called that a “tangle” of relationships for I can’t come up with a better term to describe that single exponent value. You seem not looking deep enough and instead are skimming over the equations. I don’t think his approach is exactly correct as i said but he is also getting very close. R&C are also, N&Z was a first stab to attempt a unification. This is but what I have uncovered within the probes data. My next step is to add one more term into that exponent that carries the solar absorption of the atmospheres and I might just end up coming up with R&C’s same equations but from a completely different direction. Who knows. At least I am trying.
Horned helmet clangs on.
Quaternions.
Sometimes problem domains are computationally awkward but trivial in a different domain, a facet I find illuminating, not that I claim to understand.
The Quaternion is kind of a 5 dimension complex number, the 5th is time.
In reality these are far from esoteric, irrelevant, they are used for real in space engineering and in computer graphics. Describes a body in XYZ and rotation. I’ll be corrected if I am wrong.
Another field is the EM field, seem to pervade a lot but tend to be ignored as too hard to do.
The “tangle” is in which problem spaces?
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Quaternion.html
Ok Will, my terrible choice too late into the night when I should have just gone to bed.
But Ben says it is actually more like that 91.5% exitance is from the atmosphere itself, so you were more than correct Will. See just how incredibly smart Ben is? Good call Ben.
Must exit now to learn some more of just how dumb I am.
Ben Wouters says: June 22, 2015 at 12:08 pm
“Not sure where you’re going, but this has nothing to do with the Coriolis effect.
Coriolis effect works in the horizontal plane.”
I’ll say that where we’re going is somewhere that the Coriolis effect can be identified for what it actually is. Which “horizontal plane” on ‘Earth’s Globe’ do you relate to Ben?
If its a ‘local’ “horizontal plane”, the ‘effect’ and its strength is usually different. However, if its a ‘global’ “horizontal plane” (perpendicular to the N-S axis), the ‘effect’ and its strength is ~uniform.
This, AFAIK, indicates that the Coriolis effect is a ‘global’ phenomenon, rather than a ‘local’ one!
“I do realize that air at eg 10 km above the equator has to move a bit faster (less than 1 m/s) than air at the surface to keep up with the rotational speed of the earth. At least in the troposphere friction will take care of this tiny difference in the absence of other forces.”
No Ben, “air at eg 10 km above the equator has to move a bit faster (less than 1 m/s) than air at the surface to keep up with the rotational speed of the earth.” it doesn’t ‘keep up’ because it doesn’t have the ‘extra ke needed’. ‘It left the boundary layer’ and is ‘isolated’ from the ‘surface speed’ of Earth’s surface (the ‘teleconnection’ of ‘a viscous fluid in contact with a solid ‘dynamic” is severed). The ‘parcel’ becomes ‘isolated’!
“At least in the troposphere friction will take care of this tiny difference in the absence of other forces.”
“friction”, per se, plays no part in atmospheric physics AFAIK. This would be better represented/described as the resistance/drag in a ‘hypergolic trajectory’ without any pipes involved. It just isn’t there, but I understand your inference. Inertia rules the atmosphere, unless a wavelength of insolation/OLR generates a ‘thermal convection’ in mid air (ignoring latency and electrostatic forces)!
Best regards, Ray.
The Coriolis effect is caused by a sphere, double curvature, hence the twist.
suricat says: June 24, 2015 at 1:19 am
“No Ben, “air at eg 10 km above the equator has to move a bit faster (less than 1 m/s) than air at the surface to keep up with the rotational speed of the earth.” it doesn’t ‘keep up’ because it doesn’t have the ‘extra ke needed’. ‘It left the boundary layer’ and is ‘isolated’ from the ‘surface speed’ of Earth’s surface (the ‘teleconnection’ of ‘a viscous fluid in contact with a solid ‘dynamic” is severed). The ‘parcel’ becomes ‘isolated’!”
Like to see your explanation then for eg the subtropical jet.
see http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=1.21,84.43,401
This jet moves currently around the earth between 35 and 40 N, its summer position.
And it moves from west TO east, so actually faster than the surface is moving
At lat 30 earths surface is moving at ~400 m/s eastbound. This jet is moving some 50 -60 m/s FASTER.
tchannon says: June 24, 2015 at 3:57 am
“The Coriolis effect is caused by a sphere, double curvature, hence the twist.”
The Coriolis effect would exists equally well on a flat, rotating earth.
It exists due to the different rotational speeds at different latitudes.
Ah yes Ben the various explanations of how an aircraft wing works, what keeps an aircraft up. A similarity exists between the two matters.
In the wing case the fundamental is inertial reaction hence the created footprint of vortex, downwash, etc., from the inertial reaction. This has nothing to do with pressure difference, speed difference, rotation, etc., local details.
So do I have it right for an earth? Maybe, maybe not.
A rotating cylinder has no Coriollis effect.
A sphere can only spin on one axis. As you say entrained air has a shear latitudinally. For earth there is gravity and an exterior vacuum.
If we take some point the air is subject to centripetal force _and_ gravitational force acting to the centre of the body.
I think the point is required by forces to travel in a double curve hence equatorward. The shear tends to twist on an axis radially from the centre of the body, and will be a local gyroscopic action.
I’ll leave it at that, noting that here there is a similarity with the many cross discussions on about how atmospheric processes work, various schools of thought, possibly all describing the same elephant.
tchannon says: June 24, 2015 at 12:28 pm
” A rotating cylinder has no Coriollis effect.”
Agree
” A sphere can only spin on one axis. As you say entrained air has a shear latitudinally.”
Not sure about this one. If there was no wind on earth, air would be moving with the surface.
There would be different rotational speeds, but no shear imo.
Coriolis effect comes into play when air MOVES over the surface.
Nice explanation: http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Srotfram.htm
It’s all about moving in different reference frames.
Ben Wouters says: June 24, 2015 at 8:19 am
suricat says: June 24, 2015 at 1:19 am
(“No Ben, “air at eg 10 km above the equator has to move a bit faster (less than 1 m/s) than air at the surface to keep up with the rotational speed of the earth.” it doesn’t ‘keep up’ because it doesn’t have the ‘extra ke needed’. ‘It left the boundary layer’ and is ‘isolated’ from the ‘surface speed’ of Earth’s surface (the ‘teleconnection’ of ‘a viscous fluid in contact with a solid ‘dynamic” is severed). The ‘parcel’ becomes ‘isolated’!”)
“Like to see your explanation then for eg the subtropical jet.”
see http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=1.21,84.43,401
Ben,
We would like to see your explanation for that very jet stream!! Please use only air parcels that are lifted at with no given velocity but only a buoyancy limited two distinct laps rates, as you, and only you, have claimed, in your ad nauseam fallacy!
“This jet moves currently around the earth between 35 and 40 N, its summer position.
And it moves from west TO east, so actually faster than the surface is moving
At lat 30 earths surface is moving at ~400 m/s eastbound. This jet is moving some 50 -60 m/s FASTER.”
Ben,
First you claim 1 m/s at the equator, now you claim 50-60 m/s at latitude 30o. You have had this explained several times now, but refuse to consider. Please let us have your superior astute reasoning? 🙂
Sorry, sorry fellows but can’t let some confused science assumptions just lie out there so easily.
Tim, you should have not let Ben drag you in so easily.
You both are now saying:
“A rotating cylinder has no Coriolis effect.”
Not so. Displacement on a cylinder (even a non-rotating fame of reference) still has a component of the Coriolis effect in all but two exact azimuths. Do the three dimensional vector math! (well Tim can at least)
Excerpt:
I remember studying some of this many, many years ago and I had trouble finding what was up there in my old adn sometimes foggy memory.
But I understand, it took many minds to finally get it all straight. Coriolis effect is not what I would call ‘simple’ Ben.
Read up here on the history:
Click to access persson_on_coriolis05.pdf
Will: you seemed to be describing the Eötvös effect specifically but under primarily westerly breezes the effect is not what you and I were assuming, it would take easterlies. Possibly that is part of why exactly at the equator where this effect is maximal you see more clear skies than on either side in the ITCZ due to atmospheric subsidence that this effect evidently does cause, a downward acceleration.
There, some things to think about.
wayne says: June 24, 2015 at 9:08 pm
“But I understand, it took many minds to finally get it all straight. Coriolis effect is not what I would call ‘simple’ Ben.Read up here on the history:”
Click to access persson_on_coriolis05.pdf
Thank you! Never simple, perhaps deliberately incomprehensible!
“Will: you seemed to be describing the Eötvös effect specifically but under primarily westerly breezes the effect is not what you and I were assuming, it would take easterlies. Possibly that is part of why exactly at the equator where this effect is maximal you see more clear skies than on either side in the ITCZ due to atmospheric subsidence that this effect evidently does cause, a downward acceleration? There, some things to think about.”
My tale was from looking at rotating spheres, even in a constant pressure and where the smoke mostly goes. Mostly right ay the largest diameter with no Coriolis at all! Then the clever computational fluid dynamics that take into account that only at the equator is the axial normal of that radial mass flow in direct opposition to the force of gravity! at 60o latitude there is another surface low indicating additional normal to the spin axis mass flow, This mass ejection is also at 60o to the gravitational vector, equator-ward. Very weird results! Done not by meteorologists, but by lowly engineers that admit they don’t know. Add in periodic insolation longitudinal-wise with its inherent evaporation of airborne water condensate. This is easily 2/3 of all solar energy absorbed by this planet and atmosphere, but never reaching the surface! My hat is off to GOD’S engineering firm that contracted to design and construct this Earth. “How dey do dat” ? 🙂
wayne says: June 22, 2015 at 8:56 pm
“I don’t really think ke here is the best way to approach this but I see it as an acceleration and Ben sees it as a small 1 m/s static difference in velocity effect. That is, in his effect the acceleration due to the small velocity difference would approach zero as the mass which was accelerated and sped higher up to meet that 1 m/s difference. That is, in that case, any acceleration under consideration would vanish with altitue.”
Without bringing ‘relativity’ into the dialogue I see ‘ke’ added at the ‘boundary layer’ as the most explicit/productive method to pass on knowledge. Ignoring your ‘following comment’, what else would you suggest?
“Contrarily, I think I see that differential effect you speak of as being an acceleration that never decreases, is always ‘there’, the Earth is always spinning that creates these accelerations, and in that case this constant acceleration would have no velocity bounds due to near infinite time except for the real friction we all realize is there and does exists but we are also speaking here of an absolutely gigantic area being affected over a long time scales so the ‘edges’ where this friction is manifest to oppose and slow this acceleration over difference latitudes would be very small at any local scale, but also some friction/turbulence would always be there. That would support higher velocities.”
Please read; suricat says: June 24, 2015 at 1:19 am.
You’ll realise, I hope, that ‘friction’ isn’t in the ‘make-up’ of Earth’s atmosphere ‘away’ from the ‘boundary layer’! It’s all about ‘inertial interaction’ and ‘EMR reactance’ in Earth’s atmosphere. 😦 Well nearly, an ‘engineering 101’ introduction to ‘planar’ and ‘radial’ ‘turbines’ may help to explain global convection cells.
Moving between contributors posts is a bit like a ‘time warp’. 😉
Best regards, Ray.
Ben Wouters says June 23, 2015 at 11:47 a
wayne says: June 23, 2015 at 8:15 am
(“I cannot prove without correct measurements, that 90% of radiant “exitance” originates in the atmosphere, not from the surface!! ”)
Wayne, never expressed such! I WJ, correctly expressed such measured radiative exitance from the atmosphere. There is no measured EMR radiative exitance from this Earth’s surface. All outward radiative exitance originates from the atmosphere never from the solid or liquid surface. Where are your measurements? 🙂
Ben Wouters says: June 24, 2015 at 8:19 am
“Like to see your explanation then for eg the subtropical jet.
see http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=1.21,84.43,401
This jet moves currently around the earth between 35 and 40 N, its summer position.
And it moves from west TO east, so actually faster than the surface is moving
At lat 30 earths surface is moving at ~400 m/s eastbound. This jet is moving some 50 -60 m/s FASTER.”
I concur. Some gasses from the ‘GCCs’ (Global Circulation Cells) don’t ‘make it’ in the ‘subsidence scenario’. Thus, gasses with a greater ke become isolated from the main ‘advective cell’ and either become ‘entrapped’ at this altitude (become a ‘jet’), or re-join the ‘mainstream’ ‘cell’.
A point on ‘advection’ and ‘subsidence’!
When a ‘parcel’ is ‘advected/convected’ to a higher altitude, it loses ‘spin’ ke from Earth’s centrifuge.
When a ‘parcel’ ‘subsides’ to a lower altitude, it gains ‘spin’ ke from Earth’s centrifuge.
This only emphasises the need for me to introduce a basic understanding of ‘turbines’ here.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: June 25, 2015 at 1:00 am
wayne says: June 22, 2015 at 8:56 pm
(“I don’t really think ke here is the best way to approach this but I see it as an acceleration and Ben sees it as a small 1 m/s static difference in velocity effect. That is, in his effect the acceleration due to the small velocity difference would approach zero as the mass which was accelerated and sped higher up to meet that 1 m/s difference. That is, in that case, any acceleration under consideration would vanish with altitue.”)
“Without bringing ‘relativity’ into the dialogue I see ‘ke’ added at the ‘boundary layer’ as the most explicit/productive method to pass on knowledge. Ignoring your ‘following comment’, what else would you suggest?”
OK fine, how does that pass on knowledge to the acolytes that scream BS . An aquiculture’s excrement that always spontaneous goes “splat” on this Earth’s surface with much rebounding milk-drops.
“Contrarily, I think I see that differential effect you speak of as being an acceleration that never decreases, is always ‘there’, the Earth is always spinning that creates these accelerations. Acceleration would have no velocity bounds due to near infinite time except for the real friction we all realize is there and does exists but we are also speaking here of an absolutely gigantic area being affected over a long time scales so the ‘edges’ where this friction is manifest to oppose and slow this acceleration
and in that case this constant acceleration would have no velocity bounds due to near infinite time except for the real friction we all realize is there and does exists but we are also king here of an absolutely gigantic area being affected over a long time scales so the ‘edges’ where this friction is manifest to oppose and slow this acceleration
You’ll realise, I hope, that ‘friction’ isn’t in the ‘make-up’ of Earth’s atmosphere ‘away’ from the ‘boundary layer’! It’s all about ‘inertial interaction’ and ‘EMR reactance’ in Earth’s atmosphere. 😦 Well nearly, an ‘engineering 101′ introduction to ‘planar’ and ‘radial’ ‘turbines’ may help to explain global convection cells.
Indeed! EMR reactance is but a non- dissipative “limit”to radiative flux transfer in any direction of lower radiance.
Moving between contributors posts is a bit like a ‘time warp’. Oh Yah! 😉
Whoa, sure didn’t expect that response from you Will.
Now Will, don’t think it t’wast me. Is all of this something to do with what Ben said? I think you are taking me wrong, maybe because Ben put one of your quotes under my name as if it was me who said it. He is saying 91.5%. And me, I have not such trust in that data. Might be close, maybe not. (but it is under the 90%)
I was going off of this Will, Ben aside, he jumped in the middle without an invitation:
on Monday, June 22, 2015, 9:00:11 PM | Will Janoschka (near the bottom):
I cannot prove without correct measurements, that 90% of radiant “exitance” originates in the atmosphere, not from the surface!! Surface temperature is never a consideration. 🙂 I will certainly “try” to understand your Part 2. Thank you!!
-will-
Will, I was just agreeing with that statement that you made the best I could, roughly.
You seem to now be saying 100%, not 90%, and I can’t really back that totality up, I do think there is a small portion at isolated frequencies, most just partial transparency, that some l.w. radiation does pass through the atmosphere without little interaction. Does that make me a bad boy? 😉 I go off the fact that the spectrums that ground-based infrared telescopes use to sense and photograph (super-cooled CCDs actually IIRC) in some of those tiny window frequencies within the same wavelengths as Earth emits, right around 9.75 μm is about as clear as it gets I have read but there are portions that escape with little interaction and that is what I am terming my “small portion in the window”. 10%, 8%, 4%, I have no idea the number. You might say 100% but if that was true it seems those telescopes could not operate.
Or have I just taken you completely wrong from the very beginning. Sometimes you are a bit hard from me to follow exactly, you are an engineer with your lingo, I am not and try to correctly read between your lines. Or did I just read the context it was in wrong?
Bottom line, to me, what you are saying is that infrared radiation from the surface has little to do with the exitance at the TOA. Right? Wrong? That is what I also believe.
Will: “You’ll realise, I hope, that ‘friction’ isn’t in the ‘make-up’ of Earth’s atmosphere ‘away’ from the ‘boundary layer’!”
Well yes, kind of and I was not speaking of some far removed friction with the surface or boundary layer per se. Yet, fast streams of air do rub at the edges and interact with anything that is moving at a different velocity, slower here, and on that interaction the faster slows and the slow speeds up, never backwards. Newtonian., transfer of momentum That is what I was referencing as friction/turblence, not to somehow stop, wuold never happen, but to put an upper limit on the velocity that a steady and constant acceration would impose on velocity without something to counteract it growth.
wayne says: June 25, 2015 at 2:08 am
Whoa, sure didn’t expect that response from you Will.
“Now Will, don’t think it was me. Is all of this something to do with what Ben said? I think you are taking me wrong, maybe because Ben put one of your quotes under my name as if it was me who said it. He is saying 91.5%. And me, I have not such trust in that data. Might be close, maybe not. (but it is under the 90%) I was going off of this Will, Ben aside, he jumped in the middle without an invitation:”
OK no problem! Your measurements of this is, “is” is likely better than mine!!
“on Monday, June 22, 2015, 9:00:11 PM | Will Janoschka (near the bottom):
I cannot prove without correct measurements, that 90% of radiant “exitance” originates in the atmosphere, not from the surface!! Surface temperature is never a consideration. 🙂 I will certainly “try” to understand your Part 2. Thank you!! -will- ”
I was responding to Kristain, who actually understands slight differences, rather than some Global average that has no meaning whatsoever!
“Will, I was just agreeing with that statement that you made the best I could, roughly.”
“You seem to now be saying 100%, not 90%, and I can’t really back that totality up, I do think there is a small portion at isolated frequencies, most just partial transparency, that some l.w. radiation does pass through the atmosphere without little interaction. Does that make me a bad boy? 😉 ”
Not at all. Any surface or mass must radiate the maximum flux that it can in any direction lower radiance than its own at every frequency.
Off the fact that the spectrums that ground-based infrared telescopes use to sense and photograph (super-cooled CCDs actually IIRC) in some of those tiny window frequencies within the same wavelengths as Earth emits.” “right around 9.75 μm is about as clear as it gets.”
At 9.6 to 9.8 microns There is huge “radiance” from atmospheric O2 but never any indication of radiative flux in a direction of higher “radiance” as is the Earth’s surface.
“I have read but there are portions that escape with little interaction and that is what I am terming my “small portion in the window”. 10%, 8%, 4%, I have no idea the number. You might say 100% but if that was true it seems those telescopes could not operate.”
In the IR WV window (8- 13.5) microns the atmosphere is extremely transparent. At surface pressure, with little water condensate, as in summertime Arizona. 50% absorption of modulation in this waveband is 8-12 km At the CO2 band 14.5 microns that 50% absorption in dry Arizona, of such modulation is only 2 meters! Any flux to space comes from a slightly elevated CO2..
I must stick with the 90% exit flux from the atmosphere as most is the release of latent heat of evaporation in the atmosphere, never involving the surface temperature whatsoever
“Or have I just taken you completely wrong from the very beginning. Sometimes you are a bit hard from me to follow exactly, you are an engineer with your lingo, I am not and try to correctly read between your lines. Or did I just read the context it was in wrong?”
“Bottom line, to me, what you are saying is that infrared radiation from the surface has little to do with the exitance at the TOA. Right? Wrong? That is what I also believe.”
Indeed, Variation of atmospheric water condensate and atmospheric WV is all that controls temperature at any location. All different. Global temperature plaything is the SCAM
wayne says: June 25, 2015 at 2:34 am
“Will: “You’ll realise, I hope, that ‘friction’ isn’t in the ‘make-up’ of Earth’s atmosphere ‘away’ from the ‘boundary layer’!””
OK, I try to learn!
“Well yes, kind of and I was not speaking of some far removed friction with the surface or boundary layer per se. Yet, fast streams of air do rub at the edges and interact with anything that is moving at a different velocity, slower here, and on that interaction the faster slows and the slow speeds up, never backwards. Newtonian., transfer of momentum That is what I was referencing as friction/turblence, not to somehow stop, would never happen, but to put an upper limit on the velocity that a steady and constant acceleration would impose on velocity without something to counteract it growth.
OK the whole atmosphere is a continuum , never any parcels, really quite neat! 🙂
wayne says:
June 23, 2015 at 8:29 pm
I can see you have never delved into this area of any depth of the equations
You seem not looking deep enough and instead are skimming over the equations
There is too much delving into mathematics and the physical is neglected.
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-homework-problem-to-end-all.html
This does start with a picture. However the picture does not represent the Earth/atmosphere system, which is solid/liquid surface meeting gas, not a continuously varying density.
Consider this by renown AGW sceptics Gerlich and Tscheuschner:
Click to access 1003.1508.pdf
On The Barometric Formulas And Their Derivation From Hydrodynamics and Thermodynamics
We have no physical description or diagram of the system we are studying, only symbols and equations.
Hydrostatic equation (14)
dp/dz = -density x g
I write this as p/h = m/v x g
pv = mgh
mgh is the gravitational potential energy
g =10m/s^2 is the gravity due the mass of the Earth not due to the mass of the atmosphere.
Gas Law (15)
pv = constant x T is substituted in (14)
in my version
mgh = constant x T
T/h = k/m x g
Adiabatic assumption (22)(23)(24)
G ad T then spend another 44 equations getting to T/h = g/c
I don’t accept hydrostatic equation, gas laws and the adiabatic assumption apply to the atmosphere.
A simple derivation of T/h = g/c from conservation of energy law
Gravity energy = heat energy
mgh = mcT
T/h = g/c
Roger Clague says:
June 25, 2015 at 11:44 am
I don’t accept hydrostatic equation, gas laws and the adiabatic assumption apply to the atmosphere.
A simple derivation of T/h = g/c from conservation of energy law
Gravity energy = heat energy
mgh = mcT
T/h = g/c
Yes I know Roger that is how you feel. I have to say, at least you have been very consistent and I know you toss out the hydrostatic principle and the gas laws and the adiabatic process along the way in case of atmospheres, and of course you can think whatever you want, i won’t argue there.
But you still haven’t looked at what I have laid out close enough to realize you and I do agree on some points. That the adiabatic idealized process does not match any of the data from Earth and all of the other probes that measured other atmospheres clearly says exactly that, adiabatic doesn’t work, not on any of them. That is one leg that I also realized. Not too hard to find that out if you will dig to get enough data to prove that.
The other is the g/c. That is the other aspect many have noticed. For instance on Earth the atmosphere anywhere by the radiosondes, any season, is not 9.81/1.005. Not even close. But all atmospheres are gases and I don’t think atmospheres are special and have some mysterious property that can let them violate all of the equations that have been found to be correct, always found correct, over the last 150 years or so. So I looked deeper into thermodynamics and the various idealized “processes” upon which thermodynamics is built upon instead of just tossing them and saying I don’t believe. In the polytropic process branch in contrast to the adiabatic process branch, you do find that surprisingly using those set of equations all of the data from the various probes do for some reason match, no fudging applied, no made up coefficients, all from well known and very basic data on each planet or moon, just specific R, g, M and the endpoints of P & T at the extremes of the linear portion found low tropospheres on each. I am just saying that is so curious and am still just trying to find out why all of a sudden, using these set of properties and the polytropic process instead of the idealized adiabatic process everything jells. Don’t know the ‘why’ yet, yet they do. The number found in the exponent seems to indicate that the base is the gases degrees of freedom that via the gas laws dictates the expressed heat capacities and from that you can easily find the polytropic index and much more.
Sorry, on you first two statements that hydrostatic and the gas laws do not for mysterious and unknown reason suddenly do not apply to gases in atmospheres, sorry, I have to completely disagree there.
I like many here started to get real interested in this climate argument but I had never really concentrated in the decades before on atmosphere physics. That was one area I had found that i probably would never use so I stayed away mostly. i would read a paper or article here and there but that’s all. Same with thermodynamics. Knew the basics from college but never really used it in my work so it grew very dusty. So when i decided I needed to get back into these areas I like most went to the web first, university pages, search engines, etc and all I saw over and over again was adiabatic, adiabatic, adiabatic and I too got sucked into this very wrong view of what was going on. But the idealized adiabatic process set of equation demand that NO energy (heat) transfer can occur across the boundary. But all real atmospheres have a entire list of molecules in trace amounts the have more than two atoms. All atmospheres radiate constantly, so energy moves in or out and that alone says adiabatic is not what you need to be looking at. Now polytropic does allow for that transfer of heat across the boundaries but if everything you read on the the web was polytropic instead of adiabatic the AGW meme would fall apart. That is my take away at this point. The tests in the data i have been doing seems to indicate that yes, that is the correct way to approach this. We have been misled.
Once again after reading your many comments, we are closer to the same view as you might realize, I still think it is just that you have not looked with an open mind quite deep enough yet.
Will Janoschka says: June 24, 2015 at 8:47 pm
“Ben,
We would like to see your explanation for that very jet stream!!”
That explanation involves hydrostatic equlibrium, temperature gradient, thermal wind Coriolis effect etc. which don’t exist according to Will, so I’m not going to spend time on that.
“Ben,
First you claim 1 m/s at the equator, now you claim 50-60 m/s at latitude 30o. You have had this explained several times now, but refuse to consider. ”
Engage brain before posting.
““air at eg 10 km above the equator has to move a bit faster (less than 1 m/s) than air at the surface to keep up with the rotational speed of the earth.”
So I just indicated that the rotational speed at 10 km high is slightly higher than at the surface.
The 50-60 m/s for the subtropical jet is a given, nothing I have to ‘claim’.
Well, let’s consider your centrifuge then.
If I understand you correctly, air at the equator is accelerated upwards due to the centrifugal force caused by earths rotation. (0,034 m/s^2).
Why is it accelerating up, when gravity is accelerating it down with ~9,8 m/s^2?
Does gravity not work on gasses , while the centrifugal force due rotation DOES work on gasses?
According suricat the rising accelerating air is falling behind the surface speed, so in effect is an easterly wind (moving westbound).
Yet we see the subtropical jet moving eastbound at very considerable speeds, way above the rotational speed of the surface.
Perhaps a leftover from the time when the earth was rotating once every 6 hours or so?
” Please use only air parcels that are lifted at with no given velocity but only a buoyancy limited two distinct laps rates, as you, and only you, have claimed, in your ad nauseam fallacy!”
Not my fault that you lack the brainpower to understand simple convection.
In the last 600+ posts many links have been passed that all support my position.
The link at the very beginning of this thread fully supports my ideas.
wayne says: June 24, 2015 at 9:08 pm
” Coriolis effect is not what I would call ‘simple’ Ben.
Read up here on the history:
http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/gv219/classics.d/persson_on_coriolis05.pdf ”
Thanks, learned something. Then again this is another existing but negligible effect in the grand scheme of things. The vertical Coriolis effect results in a tiny increase/decrease of the surface pressure eventually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect
Near the bottom of the text:
“The diagrams also show the component in the direction parallel to the local surface. In meteorology and in oceanography, it is customary to refer to the effects of the component parallel to the local surface as the Coriolis effect.”
All:
Since I said much of this here and trying to keep this on just a few threads, what I seem to see in this seeming matching relationship between the atomic energy level’s degrees of freedom of the composite gases in an atmosphere would have some pretty profound consequences. I showed this between Earth and Venus and everyone discounted it so easily. I accepted that this might just be a coincidence. So I dug up with the help of a link from another commenter, I think TimC, the actual original data from Jupiter gathered from the Galileo probe and that also fell right in line once I learned to get away from this reliance on some adiabatic relationship. The polytropic process is very close to the adiabatic but the exponents are slightly different. That was ignored. So I finally obtained a high enough resolution of a graph of that of Titan by the Huygen probe to digitize that data. Fell right in line from the surface up to about 10 km where radiation starts warping and bending the linearality found near the surface. Is matching four enough?
Wish we already had probes into Uranus and Neptune’s atmospheres. Would six following the same set of equations be enough?
I can only say if this is correct then there is no way any tiny difference in any trace molecule, be it methane, water vapor or co2 is going to change of any significant size the parameters to affect the overall mean lapse of any lower troposphere. That is all this would say. Such changes could affect how much is being reflected/absorbed in the upper atmosphere of the solar longwave input, like ozone, but such an effect’s impact would be identical to what is seen by changes in the solar output or albedo.
I am getting old enough that I would just like someone else, maybe more than one, to realize what I am doing, how I am doing it, and how these relations are being used enough that maybe someone else in the future may look into this even deeper, with access to pay-walled papers that I do not have, access to all of the data from multitude of probes already dropped that I also do not possess.
Could also help in exo-planet exploration. If they can know from spectrums/occulations what the major component atom/molecules are along with the surface graviational acceleration. That is, with this method you do not need to know the mean linear lapse, you calculate it from the other three parameters since you then already know the primary energy levels by the degrees of fredom of those components.
Ben Wouters says: June 25, 2015 at 2:22 pm
Will Janoschka says: June 24, 2015 at 8:47 pm
(“Ben,We would like to see your explanation for that very jet stream!! Please use only air parcels that are lifted at with no given velocity but only a buoyancy limited two distinct laps rates, as you, and only you, have claimed, in your ad nauseam fallacy!”)
“That explanation involves hydrostatic equlibrium, temperature gradient, thermal wind Coriolis effect etc. which don’t exist according to Will, so I’m not going to spend time on that.”
So you cannot answer but you insist that Ray provide such!
Ben Wouters says: June 24, 2015 at 8:19 am
suricat says: June 24, 2015 at 1:19 am
(“No Ben, “air at eg 10 km above the equator has to move a bit faster (less than 1 m/s) than air at the surface to keep up with the rotational speed of the earth.” it doesn’t ‘keep up’ because it doesn’t have the ‘extra ke needed’. ‘It left the boundary layer’ and is ‘isolated’ from the ‘surface speed’ of Earth’s surface (the ‘teleconnection’ of ‘a viscous fluid in contact with a solid ‘dynamic” is severed). The ‘parcel’ becomes ‘isolated’!”)
“Like to see your explanation then for eg the subtropical jet.”
wayne says: June 25, 2015 at 2:08 am
Mia culpa wayne. ‘Twas me that introduced ‘mach 1’ to the discussion!
Pressure moves the atmosphere’s anomalies away from ‘any’ centre of expansion, but this happens at speeds ~below, or at, ‘mach 1’.
I introduced this factor because ‘friction’ can’t exist in an atmospheric medium/context unless ‘mach 1’, or a greater velocity, is achieved! Its all ‘inertial’ below this ‘speed/velocity’.
The/my ‘logic’ follows the pressure change as ‘mach 1’ is achieved. ‘Concordski’ fell out of the air, but ‘Concord’ flew on! This was due to the ‘space-frame’ of the aircraft being able to ‘change shape’ as it met/encountered ‘friction’ in the air at speeds greater than mach 1.
This is an ‘aside’ remark made for clarity.
Best regards, Ray.
Scottish Sceptic has a new post:
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2015/06/25/more-caterpillars-the-leaky-atmosphere-hypothesis-is-global-pressure-a-proxy-for-global-temperature/
It includes this graphic with the caption:
‘Simplified atmospheric model: transparent to visible, opaque to IR’
suricat, I may be using the wrong word there having no better upstairs but “friction”. When two areas or streams of air (or any liquid) are moving at different velocities but are in contact with each other the faster will transfer some momentum to the slower at that contact edge, what would you call it then if friction does not apply? Eddies or turbulence also come to mind but are you saying these are not caused by friction? If not, what’s the word?
If you are merely saying heat doesn’t come into the picture on the momentum transfer at low velocity differences, hmm, ok, that may true. Not my area.
As you can tell that over the years I have spent little time concentrating on fluid dynamics, never needed it, so my vocabulary may be quite rough.
Will Janoschka says: June 26, 2015 at 3:01 am
“Ben Wouters says: June 25, 2015 at 2:22 pm
“That explanation involves hydrostatic equlibrium, temperature gradient, thermal wind Coriolis effect etc. which don’t exist according to Will, so I’m not going to spend time on that.””
“So you cannot answer but you insist that Ray provide such!”
Try to understand simple English.
I CAN answer, but I can’t explain this to persons who believe that the tiny upward acceleration due to the rotation of this earth can result in an upward movement of air. IT CAN’t AND IT ISN’T !!
Gravity is holding that air firmly pressed to the surface.
The only reason we have a vertically developed atmosphere is the INTERNAL PRESSURE OF THE ATMOSPHERE PUSHING BACK AGAINST GRAVITY.
Get that into your brain and finally start understanding something simple as a thermal rising in this atmosphere.
Ben Wouters says: June 26, 2015 at 7:28 am
Will Janoschka says: June 26, 2015 at 3:01 am
(“So you cannot answer but you insist that Ray provide such!”)l
“Try to understand simple English.”
“I CAN answer, but I can’t explain this to persons who believe that the tiny upward acceleration due to the rotation of this earth can result in an upward movement of air. IT CAN’t AND IT ISN’T !!
Gravity is holding that air firmly pressed to the surface.”
Explain your fantasy of jet streams to the others like Ray then! 🙂
The earth “is” a centrifuge, a centrifugal fan at 60o latitude and at the equator, just like the fan in a vacuum cleaner the low pressure end sucks air and dirt, the high pressure end moves air out no matter pointed up down or sideways! The fan on the outside part of your air conditioner also moves air, in some upward, again creating a low inside the condensing unit. This Earth is and always has been such a fan at three latitudes always creating a surface low at those latitudes because of the outward air mass flow. It is a true mechanical fan and is always blowing air mass upward, The earth gives the air near the surface only a tangential (to the angular rate)”momentum” part of that tangential momentum is always radially outward. Where do you you think the trade wind air flow from north and south in the ITCZ goes? It is drawn into the ITCZ and goes “up” there is no other way for it to go!!! This doubles the 200mb altitude while always nearly maintaining hydrodynamic equilibrium all the way to 200mb!!
“The only reason we have a vertically developed atmosphere is the INTERNAL PRESSURE OF THE ATMOSPHERE PUSHING BACK AGAINST GRAVITY.”
But it does not push back against any fan blowing air mass pointed in any direction, at any altitude! I knew you really had no knowledge of your hydrostatic equilibrium, or how to use such a concept.
“Let that into your brain and finally start understanding something simple as a thermal rising in this atmosphere.”
Just like you cannot explain jet streams at all, I REFUSE to accept “any” of your meteorological drivel!
oldbrew says: June 26, 2015 at 6:41 am
“Scottish Sceptic has a new post:
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2015/06/25/more-caterpillars-the-leaky-atmosphere-hypothesis-is-global-pressure-a-proxy-for-global-temperature/”
“It includes this graphic with the caption:
‘Simplified atmospheric model: transparent to visible, opaque to IR’”
This atmosphere is absorptive to the modulation of the amplitude of IR but it does not absorb IR flux. This is due to the entire atmosphere being at a higher temperature than needed for radiative equibrilum!
wayne says:
June 25, 2015 at 1:46 pm
we are closer to the same view as you might realize, I still think it is just that you have not looked with an open mind quite deep enough yet.
Laws of physics which can be applied to a planetary atmosphere
1. Conservation of energy, energy changes form
2. Hydrostatic equation
The term hydrostatic is wrong. I do agree to use Newtons Laws of Motion applied to gravity F = mg
Energy = force x distance = mgh
3. Kinetic theory of gases
T is a measure of K.E.( This not the same as applying K.E. theory to a confined gas to get the gas laws.)
K.E. = mcT
Laws that cannot be applied to a planetary atmosphere and are not needed to derive the lapse rate
4. Gas Laws
5. Stefan-Boltzmann emission law
6. Adiabatic or polytrophic assumption
Deriving the lapse rate
According to (1) then (2) = (3)
mgh = mcT
T/h = g/c
g = 10m/s^2, specific heat of air 1J/gK
Measured value of T/h is 6.5K/km
Only H20 absorbs the energy.
c for H20 is 2J/gK, which gives a better answer
Roger, sorry but without some real world numeric examples of what you assert I have a problem accepting that card blanche. I can give you a numerics example (Earth right now) showing how I derive the lapse 6.5 K/km or 0.0065 K/m from the apparent degrees of freedom that works on all thick atmospheres when the lapse is linear deep within (most are without little H20) can you do the same for me with your equations? Maybe yours and mine crosses by substitution.
setprec(5) = {NoValue} R_ = 8.31432 // R bar, the universal gas constant m = 0.0289644 // molar mass of air R = R_ / m = 287.05 // specific gas constant for air g = 9.80665 // grav accel at surface Khs = g / R = 0.034163 // the hydrostatic constant for air Khs = g·m / R_ = 0.034163 // same but expanded Df = log(22632/101325) / log(216.65/288.15) = 5.2559 // that is ln(P/P0)/ln(T/T0) // apparent degrees of freedom of molecules // delta geopotential height of 11 km k = log(216.65/288.15) / log(22632/101325) = 0.19026 // the inverse as above, wee need that later Γ = (g · m) / (R_ · Df) = 0.0065 // mean lapse (K/m) Γ = Khs / Df = 0.0065 // another way to put it Γ = (g · m · log(216.65/288.15)) / (R_ · log(22632/101325)) = 0.0065 // yet another way to see what is inside the relationship Df = (g·m) / (R_·Γ) = 5.2559 // the apparent DoF again this time from the lapse Df = Khs / Γ = 5.2559 // or just this k = (R_·Γ) / (g·m) = 0.19026 // the inverse of the apparent Dof // you see this exponent all over the web 0.1903 k = Γ / Khs = 0.19026 // 'nother way to put it k = 1 / Df = 0.19026 // yet 'nother way to put it T = 288.15 · (50000/101325) ^ k = 251.9 K // exactly as expected, see the SA76 P = 101325 · (222.15/288.15) ^ Df = 25819 Pa // again exactly as expected, see the SA76 // both examples are derived from just just the log(P/P0)/log(T/T0)You can do the same lengthy derivations for densities at any point and at that point the gas laws do apply. You can do the same for H, the geopotential height (‘z’ the actual height with the decrease in gravity with distance from the center taken into account) for any T, P, or ρ. This is the polytropic relationships i am speaking of. It works just as well for the other thick atmospheres. Show me in numbers where this is not true.
I find all of these relationships are all self consistent and there are many more than just what I listed here. Please take the time to give me a real ‘in the numbers’ example like I provided as to why all of this is not correct that you keep asserting in words.
That is, I am having trouble following you. I think others are having trouble too and real examples greatly helps.
Will Janoschka says: June 26, 2015 at 8:58 am
“The earth “is” a centrifuge, a centrifugal fan at 60o latitude and at the equator, just like the fan in a vacuum cleaner the low pressure end sucks air and dirt, the high pressure end moves air out no matter pointed up down or sideways! The fan on the outside part of your air conditioner also moves air, in some upward, again creating a low inside the condensing unit. This Earth is and always has been such a fan at three latitudes always creating a surface low at those latitudes because of the outward air mass flow. It is a true mechanical fan and is always blowing air mass upward, The earth gives the air near the surface only a tangential (to the angular rate)”momentum” part of that tangential momentum is always radially outward. Where do you you think the trade wind air flow from north and south in the ITCZ goes? It is drawn into the ITCZ and goes “up” there is no other way for it to go!!! This doubles the 200mb altitude while always nearly maintaining hydrodynamic equilibrium all the way to 200mb!!”
“Just like you cannot explain jet streams at all, I REFUSE to accept “any” of your meteorological drivel!”
Explaining the jetstreams (four bands, all moving FASTER than the earths rotation at their respective latitudes 😉 ) is a piece of cake for a meteorologist.
Your centrifuge? Perhaps familiarize yourself a bit with gravity and why your ‘centrifuge’ hardly makes any difference at all whether on the the equator or the poles.
I have noticed something I think.
I am sure you noticed those exponents, Df and k used above, that I keep speaking of and maybe for others here to get a good mental understanding of what these exponents really mean in the physical world just think back to the math of what an exponent is. When you encounter areas you always see squares, x*x, that is ‘^2’, because what is being raised to the exponent is being expressed in two degrees or orthoganal dimensions. Same for volumes, x*x*x, but then it is expressed in three degrees or dimensions.
This is the same for the molecular degrees of freedom buried within those polytropic equations. What is being expressed is the number, times itself over again, as many times as there are degrees for that value to be expressed. So a pressure ratio as seen in T = T0·(P/P0)^DoF, and I will call P/P0 to be just ‘x’, you have x*x*x*x*x if there are five different and orthoganal degrees or dimensions that this ‘x’ can be expressed. N2 and O2 have five. CO2 has six, helium and argon and hydrogen at low temperatures three, etc.
I seem to sense that some here are not placing this exponent (or root if the relationship is inversed as 1/degrees) in the proper light of what it physically being said, in the equations, not just in a stream of words.
@wayne says:
June 25, 2015 at 9:45 pm: Right on Wayne!! We saw it proven on this very blog, and some others. Observationally, experimentally, and theoretically, I checked out the physics myself, and am working on the experimental side now. Here on this post we have much waffle from people who imagine they know better. They could do worse than search the index of this blog, and cast pedantry aside.
Yes Brett, you and I exchanges a bit on that thread month’s ago if I remember correctly.
” I checked out the physics myself, and am working on the experimental side now. “
Absolutely fantastic that at least some one person can see though what I have been saying. I can rest easier ow. Believe me, what I have uncovered is yours without question and I hold no claim of some “new theory” or profound manipulation of numbers to confuse for this has been buried there all along in the relations and probe data that you can look up on even Wikipedia or buried within university course pages on thermodynamics and atmospheric physics and NASA FTPs for the data. But it is like pulling teeth to find it, all well covered up.
Well, bless you Brett for your ability to also ‘read between the lines’, that you have to do in physics sometimes when the parameters get so tangled. Have at it. I am glad you are looking into it. If you noticed in the Robinson-Catling (2012? 2014?) paper they got down to this lower troposphere layer and just accepted it is so, without question as to why the lapse would be what it is there in each atmosphere. They also left out Venus which they really should have not. This seems to tie the last lower leg all of the way down to the surface.
Thanks, Wayne. Of course, I was just a pupil here, when the penny dropped. Still learning. For instance, Will throws some cuties – Will, would you expand on “This atmosphere is absorptive to the modulation of the amplitude of IR but it does not absorb IR flux. This is due to the entire atmosphere being at a higher temperature than needed for radiative equrilibrium!” please? An interesting concept, air molecules or parts of them vibrating off the IR EM wavetops. Not sure what that does to my tenuous grasp of incoming instantaneous heating.
Brett Keane says:
June 26, 2015 at 11:57 pm
“Thanks, Wayne. Of course, I was just a pupil here, when the penny dropped. Still learning. For instance, Will throws some cuties – Will, would you expand on “This atmosphere is absorptive to the modulation of the amplitude of IR but it does not absorb IR flux. This is due to the entire atmosphere being at a higher temperature than needed for radiative equrilibrium!” please? An interesting concept, air molecules or parts of them vibrating off the IR EM wavetops. Not sure what that does to my tenuous grasp of incoming instantaneous heating.
Sure Brett! The radiant lapse rate of this atmosphere is calculated at -(14-17) Celsius/km of altitude. “if” radiant IR exitance from the surface and lower atmosphere would be the only transfer of energy outward, as CAGW Clowns claim This Earth’s atmosphere has a lower magnitude/slope just from gravitational effects. And a way lower magnitude/slope because of the sensible heat released to the atmosphere as WV condenses into clouds and invisible drizzle drops. The difference is in the huge transfer of energy outward via conduction, convection, and the convection of latent heat outward. A measurable increase in higher altitude sensible heat, that has been present for centuries, with absolutely nothing to do with CO2.
This atmosphere at increasing tropospheric altitude has always a lower temperature, hence the only way “heat flux” can spontaneously transfer, including that from EMR, is outward! —- At about 6 km the exitance outward to space changes from convective to radiative increasing all the way to 220 km.
This atmosphere does not transfer heat per normal thermodynamics, but rather by the physical air mass movement” “to where” the energy can be easily radiated to space in the whole 2 PI steradians outward—. One way to think, is that the surface contributes 1 mW/m^2 of radiant exitance, then each meter of altitude adds another 1 mW/m^2 to whatever thermal flux must be spontaneously proceeding outward. This atmosphere has no radiative level or temperature for EMR to space. This atmosphere acts as the integrator of all flux outwards to space. Calculate the total exitance to space from this atmosphere? EMR from the surface is truly neglible
Ben Wouters says: June 26, 2015 at 8:44 pm
Will Janoschka says: June 26, 2015 at 8:58 am
(“Just like you cannot explain jet streams at all, I REFUSE to accept “any” of your meteorological drivel!”)
“Explaining the jetstreams (four bands, all moving FASTER than the earths rotation at their respective latitudes 😉 ) is a piece of cake for a meteorologist.”
OK please explain this piece of cake! or get some actual meteorologists to explain such piece of cake!
“Your centrifuge? Perhaps familiarize yourself a bit with gravity and why your ‘centrifuge’ hardly makes any difference at all whether on the the equator or the poles.”
Please familiarize yourself a bit with your own vacuum cleaner, then tell us all how that works and that “significance” to how this planet and atmosphere may work?
Thanks, Will, that’s plenty for me to chew on. Having caught with some of your and Wayne’s post above, I think I get the centripetal effect, advective and convective. Also other finer points.
Wayne, going back past R+C, to the posts from N+K; Jelbring etc., some wonderful stuff, are our foundations for a fortress against the “Hippy Science” that brings shame to us all.
Oops, fugal, it starts off as. I suppose also, that your IR flux is also trying to be fugal, and I was confusedly thinking of incoming solar IR?
Brett Keane says: June 27, 2015 at 3:06 am
“Thanks, Will, that’s plenty for me to chew on. Having caught with some of your and Wayne’s post above, I think I get the centripetal effect, advective and convective. Also other finer points.”
Thank you Brett, Do not think I know, I do not! I just love to battle those that think they know. Run around them three times, then eat their ear off! The kids in the audience, just clap like hell!
Will, one for you to shoot at: Over the years I have seen it stated that real Atmospheric physicists will scratch their chins and say this to the possibility of increasing CO2 effect ‘in atmosphere’: “Well, all it could do is slightly lower the amount of water vapour in the air”(SH I guess). Because this effect has been recently measured, and it should be in my Directory somewhere, I tend to agree tentatively, though proof of causation may not have been made. The mode of action might be by substitutive interception, and minute of course.
Your clarification above must be right, because I agree with it entirely (grin). Thanks. I takes me to the question discussed by Stephen Wilde: That an atmosphere of just N2 and O2 could achieve a similar boundary layer T, but might dissipate to space because it would have to expand out so far to radiate sufficiently. Though the likely effect of O3 might need considering. But otherwise, he thinks the lack of polyatomic molecules needn’t wreck convective/advective workings. Seems okay to me, on gas physics principles……..
wayne says: June 26, 2015 at 7:05 am
Apologies for the tardy response. I’ve been helping a friend to re-organise following their unexpected hospital admission.
“suricat, I may be using the wrong word there having no better upstairs but “friction”. When two areas or streams of air (or any liquid) are moving at different velocities but are in contact with each other the faster will transfer some momentum to the slower at that contact edge, what would you call it then if friction does not apply? Eddies or turbulence also come to mind but are you saying these are not caused by friction? If not, what’s the word?”
‘Turbulence’! 🙂 There is no “contact edge” per se, only a ‘turbulent mixing’.
‘Friction’ only occurs when molecules make close contact with other molecules and some molecules are (usually) dislodged. The ‘dislodgement’ of molecules generates some ‘heat’ associated with ‘friction’, as does the re-forming of the surface structure beyond its ‘Young’s modulus’ strength, and is generated by the breaking of ‘valence bonds’ within the solid materials together with the excitation of the atoms within the molecules affected by close/collisional contact. I don’t know how to explain this more simply, but I’ll not get into ‘sticky friction’ here, mainly because it falls under the heading of ‘adhesive tension’.
Gasses don’t have/possess ‘valence bonds’, but ‘friction’ does occur when gas molecules can’t move fast enough to get out of the way of something moving very fast through the gas medium. That ‘speed’ is ‘Mach 1’ for the temperature and pressure of the gas in the scenario.
‘Eddies’ are what I think of as ‘little batteries’ of ‘kinetic energy’ within the/a ‘gas masses potential’. They’re waiting to ‘pass on’ the kinetic energy that they’re storing.
“If you are merely saying heat doesn’t come into the picture on the momentum transfer at low velocity differences, hmm, ok, that may true. Not my area.”
I’m not. Turbulence within a fluid generates heat by way of altering the distance between the molecules within the fluid (think of the ‘mechanical energy to calorific heat’ experiment/validation for pure ‘turbulence’). The ‘change in distance’ mediates changes in the atoms that make the molecule. Thus, the fluid may either ‘warm’ or ‘cool’ locally (for gasses ‘PV=nRT’, but for liquid suspension in a gas this mostly relates to ‘partial pressure’ changes and the latent component, thus, ‘vortex cooling’) dependant on the direction of the ‘change in distance’, or ‘compression/decompression’.
However, calculation methods for ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ environments differ.
Best regards, Ray.
Ben Wouters says: June 25, 2015 at 2:22 pm
“Will Janoschka says: June 24, 2015 at 8:47 pm
“Ben,
We would like to see your explanation for that very jet stream!!”
That explanation involves hydrostatic equlibrium, temperature gradient, thermal wind Coriolis effect etc. which don’t exist according to Will, so I’m not going to spend time on that.”
You ‘should’ show us your ‘take’ on this Ben. There are ‘other’ characteristics that I don’t see represented in your ‘list of mediators’ (“hydrostatic equlibrium, temperature gradient, thermal wind Coriolis effect etc.)!
This thread was ‘beget’ by an examination of ‘thermals’, went on to ‘something else’ and now we’re here (in this thread). Its ‘high time’ we all made an effort to ‘explain’ our ‘meanings and convictions’ to come to some sort of ‘mutual understanding’.
‘Coriolis effect’ is the nearest approximation to a NON ‘explanation’ that you’ve achieved here Ben. Please ‘expound’ (if not, I shall)!
Ray.
Thank suricat, ok, looks like I should have been terming it ‘eddy/turbulence’ instead of ‘friction/turbulence’. Better? At least I seem to have had it halfway correct. 😉
My main point was not heat necessary but that the differing velocities would tend to equalize over time since somthing moving slower in intimate contact with something faster is never able to speed up that faster portion and make it move even faster and/or the slow portion even slower without some other external force (acceleration) causing that to happen.
Take a jet stream. The inner core has the highest velocity. But the slower air it is moving through at any scale and by itself can never make the jet stream core speed up even faster without some external pressure, density, or temperature difference or vertical displacement to cause that core to have an even higher velocity. There would be turbulence and possibly eddies and slip at all scales between equi-velocity surfaces (imagined/mathmatical) from the fast core all of the way to the slow outside all operating to equalize since each has a differnce in velocity. You see a jet steam for a day, or a few, then they just vanish as it is able to equilize the velocities below some threshhold that is graphed.
That type of thing.
Sound better?
That is, it would dissipate in general but I was wanting to address what is at the next layer deeper, to what causes the dissipation.
Brett Keane says: June 27, 2015 at 7:25 am
“Will, one for you to shoot at: Over the years I have seen it stated that real Atmospheric physicists will scratch their chins and say this to the possibility of increasing CO2 effect ‘in atmosphere’: “Well, all it could do is slightly lower the amount of water vapour in the air”(SH I guess). Because this effect has been recently measured, and it should be in my Directory somewhere, I tend to agree tentatively, though proof of causation may not have been made. The mode of action might be by substitutive interception, and minute of course.”
I would appreciate some link to the “this effect has been recently measured”, and your thoughts on why you would tend to agree!
“Your clarification above must be right, because I agree with it entirely (grin).”
Well that’s two. 🙂 Only 7 billion to go for agreement and consensus!
“Thanks. I takes me to the question discussed by Stephen Wilde: That an atmosphere of just N2 and O2 could achieve a similar boundary layer T, but might dissipate to space because it would have to expand out so far to radiate sufficiently.”
I rarely consider the writings of Stephen, seems to be an other acolyte for the church of the thermometer. Which boundary layer do you speak of, tropopause, surface 200-300 meters, saturated 2-3 mm above open water?
“Though the likely effect of O3 might need considering. But otherwise, he thinks the lack of polyatomic molecules needn’t wreck convective/advective workings. Seems okay to me, on gas physics principles……..”
Without airborne “effective” radiators, perhaps all gasses are, but I can’t find such, what would be the purpose of sensible or latent heat convection outward? I would love to see spectral intensity from the whole earth from a distance of our Moon. This would tell much of just “what” is radiating actual flux. The scanning radiometer on the Aqua satellite, was measuring Earth flux 60o from normal with such disastrous result, it had to break!! So far all is but political/religious guesses! No science whatsoever!
“I would love to see spectral intensity from the whole earth from a distance of our Moon. This would tell much of just “what” is radiating actual flux. ”
Would you Will? Are you aware that one of the Mars radiation mission probes (’95 I think) while it was bored during the trip turned around backwards and took such a spectrum. Not sure if it was a complete spectrum and non-paywalled but at least the intensity of some bands are public I think. Came across that about four years ago mentioned no less on a real AGWer site IIRC. I’ll dig deep in my dreams and see if can wake up suddenly remembering the name of that darn site, right now… a blank. It could be somewhere in the 8000 things I have saved right in front of me but… oh boy, I’ll set that task as a last resort. 😉
Well I’ll be a sob… searched “Earth emissivity mars mission 1995” and it was the top listed…
Yeah, xylene, that’s it.
http://www.xylenepower.com/Emissivity.htm
Can’t vouch for his text or accuracy or claims but that just might help you.
The copy I have on my machine has noted at the bottom…
“This web page last updated September 20, 2009”
Sounds about right. Ok, so It was like six years ago, time sure flys by. Wonder what he changed inbetween? I’ll look to that tomorrow if I can ‘diff’ it.
wayne says: June 28, 2015 at 6:31 am
“Well I’ll be a sob… searched “Earth emissivity mars mission 1995″ and it was the top listed…
Yeah, xylene, that’s it.”
http://www.xylenepower.com/Emissivity.htm
“Can’t vouch for his text or accuracy or claims but that just might help you.”
Thank you Wayne,
That is spectral radiance without scale or units prolly W/(m^2 x sr x cm)! the spectrum is likely but the units are missing except for the two temperature bb curves which have no meaning “Intensity” is in units of Watts/sr of the whole thing in one direction with the solid angle (sr) determined by the entrance pupil of the measuring instrument divided by the square of the distance from that object. Multiply the Watts by 4 PI and divide by that solid angle to get some estimate of the total Earth is radiating to space.
“Spectral intensity” gives the details by wavelength or wave-number. Such measured values would have the ClimAstrologists scrambling to explain why this planet has such a high temperature. 🙂
suricat says: June 28, 2015 at 1:11 am
“You ‘should’ show us your ‘take’ on this Ben.”
“‘Coriolis effect’ is the nearest approximation to a NON ‘explanation’ that you’ve achieved here Ben. Please ‘expound’
(if not, I shall)! ”
Come on, do you really believe that thousands of airliners fly around this globe daily, using or avoiding the jetstreams without a solid understanding of what drives them?
In short:
– Thermal gradient. Simplified, highest surface temperatures on earth at the equator, lowest at the poles, and a nice gradient from equator to poles.
Since surface pressure is ONLY set by the weight (mass & gravity) of the column above, we can have equal pressure from equator to poles at the surface (see TestEarth).
Due to the high temperatures at the equator the entire column there will be expanded against gravity considerably more then at the poles. So the higher we go in the atmosphere, the higher the pressure difference at the same altitude will be between equator and poles.
see http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap12/thermal_wind.html
On a non rotating earth this would create a flow (increasing in speed with altitude) from equator to poles.
Since mass is moving away from the equator, the surface pressure will drop. At the poles mass will accumulate, and the surface pressure will increase. This is the reason for the ‘backflow’ at the surface.
So only due to the thermal gradient we would see a gigantic Hadley cell from equator to poles.
Bring in rotation:
High up the air is flowing from equator to poles, and due to the Coriolis effect this flow will turn eastbound (both in the NH and SH). This turning effect will last until the flow is parallel to the temperature gradient, which is around 30 N/S in the Hadley Cells => the subtropical jet.
The high surface pressure around 30 N/S and the low surface pressure at the equator cause an equator bound flow, which will turn west bound again due to the Coriolis effect => the Tradewinds
We seem to be back to the original graphic from ‘Beginner’s guide to convection’.
oldbrew says: June 28, 2015 at 10:07 am
“We seem to be back to the original graphic from ‘Beginner’s guide to convection’.”
That certainly is the meteorological “temperature is the cause of all” religion! Does this have any scientific validity? Where is the evidence? What has been tested? How?
Maybe OB but surely we have learned something here. Haven’t you? Hasn’t Ben?
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/research/equable/hadley.html
In that article do you ever see that equatorial convection is causing the large scale global circulation or that it is even mentioned? I see radius differentials, angular momentum, convergence, divergence, friction, potential temperature with altitude and that the tropopause height varies with latitude and such. Tall storm clouds at the equator are a very local event and mass there is very locally conserved right there around the storm towers and this doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what is causing the large scale global circulation flows that is part of why those tall towers are always there. Please look deeper, away from the childish level explanation that it is warm at the equator, warm air rises, condensation and rain, it goes north cools and sinks that basic meteo seems to teach meteo site after meteo site stuck in a centuries old concept. Go to the universities in higher level courses and papers for real meaningful discussions to ponder what they are saying.
Will Janoschka says: June 28, 2015 at 9:20 am
“Thank you Wayne,”
Here, here! It may take ‘me’ a while to digest, but well done wayne. 🙂
“ClimAstrologists scrambling to explain why this planet has such a high temperature. :-)”
They should’ve read the ‘model speck’ that the Mice distributed! The question relative to the answer of ’42’ can’t be modelled for a better understanding of the question unless the atmosphere is a ‘refrigerator’ below its tropospheric ‘cloud base’. 😉
Whoa! Just had a thought!
Could 42 be the highest centigrade temperature that an organic, carbon based, life-form can exhibit an aptitude for intelligence? 😉
Best regards, Ray.
wayne says: June 28, 2015 at 7:02 pm
“Maybe OB but surely we have learned something here. Haven’t you? Hasn’t Ben?”
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/research/equable/hadley.html
HA. I guess “science” is now “whatever fantasy” the public will accept!
Whatever tangential linear momentum the surface mass air receives from the surface roughness of the Earth. Need never be conserved by “that air mass” or the dreaded “air parcel”, as the air is a low viscosity fluid. Even if equatorial rising air mass at the equator were to retain momentum, part angular, part radial, the increasing radius from the axis of rotation requires that that air mass decrease in angular velocity, and radial velocity limiting, the altitude of the 200 mbar pressure level at the equator! None of this has anything to do with temperature, only mass motion within a compressible fluid. This gives rise to continuum mechanics. I have never met a continuum mechanic! Last time I took auto to a statistical mechanic, one wheel fell off on the way home and another about to. Please deal with folk that demonstrate that they can think, sometimes!
“Come on, do you really believe that thousands of airliners fly around this globe daily, using or avoiding the jetstreams without a solid understanding of what drives them?”
That depends on ‘who’ makes the ‘forecast’ for them Ben. My guess is that they take on many ‘forecasts’, then decide the best route on their own cognisance.
“In short:
– Thermal gradient. Simplified, highest surface temperatures on earth at the equator, lowest at the poles, and a nice gradient from equator to poles.
Since surface pressure is ONLY set by the weight (mass & gravity) of the column above, we can have equal pressure from equator to poles at the surface (see TestEarth).
Due to the high temperatures at the equator the entire column there will be expanded against gravity considerably more then at the poles. So the higher we go in the atmosphere, the higher the pressure difference at the same altitude will be between equator and poles.
see http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap12/thermal_wind.html”
I concur, this is ‘equal weight distribution throughout the latitudes’ at ‘surface pressure’ measured against ‘altitude’.
“On a non rotating earth this would create a flow (increasing in speed with altitude) from equator to poles.
Since mass is moving away from the equator, the surface pressure will drop. At the poles mass will accumulate, and the surface pressure will increase. This is the reason for the ‘backflow’ at the surface.
So only due to the thermal gradient we would see a gigantic Hadley cell from equator to poles.”
Absolutely disagree! The ‘Hadley Cell’ ‘concept’ depicts the ‘expansion’ of a gas relative to the ‘insolation’ that it receives and is a ‘pre cursor’ for ‘other’ mediators that affect the atmosphere.
A ‘Hadley Cell’ is mediated by your concept of ‘hydrostatic equilibrium’! A ‘Hadley Cell’ is a ‘static’ phenomenon. Where ‘all masses are equal under gravity’, thus, stasis is achieved.
“Bring in rotation:
High up the air is flowing from equator to poles, and due to the Coriolis effect this flow will turn eastbound (both in the NH and SH). This turning effect will last until the flow is parallel to the temperature gradient, which is around 30 N/S in the Hadley Cells => the subtropical jet.
The high surface pressure around 30 N/S and the low surface pressure at the equator cause an equator bound flow, which will turn west bound again due to the Coriolis effect => the Tradewinds”
No, no, no! I despair Ben. “High up the air is flowing from equator to poles,” (thanks to Earth’s centrifuge) “and due to the Coriolis effect this flow will turn eastbound (both in the NH and SH)” (no mention of latitude and altitude changes here, or ‘advection’ for that matter) “This turning effect will last until the flow is parallel to the temperature gradient, which is around 30 N/S in the Hadley Cells => the subtropical jet.”
Its just ‘bullshit’ Ben! Get your act together and look for the ‘genesis’ of any and all activity.
Best regards, Ray.
Consider the wonderful guys working for the low bidder on the project ” Construction of the Earth as a viable habitat for undescribed critters”… .I bow with my hat off to them. They were simply not concerned with the Earthling fantasy of “Conservation of everything”, or “Laws of Nature”: the laws of nature come “way” after the detailed construction of whatever is Nature! It was not 6 days as days had not been invented until after the construction. By number 2, they knew it had to spin so the critters would not suffocate in their own farts! By number 4 this atmosphere needed water (not yet created).
Chemists looked at the requirements “in a hurry” and created H2O, which has been very weird ever since. OK, that’l work, how much you got? None, how much you need? &-=-^%$ and some spare! Whoa, that’s lots! OK get busy, we have 40 days and 40 nights to deliver it all!
-will-
“None of this has anything to do with temperature, only mass motion within a compressible fluid. ”
I’ll take that statement home Will and once again agree! How does Temperature, the late comer to the physics party, which is but a ratio (had no real unit tag so something like Kelvin deemed would do) do anything without first bowing and addressing Pressure and Density that were already present and that gave to Temperature existence to its values. 😉
I should have claimed engineering as a major and at least then I would have ended with a retirement and enjoyed the physics along the way. My grandson says he is definitely going to be one, I say bravo.
Wayne says:
June 29, 2015 at 3:21 am
Thank you
(“None of this has anything to do with temperature, only mass motion within a compressible fluid.”)
“I’ll take that statement home Will and once again agree! How does Temperature, the late comer to the physics party, which is but a ratio (had no real unit tag so something like Kelvin deemed would do) do anything without first bowing and addressing Pressure and Density that were already present and that gave to Temperature existence to its values. 😉 ”
“I should have claimed engineering as a major and at least then I would have ended with a retirement and enjoyed the physics along the way. My grandson says he is definitely going to be one, I say bravo.”
Thank you Wayne! It is most difficult. For your grandson, please recommend learning a trade (as in “know how to do”). Military is the easiest for youngsters!. Practice how to kill others, be very good at it. After that, get an education that will allow a choice of “work” that may be enjoyable to self. Engineering or chemistry is most difficult, but also most rewarding to self! 🙂
All the best ! -will- -will-
Anyone trying to measure the “is”at or about this time or place near this planet must be the most accurate measurement of that “is”at a that time and place Any written measurement numbers, cannot ever be replaced by homogenized bull shit Many times I have measured “something” the most careful measurement of that something, whatever that may be! Do not fuck with my numbers! -will-
wayne says: June 28, 2015 at 7:02 pm
” http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/research/equable/hadley.html
In that article do you ever see that equatorial convection is causing the large scale global circulation or that it is even mentioned?”
Thanks for the link, wasn’t aware of the term ‘equable climate’.
For the rest their description of the mechanism for the current day Hadley cell circulation matches my description almost exactly.
suricat says: June 29, 2015 at 1:59 am
““In short:
– Thermal gradient. Simplified, highest surface temperatures on earth at the equator, lowest at the poles, and a nice gradient from equator to poles.
Since surface pressure is ONLY set by the weight (mass & gravity) of the column above, we can have equal pressure from equator to poles at the surface (see TestEarth).
Due to the high temperatures at the equator the entire column there will be expanded against gravity considerably more then at the poles. So the higher we go in the atmosphere, the higher the pressure difference at the same altitude will be between equator and poles.
see http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap12/thermal_wind.html”
I concur, this is ‘equal weight distribution throughout the latitudes’ at ‘surface pressure’ measured against ‘altitude’.”
If you concur, than you accept that warmer air expands against gravity, so you accept the hydrostatic balance as well?
““On a non rotating earth this would create a flow (increasing in speed with altitude) from equator to poles.
Since mass is moving away from the equator, the surface pressure will drop. At the poles mass will accumulate, and the surface pressure will increase. This is the reason for the ‘backflow’ at the surface.
So only due to the thermal gradient we would see a gigantic Hadley cell from equator to poles.”
Absolutely disagree! ”
Did you even read the link I provided about thermal wind and to which you concurred?
From that link:
‘Fig 1. The effect of differential warming on the slope of the isobaric surfaces (highly exaggerated). Some height contours are shown on the 700 hPa surface. It is assumed that the 1,000 hPa surface is level, i.e. there is no wind.
If now we compare pressures at two places of equal height, we see that there is a difference. This difference is 100 hPa in the case of A and B in Fig 1. This would drive a wind from A towards B, except that the Coriolis effect turns it parallel to the contour lines which are shown. It is called a �thermal wind� because it is due to the gradient of temperature. The strength of the wind is proportional to the pressure gradient between A & B, i.e. to 100/AB, where 100 hPa is the pressure difference and AB the horizontal distance. However, the same discussion applies to a comparison of pressures at C & D, where the gradient is 100/CD. But 100/AB is greater than 100/CD, because CD is seen to be a distance greater than AB. In other words, the thermal wind increases with height, in accord with the greater slope of the isobaric surface.
This principle, the thermal wind balance, explains why the strongest westerlies occur at the top of the troposphere. Likewise the explanation of a strong jet above a strong, deep cold front (Fig 13.4).’
No mention of the Coriolis effect yet. Comes onto play only when air is MOVING.
“A ‘Hadley Cell’ is a ‘static’ phenomenon. Where ‘all masses are equal under gravity’, thus, stasis is achieved.”
The Hadley cell on this planet is a CIRCULATION, driven by the thermal wind.
“No, no, no! I despair Ben. “High up the air is flowing from equator to poles,” (thanks to Earth’s centrifuge)”
Earths centrifuge ( I assume you refer to the centrifugal force) results in a tiny pressure difference between poles and equator (higher at the poles), so a small flow from poles TOWARDS the equator, just the other way around.
“and due to the Coriolis effect this flow will turn eastbound (both in the NH and SH)” (no mention of latitude and altitude changes here, or ‘advection’ for that matter)”
Latitude? Equator is 0 lat and 30 N/S is also a latitude?????
Altitude changes? Great. If you want to discuss the Tradewind inversion. fine. But it seems a bit beyond the scope of the current discussion.
Advection?
‘A flow from equator to poles’ is advection.
‘the ‘backflow’ at the surface.’ is advection.
I suggest there are different ‘levels of explanation.’
If the Hadley cell graphic is at the simple or over-simplified level, so be it.
oldbrew says: June 29, 2015 at 9:03 pm
I suggest there are different ‘levels of explanation.’
If the Hadley cell graphic is at the simple or over-simplified level, so be it.
oldbrew ,
The graphics are fine for what is “measured” There have been better graphics presented hear that include also the longitudinal air mass movement CONVECTION of something, not mere (advection of fluid mass).
It appears to me that stupid meteorologists have inverted the word “empirical” They seem to say that measurement allows any fantasy of why! In science or engineering, the empirical measurements must be designed to distinguish between the many opposing conjectures of why this was measured here and now! The measurement of illusionary` temperature or barometric pressure anywhere in this atmosphere gives not a clue to how or why! 🙂
,
Will (and others), I am going OT for just moment, have no better place to do this, just to help me answer one curious question.
Sometimes you wish you could come up with a very, very simple explanation that is so bullet proof that you could present to any person that is familiar with this ‘discussion’ on global warming and just blow it away. I just had such a thought queued by another commenter on another site that in eight years it had never crossed my mind and I’m not 100% sure if it does just that. Sure shook up the tainted beliefs of the person I was addressing.
Run this through and see if you get the same dawning.
If you take Mars temperatures and atmosphere for an example and compare it to Earth in the correct manner you seem to come up with such an example.
See if you can follow this, stay simple.
Mars has 2383 times more co2 in its atmosphere than here on Earth, about 26 time by unit columnar mass, yet by the data below its black-body temperature and its average surface temperature are both 210 K. That is, zero greenhouse gas effect at all, and you see this being mentioned here and there. But Earth has an average surface temperature greater than its black-body temperature as computed by climatologists and that seems true.
So if you were to add a nitrogen/oxygen mixture just like that found here on Earth to Mars atmosphere to bring the columnar mass up to match that of Earth’s columnar mass… this is the critical question…
Would Mars then suddenly have a greenhouse gas effect making its mean surface temperature greater than 210 K? The atmospheres now both match in general, both with GHGs, so why would that NOT be true?
It is said our atmosphere greenhouse gases and not mass are why our temperature is higher, by this it seems provably false, so the why in the world would it take adding mass to bring that effect forth on Mars?
With that you seem to prove that it is mass and not some greenhouse (infrared active) gas(es) that cause at least part of the effect (GHE) of raising such temperatures. If it is primarily mass then, any global warming is not from an effect from infrared active trace gases since they alone, like on Mars, cause none.
Does that sound like the above script makes sense and is completely logical and undeniably true? Am I missing something fundamental? An please don’t drag oceans, water, clouds, tilt, rivers, plants, etc into this… all that is not necessary to answer that simple critical question.
——————-
Some data from NASA fact sheets:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html
Earth:
Bond albedo 0.306
Solar irradiance (W/m2) 1367.6
Black-body temperature (K) 254.3
VERIFY: (1367.6/4*(1-0.306)/5.67E-08)^(1/4) = 254.34 K, ok, matches
Average temperature: 288 K
CO2 0.0004 fraction by volume [my note]
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
Mars:
Bond albedo 0.250
Solar irradiance (W/m2) 589.2
Black-body temperature (K) 210.1
VERIFY: (589.2/4*(1-0.250)/5.67E-08)^(1/4) = 210.097 K, ok, matches
Average temperature: ~210 K
CO2 0.9532 fraction by volume
[NOTE:] Mars has at least 26 times more absolute uinit columnar kilograms of mass of co2 than in Earth’s atmosphere.
Guess you could call this a rather serious vertical pressure differential. 😉
Something quite cool that you don’t see everyday… the low density froth anti-flow coming backwards out of the deep vortex to the surface.
The Martian atmosphere is too thin to be worth much discussion ( less than 1% of Earth’s).
http://www.universetoday.com/22587/atmosphere-of-mars/
Will Janoschka says: June 30, 2015 at 2:42 am
“The measurement of illusionary` temperature or barometric pressure anywhere in this atmosphere gives not a clue to how or why! 🙂 ”
Obviously not to a kitchen engineer, who sees refrigerators, vacuum cleaners and centrifuges everywhere in the sky 😉
wayne says: June 30, 2015 at 9:04 am
“Am I missing something fundamental?”
210K BB temperature is nonsense. See our moon:
BB temperature ~270K, actual ~197K.
We should evaluate the BB temp. for eg Mars by first calculating the radiative balance temp. when the planet continuously has one side facing the sun (like our moon facing the earth)
Then see how effective the stored solar energy is transported from the day to the night side with the planets rotational speed.
So 589 W/m^2, albedo 0,25 gives ~250K for the day side, 0K for the night side (2,77K if you want).
Average BB ~125K.
Possible explanations:
– emissivity < 1.0
– geothermal gradient maintaining a minimum surface temperature
– atmosphere slowing energy loss to space
– etc etc.
wayne, wrote about this exact thing here:
Ben, the rGHE is specifically defined through the use of averages, so by definition there is no rGHE on Mars. Of course, reality is very different.
We all know about the Moon, how it absorbs ~298 W/m2 from the Sun on average and how it readily emits it all back to space, and how it manages to do this from a mean global temp of 197K rather than the ‘required’ or ‘expected’ 269K. How does it manage? Through its huge temperature swings of course. The larger its surface temperature amplitudes, the colder a body can be on average and still maintain a radiative equilibrium between input and output. Courtesy of the ^4 exponential relationship between radiative output and temperature. Straying from the isothermal condition allows the surface of the body to put out more radiation than what its physical temperature average would suggest. The larger the deviations, the more it puts out relative to its mean temp. The Moon, for instance, puts out 3.5 times as much LW to space from its global surface over a year as what its actual average global temperature of 197K would imply.
This physical phenomenon occurs on Venus and Earth as well, although hardly at all on Venus, and to a fairly moderate extent on Earth (the quoted 390-400 W/m2 is probably in reality ~430-440 W/m2).
However, on Mars, the effect would be considerable. Not at all as large as on the Moon, but still much larger than on Earth. The normal temperature range is about 133-293K, meaning, even as the global average temp of the Martian surface is really 210-211K, implying an emitted flux of ~112 W/m2 (if isothermal), its actual annual global output would be much bigger, most likely upwards of 200 W/m2.
So where lies the problem?
The problem is that the Martian planetary system as a whole, in space, only absorbs and therefore also only emits back a total (mean) radiant flux of 112.3 W/m2.
200+ W/m2 out from the sfc (real UWLWIR), 112 W/m2 out through the ToA (OLR). And its worse than that. The atmosphere also absorbs some of the incoming from the Sun directly (maybe ~15 W/m2) and some energy is conducted>convected from the surface and into the atmosphere (maybe ~10 W/m2).
How does all this add up?
On Earth the atmospheric “back radiation” (your DWLWIR ‘flux’) would of course be used to cover for it. On Mars (as on Venus) it’s not that straightforward:
80-90% of the surface radiation appears to go unimpeded through the wide ‘atmospheric IR window’ and straight to space. It might ultimately be a bit less due to atmospheric dust, but clearly still 75-80% (there’s not much to disrupt that nice blackbody Planck-curve outline, is there?). The 96% CO2 concentration can do nothing outside its specific spectral absorption bands.
75-80% of 200 W/m2, how much is that? 150-160 W/m2. That’s already ~40% more than Mars’s entire absorbed flux from the Sun. And then we still haven’t included the atmospheric output.
Looking at those spectras, it seems pretty clear the Martian atmosphere would be utterly incapable of emitting a DWLWIR ‘flux’ to the surface to counter the 200+ W/m2 of outgoing (UWLWIR).
Something’s gotta give …
wayne says:
June 26, 2015 at 8:13 pm
your calculation
LR = mxg/5.25 x R_
= 0.0029 x 10/5.25 x 8.3
=0.029/44
=0.0065K/m
You should use R = specific gas constant for air not Universal gas constant R_
R= R_/m = 290
Using R =290 instead of R_=8.3 gets the wrong answer
My calculation
LR = T/h =g/c c= 1.85 for water vapour ( which does the absorbing )
= 9.8/1.85 = 5.3K/km for moist air
Hi Kristian, ok, I see the section on Mars and if that is what you are getting at, fantastic… really… I want you to know I want no credit at all, in fact I want it to be someone else that talks fluidly, has a site, has the ability to broadcast this across the climat’o’sphere. I too must have skipped over your ponit.
Except, you say “Mars does after all possess a massive atmosphere lying on top of its solar-heated surface.” and you then tie it deeply into radiation/altitude effects. Way too many words, way too complex thoughts for the simple minded. Also I personally would not call 636 Pa compared to 101325 Pa as some massive atmosphere, instead it is an incredible thin atmosphere, just thick enough to barely hold the GHG addressed.
See, you can take all of the credit but you need to rewrite that ‘part two’ idea in so incredible few words that even my daughter or granddaughter who both know so very little of science can immediately “GET IT”. If it can be re-worded in one or two sentences, THAT is the way, drop all of the real (to you and I) but also really irrelevant words to the core evidence out of it. But of course it probably requires about five or more sentences.
Get it, make it so very simple.
You and I have been on these sites now for many years and we are for some reason are never really getting it through to the people at AGW and luker sites and it always gets dragged through too many words into a million comments of mass confusion and irrelevance. THAT is what you should strive to do… drop the radiative explanation though that may very well be the deep physics reason but people will not follow all of that. I can, but I have studied such for decades and have the ability to understand most anything a person says, right or wrong.
Look what Ben just did… immediately into irrelevant complexities that don’t matter squat.
Look at gbaikie here… [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-193945] immediately into layers of irrelevant complexities that don’t matter squat.
See what my grand point here, get it distilled down to the very meaning full “one simple question” that with minimal explanation no single person can mentally deny that at the base, it IS the mass that matters, not the trace gases though some amount of them will be fuond in any atmosphere and are necessary to radiate at the top.