![[credit: NASA]](https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/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 
Kristian says: June 30, 2015 at 4:08 pm
Not sure why you address me. My vacation plans do not include Mars presently, so I’m not particularly interested in this planet.
” On Earth the atmospheric “back radiation” (your DWLWIR ‘flux’) would of course be used to cover for it.”
I don’t own a DWLWIR ‘flux’, and wouldn’t know what to do with it. Your point is?
” 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 …”
Scary. And now?
You may have noticed that earth has oceans, and oceans are not BB’s, so this whole comparison is pretty much irrelevant. Water has a massive heat capacity, so we should be discussing J/s and how much they warm the upper 5, 10 or perhaps 100m of ocean.
Given your previous track record I’m not holding my breath waiting for a reaction.
And Kristian, if you do write such post, that I and other can point to when proving some AGWer wrong, be sure to use only AGW papers and sites and professors for you references so key words don’t immediately get picked up and turn them away. Use their data, their methods and I think you get my point there.
Ben Wouters says, June 30, 2015 at 8:31 pm:
Sorry, I should’ve been more clear. Only the first couple of sentences were meant for you in particular, a response to your post at 12:23 pm (June 30th) where you state: “210K BB temperature is nonsense. See our moon: BB temperature ~270K, actual ~197K” and where you go on to discuss non-averages. Hence my reply to you.
The rest of my post was intended for the general readership of this thread (and perhaps especially wayne). So the ‘your’ in that “your DWLWIR” term is meant more as an informal generic kind of ‘your’ like in the expression “Not your average Joe”.
wayne says, June 30, 2015 at 8:03 pm:
“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.”
No worries. I’m delighted that someone else has idependently seen the same thing as I have. Ideas are out there. There for the taking. They just need to be expressed. No point arguing, then, who had the idea first.
“Way too many words, way too complex thoughts for the simple minded.”
I know. Still, I felt it was necessary. To have it properly dealt with. I mean, I could’ve written much, much more. There are sooo many aspects to consider (and/or to cut away). Extracting the core items and the central message that they carry and presenting it all as succinctly as possible is truly an artform. I will try. I’ll prepare a condensed version, an “executive summary” so to say.
“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.”
Indeed. However, the term “massive” in this regard simply means “having a mass” and “functioning as a bulk unit”. Any atmosphere that is beyond the density of an “exosphere” can be considered massive, be it the Martian one or the Venusian one.
“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.”
Can’t drop the radiative explanation. It is part and parcel of the driving mechanism. An atmosphere’s ability to absorb and emit radiation is what makes it function as a (dynamically) balanced atmosphere (input=output). It is truly essential. It is what enables “the atmospheric mass effect”.
“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.”
We seem very much to agree on the fundamental points, wayne. Message taken 🙂
“No worries.”
Same here.
“I know. Still, I felt it was necessary. To have it properly dealt with. ”
Kristian, absolutely, for the the science savvy, and that needs to be many posts delving into the details. But I’m just searching for the very simplest and few words to say as if in a 15 to 30 second sound-bite that everyone can logically understand. Nowhere have I seen that distillation performed and such a painful stab to this AGW meme it would be so in the end, fatal. I think that simplified Mars example has real promise, simple yet sharp of a division between reality and what IPCC says that it like a razor blade. I wrote that to make sure there is no hiddn “catch” being overlooked.
“Can’t drop the radiative explanation.”
Yes i think you can, not in the detailed posts that explan all of the ‘why’ to scientists but in the sound-bite to the public you can. It just asks one question, very simply: “Would not the Mars surface then be warmer that the BB temperature after the mass of N2/O2 was added and equalization reached?” and of course the simple answer must be, YES. (isn’t it?) That is all you need to get the ball rolling, the hook set.
Kristian, see, you are adding massive amounts of N2/O2 and the temperature is rising, it has to, you are not adding any additional GHGs. Their mass, even if you did add some more (like the doubling) is such an insignificant change to mass it is ignorable. It is the meaningful increase in mass that does the rising.
I forgot and left that tidbit out, but just wanted to make sure that you hopefully can see it exactly as I am seeing it after realizing how incredibly simple that could be packaged.
RogerC, you will have copy and quote my calculations where you feel I have mistakenly used the universal gas constant instead of th specific gas constant or vise versa.
Possibly it is that sometimes, in an isolated segment, I have used R for the universal and Rs as the specific and other places (due to the MatLab or R-like program that controls the calculation) I use R_ for the universal and R for the specific. Didn’t mean to confuse you but all of the calcs are correct as stated. Look into the context.
Ben Wouters says:June 30, 2015 at 11:29 am
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 ;-)”
But of course! useful propaganda for an ersatz meteorologist that preaches the Gospel according to Ben! Please name even one thing that you have ever measured about this atmosphere?
Ben Wouters says:June 30, 2015 at 11:29 am
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! 🙂 ”)
Hey Pilot,
If there is a barometer/thermometer at the approach end of the strip, as you land and pass over, will measured atmospheric pressure go up or down? How about temperature? How much? Why? Would you fly with this guy who knows all about jet streams? 🙂
Ben Wouters says: June 29, 2015 at 1:26 pm
I’m being ‘very’ selective with my response here Ben!
““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.”
I think this is where the confusion exists between our postings. I hope I can correct this.
‘Gravity’ is an ‘elastic’ boundary, and as such, needs a ‘time period’ and an ‘altitude’ to exert its ‘full potential’ to ‘counter’ the ‘ke’ added to the atmosphere by Earth’s ‘boundary layer’ (these are ‘mass acceleration’ potentials that [eventually] become balanced).
‘Earth’s centrifuge’ has little/something to do with Earth’s ‘surface’ and nothing to do with ‘surface pressure’, other than the atmosphere’s ‘inertial’ ‘reaction/reactance’ to Earth’s rotation.
I think we can discus this in this thread if you wish to do so Ben. However:
“Advection?
‘A flow from equator to poles’ is advection.
‘the ‘backflow’ at the surface.’ is advection.”
Tells me that you are ‘in agreement’ with my ‘understanding’, but confused about the ‘MF’ (Motive Force). However, its the “flow from equator to poles” that’s “the ‘backflow'”! The ‘advecting force’ is supplied by Earth’s surface at the ‘boundary layer’.
Is this so? IOW, can you relate to my last statements?
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: July 1, 2015 at 2:24 am
Ben Wouters says: June 29, 2015 at 1:26 pm
(“Advection?
‘A flow from equator to poles’ is advection.
‘the ‘backflow’ at the surface.’ is advection.”)
Why is this not convection Along with fluid mass motion the lateral is always “convected” sensible heat, latent heat and airborne water condensate!
“Tells me that you are ‘in agreement’ with my ‘understanding’, but confused about the ‘MF’ (Motive Force). However, its the “flow from equator to poles” that’s “the ‘backflow’”! The ‘advecting force’ is supplied by Earth’s surface at the ‘boundary layer
Is this so? IOW, can you relate to my last statements?’”.
Indeed any air mass surrounded by the same pressure is free to move in any direction by any motive force, be that sticking your hand out from a moving automobile, or a butterfly slowly moving its wings half a planet away.
.
wayne says:
June 30, 2015 at 10:54 pm
RogerC, you will have copy and quote my calculations where you feel I have mistakenly used the universal gas constant instead of th specific gas constant or vise versa.
Possibly it is that sometimes, in an isolated segment, I have used R for the universal and Rs as the specific and other places (due to the MatLab or R-like program that controls the calculation) I use R_ for the universal and R for the specific. Didn’t mean to confuse you but all of the calcs are correct as stated. Look into the context.
I am referring to this post:
wayne says:
June 26, 2015 at 8:13 pm
Line 9 says:
Mean lapse (K/m) = gm/Df R_ = 0.0065
I get 0.0065K/m if I use R_=8.3 = Universal Gas constant
However you calculate R for air = R_/m = 287 but do not use R in your equation for LR of air.Why not?
Also LR = 6.5 K/km is for North America LR at equator (air saturated with H2O)) is 5-5.5K/km
g/cH20 =9.8/1.85 = 5.3K/km
Molar mass is relevant for chemical reactions of a gas. The physical properties of gasses do NOT depend on molar mass. In Kinetic Theory mass of atoms not important, only number
The LR does not depend on the masses or number of atoms per molecule. It depends on their specific heat and partial pressures.
Wayne, might I suggest this sort of tack to start with: “If Mars had Earth’s atmosphere, its surface T would be about “x” instead of the current “y”. But Mars actually has about 28 times the CO2 that Earth has, right now (Check this). But Mars cannot hold heat. Why not? NO MASS!!” And so on, but not too much…
Roger Clague says: July 1, 2015 at 10:19 am
“Molar mass is relevant for chemical reactions of a gas. The physical properties of gasses do NOT depend on molar mass. In Kinetic Theory mass of atoms not important, only number
The LR does not depend on the masses or number of atoms per molecule. It depends on their specific heat and partial pressures
OK, specific heat and partial pressure of some gas! Please reveal how this is influenced by the huge latent heat of WV evaporation and more importantly the huge density of airborne water condensate that must accompany any WV saturation at any level or temperature of this atmosphere?
Brett Keane says:
July 1, 2015 at 10:53 am
Wayne, might I suggest this sort of tack to start with: “If Mars had Earth’s atmosphere, its surface T would be about “x” instead of the current “y”. But Mars actually has about 28 times the CO2 that Earth has, right now (Check this). But Mars cannot hold heat. Why not? NO MASS!!” And so on, but not too much…
Indeed the difference of accumulated thermal power (heat) and temperature. This Earth’s mesosphere and thermosphere has very high temperatures, but almost no power!
Attention in this discussion has been focused on the N-S Hadley convection cell. There is also E-W convection cells.
These provide the moisture.
Biotic pump of atmospheric moisture as driver of the hydrological cycle on land
Click to access 07e01s-hess_mg_.pdf
Fig.4 page 13 explains:
1. Hadley Cell
2. Biotic pump creating convection
3. Deserts
4. Winter and summer monsoon
Convection is caused by:
1. Evaporation causing buoyancy at surface
2. Condensation causing reduced pressure and suction up to 2km
If interested in this idea also see
http://www.bioticregulation.ru/pump/pump.php
Will Janoschka says:
July 1, 2015 at 11:24 am: Funny you should mention that, Will! In composing that little post, the question of thermospheric ozone etc. danced through my mind. It came to me, that all layers have their rotation rates through the rest of the atmosphere (Ekman transport?), sometimes with interesting effects on your ‘earthling’s’ weather. I tend to divide the often very high T by the mass ratio to get a rough idea of what to expect. Used to think it couldn’t be much, and it isn’t, but still noticeable to us frail creatures when batted down to, yes, the boundary layer (take your pick). Power, by the way, is the metric I have in mind when thinking of why cooler cannot heat warmer, rightly or wrongly.
wayne says: June 30, 2015 at 8:03 pm
“Look what Ben just did… immediately into irrelevant complexities that don’t matter squat.”
Actually I pointed out something fundamental you seem to be missing.
I still assume you’re aware that our sun radiates on only half the area of a planet.
So spreading this incoming radiation around the entire planet, and then calculating a BB temperature (4th power in the calculation) is a pretty dumb thing to do.
See the N&Z treatment of out moon. They calculate ~154K as BB temp for the moon iso of your 270K. My simple method gives 161K, which is close enough imo.
suricat says: July 1, 2015 at 2:24 am
“‘Earth’s centrifuge’ has little/something to do with Earth’s ‘surface’ and nothing to do with ‘surface pressure’, other than the atmosphere’s ‘inertial’ ‘reaction/reactance’ to Earth’s rotation.”
Earths centrifugal force due rotation (and the ‘bulge’at the equator) results in a slightly smaller effective gravity at the equator than at the poles (9,78 m/s^2 vs 9,83 m/s^2) With the same mass above both the surface pressure will be slightly higher at the poles than at the equator (~0,5%)
“Tells me that you are ‘in agreement’ with my ‘understanding’, but confused about the ‘MF’ (Motive Force).”
Don’t think so, the thermal wind is a well understood and used concept. Works equally well on a rotating as a non rotating planet. Only difference the Coriolis effect on the rotating one.
Earths atmosphere is assumed to be rotating with the surface, unless a force makes it do otherwise. This force is (always?) a pressure differential.
see http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/seri/SSRv./0006//0000248.000.html
A temperature gradient creates such a pressure differential, increasing with altitude, just as is required to explain the jetstreams, which are moving AHEAD of the earths rotating surface.
see http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/glbcir.anim.shtml
eg http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/200z_90.fnl.anim.html
200 mb surface is more than a kilometer higher around the equator than near the poles.
=> horizontal pressure gradient => air moving from equator to the poles.
Will Janoschka says: July 1, 2015 at 2:46 am
“Why is this not convection”
Horizontal movement is driven by pressure differences and called ADVECTION.
Vertical movement is (mostly) driven by density differences and called CONVECTION.
http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Advection
http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Convection
The atmosphere does not operate like your kitchen equipment.
Thank you very much Brett Keane. Only thing, we really wouldn’t want to put any firm numbers in it giving someone a way to attack to say the entire statement is wrong (refuted), you know how these AGWers do it, sly, dishonest. I assumed you were meaning for me filling in the ‘x’. You added some clarity and I will add a bit more. People need to have all of the terms mentioned that they have heard in the media over the last decade or so, implanted in their brains.
How about this?
Can you say that in a 30 second sound-bite? Is it perfectly clear? Cut some of that back out? That is what I am searching for, the perfect, small, statement for television and radio and quotes.
Might have to request one minute.
Wayne, I think prolixity is creeping in there, but that’s up to you. I think that explanations should wait until asked for. Neither BBs nor GHE/Gs actually exist, which might be a turnoff in a soundbite. My xy stuff was just laziness. As you know better than I, AU ratios and inverse squares solve the temps, as near as they are real too! Keep it simple, life is complicating enough. Of course, in print, you can say it all in one short intro paragraph, the explain at leisure if appropriate. With an interview, hit ’em with the soundbite; and have your facts ready to handle questions. Similar with debate. Ask someone with real skill in message delivery, perhaps.
Brett, probably right, seemed too verbose to me also. This is why I had a C in english/communication courses and straight 4.0+ in all math and science courses. I appeciate any help in this area.
wayne says, June 30, 2015 at 10:17 pm:
““Can’t drop the radiative explanation.”
Yes i think you can, not in the detailed posts that explan all of the ‘why’ to scientists but in the sound-bite to the public you can. It just asks one question, very simply: “Would not the Mars surface then be warmer that the BB temperature after the mass of N2/O2 was added and equalization reached?” and of course the simple answer must be, YES. (isn’t it?) That is all you need to get the ball rolling, the hook set.”
But why YES? You can’t just say “It’s the mass that does it” and that’s it. You need to explain how and why.
The difference between the apparent planetary temperature in space and the average global temperature of the planet’s physical surface, is 505K on Venus, 33K on Earth and 0K on Mars. The more massive the atmosphere, the higher up the conceptual ERL (the effective planetary emitting “surface”) is pushed. On Mars it isn’t pushed up at all, because the air density already at the surface is low enough for the solar heat to escape to space (via radiation) at an adequate pace. On Earth, we have to move a few kilometres up to reach such average density levels, and on Venus we have to climb a few tens of kilometres.
It’s all really straightforward:
The more mass in an atmosphere, the deeper its air column, and the higher up you need to go to find sufficiently thin layers of air. Hence, the ‘massive’ ERL is pushed up. Pulling the average surface temp up along with it …:
Further, it is in the radiative/convective establishment and maintenance of the stable temperature gradient (average ELR) up through the massive medium making up the atmosphere, the extended energy reservoir of the Earth system beyond the surface, to get the absorbed heat from the ‘heating end’ to the ‘cooling end’ moving at sufficient speed and momentum, that the actual warming of the surface is effectuated. This is a massive process, not a radiative one.
In all this, radiation is but a necessary tool, a means by which to reach an end, that end being a new steady state for the extended Earth system (no atmo vs. atmo scenario), with a relatively cool atmosphere as its new emitting “surface” to space and with a relatively warm actual, solid/liquid surface at the bottom, feeding the massive atmosphere above it with heat.
This is what happens when you place a massive atmosphere on top of a solar-heated planetary surface:
The solid surface goes from disposing its heat directly into space, close to absolute zero, to disposing (some, most or all of) it rather into the atmosphere, a new, added, intermediate energy reservoir that will – by absorbing the heat transferred to it from the surface – naturally grow much warmer than space. Since the surface still has to shed as much heat per unit time as before, only now into a much warmer reservoir than earlier, it will now necessarily have to be considerably warmer itself also, in order to still be able to ‘drive’ the required heat out.
IOW: A solar-heated planetary surface cannot warm space, but it can (and does) warm a massive atmosphere, and in doing so, will – by necessity – be forced to become warmer itself as well. Pure heat transfer theory.
Still too many words, I know. But we’re getting there …
Radiation has to be included in the explanation. Not as a cause, but as a tool.
Kristian, are you saying you would answer NO? !! I hope not. Don’t drag into the complex details or we lose.
The why doesn’t really matter. Billions of people have buoght into this “science” that is really incorrect science if you can logically prove that yes, not the amount, but yet yes. It matters to people like you and I and the other comments on these climo sites but to the simple storeowner, he will never get that deep, not even through the top level of explaining why.
See, don’t try to convice the warped-science AGW activists, they will NEVER CHANGE. But you can change the minds of the simple population if you have something so simple that explains in plain English that it must be… without the details, that blaming it on GHGs is wrong, wrong, wrong, it is backwards.
Will Janoschka says: July 1, 2015 at 2:46 am
“(“Advection?
‘A flow from equator to poles’ is advection.
‘the ‘backflow’ at the surface.’ is advection.”)
Why is this not convection Along with fluid mass motion the lateral is always “convected” sensible heat, latent heat and airborne water condensate!”
Good question Will. The ‘advected’ and ‘convected’ ‘components’ become ‘mixed’ and force ‘ke’ in the atmosphere by a ‘mutual force’ that can be considered a ‘manifold’. The outcome from a ‘manifold’ can only be realised if the forces that ’caused/went into’ the manifold were well documented.
Its clear that “‘A flow from equator to poles’ is advection.” and that “‘the ‘backflow’ at the surface.’ is advection.” because ‘only’ the advected component is observable for this scenario. However, I think Ben is confused on the point of the ‘motive force’.
All ‘motive force’ is supplied by Earth’s surface at the ‘boundary layer’, or the ‘diffusion pump’ generated by the continual production of WV at Earth’s surface. However, ‘cloud-base’ forms a hiatus (of sorts).
Best regards, Ray.
Ben Wouters says: July 1, 2015 at 1:23 pm
Will Janoschka says: July 1, 2015 at 2:46 am
(“Why is this not convection”)
“Horizontal movement is driven by pressure differences and called ADVECTION”.
Horizontal near surface movement (co-rotating lower atmosphere)is driven by surface motive power supplying a tangential air mass momentum along with fluid flow is conveyed sensible and latent heat along with airborne water condensate this is properly called CONVECTION!!
“Vertical movement is (mostly) driven by density differences and called CONVECTION.”
Only in the case of thermals, like a fireplace!
Vertical movement is the radial component of that same tangential momentum. If the atmosphere were in orbit, and the stratosphere is, gravitational force would nullify such radial movement. However in this lower atmosphere the higher bottom pressure, also produced by gravity, assists such radial movement. At the equator this radial movement spontaneously adjusts the pressure and density gradient and would be very similar with no need for temperature or temperature differences!! This is also called forced CONVECTION.
“The atmosphere does not operate like your kitchen equipment.”
The atmosphere certainly does not operate like any of your spurious spouting!!
Your disgraced meteorological society has no right to hijack the meaning of words like these two, along with adiabatic, hydrostatic, and equilibrium! This thread is not about meteorology, but about atmospheric convection, in all directions. This blog is not to praise meteorologists, but to discuss how the Meteorologists and ClimAstrologists screwed up so royally, for profit!
Kristian loving every word of your exchange with Mike M., priceless… and I don’t dare jump into the middle on Spence’s site.
But suggestion…hold him to answer that “one gut-simple question”. Bet he won’t, bet he refuses, bet he tries to drag it into complexities… keep the heat underneath, each time tell him it is irrelevant, it is irrelevant. That is the one thing to show he and these other characters are no scientists that they claim they are.
suricat says: July 2, 2015 at 1:28 am
“Its clear that “‘A flow from equator to poles’ is advection.” and that “‘the ‘backflow’ at the surface.’ is advection.” because ‘only’ the advected component is observable for this scenario. However, I think Ben is confused on the point of the ‘motive force’.”
The flow from the equator to the poles does have a vertical component.
Air is cooling at high altitudes, sinks and creates the Tradewind Inversion, increasing in strength towards 30 N/S.
This inversion actually suppresses convection.
Will Janoschka says: July 2, 2015 at 5:52 am
“Vertical movement is the radial component of that same tangential momentum. If the atmosphere were in orbit, and the stratosphere is, gravitational force would nullify such radial movement.”
Keep digging Will 😉
“If the atmosphere were in orbit, and the stratosphere is,”
Stratosphere in orbit would create winds from the east over the equator of over 1670 km/h.
Easily testable:
Observation of 6.00 UTC this morning 10 hPa level:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/winkel3
Little wind around the equator, some easterly winds over the NH.
SH around 45S over the Atlantic, windspeeds over 300 km/h, eastbound, moving AHEAD of earths rotation.
So let’s see who is confused about what 😉
Kristian says: July 1, 2015 at 9:32 pm
” The difference between the apparent planetary temperature in space and the average global temperature of the planet’s physical surface, is 505K on Venus, 33K on Earth and 0K on Mars. The more massive the atmosphere, the higher up the conceptual ERL (the effective planetary emitting “surface”) is pushed. On Mars it isn’t pushed up at all, because the air density already at the surface is low enough for the solar heat to escape to space (via radiation) at an adequate pace.”
You forgot to mention our moon: difference is ~ minus 73K, No atmosphere apparently means actual surface temperature way below BB temperature.
Now we look at Mars which has a very low density CO2 atmosphere, and already its temperature is AT the BB temperature.
This will absolutely convince an AGW’er he was correct all along……
Ben Wouters says, July 2, 2015 at 12:34 pm:
Ben, do you know the first thing about how the rGHE is defined? What its atmospheric warming mechanism is supposed to be? How the ‘elevated surface temperature’ of a planet is supposed to be generated? And how one is supposed to observe this postulated temperature elevation?
It appears you don’t.
General word of advice: Read up on a subject before making a fool of yourself for all to see.
Sorry, “okulaer” is “Kristian”.
Ben Wouters:
You forgot to mention our moon: difference is ~ minus 73K, No atmosphere apparently means actual surface temperature way below BB temperature.
Now we look at Mars which has a very low density CO2 atmosphere, and already its temperature is AT the BB temperature.
This will absolutely convince an AGW’er he was correct all along……
Irrelevant Ben. only if their “science” is so screwed up like you are explaining. I said you can never show someone that has made themselves blind.
It doesn’t matter where you begin at, “~ minus 73K” as you said above about the moon, zero on Mars, minus 33 on Earth, if you take mass away from the atmosphere, like all that is now on Mars, it will be much colder at the surface, just like what you see in the moon’s case, doesn’t matter where you started from, the absolute value. If you add mass, it will be warmer at the surface and it matters not whether the absolute is your minus 73K, or zero like mars, or +10K of some other body. it is an differential, not an absolute.
Your example shows nothing except what both Kristian and I have been saying all along. The starting point matters not, as Kristian was saying in the very quote you were using!
But that Moon example of a body without an atmosphere at all, good, it adds even more credence to what Kristian (and as your should have noticed, myself) have been saying.
Wayne: And when someone says “But Mars has lower gravity” or “What about Venus then, hey?”, as just above, you can say “I’m glad you brought that up…..”
An atmosphere that’s too dense simply retains the heat internally rather than releasing it. It’s a kind of ‘thermal diffusivity’, where the denser the substance is, the lower its thermal diffusivity, meaning the more thermally inert it is, storing the heat within its bulk rather than conducting it through. The same goes for the ratio of molecular collisions to the release of energy by photon emission events. The energy is preferably kept as microscopic KE of the flying/colliding air molecules (on Earth to 99% N2 and O2 molecules) and only rarely (in relative terms) does energy escape by photons to space. Until you get high enough and the air becomes colder and more tenuous.
On Mars the mean surface air density is ~20 grams per cubic metre. On Earth it’s 1225 grams. Even at the average global tropopause height (~12 km), the mean air density in Earth’s atmosphere is ~310 g/m^3, 15-16 times as dense as at the surface of Mars! You need to go almost 30 km up on Earth to reach that kind of rarefied air.
Ben Wouters says: July 2, 2015 at 9:45 am
Will Janoschka says: July 2, 2015 at 5:52 am
(“Vertical movement is the radial component of that same tangential momentum. If the atmosphere were in orbit, and the stratosphere is, gravitational force would nullify such radial movement.”
If the atmosphere were in orbit, and the stratosphere is,”)
“Stratosphere in orbit would create winds from the east over the equator of over 1670 km/h.”
That is the required absolute velocity for a near circular orbit in any direction independent of longitudinal rotation. The molecules and clumps of molecules in the stratosphere, mesosphere and thermosphere are in highly elliptical obit about the Earth’s COM at one of the two foci! Mean free path 1 km.
“Easily testable:
Observation of 6.00 UTC this morning 10 hPa level:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/winkel3
Little wind around the equator, some easterly winds over the NH.
SH around 45S over the Atlantic, windspeeds over 300 km/h, eastbound, moving AHEAD of earths rotation.”
Ah! Your southern 60o jet stream moving north “nearly” to the relative ‘reflection’ of absolute surface velocity!! Just what are these incompetent meteorologists measuring as an orbital velocity of tiny mass with greater than a meter mean free path even at a low altitude 30 km, but high pressure 10 hPa? Why are these same incompetents measuring some fantasy velocity relative, but tangent, to the Earth’s surface velocity? Keep digging Ben! Ray and Wayne, have tried to help you out if your own hole, loser, but you believe your religion is the truth, as do all religious believers! 🙂
Kristian says: July 2, 2015 at 10:52 pm
“An atmosphere that’s too dense simply retains the heat internally rather than releasing it. It’s a kind of ‘thermal diffusivity’, where the denser the substance is, the lower its thermal diffusivity, meaning the more thermally inert it is, storing the heat within its bulk rather than conducting it through. The same goes for the ratio of molecular collisions to the release of energy by photon emission events. The energy is preferably kept as microscopic KE of the flying/colliding air molecules (on Earth to 99% N2 and O2 molecules) and only rarely (in relative terms) does energy escape by photons to space. Until you get high enough and the air becomes colder and more tenuous.”
The retained heat energy in this Earth’s atmosphere is almost all in the latent heat of evaporation to WV. So much so that surface evaporation is not needed for EMR exitance, but is needed to maintain the atmospheres total water column because of the wee 3mm/day precipitation. The total water column is deliberately ignored by meteorologists and ClimAstrologists, as inclusion would ruin the CO2 SCAM. This Earth’s atmosphere is nothing like that of our two closest planets, I think, I’ve not measured there! 🙂
Kristian says: July 2, 2015 at 5:50 pm
“Sorry, “okulaer” is “Kristian”.”
Is okulaer/Kristian redundant, or just an emphatic, myself?
“The retained heat energy in this Earth’s atmosphere is almost all in the latent heat of evaporation to WV. ”
Now Will, you seem to be missing a word or a few. That statement seems foolish to think it is so. So what happened to the energy of each and every atom/molecules (particles) randomly zipping about and colliding at about an average of 450-500 m/s? That is the retained heat energy within our atmosphere is it not? Will, it is not ‘all’ in water vapor or condensates unless you are speaking strictly of ir radiation. The amount of WV in our atmosphere is tiny compared to the entire mass of the atmosphere.
Now if you were to say something more like “The delta observed in the radiable retained heat energy in this Earth’s atmosphere is almost all in the latent heat of evaporation to WV. ” I would tend to agree with you there. The changes, the delta, is mainly as you describe it and I think you always mainly speak of just the radiation, not the bulk.
Ben Wouters says: July 2, 2015 at 9:35 am
“The flow from the equator to the poles does have a vertical component.”
It has ‘much more’ than a vertical component Ben. It has a ‘retrograde’ and ‘poleward’ component as it rises as well.
Take a ‘volume’ of air as it rises from the ITCZ. As it gains altitude/height the distance of the ‘radius’ to Earth’s centre of spin increases, thus the ‘volume’ must travel a ‘greater/longer’ path with the same ‘inertia’ (internal ke) that it gained at the surface of the ITCZ. This gives the appearance that the ‘volume’ has slowed and is moving ‘backwards’ towards the East, but it hasn’t slowed, it has a greater distance to cover at the same speed.
This effect is enhanced by Earth’s ‘turning moment’, which continues whilst the ‘volume’ is away from any of Earth’s ‘surface/boundary’ influence. The ‘volume’ is in ‘free air’!
*Schoolboy’s example: Float a wooden pencil in a round bucket that’s three quarters full with water. Now hold the bucket by its handle and twist your wrist to make the bucket turn. Notice that the pencil doesn’t ‘twist’ with the bucket unless its in contact with the bucket sides, where friction with the bucket will cause a change in motion. This phenomenon is ‘mass inertia’ and is a unique property of ‘mass’.*
Do you see where this is going?
As our ‘volume’ continues to gain altitude/height it begins to encounter a ‘pressure increase’ from ‘other ‘volumes’ above it’ that have had their ‘vertical’ ‘vector’ reduced by gravity. THIS is what pushes the atmosphere towards the ‘poles’! Thus. Our ‘volume’ gains a ‘poleward’ component.
Its hard to represent a 3D dynamic with 2D graphics. A ‘cross section’ of latitudes 0 through 30 isn’t representative of the dynamic. I’ll try to find some free time to look for something more ‘dynamic’ and explicit.
“Air is cooling at high altitudes, sinks and creates the Tradewind Inversion, increasing in strength towards 30 N/S.”
Which is the heavier, a ton of feathers or a ton of coal? That depends on where and how they’re weighed! 😉
If it were due to temperature alone, the Hadley Cell would extend to the poles (though the Brewer Dobson Circulation ‘does’ actually extend for this distance and is the ‘overflow’ from the ITCZ), but this isn’t the scenario for Earth with its ~rapid rotation.
Earth’s rotational dynamics generate ‘thrust’ into the atmosphere at the boundary layer. This is a ‘given’ fact.
At the ITCZ the ‘thrust’ is ‘vertical to Earth’s surface’ (in engineering terminology; a ‘radial turbine’) and at a/the pole/s the ‘thrust’ is ‘horizontal to Earth’s surface’ (in engineering terminology; a ‘planar turbine’). This ‘rotational dynamic’ is enough to ‘break up’ the Hadley Cell, so as to initialise the ‘Global Convection Cells’ that we now see in Earth’s atmosphere.
It would be easier to understand/explain if we could follow our ‘volume’, that I mentioned earlier, through it’s entire ‘motion’ relative to its own perspective (together with the ‘story/perspective’ of ‘other nearby volumes’). As I said, I’ll look for more ‘explicit’ presentations when I’m able to.
Best regards, Ray.
wayne says: July 3, 2015 at 12:43 am
(“The retained heat energy in this Earth’s atmosphere is almost all in the latent heat of evaporation to WV. ”)
“Now Will, you seem to be missing a word or a few. That statement seems foolish to think it is so. So what happened to the energy of each and every atom/molecules (particles) randomly zipping about and colliding at about an average of 450-500 m/s? That is the retained heat energy within our atmosphere is it not? Will, it is not ‘all’ in water vapor or condensates unless you are speaking strictly of ir radiation. The amount of WV in our atmosphere is tiny compared to the entire mass of the atmosphere.”
Your foolish interpretation of kinetic energy due to temperature is trivial. 1Joule/(gm x dT ) for dry air,
2Joule/(gm x dTt) for WV, 4Joule/(gm x dT) for liquid! But 2400 Joules/gm for evaporation with no dT whatsoever! With 1% by mass of gaseous WV, becoming airborne water condensate , that condensation process must raise the air temperature by 24oC, except for EMR to space.. Capisci, second person singular.
“Now if you were to say something more like “The delta observed in the radiable retained heat energy in this Earth’s atmosphere is almost all in the latent heat of evaporation to WV. ” I would tend to agree with you there. The changes, the delta, is mainly as you describe it and I think you always mainly speak of just the radiation, not the bulk.”
I always consider where the EMR power is coming from, to “maintain” that EMR to space! 🙂
All the best! -will-
suricat says: July 3, 2015 at 12:55 am
“It would be easier to understand/explain if we could follow our ‘volume’, that I mentioned earlier, through it’s entire ‘motion’ relative to its own perspective (together with the ‘story/perspective’ of ‘other nearby volumes’). As I said, I’ll look for more ‘explicit’ presentations when I’m able to. Best regards, Ray.”
Perhaps you can help those at Cal-Tech with the computational Fluid Dynamics of this gravity constrained atmosphere. They truly do not know whether to scratch head or ass. This is so weird! 🙂
Will, yes, yes, the the 2400 J/kg is the key. We are crossing on terminology again it seems. My complaint was ‘all’ meaning 100%, no exceptions.
You might have missed it, I even think it was on a former threads, but I made the statement then and I still will stand by it just like you that all but a ignorable bit of the energy in and out of our climate system makes its way though water/water vapor in one way or the other, and usually many multiple ways (emr right in there) before it exits via infrared radiation.
Isn’t that basically saying the same but worded different?
wayne says: July 3, 2015 at 3:10 am
“Will, yes, yes, the the 2400 J/kg is the key. We are crossing on terminology again it seems. My complaint was ‘all’ meaning 100%, no exceptions.”
No Wayne, that is not 2400 J/kg, It is the huge 2400 J/g. Immeasurable from 100%, no exceptions!. Capisci, second person singular?
“You might have missed it, I even think it was on a former threads, but I made the statement then and I still will stand by it just like you that all but a ignorable bit of the energy in and out of our climate system makes its way though water/water vapor in one way or the other, and usually many multiple ways (emr right in there) before it exits via infrared radiation.
Isn’t that basically saying the same but worded different?”
Yes perhaps Wayne,
Only EMR to space is exitance, from all levels of this atmosphere. It is the insolation powered conversion of “airborne” water condensate to WV and the global EMR exitance of such latent heat to space, that keeps Earth’s oceans from boiling away to space. So wonderfully delicate! Please stop the SCAM!
My slip Will, I knew that but didn’t catch as I proofread. How would I say key if it ere kilograms. If you have ever read one word of what I have been writing for months you should have known that was just my flying fingers and habit. I deal in SI so much grams are a rarity in the units I use.
Mods: could you fix the ‘kg’ to ‘g’?
So with a mistyped letter I am now SCAMMING huh? Well you are not so perfect in what you are saying either. I agree with the primary thrust that you insist on, the water condensates being re-evaporated WITHIN the atmosphere by solar influx, I agree. But nothing comes from the surface? I have to diverge there. To me what radiation does come from the surface once again is absorbed by water/water vapor within the atmosphere.
Still think we are beating each other where both our view are so close together but I don’t think I would be calling you Will a SCAMMER just because we differ slightly or you mistyped something. I told you I typwe wrong all of the time. I have already fixed nine mistypes in these two paragraphs. What gives, a bad day?
wayne says: July 3, 2015 at 5:41 am
“So with a mistyped letter I am now SCAMMING huh?”
No, Wayne,
You are truly pedalling as fast as I are! It is the SCAMMERS, bankers, politicians, academics, meteorologists, and ClimAstrologists, that must be stomped into the mud! You are fine and I value your opinion, even if yours is orthogonal to my-own. Just an obvious slip Wayne! I do that all the time. I rely on folk like you to inform me that, “you did it again Will” will you never learn?
Please Wayne,
Try to expound on what I was expressing about the energy difference between airborne water condensate and atmospheric WV. Why is this “never” discussed among lukewarmers? 🙂
wayne says: July 3, 2015 at 5:41 am
(“I have to diverge there. To me what radiation does come from the surface once again is absorbed by water/water vapor within the atmosphere”)
The possible radiative flux from the surface is suppressed by the opposing WV radiance within 6 meters of the surface. For the 14.5 micron surface flux this is suppressed by the atmospheric CO2 opposing radiance within 2 meters from the surface This atmosphere always provides a much more efficient radiator of EMR to space than the Earth’s surface can ever do! Why is there no discussion of what is, “measurably”, but always the fantasy of learned academics?
Ok Will, I’m with you now.
“It is the SCAMMERS, bankers, politicians, academics, meteorologists, and ClimAstrologists, that must be stomped into the mud!”
Those scammmers, yes, all of them… and even more, gigantic corporations are right in there too and may be the worse of them all, they are the ones with big bucks to lobby and push the government around, that pushes the bankers, politicians and academics around, that pushes the public around. And what of the media, bad, bad, bad.
You and I both know why water/w.v. is never spoken of, it is their downfall if the public ever got some logic to see through it. To me that is why we need some very simply worded cases like the one Kristian and I were discussing above, or yours, so the science spoken of can not be refuted in any way, because it is very simply correct. All global warming (hate the term) except about a rise of 0.5°C between ’75 and ’05 as this graph indicates. Feel cooler now than in around 2000? I sure feel it, summers much milder now, winters colder. We are already sliding back down. I take what I just said from this: http://i39.tinypic.com/1118rnl.png , was there a little natural warming, yes. Had anything to do with co2, absolutely not… all the other was and is still being adjustment-made.
Will, is what you have been saying all along that the atmospheric energy balance is maintained by air-bourne water phase change as the planet rotates and the water absorbs and emits energy?
The 3mm daily average rainfall is all that needs replacing?
The main work of convection is mass flow movement of latent heat?
Wayne says: July 3, 2015 at 7:31 am
“Ok Will, I’m with you now.
(“It is the SCAMMERS, bankers, politicians, academics, meteorologists, and ClimAstrologists, that must be stomped into the mud!”)
“Those scammmers, yes, all of them… and even more, gigantic corporations are right in there too and may be the worse of them all, they are the ones with big bucks to lobby and push the government around, that pushes the bankers, politicians and academics around, that pushes the public around. And what of the media, bad, bad, bad.”
Perhaps, most are just trying to make a buck, however!! Perhaps they should also be also stomped into the mud. Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater! There is much deliberate evil, for profit!
“You and I both know why water/w.v. is never spoken of, it is their downfall if the public ever got some logic to see through it. To me that is why we need some very simply worded cases like the one Kristian and I were discussing above, or yours, so the science spoken of can not be refuted in any way, because it is very simply correct.”
Consider that the atmospheric “water condensate”/WV is the downfall. Bring it up over and over, simply worded (much), or in exquisite detail (when needed). None can be refuted. They have nothing except, to run for cover.
Brett Keane says: July 3, 2015 at 7:39 am
“Will, is what you have been saying all along that the atmospheric energy balance is maintained by airborne water phase change as the planet rotates and the water absorbs and emits energy?
The 3mm daily average rainfall is all that needs replacing?
The main work of convection is mass flow movement of latent heat?”
Brett,
The numbers speak exactly. Atmospheric column water averages 2.4- 2.7 cm. Way way higher at the equator. I have not measured myself. Those that do measure seem quite competent, and very willing to discuss any errors. That column water is enough for 8-9 days of precipitation. This water condensate cannot become WV unless the whole atmosphere has a temperature greater than 34o C! The day to night evaporation/condensation is obvious to anyone looking at the atmospheric haze burn-off in the morning. Why will the meteorologists never speak of the obvious?
We were, iirc, discussing clouds a wee while ago, and it was pointed out that each cloud has an invisible water halo up to twice the cloud’s diameter around it. I think it was when we were talking about elephants in the sky (weight-wise) etc.. Anyway, is all this what is different? I’m not trained in Met. . So do they put too much belief in radiative/conductive air heating, when the main mechanism is latent heat release? A gliding friend talks of great thermal lift from sun-drying hay paddocks, where you rise until the little cumulus above pops clear, and that’s all.
Hopefully, I get your last paragraph, and might be able to extrapolate from it.
OOps I forgot, Will – what part or how much does centrifugal transport play?
Scottish Sceptic asks: ‘What is the adiabatic lapse rate of air?’
Will Janoschka says: July 2, 2015 at 11:34 pm
“The retained heat energy in this Earth’s atmosphere is almost all in the latent heat of evaporation to WV.”
Priceless. Makes it to the #1 position on the list with idiotic ideas exclusively from WJ.
WV represents ~0,25% by mass of our atmosphere. So if all heat energy is retained in this 0,25%, the other 99,75% retain no heat energy, have no temperature and thus no pressure?
Just checked outside, but didn’t see a layer of solid N2 and O2 laying on the surface.
Pse explain my observation. Centrifuge effect? Washing machine operating?
Perhaps better stick with your kitchen equipment. Maybe you have some understanding of how they operate.
okulaer says: July 2, 2015 at 5:49 pm
“Ben, do you know the first thing about how the rGHE is defined? What its atmospheric warming mechanism is supposed to be? How the ‘elevated surface temperature’ of a planet is supposed to be generated? And how one is supposed to observe this postulated temperature elevation?”
No, and I’m totally NOT interested in any of those nonsense ideas of the atmosphere heating the surface. It is not happening.
Since it seems I have to spell out every step of any reasoning here, lets try:
our moons average surface temp. is ~197K. Its BB temp. is ~270K. The moon has no atmosphere.
So logical conclusion is that a planet / moon without atmosphere has a much lower average surface temperature than its BB temp. suggests.
Mars has a BB temp. of ~210K.
Without atmosphere its temperature should be way below this 210K.
Assuming same ratio as for the moon: 197/270 x 210K = ~153K.
So why is the actual average temp. 210K and not 153K?
wayne says: June 30, 2015 at 8:03 pm
“Look what Ben just did… immediately into irrelevant complexities that don’t matter squat.”
referring to :
Ben Wouters says: June 30, 2015 at 12:23 pm
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.
So why is Mars ~57K above the ~153K actual temperature it SHOULD have had without an atmosphere?
The above explanations I gave don't matter squat……
suricat says: July 3, 2015 at 12:55 am
“Take a ‘volume’ of air as it rises from the ITCZ. As it gains altitude/height the distance of the ‘radius’ to Earth’s centre of spin increases, thus the ‘volume’ must travel a ‘greater/longer’ path with the same ‘inertia’ (internal ke) that it gained at the surface of the ITCZ. This gives the appearance that the ‘volume’ has slowed and is moving ‘backwards’ towards the East, but it hasn’t slowed, it has a greater distance to cover at the same speed.”
The earth I live on rotates to the east, so any apparent ‘slowing’ effect creates a wind flowing FROM the east TOWARDS the west.
Let’s quantify the effect:
earths radius at the equator ~6378 km. Earth rotates once every 86164 seconds
Rotational speeds:
surface 40074000/86164 = 465,09 m/s
10 km 40137000/86164 = 465,82 m/s
20 km 40200000/86164 = 466,55 m/s
So rising air at the equator will have to speed up ~0,73 m/s to ‘keep up’ with earths rotational speed. Actual jet stream speeds are like 50 – 80 m/s around 10 km altitude, moving EASTBOUND, faster than the earths rotation. How can an apparent slowing of rising air create a speed increase?
“This effect is enhanced by Earth’s ‘turning moment’, which continues whilst the ‘volume’ is away from any of Earth’s ‘surface/boundary’ influence. The ‘volume’ is in ‘free air’!”
This turning effect is more than covered by gravity crashing the atmosphere towards the surface. Only reason we even have an atmosphere is its internal pressure pushing back.
Since most of the atmosphere isn’t rising or sinking (hydrostatic balance), winds are driven by pressure differences almost exclusively.
Ben, why are you still arguing about this?
You said: “Now we look at Mars which has a very low density CO2 atmosphere, and already its temperature is AT the BB temperature.
This will absolutely convince an AGW’er he was correct all along……”
No, Ben. An AGW’er will immediately understand that if a planetary surface is AT the blackbody temperature of the planet as a whole in space (for Earth, this temp would be the 255K), then there is – by definition – no “atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect” on that planet.
If the global surface of the Earth had an average temp of 255K rather than 288, then there would be no rGHE as defined. Same for Venus: If the surface were at an average 231K rather than its actual 737, then there would be no rGHE as defined. Because 231K is Venus’s BB temp as seen from space, based on mean radiative output. It is that differential that matters. The differential between 231 and 737K, and between 255 and 288K. If there is no differential, then there is no rGHE. Because it is specifically defined through this differential.
On Mars we have: T_sfc = T_erl + (Γ * H) → 210K = 210K + (~2.5 K/km * 0 km).
That’s the rGHE equation …
I already wrote about the Moon and its temperature swings, remember? I know about it. I know what it does to the actual output. You don’t have to tell me. A massive atmosphere WILL raise the avg temp of a solar-heated planetary surface above its pure solar radiative equilibrium temp. But the cause is atmospheric MASS, not atmospheric thermal radiation. The atmosphere’s warm, heavy mass insulates the surface against space.
New paper shows Co2 has no effect
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/new-paper-finds-increased-co2-or.html?spref=tw
Brett Keane says: July 3, 2015 at 11:06 am
“OOps I forgot, Will – what part or how much does centrifugal transport play?”
Brett,
I am not into Met either, actually my opinion is that Met has “always” been a religious scam, just waiting for the likes of some AlGore to make it obvious.
From some models, grr! The fluid dynamics ones, that do take into account that the one dimensional gravitational attraction of the air mass to constrain the whole damn thing. The radial convection at the equator and at 60o latitude is almost all the radial component of the surface induced tangential air mass momentum This air mass surface momentum is induced by surface roughness so we all do not get violently blown away to the west by the air mass that has no other reason to go with the surface motion. That uplift at 60o lat is radial from the spin axis and 60o off from the gravity vector. Polar vortex and jet streams anyone? What a wonderful planet! 🙂
Ben Wouters says: July 3, 2015 at 12:48 pm
Will Janoschka says: July 2, 2015 at 11:34 pm
(“The retained heat energy in this Earth’s atmosphere is almost all in the latent heat of evaporation to WV.”)
“Priceless. Makes it to the #1 position on the list with idiotic ideas exclusively from WJ.”
Ben, Hello Ben, Are you there? You have dug so deeply into the religion of meteorology that we can hardly hear you! 🙂
Ben Wouters says: July 3, 2015 at 1:27 pm
“Let’s quantify the effect:
earths radius at the equator ~6378 km. Earth rotates once every 86164 seconds
Rotational speeds:
surface 40074000/86164 = 465,09 m/s
10 km 40137000/86164 = 465,82 m/s
20 km 40200000/86164 = 466,55 m/s”
What total horse shit!! You convert angular velocity (radians per second) into some fantasy tangential velocity ( angular velocity times radius from the axis of rotation) This is approximately correct for the ridged surface. Why would air mass with only tangential surface momentum but very low viscosity ever increase its own total momentum with increasing altitude? This is but another religious meteorological SCAM that claims that a low viscosity fluid need retain angular momentum. Ben, Please go somewhere and buy a clue! 🙂
Kristian, see how that incredibly simple thought, your thought distilled down, shakes them to their very foundation. Be gut-simple, don’t give additional words and numbers for them to argue against. Rest is irrelevant. Now, how to get it spread far and wide. Unfortunately that’s definitely is not my strong point… arguing. Know any journalists? Have a friend that knows some journalists? Would some other site like C.A., Bishop Hill give you some wider exposure? If lucia is as even handed as I have heard some say maybe even The Blackboard.
If they won’t even carry it, won’t even consider it, we then know who is ‘in the industry’, on all three sides. I’d love to know for sure that tidbit.
wayne says: July 4, 2015 at 4:48 am
“Kristian, see how that incredibly simple thought, your thought distilled down, shakes them to their very foundation. Be gut-simple, don’t give additional words and numbers for them to argue against. Rest is irrelevant. Now, how to get it spread far and wide. Unfortunately that’s definitely is not my strong point… arguing. Know any journalists? Have a friend that knows some journalists? Would some other site like C.A., Bishop Hill give you some wider exposure? If lucia is as even handed as I have heard some say maybe even The Blackboard.
If they won’t even carry it, won’t even consider it, we then know who is ‘in the industry’, on all three sides. I’d love to know for sure that tidbit.”
This does not “shake them to their very foundation”. These guys are tough and formidable, no foundation is required! Know your enemy! Do not assume, assemble! Paris may be an opportunity! The serfs are carefully sharpening the pitchforks.
Ben Wouters says: July 3, 2015 at 12:48 pm
Will Janoschka says: July 2, 2015 at 11:34 pm
““The retained heat energy in this Earth’s atmosphere is almost all in the latent heat of evaporation to WV.”
WV represents ~0,25% by mass of our atmosphere. So if all heat energy is retained in this 0,25%, the other 99,75% retain no heat energy, have no temperature and thus no pressure?
Just checked outside, but didn’t see a layer of solid N2 and O2 laying on the surface.
Pse explain my observation. Centrifuge effect? Washing machine operating?”
As usual, no answers, only idiotic babbling about religions etc.
This is NOT a thread about religions, it’s about Convection.
Answers……
Kristian says: July 3, 2015 at 3:48 pm
“Ben, why are you still arguing about this?”
Because the whole idea of RADIATIVE balance at 255K for earth doesn’t make any sense.
This means spreading incoming solar radiation around the entire planet, which is not happening.
Only RADIATIVE balance I can see is for a planet with one side continuously facing the sun, so each square meter of that planet continuously receives the same amount of radiation, until its temperature is such that the outgoing radiation is equal to the incoming radiation.
For our moon this would be at ~154K average surface temperature according the N&Z calculations. My simple version gives 161K.
If a planet/moon is rotating, the incoming solar energy is ‘stored’ in the surface material, and carried with the rotation, also to the night side. On earth the oceans also carry this stored energy to other latitudes.
We can have an ENERGY balance in this situation. On earth we have seen many ENERGY balance situations, with many different surface temperatures.
All possible with incoming solar balanced by outgoing radiation.
Will Janoschka says:
July 4, 2015 at 3:19 am: I could envisage vertical rotational effect, westerly at the surface, easterly at height. But, while I have seen this with almost one-dimensional water currents, it is hard to translate into 4D spherical geometry. Perhaps some of what is to be detected(jets, vortices), is the result? Or maybe most of it? Any relative loss of velocity/vector would appear to be moving in the opposite direction, to observers. And the curvatures? Coriolis pseudo-forces galore.
Then again, on further comprehension, the proposed effect is from radial uplift, still subject to the above effects. Who could measure such?
Ben Wouters says, July 4, 2015 at 8:22 am:
“Because the whole idea of RADIATIVE balance at 255K for earth doesn’t make any sense.”
Ben, there is no disagreement between us on this. We’re completely on the same page. But the issue at hand isn’t about reality. It’s about the proposed hypothetical reality of an “atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect” (rGHE).
Here’s how Earth’s 255K BB temp in space is derived by the rGHE proponents: Step 1) Take the average TSI (the “solar constant”) at 1 AU, subtract global albedo (the main uncertainty) and divide by 4, giving a globally, annually averaged absorbed solar flux of ~239 W/m^2. Step 2) Assume a relative planetary steady state and thus an achieved and maintained dynamic radiative equilibrium between Earth and its surroundings (Sun/space), meaning, Earth’s average input and output of energy (as heat) is equal. Step 3) Imagine a perfect blackbody in space. If the solid, smoothly spherical surface of this BB were completely isothermal, what would be its emission temperature, radiating isotropically 239 W/m^2 to space? It would be 255K.
And voilà! You have Earth’s BB temp in space. A totally conceptual, purely mathematically derived temperature. It isn’t real. It’s hypothetical. Still, it is essential to the rGHE definition. The average global temperature of Earth’s actual physical surface simply needs to be higher than this BB temp for an rGHE to exist. If not, no rGHE.
So when you’re arguing about planetary temperature swings and lowered mean temps putting out the same overall amount of energy, you’re arguing about real-world phenomena. Not about rGHE theory.
Brett Keane says: July 4, 2015 at 12:32 pm
“Then again, on further comprehension, the proposed effect is from radial uplift, still subject to the above effects. Who could measure such?”
The uplift, vortices, streams, (pressure, density, temperature, gradients), and water, are all measurable! The difficult is the answer to “Why mommy?”. Astrologists made up stories about planets and houses going in and out to give comfort to those fearful of the unknown. Meteorology is more sinister but less scientific. Lets fool the dweebs into accepting that all is but a function of the pressure, density, and temperature, (mostly temperature without definition),and ignore all that does not fit the story line! Sound familiar? If they buy into that, they will accept anything, and we profit. The computational fluid dynamics stuff is for folk not accepting but trying to learn. By being able to adjust some measurable fluid parameters like Reynolds number and viscosity, an ugly picture presents. Currently at the stage of “would you look at that?” They haven’t scratched the surface yet with regard to water and spot heating! 🙂
Ben Wouters says: July 3, 2015 at 1:27 pm
“The earth I live on rotates to the east, so any apparent ‘slowing’ effect creates a wind flowing FROM the east TOWARDS the west.”
Well I’m glad someone is awake! I was nearly asleep when I posted this and I rarely re-read a post after I’ve posted it. Thank you Ben! 🙂
Yes, a slowing effect, due to an increase in the radius from the axis of spin, is towards the ‘West’!
“Let’s quantify the effect:
earths radius at the equator ~6378 km. Earth rotates once every 86164 seconds
Rotational speeds:
surface 40074000/86164 = 465,09 m/s
10 km 40137000/86164 = 465,82 m/s
20 km 40200000/86164 = 466,55 m/s
So rising air at the equator will have to speed up ~0,73 m/s to ‘keep up’ with earths rotational speed.”
Only for the first 10 km Ben.
Now factor in the angle that Earth rotated through whilst our ‘volume’ lost connection/contact with the boundary layer to realise just ‘how retrograde’ the ‘volume’ has been displaced due to ‘the volume’ maintaining its ‘inertia’ and the way that the ‘mass inertia’ of its environment is also affecting it. ‘Changing angles’ at the ITCZ cause an ‘atmospheric overturning’.
“Actual jet stream speeds are like 50 – 80 m/s around 10 km altitude, moving EASTBOUND, faster than the earths rotation. How can an apparent slowing of rising air create a speed increase?”
Our ‘volume’ is moving ‘upwards’, ‘backwards’ and ‘outwards’ from the ITCZ at this point. We’ve not reached the destination of Hadley-Ferrel Cell ‘mixing’ yet. Be patient.
Your next comment ‘backtracks’ a bit, so I’ll add my dialogue.
“(“This effect is enhanced by Earth’s ‘turning moment’, which continues whilst the ‘volume’ is away from any of Earth’s ‘surface/boundary’ influence. The ‘volume’ is in ‘free air’!”)
This turning effect is more than covered by gravity crashing the atmosphere towards the surface. Only reason we even have an atmosphere is its internal pressure pushing back.”
The term you’re trying to describe is ‘internal ke’. The term ‘ke’ (for kinetic energy) is mathematically represented as ‘[italic] E [subscript] k’ and is a measure of the internal energy contained within a mass. The ‘internal kinetic’ property of the atmosphere ‘is’ the mediator of atmospheric pressure by way of an increase in molecular ballistic trajectory with increasing temperatures causing greater distance between the molecules within the mass (expansion [kinetic theory of gasses]). We need to be close to absolute zero Kelvin for the atmosphere to ‘collapse’ in this way. Please, let’s keep this realistic.
This has nothing/little to do with ‘mass inertia’, or ‘turning moments’!
PS. I read through this post when I wasn’t tired. I think its accurate. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: July 5, 2015 at 12:53 am
“The term you’re trying to describe is ‘internal ke’. The term ‘ke’ (for kinetic energy) is mathematically represented as ‘[italic] E [subscript] k’ and is a measure of the internal energy contained within a mass.”
It is your use of “internal energy contained within a mass.” that I have I problem with. You seem to agree with idiots that sensible heat as temperature of a given mass as sensible heat is the “only” accumulation of power that is capable of work, that is always the conversion of power into accumulated “structure” (an action). The units are the same in many cases, but energy is almost a conjugate of work! Is the charge in a battery also internal energy? How about latent heat. How about the photosynthesis of airborne gas into carbohydrates that can later be oxidized as fuel! What the hell is internal energy? Does it have a definition? This all seems to be part of the CAGW scam.
“The ‘internal kinetic’ property of the atmosphere ‘is’ the mediator of atmospheric pressure by way of an increase in molecular ballistic trajectory with increasing temperatures causing greater distance between the molecules within the mass (expansion [kinetic theory of gasses]). We need to be close to absolute zero Kelvin for the atmosphere to ‘collapse’ in this way. Please, let’s keep this realistic.”
OK that sounds reasonable! What the hell is internal energy?
suricat says: July 5, 2015 at 12:53 am
Ben Wouters says: July 3, 2015 at 1:27 pm
“So rising air at the equator will have to speed up ~0,73 m/s to ‘keep up’ with earths rotational speed.””
“Only for the first 10 km Ben.”
10 km is around the altitude where the core of the subtropical jet is. So I’m very curious how you turn a slowing effect of 0,73 m/s into a jetstream that moves the other way at 50 – 80 m/s,
especially considering that we have a solid explanation for those jetstreams in the thermal wind.
“This turning effect is more than covered by gravity crashing the atmosphere towards the surface. Only reason we even have an atmosphere is its internal pressure pushing back.”
The term you’re trying to describe is ‘internal ke’.”
What is was describing is the hydrostatic balance, atmospheric pressure pushing back against the weight of the atmosphere above.
Indeed a warmer column will expand more than a colder one.
Again see http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/200z_90.fnl.anim.html.
200 mb level being over a kilometer higher at the equator than at the poles, thus creating a substantial pressure difference at equal altitudes => wind.
suricat says: July 5, 2015 at 12:53 am
“…”
Further to this.
The ‘rate/speed’ vector at which our ‘volume’ is ‘advected’ to a higher altitude is enhanced by the rate at which WV is generated at the surface (look to equatorial ‘pan evaporation’ for an ‘example’ of this [water is rarely collected, only evaporated]).
The constant generation of WV by surface temperature conversion into the latent product of ‘water gas’ (‘WV’ = water vapour [perhaps ‘water gas’ is a bad simile, as true ‘water gas’ is the combustible product from a process, but this emphasises the ‘hydrogen’ component of the molecule]) provides the atmosphere with a ‘lifting vector’ that is both ‘profuse’ (always pervasive) and ‘lighter than air’ (WV is ~3/5 the density of other air compounds/components). WV is even produced at Earth’s poles where Ice ‘sublimates’ into the atmosphere. Not a lot, but, nevertheless, it does.
Besides the ‘percolation’ of WV ‘through’ other gasses, its constant ‘generation’ at the surface reinforces its potential as the main mediator for a ‘diffusion pump’ scenario. Its ‘lighter than air’ property and ‘constant generation’ at Earth’s surface forces the other atmospheric constituents to partially follow its vector.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: July 5, 2015 at 11:25 pm
“The ‘rate/speed’ vector at which our ‘volume’ is ‘advected’ to a higher altitude is enhanced by the rate at which WV is generated at the surface (look to equatorial ‘pan evaporation’ for an ‘example’ of this [water is rarely collected, only evaporated]).”
Interesting! I thought it was the vast amount of more dense airborne water condensate that must accompany any saturated WV ejected radially that caused the equatorial surface low.
suricat says:
July 5, 2015 at 11:25 pm
The constant generation of WV by surface temperature conversion into the latent product of ‘water gas’ (‘WV’ = water vapour [perhaps ‘water gas’ is a bad simile, as true ‘water gas’ is the combustible product from a process, but this emphasises the ‘hydrogen’ component of the molecule]) provides the atmosphere with a ‘lifting vector’ that is both ‘profuse’ (always pervasive) and ‘lighter than air’ (WV is ~3/5 the density of other air compounds/components).
What to call water in the air
The terms water vapour, WV, and steam are misleading. They suggest the water can be seen and is in liquid form, H2O (l).
The term used in chemistry for water as a gas is H2O (g).
WV is even produced at Earth’s poles where Ice ‘sublimates’ into the atmosphere. Not a lot, but, nevertheless, it does.
The lowest ever relative humidity, RH, recorded on Earth is 1%.
That is 0.0003 of H2O(g) in the total mass of air
Co2 is 0.04% that is 0.0004 of the mass of air.
Even the driest of air has as much H20 (g) as CO2
0.0004 of air means 10^23/10^4 molecules per 1000cm^3
10^19/litre is more than sufficient molecules to absorb and release the energy needed to create the vertical temperature gradient, T/h.
Besides the ‘percolation’ of WV ‘through’ other gasses, its constant ‘generation’ at the surface reinforces its potential as the main mediator for a ‘diffusion pump’ scenario.
Percolation is H2O (l) moving through a solid.
The relative movement of molecules in a mixture of H2O (g) and mainly N2 is called diffusion.
Its[ H2O(g)] ‘lighter than air’ property and ‘constant generation’ at Earth’s surface forces the other atmospheric constituents to partially follow its vector.
The N2 does not follow the H2O (g).
When calculating T/h we can ignore diatomic molecules such as N2 and O2..
The energy within the atmosphere heat reservoir is absorbed mainly by H2O (g).
T/c = g/cH2O(g) = 9.8ms^-2/1.9Jkg^-1K^-1 = 5.2Kkm^-1
The tea leaf paradox describes a phenomenon where tea leaves in a cup of tea migrate to the center and bottom of the cup after being stirred rather than being forced to the edges of the cup, as would be expected in a spiral centrifuge.’
Applications: ‘The phenomenon has been used to develop a new technique to separate red blood cells from blood plasma,[6][7] to understand atmospheric pressure systems,[8] and in the process of brewing beer to separate out coagulated trub in the whirlpool.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_leaf_paradox
‘Albert Einstein solved the paradox in 1926.’
Will Janoschka says: July 5, 2015 at 7:57 am
“It is your use of “internal energy contained within a mass.” that I have I problem with. You seem to agree with idiots that sensible heat as temperature of a given mass as sensible heat is the “only” accumulation of power that is capable of work, that is always the conversion of power into accumulated “structure” (an action).”
Yes! Because an EM ‘field’ (and its ‘flux/es’) possess ‘no mass’! Thus, NO KINETIC Will! I have a problem with this as well! ‘Macro’ and ‘Micro’ philosophies don’t conjoin, but we’ll all make one hell of an attempt to make them do so.
Please note that the subject matter at hand is about the ‘inertial properties of matter’ and ‘convection’. This requires a response
“The units are the same in many cases, but energy is almost a conjugate of work!”
I concur. However, where the ‘energy’ is used/absorbed, determines the ‘usage’ as an efficiency towards the ‘work’ concept. Its more interesting to look at the ‘inefficiencies’ to find where the ‘other’ ports of the ‘manifold’ lead to. 🙂
“Is the charge in a battery also internal energy? How about latent heat. How about the photosynthesis of airborne gas into carbohydrates that can later be oxidized as fuel! What the hell is internal energy? Does it have a definition? This all seems to be part of the CAGW scam.”
This isn’t a ‘scam’ Will. The ‘scenarios’ that you mention are all part of the ‘internal energy’ that I mentioned. They don’t ‘feature’ in the ‘main stream’ ‘event’ unless a ‘conversion’ is made. ‘Conversions’ depend on ‘local hap-stance’. Please don’t associate me with “CAGW”, but I’ll accept surface development from forest to savannah and savannah to concrete/tarmac as ‘ALCC’ (Anthropogenic Local Climate Change) and ‘AUHI’ (Anthropogenic Urban Heat Island) respectively.
“OK that sounds reasonable! What the hell is internal energy?”
FWIW (my take on this), its ‘energy’ that doesn’t/hasn’t find/found a ‘path’ to exhaust itself. IOW, energy that doesn’t have a portal into a manifold.
This may help for the ‘kinetic’ component:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#History_and_etymology
The philosophical aspect is discussed here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
but we’re getting ‘off thread’ with this subject! It ranges from ‘nuclear collisions’ to ‘auto-mobile crashes’. Atmospheric inertia is only a ‘small’ part.
Best regards, Ray.
oldbrew says: July 6, 2015 at 2:36 pm
“The tea leaf paradox describes a phenomenon where tea leaves in a cup of tea migrate to the center and bottom of the cup after being stirred rather than being forced to the edges of the cup, as would be expected in a spiral centrifuge.’”
The cup has an orthogonal force vector aligned with the stirring axis called gravity. Such stirring at the space station would have the opposite effect. What is a spiral centrifuge?
suricat says: July 7, 2015 at 1:25 am
Will Janoschka says: July 5, 2015 at 7:57 am
(“It is your use of “internal energy contained within a mass.” that I have I problem with. You seem to agree with idiots that sensible heat as temperature of a given mass as sensible heat is the “only” accumulation of power that is capable of work, that is always the conversion of power into accumulated “structure” (an action).”)
“Yes! Because an EM ‘field’ (and its ‘flux/es’) possess ‘no mass’! Thus, NO KINETIC Will! I have a problem with this as well! ‘Macro’ and ‘Micro’ philosophies don’t conjoin, but we’ll all make one hell of an attempt to make them do so.”
Ray,
Always nice to discuss with you!
Yes the EMR has no mass and no KINETIC. OTOH neither does mass with temperature have any KINETIC. This is the 400 year old scam. Newtonian kinetic energy requires momentum (a vector component). The sensible heat of any mass has no such vector component. The energies are distinct and cannot share a common adjective. EMR flux at least always has a vector component. Just shed the need for mass, or momentum! 🙂
“Please note that the subject matter at hand is about the ‘inertial properties of matter’ and ‘convection’. This requires a response”
????
(“The units are the same in many cases, but energy is almost a conjugate of work!”)
“I concur. However, where the ‘energy’ is used/absorbed, determines the ‘usage’ as an efficiency towards the ‘work’ concept. Its more interesting to look at the ‘inefficiencies’ to find where the ‘other’ ports of the ‘manifold’ lead to. :)”
Yes indeed! EMR IS that port to any lower radiance. The used up energy/T, “entropy”, need never accumulate anywhere near this planet. Just bye, bye!
(“Is the charge in a battery also internal energy? How about latent heat. How about the photosynthesis of airborne gas into carbohydrates that can later be oxidized as fuel! What the hell is internal energy? Does it have a definition? This all seems to be part of the CAGW scam.”)
“This isn’t a ‘scam’ Will. The ‘scenarios’ that you mention are all part of the ‘internal energy’ that I mentioned.”
OK perhaps the “post modern physics” SCAM. Always trying to now get away from “the conservation of everything, and the invention of fake entropy to provide such illusion. Even Rudy Clausius considered this a scam. Look at his photo, you do not want to futz with Rudy!
“They don’t ‘feature’ in the ‘main stream’ ‘event’ unless a ‘conversion’ is made. ‘Conversions’ depend on ‘local hap-stance’. ”
OK
“Please don’t associate me with “CAGW”, but I’ll accept surface development from forest to savannah and savannah to concrete/tarmac as ‘ALCC’ (Anthropogenic Local Climate Change) and ‘AUHI’ (Anthropogenic Urban Heat Island) respectively.”
Again, That all sounds reasonable! What the hell is internal energy?
“FWIW (my take on this), its ‘energy’ that doesn’t/hasn’t find/found a ‘path’ to exhaust itself. IOW, energy that doesn’t have a portal into a manifold.”
OK. A fictitious claim of energy, that cannot be located!
“Best regards, Ray.”
And all the best… back to you Ray -will-
suricat says: July 5, 2015 at 12:53 am
Ben Wouters says: July 3, 2015 at 1:27 pm
“Actual jet stream speeds are like 50 – 80 m/s around 10 km altitude, moving EASTBOUND, faster than the earths rotation. How can an apparent slowing of rising air create a speed increase?”
“Our ‘volume’ is moving ‘upwards’, ‘backwards’ and ‘outwards’ from the ITCZ at this point. We’ve not reached the destination of Hadley-Ferrel Cell ‘mixing’ yet. Be patient.”
Patiently awaiting your explanation that shows how the small slowing effect vs altitude of rising air at the equator can create serious wind speeds that flow the other way.
Ben Wouters says: July 7, 2015 at 8:42 pm
suricat says: July 5, 2015 at 12:53 am
(“Our ‘volume’ is moving ‘upwards’, ‘backwards’ and ‘outwards’ from the ITCZ at this point. We’ve not reached the destination of Hadley-Ferrel Cell ‘mixing’ yet. Be patient.”)
“Patiently awaiting your explanation that shows how the small slowing effect vs altitude of rising air at the equator can create serious wind speeds that flow the other way.”
Just like a Climate [snip]! Words, but no meaning, “small slowing effect” with respect to what? Space, other air mass, longitude, apparent velocity projection at that altitude? What? Please learn some solid geometry and arithmetic.
[mod note] tone it down please
Ben Wouters says: July 5, 2015 at 4:30 pm
“10 km is around the altitude where the core of the subtropical jet is. So I’m very curious how you turn a slowing effect of 0,73 m/s into a jetstream that moves the other way at 50 – 80 m/s,
especially considering that we have a solid explanation for those jetstreams in the thermal wind.”
‘Inertial energy conservation’ and the ‘radius’ Ben! A ‘Ballerina’ pulls their outstretched arms into their body centre of rotation to ‘speed-up’ their ‘rate of rotation/spin’. The converse when their arms are outstretched following a ‘body centre’ scenario.
Okay, I’ll get ahead of ‘matters’ (my description) here.
The ‘survival rate’ of WV is compromised by the temperature and pressure encountered at altitude. Thus, WV is precipitated either side (N or S) of the ITCZ. However, The main ‘radial turbine’ effect continues to ~30 N/S latitudes.
Due to Earth’s spheroid geometry and rotation, the Hadley Cell ‘falters’ at ~low altitude here, but ~high altitude Hadley Cell flow continues to the poles (e.g. the Brewer Dobson Circulation)! I’d like to discuss the polar ‘planar turbine’ first, as this explains the logic behind the evolution of the Ferrel Cell. However, my inability to make ‘post haste’ postings and your desire to understand my POV virtually proscribes this approach. You’ve been very patient so I’ll try to offer my POV without the entire system explanation.
You’ve accepted that the atmosphere at an increased altitude at the ITCZ ‘slows’ the ‘rotation rate’ of the atmosphere whilst maintaining the same ‘speed’ as the surface (conservation of inertial energy imparted at the ‘boundary layer’). Now convert ‘altitude’ into ‘distance from the rotation axis’!
At the ITCZ an ‘increase in altitude’ also incorporated an ‘increase in the distance from the rotation axis’! Now we’re getting into the ‘field’ of Coriolis Effect. Let’s not get bogged down with this and look to what would happen if a volume of atmosphere with the ‘inertia’ from the ITCZ fell into the boundary layer of 30 degrees N/S of the ITCZ.
First of all, the all important ‘radius’ at 30 degrees N/S is ‘shorter’ than the radius at the ITCZ. The implication is that ‘any’ volume of atmosphere carried to 30 degrees N/S of the ITCZ also carries the ‘inertia’ from ‘that’ ‘boundary layer’ of the ITCZ. Because the ‘radius’ at 30 degrees N/S of the ITCZ is ‘less’ than ‘at’ the ITCZ ‘our volume’ now revolves at a ‘faster rate’ than that which the Earth turns. We have ‘atmospheric over-spin’. Thus, a change in ‘surface wind direction’!
I’d like to continue, but its late for me and I can’t say that I’ve made no mistakes in this post. I’ll get back to you later. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: July 8, 2015 at 2:16 am
Lots! Very nice, Thank you!
“At the ITCZ an ‘increase in altitude’ also incorporated an ‘increase in the distance from the rotation axis’! Now we’re getting into the ‘field’ of Coriolis Effect. Let’s not get bogged down with this and look to what would happen if a volume of atmosphere with the ‘inertia’ from the ITCZ fell into the boundary layer of 30 degrees N/S of the ITCZ.”
Ahh! At the high pressure surface at 30o N/S the air splits into trade-winds heading back to the low pressure equator, and into westerlies from air mass inertia heading toward the low pressure and even lower surface speed 60o N/S!!
Will J says: ‘What is a spiral centrifuge?’
This is an industrial version.
http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Horizontal-2-phase-3-phase-spiral_60022134992.html
Demo of the tea leaf paradox:
suricat says: July 8, 2015 at 2:16 am
“You’ve accepted that the atmosphere at an increased altitude at the ITCZ ‘slows’ the ‘rotation rate’ of the atmosphere whilst maintaining the same ‘speed’ as the surface (conservation of inertial energy imparted at the ‘boundary layer’). Now convert ‘altitude’ into ‘distance from the rotation axis’!”
No, I’ve accepted that the atmosphere over the equator at 10km has to move 0,73 m/s faster (465,09 m/s vs 465,82 m/s) to stay in position above the same spot on the surface (no wind)
For rising air and assuming conservation of momentum this means a slight falling back relative to the surface. This is NOT happening, or we would see cumulonimbus clouds over the equator being seriously slanted towards the west. They don’t.
Earths atmosphere is nicely moving along with the speed of the surface in general. Wind (movement relative to the surface) is caused by horizontal pressure differences.
see http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1193/why-does-the-atmosphere-rotate-along-with-the-earth
(the answer that starts with “The atmosphere rotates along with the Earth for the same reason you do.”)
And then there’s Venus, which rotates very slowly compared to most other planets.
‘Why does Venus’ atmosphere rotate sixty times faster than its surface?’
http://phys.org/news/2014-07-venus-atmosphere-rotate-sixty-faster.html
Will Janoschka says: July 8, 2015 at 4:45 am
“Ahh! At the high pressure surface at 30o N/S the air splits into trade-winds heading back to the low pressure equator, and into westerlies from air mass inertia heading toward the low pressure and even lower surface speed 60o N/S!!”
Yes and no. The most ‘charged’ atmosphere from the Hadley Cell has enough inertia to overshoot the Ferrel Cell, less ‘charged’ atmosphere either gets caught in ‘no man’s land’ and forms the Subtropical Jet or the ‘Westerlies’ beneath the Ferrel Cell. Much ‘weaker’ atmosphere (with ‘less inertia’) is re-cycled into the Hadley Cell via the Trade Winds.
I’ve not ‘touched on’ 60 degrees yet. That’s more involved with the Polar Cell and the reason why some of the Hadley Cell output is sub-ducted beneath the Ferrel Cell to the ‘boundary layer’ with ‘jet’ evolution. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
oldbrew says: July 8, 2015 at 9:36 am
With all due respect OB, your ‘commercial’ link looks like an ‘air-screw compressor’.
My guess is that these guys have figured out a way to ‘decant’ fluids with different viscosities. A ‘centrifuge’ it ain’t!
Your ‘You Tube’ link is about ‘vortex’ behaviour. Well Earth has one at each pole, but I don’t think we’ve got there yet in our discussion. However, I live in hope. 😉
Best regards, Ray.
Ben Wouters says: July 8, 2015 at 2:01 pm
“No, I’ve accepted that the atmosphere over the equator at 10km has to move 0,73 m/s faster (465,09 m/s vs 465,82 m/s) to stay in position above the same spot on the surface (no wind)
For rising air and assuming conservation of momentum this means a slight falling back relative to the surface. This is NOT happening, or we would see cumulonimbus clouds over the equator being seriously slanted towards the west. They don’t.”
Oh yes they do! To some small degree eastward propagation of cloud is observed and caused by local phenomena, but the main direction of propagation is westward at the ITCZ!
“Earth’s atmosphere is nicely moving along with the speed of the surface in general. Wind (movement relative to the surface) is caused by horizontal pressure differences.”
There IS no wind in the ‘Doldrums’ (ITCZ) Ben! This isn’t about the ‘boundary layer’. Its about the ‘greater cycles’ of ‘atmospheric convection’. Yes! I dislike this ‘title’ as well. Its ‘advection’ (now I think I’ve got Will on my back)!
“see http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1193/why-does-the-atmosphere-rotate-along-with-the-earth
(the answer that starts with “The atmosphere rotates along with the Earth for the same reason you do.”)”
Well, ‘you’ are ‘on the surface’, but the ‘atmosphere’ is ‘above it’ (apples and oranges)! Need I say more?
Here’s a ‘random’ paper I found that may be of help:
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jmsj1965/72/3/72_3_433/_pdf
See Fig. 7 for migration stats. Any questions, just ask.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: July 9, 2015 at 2:30 am
Will Janoschka says: July 8, 2015 at 4:45 am
(“Ahh! At the high pressure surface at 30o N/S the air splits into trade-winds heading back to the low pressure equator, and into westerlies from air mass inertia heading toward the low pressure and even lower surface speed 60o N/S!!”)
“Yes and no. The most ‘charged’ atmosphere from the Hadley Cell has enough inertia to overshoot the Ferrel Cell, less ‘charged’ atmosphere either gets caught in ‘no man’s land’ and forms the Subtropical Jet or the ‘Westerlies’ beneath the Ferrel Cell. Much ‘weaker’ atmosphere (with ‘less inertia’) is re-cycled into the Hadley Cell via the Trade Winds.”
“I’ve not ‘touched on’ 60 degrees yet. That’s more involved with the Polar Cell and the reason why some of the Hadley Cell output is sub-ducted beneath the Ferrel Cell to the ‘boundary layer’ with ‘jet’ evolution. 🙂 Best regards, Ray.”
Thank you Ray! IMHO it is looking like the Ferrel is not a cell (circular) just the Hadley momentum sneeking still poleward at the surface. While the Polar surface momentum “elevated” at 60o is still sneeking towards the equator. Back down at 30o to become trade winds. Is the viscosity of air so low that there is little interaction of poleward, anti-poleward, momentum at the radial ups and downs? Such a pleasant planet, yet remains most “full of wonder”! 🙂 -will-
suricat says: July 9, 2015 at 3:17 am
“There IS no wind in the ‘Doldrums’ (ITCZ) Ben! This isn’t about the ‘boundary layer’. Its about the ‘greater cycles’ of ‘atmospheric convection’. Yes! I dislike this ‘title’ as well. Its ‘advection’ (now I think I’ve got Will on my back)!”
No Ray, I agree, advection is fluid motion, relative, to any inertial reference in any direction.! The convecting part is what is moving with the fluid, but is not the fluid itself! (it need not be mass)! Is the momentum of that moving mass, when mostly orthogonal to motion, in “this” frame of reference, advection or convection? 🙂
BTW Wind in the doldrums is radial (normal to the planetary spin axis). It Is UP, quite independent of any (pressure,density,temperature) gradient provided by the static force of gravity. This wind is the actual reason for the low surface pressure! 🙂
Trying for understanding between folk! Draw a image in the sand with your stick then yell capici! Up and down head motion indicates move on to next! Side to side head motion indicates scratch that and try a different image. Quickly before boredom, then eating of your young ass!
Yes!
“BTW Wind in the doldrums is radial (normal to the planetary spin axis). It Is UP, quite independent of any (pressure,density,temperature) gradient provided by the static force of gravity. This wind is the actual reason for the low surface pressure! :-)”
Right Will, the upward (radial to the spin axis) wind, you can call it advection, you can call it convection if speaking of the water vapor it carries with it. Clouds are always going to form in that latitude band circling this world pushing the always present very moist air upward due to the convergence there from both north and south moving then upward to the cold upper regions to condense.
This happens in both hemispheres simultaneously converging always near the equator in a never ending cycle covering an area that is half of the area of this entire globe, there is no way to move but upward. I have a feeling that some of the actual powering force of this cycle comes from the subsiding colder denser air near 30 N/S having radiated and cooled and it is gravity pulling that heavier air downward, one real reason for a force and movement turning tangential as it encounters the surface… east and west force is isotropic so the only way to move is north and south.
wayne says: July 9, 2015 at 5:46 am
“Yes!”
(“BTW Wind in the doldrums is radial (normal to the planetary spin axis). It Is UP, quite independent of any (pressure,density,temperature) gradient provided by the static force of gravity. This wind is the actual reason for the low surface pressure! :-)”0
“Right Will, the upward (radial to the spin axis) wind, you can call it advection, you can call it convection if speaking of the water vapor it carries with it. Clouds are always going to form in that latitude band circling this world pushing the always present very moist air upward due to the convergence there from both north and south moving then upward to the cold upper regions to condense.”
OK wayne , Some is the low density WV, but most is the high density airborne water condensate that must accompany any saturated WV accelerated outward. This “stuff” whether tangential momentum or radial mass motion is what determines the total radiative exitance to space as provided by this lovely planet. Quite independent of any IPCC determination of what is!
Will, are you sure you understood what I was saying? I was speaking of what you had just said. The upward wind in the doldrums, the low pressure that this upward wind causes drawing air from the north or south depending on which hemisphere you want to view it from. How did radiation and IPCC get into this explanation at this simple level?
wayne says: July 9, 2015 at 5:46 am
“This happens in both hemispheres simultaneously converging always near the equator in a never ending cycle covering an area that is half of the area of this entire globe, there is no way to move but upward. I have a feeling that some of the actual powering force of this cycle comes from the subsiding colder denser air near 30 N/S having radiated and cooled and it is gravity pulling that heavier air downward, one real reason for a force and movement turning tangential as it encounters the surface… east and west force is isotropic so the only way to move is north and south.”
Wayne, This is again only political BS as to futz with your mind! This is planet is never symmetrical, nor consistent. Time to learn how to deal with that!. This planet has much to teach, but never will reveal knowledge! 🙂 -will-
wayne says: July 9, 2015 at 7:34 am
“Will, are you sure you understood what I was saying?”
I think I understand of what you are claiming? Your POV seems much obtuse to my POV.
” I was speaking of what you had just said. The upward wind in the doldrums, the low pressure that this upward wind causes drawing air from the north or south depending on which hemisphere you want to view it from. ”
“How did radiation and IPCC get into this explanation at this simple level?”
There is no possible simple, to the interactions of “all” upon this planet!
We are dealing with a very dedicated organisation that wishes you to believe their simple religion.
Throw it all away, except for what you “individually” have measured! This is not Simple! -will-
I am not “claiming” anything. Not my intention, just for consideration.
and
simple–> one of the primaryI warned you of my vocabulary (a broken blood vessel issue in my vocabulary center to the left of my pituitary gland decades ago)
Wayne,
If you look at the surface of the globe from a non rotating reference you will observe a tangential (to the rotational axis) surfaced induced air mass momentum except at the very poles. but on the planets rotating surface you observe almost nothing. The angular part at the surface is zero and only becomes noticeable above the boundary layer as that air mass is decoupled from the surface and the eastward momentum does not increase with radial distance (angularly the rising air mass moves slightly westward) the radial component at an respect to the gravity vector is not even measured. It is not a pressure differential with respect to altitude. It is the static convective air mass momentum different at every latitude. This is the true atmospheric convection, not the trivial density differences claimed by meteorologists. All of the Coriolis seem also to be tied up in this change in reference frames! 🙂
Will, I see what you are saying, and agree. Disappears at the poles, maximum at the equator. That differential with altitude specifically above the boundary layer decreases gradually between the two. Don’t know your latittude but I live near 35N and that is always very apparent here giving a twist in the winds as you go upward and seems much of the reason we get so many tornadoes, the shear. From April to August the low surface winds are always from due south (well, sometimes with a little east or west component) but a bit higher in the air decoupled from the surface is west to east, all storms take a west to east track (well, sometimes a little north or south component). Is that not the momentum differential with altitude drink you are describing, with a twist of Coriolis? 😉 Seems to me.
wayne says: July 10, 2015 at 9:18 am
“Is that not the momentum differential with altitude drink you are describing, with a twist of Coriolis? 😉 s to Seems to me.”
Not really I was writing only of the mass outward or trying to go up from the surface, the upward convection. At your 35o there is a larger downward advection with higher eastward radial velocity from that convected at the equator. At 35o you have a net downward airmass flux creating higher surface pressures than at the equator or 60o lat. Ray understands this much better than I. I have only recently been able to flip from fixed to rotational coordinates which seems to be required to make sense of convection. I like your “with a twist of Coriolis? 😉 ” Your Eötvös also comes into play with young Coriolis! 🙂
Will Janoschka says: July 9, 2015 at 3:28 am
“IMHO it is looking like the Ferrel is not a cell (circular) just the Hadley momentum sneeking still poleward at the surface.”
The Hadley Cell certainly offers the greatest value/force of inertia to the atmosphere. If we only take into account the impetus imparted at the boundary layer by the surface’s distance from Earth’s rotation axis we get the ‘longest radius’ and ‘fastest’ ‘surface speed’ (fluid dynamics).
When we then add the ‘greatest insolation at azimuth’ ~at the ITCZ, we also get the greatest production of WV, along with the ‘highest temperatures’ for all latitudes. Thus, ‘convection’ is the greatest here for the ‘globe’ (Earth) as well (fluidic thermodynamics [new term?]?).
IMHO the obvious ‘ports’ to this ‘manifold’ are: Force of centrifuge, atmospheric entrainment by WV and temperature difference. I’m sure there are more, but I leave their identification to more ‘deductive’ persons than myself. 🙂
TBH, IMHO the Hadley Cell ‘sneaks poleward’ well away from the surface as the ‘Brewer Dobson’ circulation. See here for a clue:
http://birner.atmos.colostate.edu/bdc.html
This looks more like a ‘safety/blow-off valve’ for an overly productive Hadley Cell. Over production by the Hadley Cell can’t be mediated by rotational impetus/inertia (its a ‘fixed configuration’ of a ‘spheroid’), thus, over production by the Hadley Cell must be due to surface temperatures/energies at the ITCZ (more, or less, insolation altering the “atmospheric entrainment by WV and temperature difference” [quoting myself]). I think this would display as a ‘change in latitude’ of ‘the jets’, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
If Ben agrees, we really do need to move on to the ‘planar polar centrifuge configuration’ that supports the ‘eddying circulation’ of the Ferrel Cell.
Sorry that I’ve missed a few posts, but, where is Ben?
Best regards, Ray.
Hi, I see the “biotic pump” as working a bit differently than others see it. When invisible water vapor turns into clouds, heat is given off, and most meteorologists think that this heat immediately heats the air and expands it, and that clouds create high pressure. And yet, if you do a cloud in the bottle experiment, if you heat up the cloud and increase the pressure the cloud disappears! Why would it operate differently in nature? You cannot have a cloud appearing if you increase the pressure. Metorologists got the idea that clouds increase pressure due to the fact that cumulus clouds expand. But what if? Why not see the cloud more like a bubble going up? Why not see clouds as a heat exchanger, water droplets falling down through moist air going up? The water droplets are cooling and extracting water vapor as they fall while the air going up is drying and getting warmer. And it is not instant, It happens at a speed that has feedbacks built in. The warm air at top of the cloud speeds up as soon as it gets past the last droplets. So it “stretches up” this is expansion, and this is cooling and this will condense out more little cloud droplets on top of the cloud. And at the bottom, the bigger cold raindrops are falling out of the cloud. Same thing, it “stretches” the air there a little bit, and you get condensation there too. So what we have is a 2 phase fluid flow heat exchanger and that heat exchanger is pumping air up into the atmosphere above the cloud. Faster than anywhere else. That is driving the low pressure areas and driving a lot of the winds too. Brian
Will Janoschka says: July 9, 2015 at 4:36 am
I knew it! 🙂
“No Ray, I agree, advection is fluid motion, relative, to any inertial reference in any direction.! The convecting part is what is moving with the fluid, but is not the fluid itself! (it need not be mass)! Is the momentum of that moving mass, when mostly orthogonal to motion, in “this” frame of reference, advection or convection? 🙂
”
This can be confusing.
‘Advection’ is the ke added by a ‘fan in your room’ that circulates the air to keep you cool. A ‘mechanical ke input’ is required for ‘advection’.
‘Convection’ is the ke added by a ‘density disparity’ event (be it ‘thermal’, or ‘mass’, disparity/differential WRT ‘mass/volume’) and always presents in opposition to the gravity ‘vector’ (its a ‘back to front’ perspective of the ‘denser masses’ pushing the ‘less dense mass/es’ into the gravity vector).
The terms of ‘convection’ and ‘advection’ are determined by the ‘energy source’ that their ke originated from and are ‘always’ associated with ‘massive events’ (no connection to EMR other than the attitude/altitude in the atmosphere), but that’s not to say that EMR events should be ignored.
“BTW Wind in the doldrums is radial (normal to the planetary spin axis). It Is UP, quite independent of any (pressure,density,temperature) gradient provided by the static force of gravity. This wind is the actual reason for the low surface pressure! 🙂
”
I concur, but its a bit too advanced for this point in our discussion. IMHO ‘Coriolis Effect’ should be a ‘last’ introduction here.
“Trying for understanding between folk! Draw a image in the sand with your stick then yell capici! Up and down head motion indicates move on to next! Side to side head motion indicates scratch that and try a different image. Quickly before boredom, then eating of your young ass!”
That’s probably the most efficient way to educate the masses Will. 😉
Best regards, Ray.
wayne says: July 9, 2015 at 5:46 am
“…”
I concur wayne.
Best regards, Ray.
Click to access mae578_lecture_06.pdf
“Radiative equilibrium
profile could be unstable;
convection restores it
to stability (or neutrality)”
suricat says: July 10, 2015 at 10:42 pm
“The Hadley Cell certainly offers the greatest value/force of inertia to the atmosphere. If we only take into account the impetus imparted at the boundary layer by the surface’s distance from Earth’s rotation axis we get the ‘longest radius’ and ‘fastest’ ‘surface speed’ (fluid dynamics).”
I agree with the highest velocity, but also the total air mass ejected, sq root of tip velocity x distance along the axis. The wee stuff an 60o lat is just to keep the fluid dynamics folk busy until we need them AGAIN!
“When we then add the ‘greatest insolation at azimuth’ ~at the ITCZ, we also get the greatest production of WV, along with the ‘highest temperatures’ for all latitudes. Thus, ‘convection’ is the greatest here for the ‘globe’ (Earth) as well (fluidic thermodynamics [new term?]?).”
Nice and appropriate term Ray. 🙂 I seem to be stuck in quantum electrodynamics, with mass in any form, thrown at you from every direction, until you have to leave the stage!
“IMHO the obvious ‘ports’ to this ‘manifold’ are: Force of centrifuge, atmospheric entrainment by WV and temperature difference. I’m sure there are more, but I leave their identification to more ‘deductive’ persons than myself. :)”
I would include atmospheric water condensate entrainment, for “later” latent heat production at altitude. On the temperature differences not so much, but look which way the total heat energy is going. temperature difference restricts to sensible heat, a non starter!
“TBH, IMHO the Hadley Cell ‘sneaks poleward’ well away from the surface as the ‘Brewer Dobson’ circulation. See here for a clue: http://birner.atmos.colostate.edu/bdc.html
This looks more like a ‘safety/blow-off valve’ for an overly productive Hadley Cell. Over production by the Hadley Cell can’t be mediated by rotational impetus/inertia (its a ‘fixed configuration’ of a ‘spheroid’), thus, over production by the Hadley Cell must be due to surface temperatures/energies at the ITCZ (more, or less, insolation altering the “atmospheric entrainment by WV and temperature difference” [quoting myself]). I think this would display as a ‘change in latitude’ of ‘the jets’, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.”
OK Those years of a University millwright certainly show up as your ability to teach, despite irritating students! 🙂
“If Ben agrees, we really do need to move on to the ‘planar polar centrifuge configuration’ that supports the ‘eddying circulation’ of the Ferrel Cell. Sorry that I’ve missed a few posts, but, where is Ben? Best regards, Ray.”
Last seen: Ben Wouters says: July 9, 2015 at 3:57 pm
“Trick says: July 9, 2015 at 1:18 pm”
Over at the Adiabatic lapse crap 🙂 It must get tiring having all pick on you! Trick picks on me, but he is so damned easy!
I have been looking at meteorological history! Aristotle seems to be a late comer. I cannot find where they, while conjecturing from observation, stopped testing that conjecture, and started accepting the first anyone believed!
your ability to teach, despite THE irritating students! sorry!
Stephen Wilde says: July 11, 2015 at 1:42 am
Click to access mae578_lecture_06.pdf
“Radiative equilibrium profile could be unstable;
convection restores it to stability (or neutrality)”
Yes it does, a side effect, while doing its job of increasing the efficacy of EMR dispatch of unwanted entropy from the atmosphere to space. 🙂
suricat says: July 11, 2015 at 12:05 am
Will Janoschka says: July 9, 2015 at 4:36 am
(“No Ray, I agree, advection is fluid motion, relative, to any inertial reference in any direction.! The convecting part is what is moving with the fluid, but is not the fluid itself! (it need not be mass)! Is the momentum of that moving mass, when mostly orthogonal to motion, in “this” frame of reference, advection or convection? 🙂 ”)
“I knew it! 🙂 This can be confusing.”
Ya suckered me into it RAY 🙂
“‘Advection’ is the ke added by a ‘fan in your room’ that circulates the air to keep you cool. A ‘mechanical ke input’ is required for ‘advection’.”
OK! for the limited case of “atmospheric” convection.
“‘Convection’ is the ke added by a ‘density disparity’ event (be it ‘thermal’, or ‘mass’, disparity/differential WRT ‘mass/volume’) and always presents in opposition to the gravity ‘vector’ (its a ‘back to front’ perspective of the ‘denser masses’ pushing the ‘less dense mass/es’ into the gravity vector).”
OK the convection of some sort of heat radially outward via advection. Why is it still “convection”
when none of that heat returns to the surface?
“The terms of ‘convection’ and ‘advection’ are determined by the ‘energy source’ that their ke originated from and are ‘always’ associated with ‘massive events’ (no connection to EMR other than the attitude/altitude in the atmosphere), but that’s not to say that EMR events should be ignored.”
OK! for the limited case of “atmospheric” convection. You must have EMR insolation and atmospheric EMR dispatch of entropy to space, else just what is being convected?
All the best -will-
“OK the convection of some sort of heat radially outward via advection. Why is it still “convection”
when none of that heat returns to the surface?”
Heat taken up in convection does return to the surface via compression of decending columns which comprise half the atmosphere.
That doesn’t heat the surface directly but it does suppress convection beneath the descending column which does allow the surface to warm above S-B.
Energy taken up in convection cannot be lost to space because:
i) Most of the atmosphere cannot radiate efficiently to space and
ii) The atmosphere becomes colder with height and so radiative capability declines in any event.
Stephen Wilde says: July 11, 2015 at 2:24 pm
(“OK the convection of some sort of heat radially outward via advection. Why is it still “convection”
when none of that heat returns to the surface?”)
“Heat taken up in convection does return to the surface via compression of decending columns which comprise half the atmosphere.”
If no “heat” were lost to space That temperature increase is only from the increase is energy density at higher pressure Any energy energy increase must come from the continiuum.
“That doesn’t heat the surface directly but it does suppress convection beneath the descending column which does allow the surface to warm above S-B.”
The S-B what? Some ClimAstrologist fantasy, or your own?
“Energy taken up in convection cannot be lost to space because:
i) Most of the atmosphere cannot radiate efficiently to space and
ii) The atmosphere becomes colder with height and so radiative capability declines in any event.”
Is this some sort of meteorology religious belief? As I said before “all” convected energy whether sensible or latent heat must be discarded to space before that air mass can descend. Please show any evidence of your claim of convected “heat’ returning to the surface? Show any evidence that the atmosphere at each and every level does not dispatch outward to space more heat energy than the surface possibly can? Why do you mock science with every written statement?
““all” convected energy whether sensible or latent heat must be discarded to space before that air mass can descend”
Nonsense.
It is sufficient for sensible heat to become potential energy as the air gains height. The resultant cooling increases density to a point where descent will begin.
Only a fraction of the air involved in convective ascent is capable of radiating to space to any significant extent.
Stephen, Will:
Stephen:
“Heat taken up in convection does return to the surface via compression of decending columns which comprise half the atmosphere.
That doesn’t heat the surface directly but it does suppress convection beneath the descending column which does allow the surface to warm above S-B.”
Will:
“As I said before “all” convected energy whether sensible or latent heat must be discarded to space before that air mass can descend. ”
Absolutely true Will, all net energy differences move upward and away from the center of gravity, the center of this planet, there is no return. It happens in the oceans, the air, or the molten rock of this planet itself. Density differences and convection demand this to be true and this is where Stephen is spouting nothing but nonsense, his “new theory”. Any excess energy entering the atmosphere leaves… Miskolczi’s view.
This is where I absolutely hate the way meteorology is taught and leaves the screwiest conceptions in unsuspected minds like yours Stephen.
Very generally take a small volume of air at 11 km and at -60C. Stephen, you imagine this lowering to the surface at the DALR equation so that air when it reaches the surface would be -60C minus 11*10 K/km or +50C, much warmer, and you scamper off to form a “new theory” that is THIS that keeps Earth warmer. After all, this is how meteorology is taught… I have seen their graphics and read their words. What a load of crap. Mother nature doesn’t do her math in 11 km jumps Stephen.
Lets home in and look at the first kilometer attempted decent as this -60C air at 11 km slowly lowers to replace (mass conservation) the thermal mass moving upward in much smaller areas than the huge continuum about it. At DALR it would seem to say that the -60C would be warmer by compression by 10C so you would find -50C at 10 km, wrong again. But this can never happen because the general continuum of the atmosphere decreases at more like 6.5 K/km and at 10 km the real temp is -53.5C. The air just lowered hypothetically would be warmer at 10 km than what is there in the continuum and would convect back upward to find it’s equilibrium altitude in-between.
The only way that -60C air can lower is for it to radiate even more energy to space to lower its temp and bring the lapse, the actual literal lapse, from 10 K/km to ≈6.5 K/km and this has to be true for every meter or centimeter in altitude that air lowers toward the surface.
Mother nature doesn’t even do her math in 1 kilometer jumps, Stephen. Nor meters, nor centimeters, her math is done more like at the nanometer scales or even smaller, it is simple math Stephen, manual differentiation just like I did above, it is called calculus that proves your “new theory” to be nothing but junk.
Realize it Stephen and stop looking like such a fool, royally fooled by the pretty graphics and words courtesy of the “Royal Meteorology Society”. Take some calculus and physics courses Stephen to learn yourself where you went astray. Retract your “new climate theory” and look more like a scientist with new contrary evidence, nothing wrong with that. But continuing with your non-stop nonsense … you do have that legal right, you are an attorney, no one can force you to see your own simple mistakes.
Stephen Wilde says: July 11, 2015 at 10:25 pm
(“all” convected energy whether sensible or latent heat must be discarded to space before that air mass can descend”)
“Nonsense. It is sufficient for sensible heat to become potential energy as the air gains height. The resultant cooling increases density to a point where descent will begin.
Please show “any” potential energy in this compressive fluid within a gravitational field?
The lowering of temperature is “only” because of the airmass lower energy density at altitude.
The change of ratio of pressure/density must be accompanied by a change in temperature to be considered adiabatic. There is no change in airmass energy with altitude. Show any evidence of such!
“Only a fraction of the air involved in convective ascent is capable of radiating to space to any significant extent.”
Almost non of any air or airmass is dispatched to space. Mass cannot be radiated. Only the sensible and latent heat from insolation is dispatched very efficiently and continuously, to space via EMR from every atmospheric level to 220 km.
Why do you mock science with every written statement?
wayne says: July 11, 2015 at 11:29 pm
“This is where I absolutely hate the way meteorology is taught and leaves the screwiest conceptions in unsuspected minds like yours Stephen.”
Yess! indeed. This is not only criminal, it is criminal child abuse!
This is also the reason for the easy takeover of meteorology by the AlGore minions using the same technique of “anything” acceptable must be true! Temperature is going up, what else is going up? Look in toilet, population, production, consumption, and atmospheric CO2! Greenies will grab at anything, but this CO2! That can put the “coal” companies out of business, and the power companies must now buy our “natural and of course green” gas!!! The whole field of meteorology has had no scientific basis for at least the last 400 years! 🙂
Stephen Wilde says: July 11, 2015 at 10:25 pm
“Nonsense.
It is sufficient for sensible heat to become potential energy as the air gains height. The resultant cooling increases density to a point where descent will begin.
Only a fraction of the air involved in convective ascent is capable of radiating to space to any significant extent.”
I assume this involves ‘pure convection’ Stephen.
Well, within the atmosphere you are probably correct in your ‘assumption’, but, however, Earth’s atmosphere is ‘open’ to EMR ‘exitance’! This factors a ‘greater’ loss of enthalpy to the entropy of ‘deep space’ the nearer the energy is presented to higher altitudes!
Thus, ‘convected energy’ becomes part of the ‘EMR exitance’ from Earth’s systems! If not, the atmosphere would collect at the outer regions of the planet’s gravitational captivity region. 😦
How do we ‘define’ this ‘manifold’?
What say you?
Ray.
Speaking of a big – Yess! Will.
From Curry’s site:
From an article entitled Climate Scientists are Dealing with Psychological Problems: [http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/07/climate-scientists-face-psychological-problems.html?mid=twitter_scienceofus]
Knew they were bonkers all along, problems upstairs! The only breakdown of civilization is going to come from THEIR actions. Said years ago on WUWT that if anything destroys human life on this planet it is going to come from what the environmentalists do themselves.
Guys,
I have much to comment upon! I defer to Ray’s, “think before stepping on own tongue”.
This needs much Glenfiddich!. All are welcome to giggle at the mistreaks of me and others!
Just for giggles;
Consider that God is All powerful, but did not wish to be all knowledgeable, without a wonder if!!!
I wonder if, and you guys constructing this Solar system and Earth also cannot know! Else I must fire your ass and get others that do not know. The result is this fine Earth, with all expressing “how dey do dat”. Welcome to where the deer and antelope roam, with no discouraging words!
😉 Glenfiddich huh? Will, it must hold its potency that I sense between your lines.
12 or 21 vintage?
wayne says: July 12, 2015 at 5:58 am
😉 Glenfiddich huh? Will, it must hold its potency that I sense between your lines.
12 or 21 vintage?
The 12 does fine by me! Does the 21 come with may hopeful virgins? 🙂
wayne says: July 11, 2015 at 11:29 pm
“The only way that -60C air can lower is for it to radiate even more energy to space to lower its temp and bring the lapse, the actual literal lapse, from 10 K/km to ≈6.5 K/km and this has to be true for every meter or centimeter in altitude that air lowers toward the surface.”
esp. “this has to be true for every meter or centimeter in altitude that air lowers toward the surface.”
see http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html
use ‘Africa, Text list, 2015, Jul, 11/12Z, 11/12Z, 60571
Gives yesterdays 12Z sounding at Bechar, in the Sahara desert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9char
Meteorologist understand that Bechar is under the part of the Hadley circulation where air descends slowly (50 – 100 m/hr), warming up during its descend. (Given this low sinkrate the adiabatic assumption is partly compromised.)
From the sounding list:
lapse rate from 250 hPa (10900m) to surface: -8,55811 K/km
lapse rate from 500 hPa ( 5960m) to surface: -9,38958 K/km
Interested in your explanation. If this explanation includes centrifuges, vacuum cleaners, hairdryers or other household appliances, pse supply some images.
While you’re at it, let the world have the deep insights of a real scientist into the Chinook (or Föhn winds) since it apparently can not be caused by SALR cooling followed by DALR warming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_wind
Again, if household appliances are included in the explanation, pse supply images.
suricat says: July 10, 2015 at 10:42 pm
“Sorry that I’ve missed a few posts, but, where is Ben?
Doing more interesting things than keeping a discussion going with clueless folks like wayne and wj.
One of them is following the http://www.redbullxalps.com/
Top athletes hiking / flying their paragliders acrosss the Alps over more than 1000km, using (non-existing ?) thermals to climb to over 4000m sometimes.
Very interesting to try to follow their decision making process, mostly based on meteorology of course.
The blinkered ignorance and consequent arrogance of Will and wayne is utterly mind boggling.
Hockeyshtick: ‘How Convection Responds To Greenhouse Gases So As To Maintain The Hydrostatic Equilibrium Of An Atmosphere’ – Saturday, July 11, 2015
Guest post by Stephen Wilde
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/erasing-agw-how-convection-responds-to.html
Stephen Wilde says: July 12, 2015 at 2:53 pm
“The blinkered ignorance and consequent arrogance of Will and wayne is utterly mind boggling.”
That’s projection Stephen! See below:
oldbrew says: July 12, 2015 at 3:19 pm
“Hockeyshtick: ‘How Convection Responds To Greenhouse Gases So As To Maintain The Hydrostatic Equilibrium Of An Atmosphere’ – Saturday, July 11, 2015 Guest post by Stephen Wilde”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/erasing-agw-how-convection-responds-to.html
In that guest post Stephen claims title; F.R.Met.S.
Stephen Wilde is not entitled to use the letters F.R.Met.S. after his name. He has no science qualifications. The list of real fellows may be checked here: http://www.rmets.org/about/people/fellows.php
How about that Stephen? Not a Fellow not even a CAGW sceptic. Just a lawyerly troll, seeking to promote his own religious beliefs of how the atmosphere works, with no evidence whatsoever that any of his fantasy has any scientific basis!
Stephen, Please show how this compressible atmospheric fluid can possibly have any potential energy when completely supported by the fluid pressure below?
From that article:
“Rising air has enough kinetic energy (KE) to overcome the downward force of gravity”
Like all warmists, never defining KE, he still spouts of it incessantly. The atmospheric fluid at every altitude needs no KE (sometimes called sensible heat) to remain suspended just where it is! All rising or sinking atmospheric mass is at that level is effortlessly (spontaneously) replaced with an equal mass of more appropriate density for that pressure. This is called atmospheric buoyancy, never hydrostatic equilibrium. There is no hydrostatic equilibrium anywhere in this atmosphere, everything is dynamic expressly anything moving.
Stephen, like most trolls, cannot even correctly define temperature, of any sort! All he has is what he thinks temperature may “mean” in his limited realm. 🙂 Ben, another defending meteorology for no good reason, may, actually be willing to learn something from Ray. 🙂
Ben Wouters says: July 12, 2015 at 9:32 am
“While you’re at it, let the world have the deep insights of a real scientist into the Chinook (or Föhn winds) since it apparently can not be caused by SALR cooling followed by DALR warming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_wind
Again, if household appliances are included in the explanation, pse supply images.”
No household appliances needed! Only a somewhat careful look at how this world with its atmosphere actually works. There is no need for anything ‘adiabatic’ when describing Föhn winds! Such is your choice for fantasy. 🙂
Ben Wouters says: July 12, 2015 at 9:57 am
“Top athletes hiking / flying their paragliders acrosss the Alps over more than 1000km, using (non-existing ?) thermals to climb to over 4000m sometimes.”
Not my scene. I’d rather keep my feet on the ground. 😉
However, why try to introduce ‘thermals’ that don’t exist! It’s quite apparent that ‘advection’ is in play to give ‘lift’ there. Isn’t it?
Again, why mention the ‘Chinook’ wind to wayne? This is, again, a ‘boundary layer’ effect generated by ‘advection’. Isn’t it?
These phenomena have nothing to do with ‘atmospheric lapse rate’ per se!
You’re using ‘household appliance’ terminology yourself, whilst calling out some other posters for doing the same. Please be more ‘honest’ here. 🙂
How about a post by you on how to disambiguate convection from advection! 😉
Best regards, Ray.
oldbrew says: July 12, 2015 at 3:19 pm
Thanks for the heads up OB, but this doesn’t alter my understanding of inertia. KE is taken from the ‘perspective’ of ‘an observer’ at PE, and PE is taken from the ‘perspective’ of ‘an observer’ at KE. Its all about how mass entities interact with one-another and its confusing because there isn’t a ‘suitable’ observation perspective. We need a ‘third perspective’ to verify this.
Stephen’s KE represents the ‘atmospheric pressure/density kinetic’, but his PE represents a ‘gravity potential kinetic above the surface’. Apples and oranges!
Perhaps the unification factor is in ‘pressure/density’, or perhaps not. The/any link is the responsibility of Stephen to show.
Best regards, Ray.
OT I know but …
I had a very surprising exchange with a person lately and I have been pondering on some exact definitions. Sometimes I find myself thinking on a different plane than others, using different terms than others and sometimes that leads to different understandings than others.
Since both Will and suricat are here I need some confirmation:
I have always felt since college it is true that EMR upon encountering a “surface” (might be an imaginary surface within the same substance itself), like EMR hitting Earth’s surface from the air above that it can a mixture of:
1) be transmitted without interaction (T not affected)
2) is absorbed (T of sink increases)
3) is specularly reflected (T not affected)
4) is scattered (diffuse reflection, T not affected)
So in the afternoon, when the soil’s temperature of the surface has reached its absolute maximum, I stated that all radiation then is either reflected or scattered (mainly infrared) to be absorbed mostly be water vapor only tens of meters above making the air even warmer, not all by conduction. I said I did realize that EMR from a higher temperature spectrums (visual) is still being partly absorbed and immediately converted to and emitted as infrared but since the temperature can not therefore change in that case I called that scattering (by the equation). Even Dr. Feynman has stated that all reflection/scattering is really absorption-immediately-emitted events.
Wow! I hit the most strangest response of raw anger. Why? Is it me not interpreting this equation correctly?
I_total = I_transmit + I_absorb + I_reflect + I_scatter
I hold that is true (what my astronomy professor taught me), it is scattered which can also include a frequency shift in that case for no time can pass or the temperature would then actually change, and it isn’t, it can’t, it is stable and at T maximum. Any thoughts on terminology?
How do you properly handle, in terms, the “no time can pass”. I still think the Earth reflects and scatters much more EMR than is being admitted. What is being hidden that induces such anger?
Stephen Wilde says: July 12, 2015 at 2:53 pm
“The blinkered ignorance and consequent arrogance of Will and wayne is utterly mind boggling.”
How so? I’ve found their dialogue both stimulating and thought provoking. Don’t you see “ignorance” as a way to ‘provoke’ and ‘stimulate’ your own thought processes Stephen? 🙂
It always helps your POV to ‘explain’ the ‘whys’ and the ‘wherefores’. I always try to do this, with limited ability, but the effort is there. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
wayne says: July 13, 2015 at 1:53 am
“OT I know but …I had a very surprising exchange with a person lately and I have been pondering on some exact definitions. Sometimes I find myself thinking on a different plane than others, using different terms than others and sometimes that leads to different understandings than others.”
“Since both Will and suricat are here I need some confirmation:
I have always felt since college it is true that EMR upon encountering a “surface” (might be an imaginary surface within the same substance itself), like EMR hitting Earth’s surface from the air above that it can a mixture of:”
I will try, but avoiding things that must be unlearned!
“1) be transmitted without interaction (T not affected)”
Always some surface reflection, unavoidable with any change in index of refraction, however much change in waterfront direction and solid angle is possible, no frequency change with transmission.
“2) is absorbed (T of sink increases)”
Conversion of EM energy need not affect sensible heat. Solar panels rectify 15% of insolation directly into electrical current, the rest into sensible heat. Plant leaves convert 12% of insolation into mass structure, (rips oxides apart), the rest into latent heat (evaporation of water).
“3) is specularly reflected (T not affected)”
If that surface has a index of exactly -1, at that frequency, no absorption is allowed, only wavefront redirection, at many angles, and change of solid angle. Radiation pressure is transferred as momentum.
“4) is scattered (diffuse reflection, T not affected)”
Bag of worms! All else not in 1,2,3! Mie scattering is reflection into 4 PI steradians. Makes the Moon visible under total lunar eclipse! Most other can be call re-radiation with frequency shift but no absorption. Actually just one of Kirchhoff’s laws of thermal radiation, “at radiative equilibrium, all energy absorbed is ‘all ready’ radiated in a different direction”.” Actually all excess energy is disposed of automagically in another direction. This is why no radiative flux from the surface, though small is ever absorbed by any part of the atmosphere.
“So in the afternoon, when the soil’s temperature of the surface has reached its absolute maximum, I stated that all radiation then is either reflected or scattered (mainly infrared) to be absorbed mostly be water vapor only tens of meters above making the air even warmer, not all by conduction. I said I did realize that EMR from a higher temperature spectrums (visual) is still being partly absorbed and immediately converted to and emitted as infrared but since the temperature can not therefore change in that case I called that scattering (by the equation). Even Dr. Feynman has stated that all reflection/scattering is really absorption-immediately-emitted events.”
Remember the is no maximum surface temperature of an absorber except slightly less than that if the emitter! But you are correct, if the earth’s surface is at at a constant, that surface is at radiative equilibrium and all excess insolation must be directed elsewhere! Below 3 microns a great deal of the insolation is absorbed by the atmosphere on the way back out! Take the atmospheric absorption measured at the surface of the Solar spectrum and multiply by 1.65 at each wavelength!
“Wow! I hit the most strangest response of raw anger. Why? Is it me not interpreting this equation correctly? I_total = I_transmit + I_absorb + I_reflect + I_scatter”
They likely understand much less of electromagnetic radiation than you do!
“I hold that is true (what my astronomy professor taught me), it is scattered which can also include a frequency shift in that case for no time can pass or the temperature would then actually change, and it isn’t, it can’t, it is stable and at T maximum. Any thoughts on terminology?”
There are other radiometric/photometric terms, but you are past where most others could not figure whether to scratch head or ass! Try Thermodynamic equilibrium, perhaps with neuvo-physics “steady state”. No temperatures or fluxes are changing. only the source/s and the ultimate sink/s are interchanging energy!
“How do you properly handle, in terms, the “no time can pass”. I still think the Earth reflects and scatters much more EMR than is being admitted. What is being hidden that induces such anger?”
Try it already is!! They simply cannot handle simultaneous process. That “is” what they are hiding! 🙂
suricat says: July 13, 2015 at 2:07 am
“It always helps your POV to ‘explain’ the ‘whys’ and the ‘wherefores’. I always try to do this, with limited ability, but the effort is there. 🙂 Best regards, Ray.”
OK,OK, Ben is back without agreeing to any but his dogma!
Why do da polar cell go up at 60o lat? 🙂
All the best -will-
Ben Wouters says: July 12, 2015 at 9:57 am
Please complete the following definition best you can:
Temperature is a measure of:
A. expansion rate between two liquids.
B. The kinetic energy of some fixed mass.
C. The fourth root of some radiance aggregate over wavelength.
D. The change in energy density of any given mass.
E. My better completion-state-.
F: nothing, a fantasy!
G: the composite of everything, whatever I may mean now.
Will:
4) Bag of worms!
I agree.
I should have added we were speaking of solid earth, you know, rock, soil, opaque. But you are right from my viewpoint, if there is no transmission, no spectral reflection, and no change in temperature so no net absorption I tend to jump to reflection for all essence. my whole point there is that the literal emissivity changes with temperature. That was the base of the argument.
Also, I stated that just a little wrong saying when T has reached its absolute maximum. Better stated is the point that net energy stops going into the soil, even below, and an equilibrium has been reached, no net energy influx. So T would be already be slightly cooling though the sun is still shining on the surface at a lower angle. I still say relection.
You are correct, always some reflection even if apparently perfectly clear (glass, water) and that was one interesting point Feynman made that I have to take him as knowing correctly from his countless experiments investigating QED. He said that contrary to popular belief that reflections are from the surface/interface, reflection in clear glass or water is instead from within the substance itself. Also, even in spectral reflections all atoms hold exactly the same chance to reflect a given amount, and literally do so, even those far out of alignment, but wave interactions (here comes in the complex numbers and the imaginary component) so we humans look in a mirror and think the light is only reflecting from one given point to make our image sharp and clear but that is not what is happening at all. And he goes on to prove it.
I found that thought provoking. So all atoms have this calculable small chance to turn that EMR right around and he goes on deeper into the electron/quantum-wave coupling interaction (his famous diagrams).
I can’t recall if it is glass always reflects at least 4% and water always reflects 8% or vise versa. Curiously, he also got them turned around right in the middle of his lectures so I don’t feel so bad not remembering them either. 😉
wayne says:
July 13, 2015 at 5:36 am
“I found that thought provoking. So all atoms have this calculable small chance to turn that EMR right around and he goes on deeper into the electron/quantum-wave coupling interaction (his famous diagrams).”
Feynman was a great lecturer, even if you disagreed you could not sleep.
He made great sense where a quantum was important, not so good at highly polished liquids, glass and vacuum deposited aluminium on glass!
“I can’t recall if it is glass always reflects at least 4% and water always reflects 8% or vise versa. Curiously, he also got them turned around right in the middle of his lectures so I don’t feel so bad not remembering them either. ;)”
That is about correct with no AR (gradient index) coating. 100 micro inches deposited Al on polished glass with 10 micro inches SiO on top can get 99.6% reflectivity at most wavelengths. I would like to see Dr. Feynman explain that via QED! Gold and Copper can due better at some wavelengths.
suricat says: July 13, 2015 at 12:54 am
“It’s quite apparent that ‘advection’ is in play to give ‘lift’ there. Isn’t it?”
Then why do they have to circle to stay in the rising air, and as soon as they leave the rising air they encounter sinking air all around??
“Again, why mention the ‘Chinook’ wind to wayne? This is, again, a ‘boundary layer’ effect generated by ‘advection’. Isn’t it?”
Then why is the air after descending back to the altitude it was at when it started to climb the mountains 10-20 or more degrees WARMER?
“These phenomena have nothing to do with ‘atmospheric lapse rate’ per se!”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_wind
‘The Chinook is a foehn wind, a rain shadow wind which results from the subsequent adiabatic warming of air which has dropped most of its moisture on windward slopes (orographic lift). As a consequence of the different adiabatic rates of moist and dry air, the air on the leeward slopes becomes warmer than equivalent elevations on the windward slopes.’
suricat says: July 13, 2015 at 12:54 am
“How about a post by you on how to disambiguate convection from advection! ;)”
Convection is the vertical movement of air where the surrounding air is in hydrostatic equilibrium and is driven by density differences.
Advection is the horizontal movement of air (wind) and is driven by horizontal pressure differences.
Ben Wouters says: July 13, 2015 at 8:55 am
suricat says: July 13, 2015 at 12:54 am
(“How about a post by you on how to disambiguate convection from advection! ;)” )
“Convection is the vertical movement of air where the surrounding air is in hydrostatic equilibrium and is driven by density differences. Advection is the horizontal movement of air (wind) and is driven by horizontal pressure differences.”
And what, pray tell, is the huge outward movement of air mass normal to the Earth spin axis at the equator and 60o latitude with the atmosphere maintaining proper buoyancy to 60 km?
That is the subject of this thread! Your religious concept of convection is trivial in comparison.
Ben Wouters says: July 13, 2015 at 8:34 am
“Then why is the air after descending back to the altitude it was at when it started to climb the mountains 10-20 or more degrees WARMER?”
Because the air and surface temperatures on the lee side are higher than on the windward side. there is no such thing as adiabatic atmospheric mass, whether moving or not! All is constantly exchanging energy with the surrounding continuum!
Will Janoschka says: July 13, 2015 at 9:26 am
“Because the air and surface temperatures on the lee side are higher than on the windward side. ”
As clueless as ever ;-)’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_wind
‘Chinook winds have been observed to raise winter temperature, often from below -20 °C (-4 °F) to as high as 10-20 °C (50-68 °F) for a few hours or days, then temperatures plummet to their base levels. The greatest recorded temperature change in 24 hours was caused by Chinook winds on January 15, 1972, in Loma, Montana; the temperature rose from -48 to 9 °C (-54 to 48 °F).[3]
Ben Wouters says: July 13, 2015 at 9:42 am
Ben claims: Will Janoschka says: July 13, 2015 at 9:26 am
(“Because the air and surface temperatures on the lee side are higher than on the windward side. ”)
Actual:
(“Because the air and surface temperatures on the lee side are higher than on the windward side. there is no such thing as adiabatic atmospheric mass, whether moving or not! All is constantly exchanging energy with the surrounding continuum!.”)
“As clueless as ever ;-)’ ”
Please show the method of insuring that such moving atmospheric mass does not exchange heat energy with its surround?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_wind
‘Chinook winds have been observed to raise winter temperature, often from below -20 °C (-4 °F) to as high as 10-20 °C (50-68 °F) for a few hours or days, then temperatures plummet to their base levels. The greatest recorded temperature change in 24 hours was caused by Chinook winds on January 15, 1972, in Loma, Montana; the temperature rose from -48 to 9 °C (-54 to 48 °F).[3]’
So your winds are demonstrable to transfer heat to surround, thus “not adiabatic”!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process
‘The assumption of adiabatic isolation of a system is a useful one, and is often combined with others so as to make the calculation of the system’s behaviour possible. Such assumptions are idealizations. The behaviour of actual machines deviates from these idealizations, but the assumption of such “perfect” behaviour provide a useful first approximation of how the real world works.’
Yet you continue to claim that the adiabatic process ‘is’ what happens, yet demonstrate that such ‘does not happen’. The increase in wind temperature is strictly from an increase in molar energy density! Such is easily passed to the surround via convection! None is adiabatic. 🙂
“In that guest post Stephen claims title; F.R.Met.S.
Stephen Wilde is not entitled to use the letters F.R.Met.S. after his name”
That is a false allegation.
I claim to have been a member since 1968, which is correct. There was one occasion, years ago, when a publisher incorrectly and without my approval used the term FRMetS and I have been correcting it ever since.
Those who do not accept the points that I have been making need to read up on adiabatic processes, hydrostatic balance and general meteorology. None of it is an invention of mine, it is all established science from before the advent of the radiative theory of gases.
Will Janoschka says: July 13, 2015 at 11:12 am
“The increase in wind temperature is strictly from an increase in molar energy density!”
Brilliant. So after cooling during its ascent due to a decreasing molar energy density, the air warms again during the descent to have the same temperature as at the altitude where it started to rise.
The Föhneffect effect is when that air has a temperature that is sometimes 20-30K HIGHER than it should be according your simple cooling / warming.
Must be giant (h)airdryers in the sky (or centrifuges?)
Ben has a good grip on the relevant physics whereas Will, wayne and Ray (suricat) do not.
Ben Wouters says: July 13, 2015 at 11:51 am
Will Janoschka says: July 13, 2015 at 11:12 am
(“The increase in wind temperature is strictly from an increase in molar energy density!”)
“Brilliant. So after cooling during its ascent due to a decreasing molar energy density, the air warms again during the descent to have the same temperature as at the altitude where it started to rise.”
Again like any warmist, you refuse to define cooling or warming! The free expansion of the atmosphere causes no temperature decrease. The transfer of energy to space and surround started condensation. The condensation of WV maintained the temperature on uplift. On the dry side descent with a much higher lapse rate, while still not adiabatic, resulted in an air mass increased in temperature from an increase in molar energy density, always transferring energy to the surround. Adiabatic has nothing to do with temperature only with energy transfer to/from surround. What part of this do you not understand?
-skip much meteorological fantasy- 🙂
Guest post by Stephen Wilde, who has been a member of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968.Stephen Wilde says: July 13, 2015 at 11:50 am
(“In that guest post Stephen claims title; F.R.Met.S.
Stephen Wilde is not entitled to use the letters F.R.Met.S. after his name”)
“That is a false allegation.”
Guest post by Stephen Wilde, who has been a member of the Royal Meteorological Society since.
Please tell us all who at all accepted you as a member? You have no qualification!
“I claim to have been a member since 1968, which is correct. There was one occasion, years ago, when a publisher incorrectly and without my approval used the term FRMetS and I have been correcting it ever since.”
Boo hoo! Please tell us all what meaning has claiming to be a member? Anyone reading that claim would interpret the same!
“Those who do not accept the points that I have been making need to read up on adiabatic processes, hydrostatic balance and general meteorology. None of it is an invention of mine, it is all established science from before the advent of the radiative theory of gases.”
Why? Meteorology is not a science, it has roots in astrology. You are not even a meteorologist, you do love your astrological fantasy! Ben at least has an education. 🙂
Stephen Wilde says: July 13, 2015 at 11:56 am
“Ben has a good grip on the relevant physics whereas Will, wayne and Ray (suricat) do not.”
Stephen, like a good alter boy, has a good grip on the Catechism of Meteorology but nothing about science or physics!
Will Janoschka says: July 13, 2015 at 1:01 pm
“What part of this do you not understand?”
None of it. How much do you get paid to spam this site with your blithering?
“The free expansion of the atmosphere causes no temperature decrease. ”
Is the atmosphere expanding continuously???
“The transfer of energy to space and surround started condensation.”
Why isn’t the earths surface covered with one big cloud, since energy is continuously transferred to space???
“The condensation of WV maintained the temperature on uplift.”
So a rising cumulonimbus cloud maintains its initial temperature all the way to 10 km or higher since condensation is taking place continuously?
Must be awfully warm then at that altitude.
” On the dry side descent with a much higher lapse rate, while still not adiabatic, resulted in an air mass increased in temperature from an increase in molar energy density, always transferring energy to the surround.”
If not warming according the DALR (9,8K/km) perhaps with 6,5K/km? Same as the (average) temperature profile of the surrounding air? So no temperature increase relative to that profile?
“Please tell us all who at all accepted you as a member? You have no qualification!”
I joined the Royal Meteorological Society as a student in 1968 when I was considering a career as a meteorologist.
I became a full member in 1971.
Since then I have been entitled to use the courtesy title ‘Fellow’ though I prefer the more neutral term of ‘member’ so as not to mislead.The current equivalent would be ‘Associate Fellow’.
The title FRMetS is now reserved for members with the appropriate qualifications but for those of us who joined before the rule change we are permitted to continue to describe ourselves as Fellows of the Society.
It is valid for me to mention it in connection with my climate work because it shows a lifetime involvement and interest in weather and climate which predates the involvement of more recent interlopers who profess to know more than they really do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology
Meteorology is a distinct and highly specialised scientific discipline with practical applications sufficiently accurate for aeronautics and rocketry.
It describes the many ways that the laws of physics play out within an actual atmosphere.
More details here:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=meteorology&form=PRGBEN&refig=c35316a2db534fdebdcf335af63a553b&pq=meteorology&sc=8-11&sp=1&qs=AS&sk=
There is disagreement about the usefulness of applying the idea of change from KE to gravitational potential energy to explain the lapse rate T/h.
The pendulum is an example of KE, movement energy, velocity changing to gravitational potential energy.
A pendulum bob is only one particle. In a gas we have many.
In a gas it is the average velocity of molecules (and therefore temperature) that reduces as the height increases. Movement is changed to gravitational potential as distance from the attracting mass, the Earth, increases.
mgh = mcT
T/h = g/c
Ben Wouters says: July 13, 2015 at 1:51 pm
Will Janoschka says: July 13, 2015 at 1:01 pm
(“What part of this do you not understand?”)
“None of it. How much do you get paid to spam this site with your blithering?”
As expected, no understanding with no thinking, only religion!
(“The free expansion of the atmosphere causes no temperature decrease. ”)
“Is the atmosphere expanding continuously???”
All the way out to space! Are you now claiming that gravitational force, throttles that expansion,
causing some Joule-Thomson effect?
(“The transfer of energy to space and surround started condensation.”)
“Why isn’t the earths surface covered with one big cloud, since energy is continuously transferred to space???”
How do you know that the Earth’s surface is “not” covered with one big cloud? Very little airborne water condensate is visible! Please show how EMR flux is prevented to space from all atmosphere?
(“The condensation of WV maintained the temperature on uplift.”)
“So a rising cumulonimbus cloud maintains its initial temperature all the way to 10 km or higher since condensation is taking place continuously?”
I wrote “maintained the temperature” nothing about “original”. Is this incorrect?
“Must be awfully warm then at that altitude.”
A much higher temperature than with no condensation!
(”On the dry side descent with a much higher lapse rate, while still not adiabatic, resulted in an air mass increased in temperature from an increase in molar energy density, always transferring energy to the surround.”)
“If not warming according the DALR (9,8K/km) perhaps with 6,5K/km? Same as the (average) temperature profile of the surrounding air? So no temperature increase relative to that profile?”
Indeed, no relative temperature increase, just a continuous transfer of energy to the surround. Never adiabatic. How about providing your delusional definition of temperature, as requested?
Stephen Wilde says: July 13, 2015 at 3:59 pm
(“Please tell us all who at all accepted you as a member? You have no qualification!”)
“I joined the Royal Meteorological Society as a student in 1968 when I was considering a career as a meteorologist. I became a full member in 1971.”
Clear intent to deceive!
Stephen Wilde says: July 13, 2015 at 4:06 pm
“Meteorology is a distinct and highly specialised scientific discipline with practical applications sufficiently accurate for aeronautics and rocketry. It describes the many ways that the laws of physics play out within an actual atmosphere.”
The topic is “atmospheric convection”, not your fantasy of disgraced meteorology! Please demonstrate where meteorology demonstrates any science or physics?
Roger Clague says: July 13, 2015 at 4:10 pm
“There is disagreement about the usefulness of applying the idea of change from KE to gravitational potential energy to explain the lapse rate T/h. The pendulum is an example of KE, movement energy, velocity changing to gravitational potential energy.”
Indeed! Is there ever any gravitational potential associated with the actual compressible fluid subject to a gravitational field? The self buoyancy cancels all gravitational effects!
“A pendulum bob is only one particle. In a gas we have many.
In a gas it is the average velocity of molecules (and therefore temperature) that reduces as the height increases. Movement is changed to gravitational potential as distance from the attracting mass, the Earth, increases. mgh = mcT T/h = g/c”
You to Roger? your plumbob is somewhat free to accelerate under the force of gravity, the atmosphere is not! The atmospheric temperature gradient is caused by an increase in the molar energy density of the compressible fluid!.
Stephen Wilde says: July 13, 2015 at 11:56 am
“Ben has a good grip on the relevant physics whereas Will, wayne and Ray (suricat) do not.”
Be careful of what you write Stephen. This is ‘public record’ (this is getting too personal, please ‘generalise’ more)! 😦
Ben has a good understanding of ‘weather prediction’, but I doubt the depth of his understanding of ‘physics’. The two don’t seem to ‘mesh’ together very well from his POV.
Perhaps you have the same problem, if so, how may I help?
Ray.
Will Janoschka says: July 13, 2015 at 4:56 am
“Why do da polar cell go up at 60o lat? 🙂 ”
Duh? ‘Coriolis effect’?
I’ve not got into this yet, but Earth’s rotation at the poles generates a ‘planar centrifuge’. However, a ‘planar centrifuge’ relies on a ‘flat rotating surface’ to impart inertia into the atmosphere! The 60 degrees latitude mark is/becomes unsupportable for ‘NH’ (polar) latitudes to continue at lower latitudes with the configuration of a ‘planar centrifuge’. The ‘angles’ are just wrong!
‘Earth Centrifuge’ (the Coriolis Effect) can’t continue to provide a stable ‘planar centrifuge’ configuration at latitudes less than ~60 degrees. Though ‘excursions’ into lower latitudes are observed and mediated by ‘surface structure’ (topography).
Best regards, Ray.
The so called meteorologists here keep insisting that force of gravity is acting on the compressible fluid itself. How can that be, if the entire atmosphere is self buoyant “because” of the pressure/density gradient? This means that each individual atmospheric mass entity requires no work to move to any other atmospheric location within such a gradient. None at all!
This is most important at the ITCZ where the meteorologists claim the whole atmosphere rotates at the same angular velocity as this rotating planet. Nonsense! Only the boundary layer is accelerated to the surface velocity of 1000 MPH.
There is an engineering term called “reactive centrifugal force”. It is precisely that radial component of orbital tangential momentum that insists that orbital gravitational force is exactly nullified.
Any atmospheric molar component never experiences gravitational force because it must be self- buoyant. The meteorologists have been intentionally double dipping with gravitational force.
At the equator with no actual gravitational force, all of the radial momentum of the surface induced tangential momentum is still acting on the surface air mass with some force determined by angular velocity squared x molar mass x equatorial radius. Angular velocity is 2PI radians per day. This is never Corolis force! This is what causes all uplift! It is not north/south trade-wind convergence, nor is it reduced density of some fictitious air parcel. This uplift is also what causes the surface low at the equator.
Can you find any reference to the continuous atmospheric mass uplift from the ITCZ? Is it measured in tonnes, kilo-tonnes, or mega-tonnes per second? It appears that not one meteorologist or atmospheric physicist has even bothered to guess! Can we now flush all of them? 🙂
Will, the info’s hard to find on that exact subject but the forces that you are speaking of are literal and there. It seems to be in the normal force mentioned below.
The mathematical derivation for the Eötvös effect for motion along the Equator explains the factor 2 in the first term of the Eötvös correction formula. What remains to be explained is the cosine factor.
Because of its rotation, the Earth is not spherical in shape, there is an Equatorial bulge. The force of gravity is directed towards the center of the Earth. The normal force is perpendicular to the local surface.
On the poles and on the equator the force of gravity and the normal force are exactly in opposite direction. At every other latitude the two are not exactly opposite, so there is a resultant force, that acts towards the Earth’s axis. ….
Yeah, but I think that is just the one vertical component of two, at least two, could be three.
Might need to write a small 3d vector simulation to coerce this effect out into numeric force figures. I can write such a program, time consuming, but it would be great if it can be found already written or at least the closed form equations in fluid dynamics written out. The full Coriolis equation does have a vertical component also but it seems there is also another vertical component in the secondary flows, pressure differences also have a vertical component. Still reading. A university library is what is needed but, from here, a good one is many miles away, about an hour drive.
Might as well test some math formatting right now:
One such radial acceleration component needed is:
$latex\displaystyle a_r=R\left[2\Omega\omega_r + \omega_r^2\right]$
Hmm, Déjà vu:
or how about just
wayne says: July 14, 2015 at 3:18 pm
“Might as well test some math formatting right now:
One such radial acceleration component needed is:”
“$latex\displaystyle a_r=R\left[2\Omega\omega_r + \omega_r^2\right]$”
Didn’t work!
“The normal force is perpendicular to the local surface.”
That is the gravitational force that disappears for the actual compressive fluid. I am not looking for flow through the air mass, I am interested in flow “of” the air mass directly normal to the spin axis!
I am looking for mass x omega^2 x R the centrifugal term for force normal to the spin axis. Not the Corolis or Eötvös force! I get 3-5 millibar pressures that should generate a vertical 10-15 m/s over a band 2000 km poleward x the whole circumference. With surface density 1.25 kg/m^3 that is a lot of air mass! More massive with water condensate. Replace the whole airmass in how many days? What am I getting wrong? Why has the differential surface air pressure between 0 and 30o latitude never been published? These are the trade-winds! What are they hiding? BTW the wiki on adiabatic process has equations using molecule DOF/2. Thanks. -will- 🙂
Do mobile polar highs come into these discussions anywhere?
http://www.applet-magic.com/MPH.htm
‘The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes’ – Marcel Leroux (1993)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/092181819390041L
(abstract)
Will, whoa, you are a bit ahead of me. I just grabbed that convenient non-trivial equation to test the latex formatting capabilities! Didn’t mean it to explain anything or even be applicable but I did find out that it IS the darn brackets that is always tripping me up and that the displaystyle tag should have been fine in-place in that first attempt in latex! Just testing, thought the first one would work, but it’s very prickly on what you can or can’t say or just how to even state something that it will accept.
oldbrew says: July 14, 2015 at 4:33 pm
‘Do mobile polar highs come into these discussions anywhere?”
http://www.applet-magic.com/MPH.htm
‘The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes’ – Marcel Leroux (1993)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/092181819390041L
(abstract)
OB, Thanks for the references!
The answer is “probably” but much later.
I am trying to get through the idea that the meteorologists seem to think that the atmosphere is connected to the rotation rate of the sphere, or it does not move at all! The atmosphere is completely isolated from any gravitational forces BECAUSE the compressible fluid itself is self-buoyant at all altitudes and locations. It is like gravity does not exist for the atmosphere itself or its motion, but gravity does exist for any mass, like a thrown rock through that atmosphere, that is not supported by the below pressure.
Most difficult to wrap head around, while still considering both inertial and rotating frames of reference. The atmospheric boundary layer is connected to the surface roughness for tangential, to the spin axis, momentum. This compressible fluid momentum has a radial component that is not gravitationally connected because of that same self-buoyancy. All kinds of interesting forces acting every which way because of viscosity and especially when things change flow to/from laminar/turbulent! This crap can only be done well by 8 aircraft engineers, JPL, Lockheed, with 20 years experience each! Got any?
wayne says: July 14, 2015 at 4:54 pm
“Will, whoa, you are a bit ahead of me. I just grabbed that convenient non-trivial equation to test the latex formatting capabilities! ”
I understand! My problem is that (omega_r^2) term the ‘centrifugal term’ gives a delta pressure term of 3-5 millibar ‘extending’ to 10-15 meters/second vertical wind-speed. This is not part of gravitational force as now atmospheric mass is free to move in any direction, all isentropic (no work)! However the actual radial velocity component for the 480 m/s tangential equatorial velocity dragged along surface wind-speed is but 0.04 m/s. That little one only gives a mere 4×10^12 kg/sec air lifting rate for the whole ITCZ! A 250 to one difference in answers is not acceptable to me, but I no longer have any idea of what I am trying to do! I now have this belief “that I will have another beer”! 🙂
Will, I seem to see what you are looking for, not the Eotvos i used in that test eq. I will be searching too soon, Think I see exactly what you are saying. However, during the day today and even most of tomorrow I’m unexpectedly completely tied up fixing a small mishap by a loved one. Goofs happen. (foot slip off break –> ..xxXX –> my garage door, oops, nothing serious).
wayne says: July 15, 2015 at 4:01 am
Thank you wayne!
Take care, and all the best! -will-
Will Janoschka says: July 14, 2015 at 12:17 am
“(“The free expansion of the atmosphere causes no temperature decrease. ”)
“Is the atmosphere expanding continuously???”
All the way out to space!”
Wow. Will it expand all the way to the moon? Will this slow down the moon and make it crash towards the earth? Will we still be able to breathe in this continuously expanding atmosphere?
Still no clue what hydrostatic equlibrium is all about apparently.
“I wrote “maintained the temperature” nothing about “original”. Is this incorrect?”
Everything you write is incorrect. Seems the spelling of the words is mostly ok though.
suricat says: July 14, 2015 at 4:08 am
“‘Earth Centrifuge’ (the Coriolis Effect) can’t continue to provide a stable ‘planar centrifuge’ configuration at latitudes less than ~60 degrees.”
The Coriolis effect balances against the temperature induced pressure gradient perfectly well in maintaining the subtropical jetstreams.
Will Janoschka says: July 14, 2015 at 1:16 pm
“The so called meteorologists here keep insisting that force of gravity is acting on the compressible fluid itself. How can that be, if the entire atmosphere is self buoyant “because” of the pressure/density gradient? This means that each individual atmospheric mass entity requires no work to move to any other atmospheric location within such a gradient. None at all!
This is most important at the ITCZ where the meteorologists claim the whole atmosphere rotates at the same angular velocity as this rotating planet. Nonsense! Only the boundary layer is accelerated to the surface velocity of 1000 MPH.” etc.etc.
If you’re ever sober, re-read all this and try to understand what a complete fool you look to anyone with even a basic understanding of simple physics and some meteorology.
Will Janoschka says: July 14, 2015 at 5:34 pm
“I am trying to get through the idea that the meteorologists seem to think that the atmosphere is connected to the rotation rate of the sphere, or it does not move at all! The atmosphere is completely isolated from any gravitational forces BECAUSE the compressible fluid itself is self-buoyant at all altitudes and locations.”
Great business opportunity for Will. Start a hot air balloon company, providing round the world service in 12 hrs. Just lift the balloons above the surface layer, hang in there for 12 hours watching the world turn below you, and then land at the ‘other side’ of the world. Hardly any fuel needed.
Saves lots of jet fuel that those dumb airlines are burning to do the same.
Btw where do I find those 465 m/s westbound winds that should be over the equator since the atmosphere is not moving with the earth?
Will Janoschka says: July 14, 2015 at 5:34 pm
oldbrew says: July 14, 2015 at 4:33 pm
‘Do mobile polar highs come into these discussions anywhere?”
http://www.applet-magic.com/MPH.htm
‘The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes’ – Marcel Leroux (1993)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/092181819390041L
(abstract)
“OB, Thanks for the references!
The answer is “probably” but much later.”
Having that discussion now would probably bring in refrigerators and such.
Obviously Will has to catch up with meteorologists first to understand how this atmosphere actually works.
So realistic estimate would be: not for the next 25 years.
Will Janoschka says:
July 14, 2015 at 5:34 pm
The atmosphere is completely isolated from any gravitational forces BECAUSE the compressible fluid itself is self-buoyant at all altitudes and locations
The same point is made here
http://milesmathis.com/atmo.html
“But, at sea level and all levels, the entire atmosphere weighs nothing. It has mass, but weighs nothing. You can check this with any normal scale.”
How is the weight of the atmosphere (wrongly) calculated?
It is calculated from pressure.
Weight of atmos is found from pressure x surface area
Pressure is caused by molecular motion, weight is caused by gravity.
These are not the same thin
g.
Why does the atmosphere not have weight?
Mathis says
“The reason for this is that to apply Newton’s laws to a gas, in order to find the weight of the gas, the gas must be fully contained. But the atmosphere is not contained in this way. It is fully contained only at the bottom.”
And goes on
“I have shown that the atmosphere would be expected to express only 1/1024 of its mass as weight.”
He claims the remaining weight is balanced by charged emitted by the Earth.
“Weight of atmos is found from pressure x surface area”
No, not really, weight on a scale is kilogram-force or kgf/g=kg depending on what the marks on the scale represent. Could be lbf in English units.
RogerC, without bringing Miles’ logic right or wrong into this discussion just logic through it yourself. You have a 1 m³ mylar balloon, on a sensitive scale, the scale says that mylar balloon weights 1 g implying mass. Fill it with 1 m³ of air, weight it again, it measures 1 gram. How can that be, there is more than 1.2 kg of air in it? The air ‘weighs’ nothing. Don’t confuse mass with weight forgetting local buoyancy force and what the units are and what the marks on the scale represent, some scales are marked differently, kg=kgf/g or kg=9.80665N/g or just kgf=9.80665N when measuring within the same liquid itself. Your pressure x area is newtons, not kgf nor kg.
Will is correct, the ‘weight’, however you define it or meaning it to portray, of air at any location, measured at that location, is zero but the literal mass is not zero even though the scale may be marked in kg but be careful with that P x A, you are then measuring force. I must exit for a while.
Consider high pressure cells and low pressure cells.
If the atmosphere has no weight then what accounts for the differences in pressure at the surface ?
Is it suggested that the so called ‘charge force’ is different beneath low pressure than below high pressure ?
Is it suggested that the charge force coming from the Earth moves rapidly around in parallel with shifting low and high pressure cells ?
Miles Mathis bases his rant on an ‘observation’ that scales do not register the weight of the air above.
Well of course they don’t because they are calibrated to show zero at the pressure (or weight) of one atmosphere.
The truth is that the atmosphere is held off the surface by kinetic energy at the surface exerting an upward pressure gradient force which matches the force of gravity to create hydrostatic balance.
At any point in the vertical column one can measure the weight of the overlying molecules by measuring the pressure at that height.
As simple as that.
The reason that pressure and weight are interchangeable within an atmosphere is that space presents zero resistance to expansion when surface temperature rises.
Consequently, density at the surface decreases proportionately with increased temperature so that average pressure and weight at the surface remain the same when the surface temperature increases as per the Gas Laws.
wayne said:
“You have a 1 m³ mylar balloon, on a sensitive scale, the scale says that mylar balloon weighs 1 g implying mass. Fill it with 1 m³ of air, weight it again, it measures 1 gram. How can that be, there is more than 1.2 kg of air in it? The air ‘weighs’ nothing”
The flaw in the logic is that it is the weight of the fabric of the balloon which is 1g NOT the weight of the balloon plus the air inside it.
The air inside and outside the balloon is all at the same temperature and pressure so it makes no difference to the weighing process. Both before and after expanding the balloon you are only weighing the fabric of the balloon which remains at 1g.
If you were to inject hotter air into the balloon it would appear to be lighter than 1g and if you were to inject colder air into the balloon it would appear to be heavier than 1g.
The lack of meteorology knowledge here is causing horrendous confusion.
There is no flaw in logic I stated Stephen. I said buoyancy must be accounted. I said nothing of different temperature. I said nothing of expansion, mylar balloons require no force to inflate up to their capacity volume.
More straw men arguments Stephen.
“The lack of meteorology knowledge here is causing horrendous confusion.”
Wrong, the lack of those studying only meteorology in being able to read words and properly interpret and limit what they are reading is causing horrendous confusion.
wayne,
Adding air at the same temperature and pressure as the surroundings will not change the weight of the balloon.
The scale doing the measuring measures only the weight of the fabric of the balloon and not the fabric plus the air inside because the scale is calibrated to show zero at 1 bar surface pressure.
Scales are designed only to display the additional weight of an obect over and above the weight of the atmosphere so if the air inside is the same weight as the surrounding air it will not affect the reading.
The only exception is instruments designed to measure the weight of the atmosphere itself such as barometers.
“Adding air at the same temperature and pressure as the surroundings will not change the weight of the balloon.”
That is exactly what I said. Can you not comprehend?
“The scale doing the measuring measures only the weight of the fabric of the balloon and not the fabric plus the air inside because the scale is calibrated to show zero at 1 bar surface pressure.”
No, the scale is calibrated to zero with nothing at all on the scale. 1 bar surface pressure is irrelevant.
“Scales are designed only to display the additional weight of an obect over and above the weight of the atmosphere …”
No Stephen, the physical scales have nothing to do with the weight of the atmosphere. I cannot believe what you are claiming Stephen, pure hogwash. So this is what meteorology teaches you huh? Carry on, this is getting interesting.
“… so if the air inside is the same weight as the surrounding air it will not affect the reading.”
There you go, something I can say is true.
“The only exception is instruments designed to measure the weight of the atmosphere itself such as barometers.”
Barometers are not designed to measure the weight of an atmosphere Stephen, they are designed to measure pressure. See why I hate the screwball thoughts meteorology has left in your brain… no, wait, you couldn’t possibly see that could you. Go on … I would like to know even more of what you really “think”.
“… so if the air inside is the same weight as the surrounding air it will not affect the reading.”
There you go, something I can say is true.
—–
Meaning ‘same weight per unit of mass’ presumably?
Will, ok, done, a bit irritated by some sudden background babble, but finished. I’m going to turn some attention to your original question above, what of the radial to the spin axis. From some mathematical shortcuts I became so used to when writing ephemeris software you will find I will usually default to dealing with accelerations (unitized mass) instead of forces and we can then bring the respective mass back in if we even need to know the actual forces involved or when comparing their respective scale.
Stephen W says: ‘Consequently, density at the surface decreases proportionately with increased temperature’
According to the Standard Atmosphere calculator: the ratio of temperature to (pressure divided by density) is a constant. Or to put it another way, that’s the algorithm they use.
See: http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/table.htm
(e.g. put max. 11000m. and increment 1000m.)
wayne,
I had the impression that you were saying that the atmosphere has no weight as per the assertions of Will and Miles Mathis.
As an example you said that if one increases the air inside a balloon the weight of the balloon does not change.
I pointed out that if you added air at the same temperature and pressure as the surroundings then the balloon would obviously not increase in weight when that air is added.
You appear to agree.
Thus your balloon example fails as an illustration of the atmosphere having no weight.
The atmosphere does have both mass and weight.
Barometers do measure the weight of the atmosphere by measuring pressure.
I explained above that:
“The reason that pressure and weight are interchangeable within an atmosphere is that space presents zero resistance to expansion when surface temperature rises.
Consequently, density at the surface decreases proportionately with increased temperature so that average pressure and weight at the surface remain the same when the surface temperature increases as per the Gas Laws.”
i.e. as oldbrew says :
the ratio of temperature to pressure divided by density is a constant.
Gravity affords weight to the mass of the atmosphere, the more mass there is the greater the density at the surface and the greater that density the more insolation to the surface is absorbed by conduction into convection and the more that happens the higher the surface temperature rises above the S-B prediction.
All very simple as per basic meteorology and the Standard Atmosphere.
Nothing to do with CO2 as I hope we all agree.
balloon, not ballon. Too much haste 🙂
[amended – mod]
wayne says: July 15, 2015 at 7:33 pm
“Will, ok, done, a bit irritated by some sudden background babble, but finished.”
Thanks wayne!
Perhaps this can help resolve this “weight/pressure” mess!
OB. This thread is descending into mediocrity. An increase in ‘pe’ involves a ‘work input’. The ‘altitude’ of a molecule or mass/parcel within a fluid isn’t ‘influenced’ by ‘gravity’ other than its ‘density’! We’re getting away from the main focus of ‘Climate/Global’ Convection Cells.
Best regards, Ray.
oldbrew says: July 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm
SW:“… so if the air inside is the same weight as the surrounding air it will not affect the reading.”
wayne:”There you go, something I can say is true.”
—–
“Meaning ‘same weight per unit of mass’ presumably?”
You too OB!
Meaning: “the atmospheric mass has no weight”!!!
You can have mass and weight (non-buoyant mass)
or you can an atmosphere (buoyant mass) that has no weight. The force of gravity is completely “replaced” by the gradients of pressure, density, and temperature. You cannot have both!!!!
BTW Actual temperature in the atmosphere is a measure of molar energy density. The atmospheric temperature gradient, however has nothing to do with energy, but only expresses pressure/(molar density) induced by gravitational force for a compressible fluid within that gravitational field.
It appears that your fake meteorologists have no concept of weight, mass, pressure, density, or temperature. They only have their Catechism, that insists that temperature, is a force that results in action, rather than only a measure of the spontaneous actions of the otherwise measurable forces. 🙂
Stephen Wilde says: July 15, 2015 at 4:31 pm
“If you were to inject hotter air into the balloon it would appear to be lighter than 1g and if you were to inject colder air into the balloon it would appear to be heavier than 1g.”
If you inject the same airmass into that m^3 specific volume it has the same buoyancy, but still no weight, independent of temperature, only the pressure has changed! The air has no weight as it is buoyant at every location. A floating ship has no weight because it is buoyant. It will have +/- weight only if it becomes un-buoyant!
The airmass also has no unbalanced force tangentially so that it takes no work for motion in any direction.
“The lack of meteorology knowledge here is causing horrendous confusion.”
Only for the fake meteorologists posting here!! 🙂
Nowhere in this atmosphere is the any hydrostatic equilibrium. If there were such we would all suffocate in our own farts (day 3). Here we have buoyancy, allowing the “work free convection” of “FRESH” in any direction, entirely provided by surface motion (spin) 🙂
wayne says: July 15, 2015 at 6:47 pm
(Stephen Wilde mistakenly claims “Scales are designed only to display the additional weight of an obect over and above the weight of the atmosphere …”)
“No Stephen, the physical scales have nothing to do with the weight of the atmosphere. I cannot believe what you are claiming Stephen, pure hogwash. So this is what meteorology teaches you huh? Carry on, this is getting interesting.”
Scales are specifically designed to measure gravitational force “acting” on non buoyant mass!
That scale will measure the actual “weight” of a person in an aircraft flying at an altitude of 20km pressurized to 700 mbar while the whole mass “100 tonnes” of aircraft is still buoyant aircraft!
Stephen, please tell us why that indicated weight is not much lower, although the air temperature inside the aircraft is much higher than the air temperature outside that aircraft? Does meteorology teach any science, or only their bizarre Catechism! 🙂
suricat says: July 16, 2015 at 2:10 am
“OB. This thread is descending into mediocrity. An increase in ‘pe’ involves a ‘work input’. The ‘altitude’ of a molecule or mass/parcel within a fluid isn’t ‘influenced’ by ‘gravity’ other than its ‘density’! We’re getting away from the main focus of ‘Climate/Global’ Convection Cells.”
Ray,
I agree! The focus should be, How does this planet actually work, “HOW DO WE KNOW”, in spite of all the religious/political nonsense? MM is very good at pointing out the accepted stupidity! His changing the meaning of words accepted by the stupid, however is of no help! -will-
Will,
Once one calibrates scales at the surface to show zero at 1 bar pressure that calibration works at every height because as one raises the height of the scales the strength of the upward pressure gradient force declines at the same rate as the weight of the atmosphere above declines. The net effect of the weight of the atmosphere on the scales remains at zero but that does not mean that the air has no weight.
The mistake you have made is not being aware of the existence or nature of the upward pressure gradient force.
Since you are not aware of that force you have imagined that the upward force is related to the outward centrifugal forces set up by the Earth’s rotation.
Miles Mathis similarly has no knowledge of the upward pressure gradient force so he proposes some ‘charge force’ emanating from the mass of the Earth.
Imagine a tuning fork that vibrates when you strike it.
The vibration occurs equally either side of the centre of mass and the harder you strike it the larger the oscillations away from the centre of mass.
In a similar way energy absorbed by an atmosphere by conduction from a solid surface beneath causes the molecules of the atmosphere to vibrate. That is kinetic energy or heat.
Since there is a solid surface beneath it the atmosphere can only vibrate in one direction, upward, and the hotter the surface the higher upward the vibrations will travel.
Due to declining density with height the power of the vibrations gradually fades away with height until at the boundary with space they are almost completely spent.
The point of hydrostatic balance is at the centre of mass of the vertical column just as a tuning fork vibrates either side of its centre of mass.
For Earth the ‘extra’ kinetic energy at the surface over and above that predicted from the S-B equation provides the vibrations needed to exert that upward pressure gradient force and that extra kinetic energy has to be retained at the surface in order for the atmosphere to continue to be held off the surface in hydrostatic balance.
Since AGW proponents try to square the circle with radiation flows alone they ignore the upward pressure gradient force and the surface kinetic energy required to drive it. It is driven by upward and downward convection.
As a result of that they fail to appreciate that warming descending air reduces convection from the surface below which allows the surface to become warmer than S-B.
Having left the convective process out of their scenario they have to make the energy budget balance by proposing that downward infra red radiation is the factor that makes the surface warmer than S-B.
They are wrong, as are you.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 16, 2015 at 8:49 am
“Will, Once one calibrates scales at the surface to show zero at 1 bar pressure that calibration works at every height because as one raises the height of the scales the strength of the upward pressure gradient force declines at the same rate as the weight of the atmosphere above declines. The net effect of the weight of the atmosphere on the scales remains at zero but that does not mean that the air has no weight.”
Show anyone that understands that the term “weight” is only the expression force of gravity on a mass allowed to accelerate under that force, that would ever agree with you! A large rock supported by three legs only to the surface leaving that rock 3 microns above a small scale also has zero weight. Each of the legs has a weight of 1/3 the mass of the rock. A body in vacuum free fall has mass but no weight, no mater what your religion may say!
“The mistake you have made is not being aware of the existence or nature of the upward pressure gradient force.”
The mistake you have made is not being aware that the upward pressure completely cancels the force of gravity of any compressible mass in this atmosphere, making the whole airmass weightless!
“Since you are not aware of that force you have imagined that the upward force is related to the outward centrifugal forces set up by the Earth’s rotation.”
Since you are not aware of momentum of the weightless air itself, you have imagined that the outward centrifugal forces set up by the Earth’s rotation cannot also accelerate the weightless air mass outward. This is the only force that creates the atmospheric convection of FRESH in every direction including down. Temperature is not involved! 🙂
-skip much useless superstition-
wayne says:
July 15, 2015 at 3:48 pm
You have a 1 m³ mylar balloon, on a sensitive scale, the scale says that mylar balloon weights 1 g implying mass. Fill it with 1 m³ of air, weight it again, it measures 1 gram. How can that be, there is more than 1.2 kg of air in it? The air ‘weighs’ nothing
The 1.2kg of air you add does not affect the scales. The extra air has increased the volume. The balloon now displaces 1m^3 of air instead of 1cm^3.
There is now an upthrust force equal to the weight of air displaced. This is Archimedes Principle.
The 1m^3, 1.2kg of air added displaces its own weight of air. There is no resultant downwards force.
The balloon still registers 1g on the scale.
Is Archimedes Principle the explanation for the weightlessness of air?
Does the weight of atmosphere = surface pressure x area?
Weight is a force in N
Pressure x area = force /area x area = N
Correct dimensionally
However weight and pressure are both forces but with different causes and properties in space.
Weight is caused by gravity acting only in one direction.
Pressure in a gas is caused by collisions which can be in any direction.
Will said:
“The mistake you have made is not being aware that the upward pressure completely cancels the force of gravity of any compressible mass in this atmosphere, making the whole airmass weightless”
That doesn’t mean that the mass of the air is weightless.
It just means that there is an opposing force offsetting the weight so that it can remain suspended in hydrostatic balance.
That opposing force for Earth requires 33K of ‘extra’ kinetic energy at the surface which cannot be radiated to space if the mass of the atmosphere is to continue to be suspended off the surface.
Will Janoschka says: July 16, 2015 at 4:56 am
“Scales are specifically designed to measure gravitational force “acting” on non buoyant mass!”
Everything with volume has buoyancy. Even Will displaces some air, so has his weight (slightly) reduced by buoyancy. Average human body has a volume of ~65 liters.
But I’m very worried.
Will Janoschka says: July 14, 2015 at 12:17 am
“(“The free expansion of the atmosphere causes no temperature decrease. ”)
“Is the atmosphere expanding continuously???”
All the way out to space!”
This continuously expanding atmosphere. How long before we have not enough air left at the surface to breath?
Another unanswered problem: those enormous wind speeds.
Will Janoschka says: July 14, 2015 at 1:16 pm
“This is most important at the ITCZ where the meteorologists claim the whole atmosphere rotates at the same angular velocity as this rotating planet. Nonsense! Only the boundary layer is accelerated to the surface velocity of 1000 MPH.”
If the atmosphere is not moving with the surface, we should observe enormous wind speeds above the boundary layer. (wind is the horizontal movement relative to the surface of air)
So at eg 10 km above the equator we should see winds of ~1670 km/hr.
I have been looking, but no success sofar.
see http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/winkel3
Current windspeeds at the 250 hPa level (~10,5 km)
Not much wind around the equator. A lot of wind in the SH, but not even close to the surface speeds of the earth below, and moving the WRONG way
(you DO know that the earth rotates towards the east do you?)
Even more confusing:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/winkel3
10 hPa level (~26,5 km)
SH air moving to the east at pretty high speeds, over the equator again not much wind.
NH wind IS moving towards the west, but at low speeds.
What gives? Is the NH rotating in the opposite direction as the SH AND at different speeds?
Is that what causes all those earthquakes?
Roger said:
“However weight and pressure are both forces but with different causes and properties in space.
Weight is caused by gravity acting only in one direction.
Pressure in a gas is caused by collisions which can be in any direction.”
Which is correct but note that for a sphere one cannot increase the distance around the sphere so as to counter the increase of pressure in the horizontal plane when temperature rises.
You can only increase distance in the vertical plane to counter any increase in pressure when temperature rises.
The consequence is that a change in average temperature at the surface will leave average surface pressure the same because there is only the same amount of mass above the surface as there was before the temperature rise, it is just spread over a greater vertical distance by virtue of the reduced density in the vertical plane.,
Thus pressure at the surface remains proportionate to the weight of the atmosphere (the amount of mass in the vertical column above the location at which that pressure is measured) despite the change in temperature.
That is why a barometer, in measuring surface pressure, is also simultaneously providing a measure of atmospheric weight.
Stephen Wilde says: July 16, 2015 at 11:09 am
(Will said: “The mistake you have made is not being aware that the upward pressure completely cancels the force of gravity of any compressible mass in this atmosphere, making the whole airmass weightless”)
“That doesn’t mean that the mass of the air is weightless.”
It certainly does if you use any scientific definition of “weight”. Using the meteorology Catachism definition of pressure times area leads to all types of weirdness and fantasy! High time to flush meteorology, and all of its proponents
“It just means that there is an opposing force offsetting the weight so that it can remain suspended in hydrostatic balance.”
There is no weight and no hydrostatic balance, only self-buoyancy, (displacement of equivalent mass)!
“That opposing force for Earth requires 33K of ‘extra’ kinetic energy at the surface which cannot be radiated to space if the mass of the atmosphere is to continue to be suspended off the surface.”
All types of weirdness and fantasy. This atmosphere has no “extra energy” at all This atmosphere does have an increase in molar energy density at higher pressures, called temperature increase, with no increase in energy itself! 🙂
“only self-buoyancy, (displacement of equivalent mass)!”
When the gases of an atmosphere first rise off the surface having acquired enough kinetic energy to develop an upward pressure gradient there is no displacement of mass because that initial uplift is into a vacuum.
There can be no atmosphere without an upward pressure gradient force lifting the weight of the mass upward against gravity.
Each molecule suspended at its ‘correct’ position along the lapse rate slope may have zero weight at that height but the entire column in the vertical plane nonetheless exerts a weight / pressure at the surface.
As I explained above, the pressure at the surface is proportionate to the weight of the mass suspended above it so measuring the pressure gives you the weight.
Ben Wouters says: July 16, 2015 at 11:13 am
I was going to let Ray answer first but this is directed at me!
Will Janoschka says: July 16, 2015 at 4:56 am
(“Scales are specifically designed to measure gravitational force “acting” on non buoyant mass!”)
“Everything with volume has buoyancy. Even Will displaces some air, so has his weight (slightly) reduced by buoyancy. Average human body has a volume of ~65 liters.”
OK I weigh 3 ounces less at STP than in vacuum. I still am not buoyant! The atmosphere always is completely buoyant at every altitude
But I’m very worried.
Will Janoschka says: July 14, 2015 at 12:17 am
(“The free expansion of the atmosphere causes no temperature decrease. ”)
“Is the atmosphere expanding continuously??? All the way out to space!”
No the atmosphere was created with a pressure logarithmic pressure gradient by 400km there is no pressure, no mass, huge volume, thus no temperature
“This continuously expanding atmosphere. How long before we have not enough air left at the surface to breath?”
Gravitational force establishing that pressure gradient keeps the air mass from departing. Any radial outward mass motion is in free expansion. The expansion is co-located with the motion.
“Another unanswered problem: those enormous wind speeds.”
Will Janoschka says: July 14, 2015 at 1:16 pm
(“This is most important at the ITCZ where the meteorologists claim the whole atmosphere rotates at the same angular velocity as this rotating planet. Nonsense! Only the boundary layer is accelerated to the surface velocity of 1000 MPH.”)
“If the atmosphere is not moving with the surface, we should observe enormous wind speeds above the boundary layer. (wind is the horizontal movement relative to the surface of air)”
surface of air where? At every latitude surface air is accelerated to surface speed. As altitude some momentum becomes radial velocity only the rest remains as angular velocity moving westward with respect to the surface at that latitude.
“So at eg 10 km above the equator we should see winds of ~1670 km/hr.”
Somewhat slower with respect to an inertial frame of reference. westward in the surface rotating frame of reference.
“I have been looking, but no success sofar.
see http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/winkel3
Current windspeeds at the 250 hPa level (~10,5 km)
Not much wind around the equator. A lot of wind in the SH, but not even close to the surface speeds of the earth below, and moving the WRONG way
(you DO know that the earth rotates towards the east do you?)”
With respect to the surface the Earth is not rotating, the reference frame is rotating with respect to the Sun, Eastward, I think. Different POVs for different folk! 🙂
“Even more confusing:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/winkel3
10 hPa level (~26,5 km)
SH air moving to the east at pretty high speeds, over the equator again not much wind.”
NH wind IS moving towards the west, but at low speeds.
What gives? Is the NH rotating in the opposite direction as the SH AND at different speeds?”
I must let Ray answer. He understands more about turbines than I will ever learn. Spherical chirality, latitude, and Sun angle are important!
“Is that what causes all those earthquakes?”
No, the atmosphere has little to do with plate tectonics! 🙂
Will Janoschka says: July 16, 2015 at 2:39 pm
“OK I weigh 3 ounces less at STP than in vacuum. I still am not buoyant!”
No kidding, you figured that out yourself?
“The atmosphere always is completely buoyant at every altitude”
The atmosphere is the ‘fluid’ that creates the buoyancy, just as water creates buoyancy.
Von Munchhausen effect? Or just the confused ramblings of a kitchen engineer?
Will Janoschka says: July 13, 2015 at 1:01 pm
“The free expansion of the atmosphere causes no temperature decrease.”
Will Janoschka says: July 16, 2015 at 2:39 pm
“Gravitational force establishing that pressure gradient keeps the air mass from departing. Any radial outward mass motion is in free expansion. The expansion is co-located with the motion.”
Very confusing. First THE ATMOSPHERE is expanding, then a few days later it is not.
What changed?
“At every latitude surface air is accelerated to surface speed.”
Interesting. So no wind to be observed anywhere at the surface.
Care to explain where our winter storms come from, with wind speeds over 100 km/hr AT THE SURFACE.
(“So at eg 10 km above the equator we should see winds of ~1670 km/hr.”)
Somewhat slower with respect to an inertial frame of reference. westward in the surface rotating frame of reference.
Fastest winds observed are EASTWARD. That is not somewhat slower that is the other way around.
“With respect to the surface the Earth is not rotating, the reference frame is rotating with respect to the Sun, Eastward, I think.”
“I must let Ray answer.”
Pity. Would have been most entertaining to hear your stories about how centrifuges and vacuum cleaners etc. drive our atmosphere.
Seems that ‘thinking’ is not really your thing. Perhaps let meteorologists think about the atmosphere iso a confused engineer?
Ben Wouters says: July 16, 2015 at 3:24 pm
“Seems that ‘thinking’ is not really your thing. Perhaps let meteorologists think about the atmosphere iso a confused engineer?”
Keep digging your own hole, Ben. You are almost as much fun as Stephan. How come we have no “real” meteorologists posting here? Do the real ones understand that they have no science? 🙂
Will, I have been looking into you thoughts on the radial force components, very interesting. Spent the last many hours reading and watching videos on various university courses related to the fluid dynamics in a gravitational field about a rotating sphere, very scant, but after all of that time I do get a distinct feeling we are wandering into some uncharted territory.
Turn to Jupiter. There is also a rotating sphere that is a great lab, so to speak, to explore and compare to Earth these rotational effects but magnified. Jupiter’s period is less than half of earths, about ten hours. The ‘surface’ is clipping along at about 44000 km/hr and yes, it too has zones, cells and bands just like our Hadley cell. What is interesting is there have been many attempts to model these bands (sinking) and zones (rising) but only with meteorology principles (stated in the videos and texts fellows, not my words) and they all fail miserably in one area or another compared to the observations but just like you see here on this thread they are all homed-in on temperature differences only as the driver, that seems to be the common failure between them all. Seems a great area to do some original science advancement. None of the models to date even mention the rotation of the planet and atmosphere, no mention of Eotvos, no mention of velocity differences with altitude at each spherical ‘surface’, or better manifold outward with greater radius.
Since Jupiter’s insolation is so very weak you just get the gut feeling that these huge velocities of winds at the boundaries (prograde and retrograde) between the zones and bands are not of temperature origin. Could do some real science right here with your thoughts on rotational differentials.
Still looking. I take wiki with a real grain of salt but maybe scan over that page “Atmosphere of Jupiter” to get a start in the nomenclature being generally used when speaking of Jupiter’s atmosphere and cells… the words and definitions are sometimes different than those used by meteorologist terms of our atmosphere taking a more astrophysics flavor.
Have been looking under:
“fluid on rotational sphere -site:com”
“fluid in a gravitational field -site:com”
“rotating atmosphere -site:com”
“prograde retrograde fluid layers -site:com”
…
etc. This will take some time but I’m surprised at the lack of information here in this area.
Why do I now get a distinct stfu feeling whenever real science or engineering is brought into one these discussion threads? The only new person here seems to be b–.
suricat: one thing I did come across is that, yes, there is self-friction internally within fluids at differing velocities that do generate heat, friction, small and usually ignored, but the friction is there from eddies, turbulence, energy dissipation. At planet and atmospheric scales that factor should definitely not be just ignored.
Oh… also curious is the width of these zone-band couples (cell) on Jupiter that are not too far from Earth’s cell widths in literal kilometer if scaled down by radius/scale-height differences. Still checking whether there is something there (why four pairs on jupiter and just two/three on earth depending on season). If a planet were even larger would there be five, or six instead of always three, just wider cells? Seems the former is more true, some physical limit on the cell width.
wayne says: July 16, 2015 at 10:40 pm
“Will, I have been looking into you thoughts on the radial force components, very interesting. Spent the last many hours reading and watching videos on various university courses related to the fluid dynamics in a gravitational field about a rotating sphere, very scant, but after all of that time I do get a distinct feeling we are wandering into some uncharted territory.”
I agree, Wayne. I also have found little on the net. An old friend at Lockheed told me, (hearsay) Cal tech guys were trying to do a computational fluid dynamics of the Earth and atmosphere with rotation and a gravity constrained compressible atmosphere. They tried with small scale models and got nowhere, especially with the gravity constraint and radial mass motion. They are not including uneven heating and water effects, yet! The do observe the “altitude rise” in the 200 mbar isobar at the equator and 60o latitude, the low points of surface pressure. By varying Reynolds number they observe vortices and wiggly jets and three opposing vertical rotations in each hemisphere. No papers yet, just guesses, and an enthusiastic, “hey dats what dos guys been measurin”!
I understand that a mass in circular orbit has a force that cancels gravitational force producing that circular orbit and weightlessness, but the velocities are very high! Here in this atmosphere we have fluid weightlessness but only 470 m/s equatorial surface tangential velocity. We also have trade-wind convergence, low surface pressure, and the highest 200 mbar altitude. Humm! Just what is the rate of air mass radial ejection at the ITCZ?
I tried to do it scaling down surface wind velocity to pressure. That is where I guessed the 10-15 m/s tangential air flow. 200km equatorial band, all the way around the equator? That is a huge mass flow no-matter what air density is used!! Then I calculated the actual radius change for a 470 m/s 1700km/hr tangential velocity, and an angular rate of 0.25 radians/hr. Result 0.04 m/s radially. I would accept a 4:1 ratio for the SWAGS I was using, but 250:1? Naa. I don’t have that much Scotch left! But then, humm, Wayne is working is working with accelerations, not velocities! Does Wayne have any idea what is being accelerated at the equator, certainty not the mass of the whole 14 km air column. Have you any thoughts on how to proceed? I don’t think anyone has measured these vertical air velocities, but that is easy to do with modern doppler radar. Are they afraid that it is more than temperature? OTOH Jupiter has a very deep atmosphere with a huge overall lapse, but to me the lapse is not changing energy, only changing molar energy density (pressure), the other kind of work! Thanks for reading. 🙂 -will-
That is where I guessed the 10-15 m/s tangential air flow should be
That is where I guessed the 10-15 m/s outward radial air flow sorry!
“They tried with small scale models and got nowhere, especially with the gravity constraint and radial mass motion. They are not including uneven heating and water effects, yet! ”
That is good Will, same way I would suggest if I were to approach this. From that they you can isolate just how much of an influence the rotational components impress on the total global flows.
“Are they afraid that it is more than temperature? ”
I don’t think so, just myopic based in weather systems, amazing as it may seem it looks like no one up to this point (‘cept maybe Cal as you said) even considered that aspect of rotation effects.
“Wayne is working with accelerations, not velocities! Does Wayne have any idea what is being accelerated at the equator, certainty not the mass of the whole 14 km air column. ”
Not quite Will, I feel you are taking me from the wrong direction, the velocities are also critically important, must have them. The matter-of-fact beginning and you are correct the velocity IS the one empirical piece of data that can be actually and easily be measured. But to me you start at the velocity… and exactly what is that velocity? It is the limit or terminal-velocity that the always-present acceleration can cause that velocity to be even reached until there is enough turbulence and eddies to neutralize (better oppose) that acceleration that is causing the velocity in the first place. Therefore, if there is an actual acceleration present, that is going to a speed whatever amount of mass is present, it decouples us from having to know precisely how much mass is under its influence, us knowing the exact mass becomes irrelevant and probably be impossible to measure. See where I am going?
Otherwise I don’t know how to approach this question. From any other direction you must know the mass and how would you ever be able to measure or at least estimate that? That is why I am temporarily dropping the “mass” aspect out of the question until last. It is just a mathematical shortcut bypassing what you cannot confidently know.
See, in ephemeris work the exact mass of a body is at best just a close estimate. I mean, how the hell do you “measure” how much mass Jupiter contains? How do you “weigh” Jupiter? You can’t except in a round-about way. So by the method above the mass becomes irrelevant, all you need very accurately is the precise acceleration and that IS very easy and accurate to obtain since we now have constant radar ranging readings. You also need the gravity times mass which you get by analyzing the orbit over many years. Gravity times mass IS available to high accuracy even though the gravitational constant and the mass are each not known very well.
I’m hoping the same “trick” can be performed on this question at hand. That is WHY is brought in the word “acceleration”.
The American Jupiter mission produced a lot more data than the usual few curves. Some has never been analysed, includes people dying before publishing. Maybe this is lost.
Observation: the polar cold air cells or lens, are thin. Where these meet the Oxford Union barrel one rides over the other. Reminds me too of the inverted systems, synoptic dealing as normal meteorology does and dealing with air movements, apparently an older idea. Either way a lot of information vanishes when the only view/data is averaged over a long time. This is no high speed view, geostationary tries, can see much in a transparent gas.
Maybe with what you are starting to discuss consider geography, topography is sufficient to divert/alter airflows.
I’m whittering, better shut up.
Will, Ray, having an engineering backgrounds you might be able to supply one missing parameter that I didn’t mention above. Given a stream flow of ‘v’ velocity boarded on either side ‘x’ distance away by zero velocity fluid area how much resistance via viscosity is imposed to counter that steam velocity assuming turbulent flow (the eddies are visually present in the clouds). Sound rather complex (I’m sure) but you are the engineers and doesn’t this get into the Reynolds numbers, drag coefficients and maybe Prandtl number? Count me lost there. I have no background or courses on fluid dynamics and have never delved into calculating and estimating such problems but that factor would be necessay and itself would be the minus acceleration mentioned above. Seems that alone wouid be valuable info. Any help with equations needed?
Or is this the need-a-team-of-seven-engineers? 😉
wayne says:
July 17, 2015 at 5:59 am
(“They tried with small scale models and got nowhere, especially with the gravity constraint and radial mass motion. They are not including uneven heating and water effects, yet! ”)
“That is good Will, same way I would suggest if I were to approach this. From that they you can isolate just how much of an influence the rotational components impress on the total global flows.”
(“Are they afraid that it is more than temperature?) ”
“I don’t think so, just myopic based in weather systems, amazing as it may seem it looks like no one up to this point (‘cept maybe Cal as you said) even considered that aspect of rotation effects.”
OK, can you try to figure what goes up from the 1000 MPH surface velocity eastward that must be well coupled to the boundary layer? Here we can use the 1.28 Kg/m^3 STP density. I will try to find some velocity for the trade winds converging. All of that air mass has to go “up” somewhere near the ITCZ, no where else to go! I will hunting for some delta surface pressure between equator and 30o lat. Some where I have the formula for surface velocity from delta p and distance. Is 30o still 3.3 x 10^6 km?
God this is a big planet!
(“Wayne is working with accelerations, not velocities! Does Wayne have any idea what is being accelerated at the equator, certainty not the mass of the whole 14 km air column. ”)
“Not quite Will, I feel you are taking me from the wrong direction, the velocities are also critically important, must have them.”
I am most interested in something like tonne/(sec x km^2), up up and away. Do they have new dopplers in Brazil?
Will Janoschka says: July 16, 2015 at 3:59 pm
“How come we have no “real” meteorologists posting here? Do the real ones understand that they have no science? ”
More likely that they are not interested in discussing real basic stuff that even a twelve year old would be able to understand.
I’m just watching in amazement how ‘real’ scientists and engineers can confuse themselves like this. Explains to me at least why all this greenhouse nonsense is still seriously discussed.
Again no answers to simple questions. How can we have surface winds predominantly FROM the west, so moving FASTER than the earths surface rotates??
Will Janoschka says: July 17, 2015 at 1:00 am
“I understand that a mass in circular orbit has a force that cancels gravitational force producing that circular orbit and weightlessness, but the velocities are very high! Here in this atmosphere we have fluid weightlessness but only 470 m/s equatorial surface tangential velocity.”
To achieve ‘weightlessness’ at the equator at sealevel requires an orbital speed of ~7900 m/s.
Is not going to happen I hope. (ultra centrifuge?)
Let me help a bit:
gravity at the poles is ~9,832 m/s^2
Due centrifugal force gravity at the equator is ~0,3 % lower.
If air moves east or west along the equator the Eötvös effect (the vertical component of the Coriolis effect) changes the 0,3% a tiny bit. In the world of the thinking this is negligible.
Even the 0,3 % is easily balanced by a little more mass above the equator creating equal surface pressure between poles and equator (disregarding other effects).
Homework assignment for Will:
finally try to understand HYDROSTATIC EQUILIBRIUM.
‘In 1985, the Soviet Union took advantage of the opportunity to combine missions to Venus and Comet Halley, which passed through the inner Solar System that year. En route to Halley, on 11 and 15 June 1985, the two spacecraft of the Vega program each dropped a Venera-style probe (of which Vega 1’s partially failed) and released a balloon-supported aerobot into the upper atmosphere. The balloons achieved an equilibrium altitude of around 53 km, where pressure and temperature are comparable to those at Earth’s surface. They remained operational for around 46 hours, and discovered the Venusian atmosphere was more turbulent than previously estimated, and subject to high winds and powerful convection cells.’ [bold added]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
‘where pressure and temperature are comparable to those at Earth’s surface’ – despite the fact that Venus has mostly carbon dioxide for its atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
wayne says: July 17, 2015 at 6:41 am
“Or is this the need-a-team-of-seven-engineers? 😉 ”
NO!…… Wayne, Ray, I got it without the hassle! “from Ben”
Ben Wouters says: July 17, 2015 at 1:30 pm
“Let me help a bit:
gravity at the poles is ~9,832 m/s^2
Due centrifugal force gravity at the equator is ~0,3 % lower.”
Indeed but the gravity force is eliminated by buoyancy induced by that same gravity.
But now that 0.3% or 320 Pa is still acting upward on the “moving airmass” isolated from the earth by buoyancy,. in a centrifugal manner. —–Then from:
Click to access Wind%20Speed%20Pressure%20Conversion.pdf
At suface density, 320 Pa gives an upward wind speed of 51 MPH, so the whole ITCZ 2000km belt of vertical advection is moving up at 50 MPH, 22 m/s, all the way around the equator with no heat temperature or water difference. How many mega-tonnes/sec is that? How long before the whole atmosphere is convected to FRESH? With no work, just rearranging momentum a bit!!!
Can you two check my numbers, please, and offer suggestions as to how best to present?
Homework assignment for Ben: “try to understand HYDRODYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM.”
Is the whole atmosphere re- FRESHED every 16 hours with no work?
OB, yes, that balloon data (vega2) that you speak of is the data i used in my comparison of the four atmospheres in earlier threads.
That graphic you showed leads the casual person to imagine only N-S winds, which is not at all the case. Contrary to simple Eq-pole heat “theory” the balloon measured an easterly wind of 66 m/s (237 km/hr, 147 mi/hr) even though Venus has such a slow retrograde rotation implying that bands and zones do exist there also. Here on Earth at 7.5° latitude we have a westerly wind don’t we, not easterly? The opposite at different altitudes? Seems so, so you really need a 3d view of what is actually occurring.
By that, it seems the slower the rotation the faster the winds must move to attempt equalization in Venus’s case parallel to equal latitdes, however on Jupiter with such tiny insolation and huge rotation speeds, to equalize, you have tremendous E-W winds in zones and bands. Seems there are two simultaneous processes happening here on all atmospheres. Almost like it is Coriolis that is providing the N-S mixing, not Eq-pole insolation differences.
I think Will has a real point to question in this area. It is hard to imagine that you can just toss the rotational aspects into the wind and call them, how did Ben put it, tiny and negligible. 😉
I should have left off that final tacked-on sentence on Coriolis until I have some threed vectors to see what components are actually present at various directions and latitudes. Scratch that thought for now, premature.
Wayne: the winds on Venus are not linked to the slow rotation.
‘Winds move at up to 60 times the speed of the planet’s rotation, while Earth’s fastest winds are only 10% to 20% rotation speed’ – Wikipedia: Atmosphere of Venus
Ben Wouters says: July 17, 2015 at 1:30 pm
Will Janoschka says: July 16, 2015 at 3:59 pm
(“How come we have no “real” meteorologists posting here? Do the real ones understand that they have no science? ”)?”
“More likely that they are not interested in discussing real basic stuff that even a twelve year old would be able to understand.”
Even more likely than that, they never got past the brainwashing by ACADEMICS that a twelve year old would still believe in, never growing up!! 🙂
“Wayne: the winds on Venus are not linked to the slow rotation.”
Why do you say that? Have any links showing it to be false? I do realize there are many papers that don’t even mention of delve into that aspect of rotation but that does not rule it out.
Need to some links to read and to consider their contents.
oldbrew says: July 17, 2015 at 10:52 pm
“Wayne: the winds on Venus are not linked to the slow rotation.”
‘Winds move at up to 60 times the speed of the planet’s rotation, while Earth’s fastest winds are only 10% to 20% rotation speed’ – Wikipedia: Atmosphere of Venus
OB,
Venus I have never been to! Nor have I ever measured! The alleged other planets operation come entirely from the same folk that dearly wish to deceive you on how this atmospheres “may” operate. They intentionally do that for status and profit! Here upon this planet and atmosphere we have measurements that can be interpreted by meteorologists, or by much more precise science and engineering! Take your pick on what/who to believe! 🙂 -will-
I find myself in despair when I read some of the posts here. 😦 However:
oldbrew says: July 17, 2015 at 10:52 pm
“Wayne: the winds on Venus are not linked to the slow rotation.”
I concur OB! Let’s be clear that a ‘Hadley Cell’ is generated by ‘convection’ and its ‘influence’ encompasses all latitudes from the Equator to the Poles in each hemisphere. 🙂
Possessing almost ‘no’ rotation, Venus ‘~only’ exhibits a Hadley Cell in each hemisphere with ‘Polar Collars’ where ‘energy’ (ke) is lost during the ‘mixing process’ (the ‘plug-hole effect’) before the atmosphere can return to the ‘near surface’ in the Polar Vortices.
The atmosphere that can’t be ‘slowed’ in the Polar Collar (that’s the ‘outer ring’) of ;
stays ‘high’ and is ‘re-cycled’ in the fast moving ‘Day to night circulation in the thermosphere’.
The ‘planet’ is pertinent to this discussion ‘because it has negligible rotation’.
Best regards, Ray.
oldbrew says:
July 17, 2015 at 10:52 pm
Wayne: the winds on Venus are not linked to the slow rotation.
‘Winds move at up to 60 times the speed of the planet’s rotation, while Earth’s fastest winds are only 10% to 20% rotation speed’ – Wikipedia: Atmosphere of Venus”
With respect to what? Some politicians want “simple, straightforward, and wrong! Others have always express Hummn, beats the shit out of me!
It is always your choice as to who “you yourself” will choose to represent “ME”! -will-
Meteorologists (high priced astrologists) have been deliberately feeding folk CRAP for at least 400 years! All done by high priced academic astrologists, for status and profit, always Brainwashing innocent children, into making the meteorological figures/astrological charts, just this way, according to “this” sacred bible of “the” temperature!
For 400 years no one has checked. Ray, Wayne, and myself are now checking!
Do we have 97% agreement? NO! Most folk do not wish to admit they have been fooled for so long! What say those that wish to become Members of Parliament?
Will, you said “check my numbers”, I’m bookmarking your comment to do that a little later.
I’m still having problems realistically visualizing what we are speaking of this Hadley cell. So I am putting some very approximate figures together which helps me in this visualize process. I’ve found I always have to do this before getting into some complex problem or I won’t be thinking parallel with the reality scales.
Can you imagine an A/C duct, an imaginary one but instead of say 18″x18″ by however long make that duct 1 meter by 1 meter, a unit area if you take the cross-section by however long that imaginary duct would be. Now, this is one long duct, it goes from the equator following the surface, 3,336,000 meters to the 30th parallel then upward 11 km to the tropopause, back to the equator and down 15 km to join to the beginning creating a gigantic one unit area cross-section loop. The reason I do this is to get a jab at just how much mass of air we are speaking of that circulates in the Hadley cell. Comes out about 5,000,000 kilograms per unit area sized loop. 4 million near the surface, 1 million at lower density at the tropopause and just ignore the two small vertical ends. Whoa! That’s one lot of mass just for a 1m x 1m cross section.
If the Hadley cell were powered by only convection then you need to look at one of those 15 km tall thunderstorms but concentrate on only a unit area column up that thunder tower. Can just such a sliver of one thunderstorm power 5 million kilograms all of the way around that gigantic loop at somewhere around ~7+ miles/hr? During this trek around that loop there is Coriolis, eddies, turbulence, friction with the surface… I just can’t see that possible. I can see that the thermal part being some component of the driving force but the scale seems way too small to be the primary part.
This is one more reason I am getting real interested in your thoughts on the rotation.
One thing we to also consider is that if there is a large portion of rotation driving these winds (the loop) then through friction and turbulence with the surface and air-to-air would end up as thermal energy and be radiated away and that power radiated would have to slow Earth’s rotation ever so slightly (need to roughly calculate that also) and see if that is also consistent. That should be calculable approximately. The Earth is slowing. Find the radar ranging of the moon, think it is receding about 1 cm/yr and that takes cares of the tides friction. Find the length of day slowing rate and subtract that to see how much could be attribute to the friction mentioned above. Just hope the inertial arm of the Earth itself is already known fairly close and findable (seem very hard to estimate with varying densities all of the way down to the core).
Something like that.
‘PLANETARY ATMOSPHERES / Venus’ says:
‘The other theory relies on a Hadley circulation plus
large-scale eddies. The Hadley circulation on Venus is
not well measured, but the general appearance of the
cloud-top circulation suggests that it extends from the
equator to high latitudes. Rising motion at low
latitudes transports angular momentum upward in
such a circulation. Poleward drift in the upper branch
leads to formation of jets at middle and high latitudes.
According to the theory, large scale eddies cause
erosion of the jets and act to transfer their angular
momentum back toward low latitudes. The joint
action of the Hadley circulation and the large-scale
eddies can maintain the spin, or super-rotation, of the
atmosphere. This process has been successfully simulated
with numerical models. Observational test of the
theory is not possible at present, however, because
data on the Hadley circulation and on eddies are incomplete.’
Click to access Planetary_Atmos_Venus.pdf
Will Janoschka says: July 17, 2015 at 5:24 pm
“Indeed but the gravity force is eliminated by buoyancy induced by that same gravity.
But now that 0.3% or 320 Pa is still acting upward on the “moving airmass” isolated from the earth by buoyancy,. in a centrifugal manner.”
Sure Will, gravity force is ELIMINATED. By aliens, with anti-gravity machines?
On this planet the remaining 99,7% of the gravity force at the equator is pulling everything down to the surface, including the atmosphere. Back to school….
“At suface density, 320 Pa gives an upward wind speed of 51 MPH,”
In reality the vertical speeds in high and low pressure areas is expressed in cm/s.
That is obviously outside cumulonimbus clouds, tornadoes etc.
wayne says: July 17, 2015 at 8:30 pm
“I think Will has a real point to question in this area. It is hard to imagine that you can just toss the rotational aspects into the wind and call them, how did Ben put it, tiny and negligible. ;)”
Try to understand what I write before posting nonsense like this, especially the meaning of the words ‘vertical’ and ‘component’.
Ben Wouters says: July 17, 2015 at 1:30 pm
“If air moves east or west along the equator the Eötvös effect (the vertical component of the Coriolis effect) changes the 0,3% a tiny bit. In the world of the thinking this is negligible.
Even the 0,3 % is easily balanced by a little more mass above the equator creating equal surface pressure between poles and equator (disregarding other effects).”
The mechanism of the Hadley cell etc is well understood: thermal wind as the driving force, HORIZONTAL component of the Coriolis effect for the turning effect to the east until the two balance. Convection is hardly relevant in this.
Ben Wouters says:
July 18, 2015 at 10:16 am
wayne says: July 17, 2015 at 8:30 pm
“I think Will has a real point to question in this area. It is hard to imagine that you can just toss the rotational aspects into the wind and call them, how did Ben put it, tiny and negligible. ;)”
Try to understand what I write before posting nonsense like this, especially the meaning of the words ‘vertical’ and ‘component’.
Why don’t you try to tell us your “version” of the meaning of the words ‘vertical’ and ‘component’. Like all warmists you expect us to guess,so you can say later “no I meant something else” ,still not telling!
“The mechanism of the Hadley cell etc is well understood: thermal wind as the driving force, HORIZONTAL component of the Coriolis effect for the turning effect to the east until the two balance. Convection is hardly relevant in this.”
The mechanism of the Hadley cell etc is obviously not well understood, especially not by meteorologists, who were never taught how to think, only how to recite the Catechism! 🙂
OB: thanks for the comment and link, that is ever so slightly what I had in my mind upstairs, on the eddies being of prime importance and the Coriolis performing the bending from the zonal jets to give a N-S component (and the hidden vertical). On any rotating body with an atmosphere you have the angular momentum (must conserve or degrade to thermal exitance), the torque, and of course accelerations that are all interact in 3-d to create forces as the cross product in directions you normally would not even imagine they are there when thinking 2-d. I will jump sometimes between rectangular x,y,z to spherical θ,Φ,r but I will try to make it clear which one I am speaking of. The conversions between are quite simple.
Here are a couple of videos I came across and listened to to help refresh me on the vectors and actions on rotations:
Both quite entertaining but don’t go very deep.
We kind or have the three-bears situation on rotating atmospheres, Jupiter the papa bear, spinning very fast, large angular momentum, Earth the mother between, and Venus the baby bear barely rotating at all, and backwards, but that is but some sign changes.
What I am searching for right now is whether there are proper equations in rotating frames of reference that place the tangential component of angular momentum as a member in the denominator in relation to the axial torque (correct sense?). That would place jupiter needing tight bands and zones, Earth in-between, and Venus having a rather large tendency to smoothly bend any motion eventually perpendicular to the axis rotation to a large-scale n-s direction (and upward), your link calls that “large eddies”, fine with me, Jupiter has very small and tight eddies. Sure would help explain what we are seeing occurring on all three atmosphere cases.
I can tell most here are thinking in 2d, myself also sometimes, like most cartoon graphics portray such motions, but jumping to 3d you are going to always have some vertical (to the tangential plane) or perpendicular (to the spin axis) component that are always ignored in such cartoons, and it should not be ignored because that component of the three is convection having nothing to do with wind hitting mountains or vertical density differences forcing up or down due to center directed gravity effects (related to temperature differences).
Complex, yes, but this is more what I look to learn in such threads like this. Is it there, or is it not there however big or little that my be.
“The remarkable spin of the Venusian atmosphere is one of the major puzzles in atmospheric science. In the absence of forcing mechanisms, friction and wave drag would be expected to bring the atmosphere into co-rotation with the solid planet.”
But it doesn’t. Why? I wrote on a comment to one of Rog’s articles long ago that one small component may be from the angular differences with the solar wind and Venus’s orbit velocity. That angle that the solar wind hits the atmosphere is there, and retrograde, but I never took the time to quantify that effects magnitude.
Yes, part of the problem is that the poles are warmer than the equator on Venus. There is no reason why there cannot be a third competing “theory” if it also is successful numerically and matches the limited observations.
Given its very high surface temperature there should be plenty of convection on Venus – maybe enough to compensate for the lack of Coriolis effect? Just speculating 😎
From https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/why-is-the-troposphere-8km-higher-at-the-equator-than-the-poles/
Ian W says: September 16, 2012 at 3:45 pm
“The tropopause is where the tropo (movement) pauses (stops). In other words it is where convection will cease usually because it is the cross over point of dry and wet adiabatic lapse rates. However, the convection in the tropics and in the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone is far stronger than some people realize with updrafts of over 100Kts carrying liquid water seven miles or more upwards in the atmosphere where it freezes adding latent heat to the surrounding air increasing/maintaining the updrafts. (Note – aircraft are warned to stay 20 miles away from severe convective weather as hail can be thrown 10 – 15 miles from the top of convective storms.) So there is a significant kinetic effect from updrafts rather like watching the surface of water boiling in a pan. If the heat is turned down then the convection reduces in strength and the tropopause reduces in altitude.” -my bold-
“The surface of the troposphere (the tropopause) is not flat and waves can travel along it and up into it. Kelvin waves in the tropics cause undulations in the Tropopause:” -more-
So it is claimed, all from insolation, none from mechanical advection. So say the meteorologists, that cannot explain why a spinning top,stays upright, spinning axis aligned on any radial 63000km from a “different” rotating reference frame! How about half those Kts always there but not properly measured!
Now I understand what Galileo felt, when told to shut up, by the self appointed academic elites. 🙂
tallbloke says: September 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm
“Great post Ian W.
I still don’t think the temperature, convective inertia and ‘radiative sinking’ account for all the height difference though. For one thing, more spaceward radiation takes place above the equator than the poles, so this should diminish the height difference if anything.”
Depends on what is doing the radiating. 🙂
Ben Wouters says:
July 18, 2015 at 10:08 am
Will Janoschka says: July 17, 2015 at 5:24 pm
(“Indeed but the gravity force is eliminated by buoyancy induced by that same gravity.
But now that 0.3% or 320 Pa is still acting upward on the “moving airmass” isolated from the earth by buoyancy,. in a centrifugal manner. At suface density, 320 Pa gives an upward wind speed of 51 MPH,”
“In reality the vertical speeds in high and low pressure areas is expressed in cm/s.
That is obviously outside cumulonimbus clouds, tornadoes etc.”
Meteorologists measure the surface vertical speeds in high and low pressure areas, expressed in cm/s.
which is not in real vertical speeds in the cumulonimbus clouds at the doldrums and mistakenly attributed to insolation by only meteorologists, rather than true mechanical convection.
wayne says: July 18, 2015 at 5:37 am
Will, you said “check my numbers”, I’m bookmarking your comment to do that a little later.
“I’m still having problems realistically visualizing what we are speaking of this Hadley cell. So I am putting some very approximate figures together which helps me in this visualize process. I’ve found I always have to do this before getting into some complex problem or I won’t be thinking parallel with the reality scales.”
Wayne,
Remember that equatorial 320 Pa is a negative pressure (an upward accelerating force) that scales with cos(latitude). While the 100,000 Pa gravitational pressure does not, nor does the gravitational ever become an accelerating force. By the time you get to the horse latitudes that becomes a downward accelerating force) creating a high pressure at the surface. for temporary visualization, scale the axial/latitudinal distance down by a factor of 150 to get an almost circular geometry for the Hadley cell. The actual air mass motion radially or tangentially at the surface horse latitudes or the surface doldrums is near zero, but the pressures are much different. The tangential mass motion at the halfway point is the same as the air mass radial component at the doldrums or horse latitudes but at a pressure altitude of 60,000 Pa. That 3D spinning sphere, with a gravitationally controlled compressible thin outer fluid of minimal viscosity is a visualization female canine! 🙂
“Given its very high surface temperature there should be plenty of convection …”
OB, respectably, I don’t think that is the way to look at it. Remember, it is not the amount of temperature, it is the nearby temperature differences that cause any density differences and convection and that is the very reason there is very little convection (or winds) near the surface of Venus, very little differences in the temperatures locally, plus being super dense, or really, over the entire surface, very little difference.
Just look at a chemical CO2 phase diagram, all co2 above ≈31C (304 K) and at a pressure above ≈73.8 bar is a supercritical fluid. Venus maxes out at about 92-93 bar. It is not too far off if you just view Venus’s lower troposphere as a liquid ocean, where deep within there is also very little local temperature (density) variances, simply too dense. Co2 there is as close to a liquid as you can get without being called a liquid. 😉
here is one: http://www.intechopen.com/source/html/46127/media/image4.png , there are many others on the web and might vary a bit.
@ Will July 19, 2015 at 4:19 am
Wayne,
Remember that equatorial 320 Pa is a negative pressure (an upward accelerating force) that scales with cos(latitude).
I can see that, creates the low at the equator.
While the 100,000 Pa gravitational pressure does not, nor does the gravitational ever become an accelerating force.
True, gravitationally all forces cancel vertically, no acceleration there by gravity.
By the time you get to the horse latitudes that becomes a downward accelerating force) creating a high pressure at the surface. for temporary visualization, scale the axial/latitudinal distance down by a factor of 150 to get an almost circular geometry for the Hadley cell.
Ok, the switch to down acceleration and high pressure I see the same way. The circle I get, do such mental ‘tricks’ all of the time, we took the stretched loop that I described and compressed it latitudinally. Hadley’s now a circle.
The actual air mass motion radially or tangentially at the surface horse latitudes or the surface doldrums is near zero, but the pressures are much different.
Right, nearly zero, but not zero, right? Mass around this cell must be conserved… however the density high is much lower (≈1/4 or 1/5) so the high altitude velocities should be about four to five times higher, right?
The tangential mass motion at the halfway point is the same as the air mass radial component at the doldrums or horse latitudes but at a pressure altitude of 60,000 Pa.
Ok, think you are saying what i just asked about. The “tangential mass motion at the halfway point” would be at about 15 latitude at the surface and it must equal what is lowering in the doldrums from high above… I agree… same thing.
I see very well what you are describing Will. I’m assuming you agree that in such a loop process if the density is much lower in one section or segment the velocity must be equally much greater, right?
It is almost like we are both describing a Bernoulli-type closed-loop example of an tube apparatus with some sections being narrow and thin (the cross latitude segments N-S, one at surface, one near the tropopause) and some portions big and fat (the up and down radial segments at the horse latitudes and the equator) and the respective velocities observed following Bernoulli’s principles (and maybe the pressures too?). Same old question though, where do we place the many pumps?
Visually, I guess we really need to grab that Hadley circle with both hands and twist and distort it to show what Coriolis is really doing to our perfectly simple circle !! 😉
Will, I could easily spend two years on this subject, and probably will over time. Quite honestly this area of how to apply the equations in fluid dynamics is over my head right now. I have seen most of them in the past but lacking interest at the time… usually just skimmed over them just getting the basic principles down. I can see many ways to approach this but all but one are probably not the way to go and I can’t differentiate which ones to toss. 🙂
I definitely will not set aside your ideas that you have brought up here but need some time to read and absorb more (that is, I might be spotty for a while). Looking right now for some good courses on the fluid dynamics side of this question, hopefully online and no cost but your time to listen and take notes. Each such course eats up about 80 to 120 hours at least so… how about a gap and a dedicated thread later?
BTW Will, above I just said density in relation to Bernoulli and that should have been pressure, right? or would it be density (really both) in a compressible gases case stretched out in thin high velocity segments? See, I’m a bit rusty on the details on…. yep, fluid dynamics. Guess I could just look it up and trust what Google says but If you have noticed I’m not one to scamper off to Google usually to see what Google thinks, though the data is usually trustworthy… the groupthink restricts my mind too much.
wayne says:
July 19, 2015 at 7:17 am
@ Will July 19, 2015 at 4:19 am
(“The actual air mass motion radially or tangentially at the surface horse latitudes or the surface doldrums is near zero, but the pressures are much different.”)
“Right, nearly zero, but not zero, right? Mass around this cell must be conserved… however the density high is much lower (≈1/4 or 1/5) so the high altitude velocities should be about four to five times higher, right?”
Note: I will use () to enclose meteorology speak! 🙂
That is one confusing part. It could be that the cross-sectional area at high altitude is 4-5 times greater than at the surface. With such a illusionary tapering pipe the velocity could be constant and if “circular” then the above could actually be correct (so near to zero to be immeasurable at these surface positions). but certainly should be measurable at the horizontal (advection) tangents and at at the vertical (convection) tangents. At the doldrums the exact location of the really nasty weather. (free convection).
“Same old question though, where do we place the many pumps?”
Right were they all have been, at the actual origin of this rotating geometry.
“Visually, I guess we really need to grab that Hadley circle with both hands and twist and distort it to show what Coriolis is really doing to our perfectly simple circle !! ;)”
I agree 2 to 1 taper the diameter of pipe for constant flow rate and conservation of mass, then twist it to align the pipe with the measured mass flow, then stretch the (convection tangents) back 150x to the original 30o of latitude. This may also conserve angular momentum. Variations from “that” may well be from (uneven insolation).
wayne says: July 19, 2015 at 7:22 am
“how about a gap and a dedicated thread later?”
Fine by me, Whenever you get ready… The academics in meteorology have been honing this intentionally confusing BS for 400 years (97% agreement). Meanwhile I will also keep studying on the same, while trying to handle the two fake meteorologists that post/troll here! 🙂
wayne says: July 17, 2015 at 6:41 am
I’m in ‘catch-up mode here’.
I assume that “steam velocity” should read “stream velocity” and that this was a ‘typo’.
‘Fluid dynamics’, AFAIK, centres around ‘incompressible fluid behaviour’. Thus, needs ‘disambiguation’ for a ‘compressible fluid’ (‘hydraulic systems’ can’t be directly compared with systems that employ a ‘compressible fluid’ [e.g. ‘air’ for ‘pneumatic applications’]).
“Given a stream flow of ‘v’ velocity boarded on either side ‘x’ distance away by zero velocity fluid area how much resistance via viscosity is imposed to counter that steam velocity assuming turbulent flow (the eddies are visually present in the clouds). Sound rather complex (I’m sure) but you are the engineers and doesn’t this get into the Reynolds numbers, drag coefficients and maybe Prandtl number?”
Your concern only exhibits at the ‘boundaries’ between the ‘Hadley’, ‘Ferrel’ and ‘Polar’ cells wayne. Moreover, the angular convergence between the ‘vertical to surface’ (azimuth) gravity force and the ‘angular momentum’ to Earth’s centrifuge begets/generates the ‘Coriolis Effect’ where ‘angular momentum’ vies against ‘gravity’ at the latitude where this competition is enacted!
I can’t find any info for parameters above the boundary layer, but; http://www.remss.com/missions/windsat
can provide data for the first 10 metres of the atmosphere above the surface.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: July 19, 2015 at 8:40 am
wayne says: July 17, 2015 at 6:41 am
(“I’m in ‘catch-up mode here’.”)
“‘Fluid dynamics’, AFAIK, centres around ‘incompressible fluid behaviour’. Thus, needs ‘disambiguation’ for a ‘compressible fluid’ (‘hydraulic systems’ can’t be directly compared with systems that employ a ‘compressible fluid’ [e.g. ‘air’ for ‘pneumatic applications’]).”
Thank you, I agree
Can we than go to the understandable “pneumo-statics” and “pneumo-dynamics” Just to identifying a non-moving or moving, mostly compressible fluid. Can we then also always identfy: A. a local moving and rotating frame of reference, B. a rotating reference with its origin a minimum of 6400 km radially away from local, or C. an inertial (non-rotating) reference, with a given origin to local. This just to identify whose brainwashing each accepts! Sometime we need to agree on the exact meaning of pressure, and of the density of this mostly compressible fluid, then specifically on how local temperature may affect density, pressure, or both! The H2O colloid part of this atmosphere need obey no gas laws! 🙂
Ray, here I will use () to indicate the demanded meteorological terms.
Does your explanation of “B” and how this atmosphere responds all ways hold? Independent any “non uniform” surface temperature or non uniform atmospheric heat exchange? I am trying to get folk to think upon a logical difference between AND, OR. In this case demanding (thermal convection) OR mechanical radial advection. The other agreeing on some possible (thermal convection) AND some possible mechanical radial advection. The local fake meteorological experts claim that any mechanical radial advection is impossible in this Earth’s atmosphere! 🙂 -will-
Stephen Wilde says:
July 16, 2015 at 11:28 am
the entire column in the vertical plane nonetheless exerts a weight / pressure at the surface.
and
As I explained above, the pressure at the surface is proportionate to the weight of the mass suspended above it so measuring the pressure gives you the weight.
We all know this diagram:
The air pressure equals the weight of the Hg column if the pressure only acts downwards
But we know that air pressure acts in all directions, including upwards and to the side. (As in an aneroid barometer)
You are saying the pressure is weight and also pressure balances weight.
The way to relate gravity energy to heat energy is through conservation of energy
Mgh (gravity energy) = mcT( heat energy). Which you often say.
It is wrong to use mRT, the gas law
This leaves me with two interesting and productive questions:
1. What does balance the weight of air causing it to be weightless?
2. What causes air pressure to reduce exponentially from the surface?
The Forces and Winds module.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/home.rxml
Atmospheric Pressure – force exerted by the weight of the air.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/prs/def.rxml
RC: ‘What causes air pressure to reduce exponentially from the surface?’
Wasn’t it due to the number of molecules per unit volume being greater at the surface than anywhere else?
RC:
i) The upward pressure gradient force fuelled by the vibration of molecules carrying kinetic energy at the surface. The more heat at the surface, the more powerful the vibrations and the higher upwards their influence will spread via conduction and convection.
ii) Around a sphere the volume available for expansion increases exponentially with height so that as one goes up the air molecules present encounter an exponentially increasing amount of space for them to expand into. It is a matter of three dimensional geometry.
RC said:
“But we know that air pressure acts in all directions, including upwards and to the side”
For a sphere one cannot increase the space available for expansion around the circumference. One can only expand upwards. Thus one only needs to consider expansion in the vertical plane and so pressure at the surface equals weight for air around a sphere. It is matter of three dimensional geometry.
As regards centrifugal forces, they tend only to distort the shape of an atmosphere once it has already been raised off the surface in hydrostatic balance which has already occurred as a result of a supply of kinetic energy at the surface to provide the upward pressure gradient force.
The centrifugal force tends to make the atmosphere higher around the equator and lower above the poles.
You have to get the atmosphere off the surface in the first place before the centrifugal forces can have any effect.
You can have an atmosphere around a non-rotating world but you cannot have an atmosphere around a rotating world with no kinetic energy retained at the surface as a result of conduction and convection.
Conduction and convection are an essential requirement for an atmosphere whereas centrifugal forces are not.
That puts paid to Will’s fanciful ideas 🙂
oldbrew says: July 18, 2015 at 8:04 pm
“Given its very high surface temperature there should be plenty of convection on Venus”
What have high surface temperatures to do with convection?
Will Janoschka says: July 18, 2015 at 9:30 pm
“Ian W says: September 16, 2012 at 3:45 pm
“The tropopause is where the tropo (movement) pauses (stops). In other words it is where convection will cease usually because it is the cross over point of dry and wet adiabatic lapse rates. ”
So glad for you Will you found another utterly confused soul 😉
The 100 kts updrafts are the very high end, and can produce dangerously large hailstones.
Obviously they are not restricted to the tropics or the ITCZ.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/tstorms/hail.htm
“So say the meteorologists, that cannot explain why a spinning top,stays upright, spinning axis aligned on any radial 63000km from a “different” rotating reference frame!”
We leave those phenomena gladly to kitchen specialists like you 😉
” How about half those Kts always there but not properly measured!”
That is just fantastic Will. Airliners can now idle their engines and just soar across the world.
Centrifugal force at equator ~0,034 m/s^2
Centrifugal Force at 30 N/S ~0,025 m/s^2
So for at least half the world updrafts fast enough to support gliding airliners 😉
Will Janoschka says: July 19, 2015 at 2:54 am
“Meteorologists measure the surface vertical speeds in high and low pressure areas, expressed in cm/s. which is not in real vertical speeds in the cumulonimbus clouds at the doldrums and mistakenly attributed to insolation by only meteorologists, rather than true mechanical convection.”
Not the surface vertical speeds Will, but the vertical speeds for a large part of the column.
That ‘s why I added “That is obviously outside cumulonimbus clouds, tornadoes etc.”
Hope you’re not ‘thinking’ that the ITCZ is one large row of cb’s do you ??
wayne says: July 19, 2015 at 5:56 am
(While the 100,000 Pa gravitational pressure does not, nor does the gravitational ever become an accelerating force.)
“True, gravitationally all forces cancel vertically, no acceleration there by gravity.”
So a stone or cold, dense air ( both not having enough buoyancy to stay afloat) moving towards the surface is not caused by gravity?
suricat says: July 19, 2015 at 8:40 am
“I can’t find any info for parameters above the boundary layer, but; http://www.remss.com/missions/windsat
can provide data for the first 10 metres of the atmosphere above the surface.”
Try http://earth.nullschool.net/
Click on ‘earth’ to open/close the control panel.
Click on any position to get the local value.
Behind ‘Control’ you can switch of the wind animation to better view other parameters.
Roger Clague says: July 19, 2015 at 10:57 am
“This leaves me with two interesting and productive questions:
1. What does balance the weight of air causing it to be weightless?
2. What causes air pressure to reduce exponentially from the surface?”
1) air is just as weightless as you are when standing on the roof of a building.
Try walking over the side to find out how weightless you are.
Gravity working on the mass of air is balanced by the upward pressure of the underlying air, is called HYDROSTATIC EQUILIBRIUM.
Will thinks that hydrostatic equilibrium is achieved by an upward centrifugal force caused by the rotation of the Earth.
Miles Mathis thinks it is achieved by some sort of ‘charge force’ coming out of the Earth.
AGW proponents don’t realise that hydrostatic equilibrium involves descending air warming as much as ascending air cools so they try to warm the surface with back radiation instead of recognising the correct cause of surface warming which is the restraint of convection caused by warming descending columns.
Doug Cotton thinks it is upward diffusion (conduction) from within the Earth’s core.
Our occasional contributor Konrad thinks a diabatic process involving work done by molecules on surrounding molecules is what is meant by the adiabatic process which actually involves work done with or against gravity.
None of them know anything about hydrostatic equilibrium (hydro meaning fluid, not water).
They all see that something warms the surface above S-B and holds the mass of the atmosphere off the surface but they know nothing of the relevant established science.
AGW proponents and many lukewarmers such as Willis at WUWT actually think that the same parcel of energy can be radiated to space AND be engaged in convective overturning simultaneously.
At least I can now see precisely where they are going wrong and it all boils down to little or no knowledge of the basic meteorology of the Standard Atmosphere.
Stephen Wilde says: July 19, 2015 at 12:09 pm
“For a sphere one cannot increase the space available for expansion around the circumference. One can only expand upwards. Thus one only needs to consider expansion in the vertical plane and so pressure at the surface equals weight for air around a sphere. It is matter of three dimensional geometry.”
Who is this “one” that cannot expand Is that like some fanciful air parcel with no height? Please give any demonstration that the mostly compressible fluid called “atmosphere” has any possible acceleration due to the force of gravity at any altitude. Use any accelerometer to measure such weight!
The very definition of weight is the force of gravity able to accelerate such mass! Complete intentional intent to deceive! Please go buy a clue!
ill Janoschka says: July 19, 2015 at 1:42 pm
“Complete intentional intent to deceive! Please go buy a clue!”
What causes your frustration Will? Ever tried to enlist in a course ” Meteorology for dummies” and failed for the entry exam? 😉
Stephen Wilde says: July 19, 2015 at 12:20 pm
“You can have an atmosphere around a non-rotating world but you cannot have an atmosphere around a rotating world with no kinetic energy retained at the surface as a result of conduction and convection.
Conduction and convection are an essential requirement for an atmosphere whereas centrifugal forces are not.”
Please demonstrate how any of the above can possibly be true near this Earth. All burpy writing with no meaning whatsoever!
Ben Wouters says: July 19, 2015 at 12:21 pm
oldbrew says: July 18, 2015 at 8:04 pm
(“Given its very high surface temperature there should be plenty of convection on Venus”)
“What have high surface temperatures to do with convection?”
You are the one Ben, that insists that surface heat transfer to the above atmosphere, lowering density, is the only way to initiate your kind of convection! What nonsense!
Ben Wouters says: July 19, 2015 at 1:59 pm
ill Janoschka says: July 19, 2015 at 1:42 pm
(“Complete intentional intent to deceive! Please go buy a clue!”)
“What causes your frustration Will?”
Frustration with trolls like you or Stephen, not likely!
“Ever tried to enlist in a course ” Meteorology for dummies” and failed for the entry exam? 😉 ”
Why would anyone even try a course in disgraced meteorology!
Ben W: ‘What have high surface temperatures to do with convection?’
Convection is heat transfer. More heat, more convection potential.
Ben Wouters says: July 19, 2015 at 12:32 pm
Will Janoschka says: July 18, 2015 at 9:30 pm
“Ian W says: September 16, 2012 at 3:45 pm
(“The tropopause is where the tropo (movement) pauses (stops). In other words it is where convection will cease usually because it is the cross over point of dry and wet adiabatic lapse rates. ”)
“So glad for you Will you found another utterly confused soul 😉 ”
Back in 012 Ian was trolling for meteorology, as bad as you were then, and still are!
Ben Wouters says: July 19, 2015 at 12:36 pm
“Not the surface vertical speeds Will, but the vertical speeds for a large part of the column.
That ‘s why I added “That is obviously outside cumulonimbus clouds, tornadoes etc.”
Hope you’re not ‘thinking’ that the ITCZ is one large row of cb’s do you ??”
That is certainly the way to get that much H2O condensate that high in the atmosphere via mechanical vertical advection. High temperatures increase WV which also increases H2O condensate with little increase in atmospheric density of the mechanical advection 500 km N/S of the ITCZ where the N/S winds converge at pressure altitude 650 mbar, leaving a huge surface low in the doldrums. This results in the very low horizontal or vertical air mass motion at the centre of the ITCZ. There is no more airmass to move. All airmass is already UP at that location. There is no other reason for that low surface pressure region!
Ben Wouters says: July 19, 2015 at 12:43 pm
wayne says: July 19, 2015 at 5:56 am
WJ (While the 100,000 Pa gravitational pressure does not, nor does the gravitational ever become an accelerating force.)
(“True, gravitationally all forces cancel vertically, no acceleration there by gravity.”)
“So a stone or cold, dense air ( both not having enough buoyancy to stay afloat) moving towards the surface is not caused by gravity?”
A stone in this atmosphere will have negative buoyancy will accelerate toward the surface. The compressible atmosphere itself however, no mater what temperature will always have neutral buoyancy, with absolutely no acceleration due to gravitational force! 🙂
Will Janoschka says: July 19, 2015 at 3:00 pm
” A stone in this atmosphere will have negative buoyancy will accelerate toward the surface. ”
We’re now at the cutting edge of science, NEGATIVE BUOYANCY.
Poor Will, so confused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy
Note to Oldbrew:
Better delay that discussion on Moving Polar Highs another 25 years or so.
Ben Wouters says: July 19, 2015 at 12:57 pm
Roger Clague says: July 19, 2015 at 10:57 am
(“This leaves me with two interesting and productive questions:
1. What does balance the weight of air causing it to be weightless?
2. What causes air pressure to reduce exponentially from the surface?”)
“1) air is just as weightless as you are when standing on the roof of a building.
Try walking over the side to find out how weightless you are.”
A mass supported against the accelerative force of gravity by any means has no weight by definition!
“Gravity working on the mass of air is balanced by the upward pressure of the underlying air, is called HYDROSTATIC EQUILIBRIUM.”
The term “hydrostatic equilibrium” may only be used to describe the “draft” of a floating ship with no relative motion. That whole ship also has no weight, by definition! BTW that draft must change if the ship is moving at any direction not parallel to the Earth’s spin axis!
Will you fake meteorologists please go buy a clue? No actual meteorologist with experience in meteorology, would ever make such ridiculous claims. 🙂
oldbrew says: July 19, 2015 at 2:25 pm
” Ben W: ‘What have high surface temperatures to do with convection?’
Convection is heat transfer. More heat, more convection potential.”
In this atmosphere convection is the upward (buoyant) movement of air, caused by the lower density of the rising air relative to the surrounding air. Can happen at (almost) any temperature.
Will Janoschka says: July 19, 2015 at 4:05 pm
” A mass supported against the accelerative force of gravity by any means has no weight by definition!”
That must be the explanation then for my scale showing my weight when standing perfectly still on it 😉
Ben Wouters says: July 19, 2015 at 3:53 pm
Will Janoschka says: July 19, 2015 at 3:00 pm
(” A stone in this atmosphere will have negative buoyancy will accelerate toward the surface. ”)
“We’re now at the cutting edge of science, NEGATIVE BUOYANCY.”
A submarine must have positive buoyancy to ascend by change of density, or motion with dive plates! Must have negative buoyancy to descend! Ever been on one, operating? That same submerged submarine at neutral buoyancy travelling eastward must ascend because of increasing centrifugal force. Easy to counter automagically with the dive plates. Only a fake meteorologist could screw this up with something about temperature!
Ben Wouters says: July 19, 2015 at 4:14 pm
Will Janoschka says: July 19, 2015 at 4:05 pm
(” A mass supported against the accelerative force of gravity by any means has no weight by definition!”)
“That must be the explanation then for my scale showing my weight when standing perfectly still on it ;-)”
That cheap scale moves when you step on it providing the gravitational attractive stress on a spring and indicating the resultant strain indicating your apparent weight. A real measurement of the accelerative force of gravity would measure the actual acceleration of any mass in a vacuum! Done every day all over the place by engineers who know how to measure! Only a fake meteorologist who has never measured anything, claim to know the definition of weight,, and try to equate the vector “weight” with the product of areal mass times pressure both being scalers! Why not buy a clue! 🙂
oldbrew says:
July 19, 2015 at 11:43 am
Atmospheric Pressure – force exerted by the weight of the air.
I don’t agree.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/prs/def.rxml
The actual quote is
“Atmospheric pressure is defined as the force per unit area exerted against a surface by the weight of the air above that surface.”
You can’t define atmospheric pressure. You can describe it and try to explain it.
It is not ONLY a downward force on a surface, as weight is.
Pressure is force acting in all directions equally at all times.
Gases do not have weight. Gas pressure depends on the number of particles, not their mass.
RC: ‘What causes air pressure to reduce exponentially from the surface?’
OB: Wasn’t it due to the number of molecules per unit volume being greater at the surface than anywhere else?
Why are there more molecules at the surface?
I agree with Miles Mathis
http://milesmathis.com/atmo.html
The gases of the atmosphere N2, O2, H2O, CO2, CH4, and Ar come from the Earth.
The density falls off from the surface. The density falls off according to v^2 of molecules.
Ben W: ‘In this atmosphere convection is the upward (buoyant) movement of air, caused by the lower density of the rising air relative to the surrounding air. Can happen at (almost) any temperature.’
Sure. But the hotter the surface, the greater the potential for convection due to greater temperature range from bottom to top of atmosphere.
RC says: ‘Why are there more molecules at the surface?’
I don’t know, but it’s a fact. Density is higher nearer the surface, lower as you go up – as you said.
RC: ‘gases do not have weight’
Here they do: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/molecular-weight-gas-vapor-d_1156.html
RC writes:
“The density falls off from the surface.” ok, generally.
“The density falls off according to v^2 of molecules.”
Absolutely not! That relation of rms molecular v² is to temperature with height, not density. Pick up a calculator and check it yourself before you further confuse others here… just like Miles who is so good doing so. What? Miles doesn’t understand solid surface’s stress and has to create his own “charge field” in stress’s lieu?
Sample numerics:
216.65 / 288.15 from OBs atm atm chart above = 0.75187
(√(3 · 8.314 · 216.65 / 0.02896))² / (√(3 · 8.314 · 288.15 / 0.02896))² = 0.75187
If you don’t recognize that calculation, it is the ratio of the rms velocities squared, v1²/v2², per temperature!
RC, Miles is pulling a serious mind trip on you with his 51 pages of sophistry saying basically nothing new!
Will Janoschka says: July 19, 2015 at 10:55 am
“Can we than go to the understandable “pneumo-statics” and “pneumo-dynamics” Just to identifying a non-moving or moving, mostly compressible fluid.”
I don’t think so. This is mostly ‘applied science’ from the ‘HVAC’ (Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning) and ‘jet turbine’ disciplines that has little place in a ‘science’ discussion. 😉
However, we could ‘give it a go’. 🙂
“Can we then also always identify: A. a local moving and rotating frame of reference, B. a rotating reference with its origin a minimum of 6400 km radially away from local, or C. an inertial (non-rotating) reference, with a given origin to local. This just to identify whose brainwashing each accepts! Sometime we need to agree on the exact meaning of pressure, and of the density of this mostly compressible fluid, then specifically on how local temperature may affect density, pressure, or both! The H2O colloid part of this atmosphere need obey no gas laws! 🙂 ”
I’m unsure. They’re ‘mixed’ in a ‘manifold’.
“Ray, here I will use () to indicate the demanded meteorological terms.
Does your explanation of “B” and how this atmosphere responds all ways hold? Independent any “non uniform” surface temperature or non uniform atmospheric heat exchange? I am trying to get folk to think upon a logical difference between AND, OR. In this case demanding (thermal convection) OR mechanical radial advection. The other agreeing on some possible (thermal convection) AND some possible mechanical radial advection. The local fake meteorological experts claim that any mechanical radial advection is impossible in this Earth’s atmosphere! 🙂 -will-”
IMHO you’re being ‘played’ Will. This isn’t in the best interest of this website and the mods should deal with this ‘post haste’!
My reply is AND, because the scenario you describe involves both ‘advection’ and ‘convection’.
Best regards, Ray.
wayne says: July 19, 2015 at 8:58 pm
RC writes: (“The density falls off from the surface.”)
” ok, generally.”
RC writes:(“The density falls off according to v^2 of molecules.”)
“Absolutely not! That relation of rms molecular v² is to temperature with height, not density. Pick up a calculator and check it yourself before you further confuse others here… just like Miles who is so good doing so. What? Miles doesn’t understand solid surface’s stress and has to create his own “charge field” in stress’s lieu?”
Correct Wayne, MM is good at pointing out fallacies, he in not so good at identifying his own, which are generally worse! 🙂
“Sample numerics:
216.65 / 288.15 from OBs atm chart above = 0.75187
(√(3 · 8.314 · 216.65 / 0.02896))² / (√(3 · 8.314 · 288.15 / 0.02896))² = 0.75187
If you don’t recognize that calculation, it is the ratio of the rms velocities squared, v1²/v2², per temperature!”
Indeed, I have no idea of who decided that sensible heat is kinetic anything. Such cannot be, sensible heat has no momentum! Temperature is better described as the capability of a mass to deliver some noise spectral power as per Boltzmann’s constant.
The whole kinetic thing seems to come from observing Brownian motion and misapplying such observation. The kinetic thing, is close for solids and incompressible fluids (constant volume)
For this atmosphere “temperature” represents molar energy density! This works even for the evaporation of airborne water condensate with no temperature change. Try this yourself, latent heat of evaporation equals the sensible heat of WV x increase in volume between liquid and gas! This has implications for your derivation of lapse rate. The atmosphere drops in temperature with altitude because of the increase in volume of the fixed molar energy! There is no change in molar energy with altitude. This may sound like adiabatic but has nothing to do with exchange of molar energy with the surround. Now spontaneous with any external delta T! 🙂
Will Janoschka says: July 19, 2015 at 4:48 pm
“A real measurement of the accelerative force of gravity would measure the actual acceleration of any mass in a vacuum! Done every day all over the place by engineers who know how to measure!”
Just shows how stupid those engineers must be to measure the same thing over and over again each day. Perhaps write down the result and use that number the next day?
Any progress in letting airliners glide in your ‘mechanical radial advection?
Should save enormous amounts of fuel.
Strange nobody came with this brilliant idea before you did.
suricat says: July 20, 2015 at 2:27 am
“IMHO you’re being ‘played’ Will. This isn’t in the best interest of this website and the mods should deal with this ‘post haste’!”
Yea! Ray! The two fake meteorologists here defend the academic meteorologists when there is nothing left to defend!
“My reply is AND, because the scenario you describe involves both ‘advection’ and ‘convection’.”
Thank you! Somehow got to get rid of parcels, adiabatics, and conservation of energy!
This atmosphere is a continuum of compressible gas; incompressible liquid,solids; and semi-compressible airborne colloids. Without insolation the mechanical advection would persist!
With insolation nothing can be learned without first having a good understanding of the continuous water cycle process entirely within this atmosphere! The interface with the surface is minor. 🙂
Ben Wouters says: July 20, 2015 at 9:32 am
Will Janoschka says: July 19, 2015 at 4:48 pm
(“A real measurement of the accelerative force of gravity would measure the actual acceleration of any mass in a vacuum! Done every day all over the place by engineers who know how to measure!”)
“Just shows how stupid those engineers must be to measure the same thing over and over again each day. Perhaps write down the result and use that number the next day?”
The accelerative force of gravity at any location changes from moment to moment, due to semi-random motion of the core of the planet!
Only fake meteorologists trolls, promote “simple, straightforward, and wrong”, with intent to deceive! 🙂
Ben Wouters says: July 20, 2015 at 9:32 am
“Any progress in letting airliners glide in your ‘mechanical radial advection?
Should save enormous amounts of fuel.”
You claim to be a pilot. You glide “your” craft through an equatorial Cb at 4000 meters where the mechanical radial advection expresses itself nicely! Should save enormous amounts of fuel. However that fuel is in the now detachable wings! 🙂
suricat (ray) says: ‘the scenario you describe involves both ‘advection’ and ‘convection’ ‘
Doesn’t convection = conduction + advection ?
oldbrew says:
July 19, 2015 at 7:25 pm
RC: ‘gases do not have weight’
Here they do: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/molecular-weight-gas-vapor-d_1156.html
“The molecular weight of a substance, also called molecular mass, is the mass of one molecule of that substance, relative to the unified atomic mass unit u equal to 1/12 the mass of one atom of carbon-12”
It is molecular mass not molecular weight, as the quote clearly states.
Well, you ask, if molecules have mass then they should have weight.
Gravity does not act at the atomic level because of the small size and large number of atoms. . This is counter intuitive because we exist as liquid and solid not gas.
The weight of a wire carrying electricity is not affected by the mass of the current it carries.
Electricity is moving electrons which have mass but create no weight.
wayne says:
July 19, 2015 at 8:58 pm
That relation of rms molecular v² is to temperature with height, not density.
216.65 / 288.15 from OBs atm atm chart above = 0.75187
(√(3 • 8.314 • 216.65 / 0.02896))² / (√(3 • 8.314 • 288.15 / 0.02896))² = 0.75187
Your calculation proves nothing
The sqrt and the ^2 cancel, on the top and the bottom leaving
3 x 8.314 x 216.65/0.02896 / 3 x 8.314 x 288.15/0.02896
Dividing top and bottom by 3 x 8.314/0.02896 leaves
216.65/288.15
This is where we started. We have gone nowhere.
V^2 is exponential, that is a curve as is density/ height
T/h is not exponential, it a straight line, linear.
Roger Clague says: July 20, 2015 at 11:13 am
“V^2 is exponential, that is a curve as is density/ height
T/h is not exponential, it a straight line, linear.”
You keep stirring the alphabet soup, having no idea of the meaning of the letters.
Show any location where T/h is ever linear? T is proportional to molar energy density, changing with energy, composition, and height of that particular atmosphere. Never in a linear fashion.
oldbrew says: July 20, 2015 at 10:29 am
(suricat (ray) says: ‘the scenario you describe involves both ‘advection’ and ‘convection’ ‘)
“Doesn’t convection = conduction + advection ?”
In some cases, another is diffusion + advection!
The precedent is what is convected by the mass motion of the fluid. Mostly what is convected by atmospheric movement is FRESH! The real reason for that motion, induced by planetary rotation. Go ask GOD, who is still pissed at Aerojet General/General Dynamics!! 🙂
RC says: “The molecular weight of a substance, also called molecular mass, is the mass of one molecule of that substance, relative to the unified atomic mass unit u equal to 1/12 the mass of one atom of carbon-12”
It is molecular mass not molecular weight, as the quote clearly states.
—
You lost me there. The quote says: ‘The molecular weight of a substance, also called molecular mass’
oldbrew says: July 20, 2015 at 10:29 am
“Doesn’t convection = conduction + advection ?”
No! Convection = induced mass movement mediated by a ‘density disparity’ (thus, ‘moving’ the energy contained within ‘the mass’). Conduction = energy transport via a molecular ‘domino effect’ where an ‘excited molecule’ passes its energy on to the ‘next molecule’ in the chain of ‘hi to lo’ energy. Advection = the ‘kinetic/mechanical’ movement of mass due to an ‘outside force’ (this mode of ‘mass transport’ also transports the energy contained within ‘the mass’ as with ‘convection’).
I thought you were already ‘au fait’ with this OB!
suricat says: July 21, 2015 at 2:26 am
“…”
Sorry OB. I forgot to sign off.
Best regards, Ray.
Roger Clague says: July 20, 2015 at 10:52 am
“The weight of a wire carrying electricity is not affected by the mass of the current it carries.
Electricity is moving electrons which have mass but create no weight.”
Oh yes they do! Reduce the ‘current’ and the weight of the wire is reduced because the resistance of the wire determines the quantity of electrons in transition within the wire.
This is a pedant statement, but your remark is also ‘off thread’. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
oldbrew says: July 20, 2015 at 9:20 pm
(RC says: “The molecular weight of a substance, also called molecular mass, is the mass of one molecule of that substance, relative to the unified atomic mass unit u equal to 1/12 the mass of one atom of carbon-12” ‘It is molecular mass not molecular weight, as the quote clearly states.’)
—
“You lost me there. The quote says: ‘The molecular weight of a substance, also called molecular mass’”
OB,
Do you really not understand the difference between “is” and “called”?
suricat says: July 21, 2015 at 2:26 am
oldbrew says: July 20, 2015 at 10:29 am
(“Doesn’t convection = conduction + advection ?”)
“No! Convection = induced mass movement mediated by a ‘density disparity’ (thus, ‘moving’ the energy contained within ‘the mass’). ”
Who besides you and disgraced meteorology, limits the meaning of the word convection to the so called “natural convection”, that you describe? Where is such ever defined? advection is fluid motion in any direction,for any reason. If anything but the fluid moves because for any reason including viscosity, that movement is called convection in any direction, with that “anything”, including FRESH, that which is conveyed. The motion of the atmosphere is convection of FRESH in any direction. 🙂
suricat says: July 21, 2015 at 2:58 am
Roger Clague says: July 20, 2015 at 10:52 am
(“The weight of a wire carrying electricity is not affected by the mass of the current it carries.
Electricity is moving electrons which have mass but create no weight.”)
“Oh yes they do! Reduce the ‘current’ and the weight of the wire is reduced because the resistance of the wire determines the quantity of electrons in transition within the wire.”
What sophistry! The rate of terminal transition of charge, is called current, and is equal and opposite at the other terminal. There is no change in the number of electrons within the wire. There is no change in mass or weight, even in space.
“This is a pedant statement, but your remark is also ‘off thread’. 🙂 Best regards, Ray.”
This thread is the grand example of religious leaders, using words with no definition, in order to confuse and convert, never to elucidate! 🙂
Referring to the above The politicians claim that “science” belongs to the religion that promotes my political goals. Philosophically we have the REAL consisting of the physical and the mythical. Both are demanded to prevent the immediate suicide of all earthlings! The mythical gives hope to earthlings, after the demonstration of the physical turns into “AW SHIT! 🙂
suricat says: July 21, 2015 at 2:26 am
oldbrew says: July 20, 2015 at 10:29 am
(“Doesn’t convection = conduction + advection ?”)
“I thought you were already ‘au fait’ with this OB!”
OB does seem to express some belief in the rantings of METEOROLOGICAL fantasy!
“This is where we started. We have gone nowhere.”
RC, no it isn’t.
You said: “The density falls off from the surface. The density falls off according to v^2 of molecules.”
Which is not true.
The
densitytemperature falls off according to v^2 of molecules.And while you were so busy cancelling terms of that later equation all of the way down the T(s) (which it does cancel down to) you should have instead been asking yourself what those two equations were trying to say to you… it is temperature and not density that v² is proportional to.
If you cannot see that, I understand, it is more than apparent that others here are also unable to look into what math speaks to them, not just the numbers that math equations produce. Long ago i was at the same point. Took me a long time to slow down and look at each term in an equation, even each combination of terms, and see what some equation was screaming. 😉
T/h is linear as you said… but also v²/h is linear if you will pick up a calculator, use the second equation, and check it from the table of the std atm that OB supplied. Temperature, not density and that was the sole simple point I was trying to get you to see.
Will Janoschka says: July 20, 2015 at 9:56 am
“The accelerative force of gravity at any location changes from moment to moment, due to semi-random motion of the core of the planet!”
Click to access AccuracyofGravity.pdf
Care to elaborate on this claim? At what decimal position would this effect be noticeable?
Will Janoschka says: July 20, 2015 at 10:14 am
“You claim to be a pilot. You glide “your” craft through an equatorial Cb at 4000 meters where the mechanical radial advection expresses itself nicely! Should save enormous amounts of fuel. However that fuel is in the now detachable wings! 🙂 ”
Airliners have pretty sophisticated weather radar systems. So we know how to avoid a cb.
And in which way is an equatorial cb different from any cb at any place else on this planet?
To me the ones in Tornado Alley are far more dangerous than the average equatorial cb.
Or are you saying that cb’s are caused by: ‘The accelerative force of gravity at any location changes from moment to moment, due to semi-random motion of the core of the planet!’
oldbrew says:
July 20, 2015 at 9:20 pm
You lost me there. The quote says: ‘The molecular weight of a substance, also called molecular mass’
The quote is wrong. A weight can’t correctly be called mass and mass can’t be called weight.
Mass is a measure of amount of substance. In some circumstances it causes weight, but not in all circumstances.
Atomic mass unit is in kg not Newtons.
Atoms in a gas have mass. I claim gases do not have weight.
Can you give me evidence of gases causing weight?
Roger Clague says: July 21, 2015 at 11:00 am
“Can you give me evidence of gases causing weight?”
Weigh a vacuum flask. Now pump out the air from it and weigh it again. 😉
Best regards, Ray.
Will Janoschka says:
July 20, 2015 at 5:27 pm
Show any location where T/h is ever linear?
p/h Pressure/ height is curved
T/h Temperature /height is linear T/h
If pressure and temperature have the same cause I would expect similar shape of graph.
I suggest p/h and T/h have different causes.
T/h caused by H2O (g) absorbing photons.
p/h caused by emission of gases from the Earth
Roger Clague says: July 21, 2015 at 11:27 am
Will Janoschka says: July 20, 2015 at 5:27 pm
(“Show any location where T/h is ever linear?”)
Roger:”responds with chart of STD US temperature. Done by committee, to linearise!”
Just where is this location? You seem to accept the opinion of idiots! 🙂
Ben Wouters says: July 21, 2015 at 8:44 am
Will Janoschka says: July 20, 2015 at 10:14 am
(“You claim to be a pilot. You glide “your” craft through an equatorial Cb at 4000 meters where the mechanical radial advection expresses itself nicely! Should save enormous amounts of fuel. However that fuel is in the now detachable wings! 🙂 ”)
“Airliners have pretty sophisticated weather radar systems. So we know how to avoid a cb.”
But both the aircraft and radar are designed by engineers. Why would one as smart as you ever go near such things?
“And in which way is an equatorial cb different from any cb at any place else on this planet?”
The ones at the equator have high vertical wind speed but tend not to be tornadic, as the centrifugal acceleration is directly opposite the gravitational acceleration.
“To me the ones in Tornado Alley are far more dangerous than the average equatorial cb.”
They easily form a vortex as the local 70% centrifugal acceleration is near 45 degrees from the gravitational acceleration. 🙂
RC:“Can you give me evidence of gases causing weight?”
Suricat: Weigh a vacuum flask. Now pump out the air from it and weigh it again.
I don’t have a vacuum flask and a vacuum pump.
If you or someone else does this experiment I predict no change in weight. If the air has weight then the weight of the empty flask will be reduced by 1g per litre.
Experiment 1
I have an inflatable plastic globe. Deflated it weighs 60.20g.
I blew up to diameter 30cm volume of about 10l.
Weight inflated 60.55cm
If air has weight then the inflated globe would be 10g heavier. It is not.
Experiment 2
1l plastic bottle 38.08g
add 4 drops water 38.54g
heat bottle over electric hotplate swirl bottle until water disappears ( evaporates)
weight when hot 38.38g
allow to cool 38.54g.
The evaporated water losses weight.